Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

spyguy

Corbyn + Dividends

Recommended Posts

Ill get it in first for context - Im a Blue collar Northern Labour-ite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35330331

Does this useless piece of Islington th1ck sh1t thing that underpaying workers is limited to listed companies on the stock market?

Sure, unlisted companies pay dividends but I dont think he's thinking of them.

In my experience, most listed/floated companies pay much more than the minimum wage - bar Sports Direct + Poundland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And he's going to renationlise Railways - to ring down fares/

Im struggling to think of anyone I know who uses the trains on a regular basis.

The only people who use the trains are way above average rich.

Useless piece of sh1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill get it in first for context - Im a Blue collar Northern Labour-ite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35330331

Does this useless piece of Islington th1ck sh1t thing that underpaying workers is limited to listed companies on the stock market?

Sure, unlisted companies pay dividends but I dont think he's thinking of them.

In my experience, most listed/floated companies pay much more than the minimum wage - bar Sports Direct + Poundland.

Its like the Guardian newspaper complaining about the rise in zero hours contracts, until it was pointed out that the Guardian newspaper employs people on...... zero hours contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't everyone?

No.

I'd have problems if my employee screwed people on 0 hours or unpaid apprentices.

You work, you get paid. Its a good rule to have.

Don't be a ****!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a strange one. Why should publicly listed companies be 'penalised' while private companies wouldn't necessarily be? Why is a worker of a public ltd co. deserving of this protection to ensure at least the living wage, while the poor sods who work for me (say) wouldn't be?

If he wants everyone paid the 'living wage' then make that the minimum wage. Don't do this strange mucking about around the edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first 'proper' jobs was with IBM - as was (IBM now are a different topic).

They paid me the equivalent of ~300/week today.

I intend to repeat that with my company.

(I thought I useless but when I got assessed on contribution I ranked higher than a 20 year veteran - this was in the period of softwtare becoming more important. The big IBM clienttried to recruit me 4 weeks into a 8 week placement).

If you cannot afford to pay people you do not have a viable business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or how about the size of the dividend to your shareholders depends on how much the tax payer gives in subsidies via benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He truly is a complete moron. Dividends are irrelevant when discussing inequality, because the corporate executives who are exploiting workers are also ripping off their shareholders by massively overpaying themselves, and this has nothing to do with the dividend rate of the shares. Punishing public shareholders (i.e. pension funds) even more is completely nonsensical. Does Corbyn even know what the purpose of a share buyback is (i.e. an obvious workaround of this non-starter of a policy)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Corbyn said: "Only profitable employers will be paying dividends; if they depend on cheap labour for those profits then I think there is a question over whether that is a business model to which we should be turning a blind eye."

He does sort of make a valid point. (Have I had a hit on the head?)

http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=742

How much do tesco employees claim in tax credits?

I think some figures need working out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Corbyn said: "Only profitable employers will be paying dividends; if they depend on cheap labour for those profits then I think there is a question over whether that is a business model to which we should be turning a blind eye."

He does sort of make a valid point. (Have I had a hit on the head?)

http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=742

How much do tesco employees claim in tax credits?

I think some figures need working out.

What is cheap labour ? You could argue that cheap labour would be fine if the cost of living wasn't so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is cheap labour ? You could argue that cheap labour would be fine if the cost of living wasn't so high.

If you can not afford to live on the wages you earn from a full time job then there is something wrong.

When tax credits exist and allow companies to pay shite wages, yet those companies make large profits, pay dividends, pay massive directors salaries. (and in many cases avoid paying tax at all - which is something I'd rather see him stamp his foot over)

I'd like to see companies limited to paying maximum wage x10 their minimum wage (whether via a subcontractor or not)

That'd introduce more fairness.

I'd also like to see footballers paid tiny amounts of money and for the celeb nasty culture we have in this country to be chopped up and composted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can not afford to live on the wages you earn from a full time job then there is something wrong.

When tax credits exist and allow companies to pay shite wages, yet those companies make large profits, pay dividends, pay massive directors salaries. (and in many cases avoid paying tax at all - which is something I'd rather see him stamp his foot over)

I'd like to see companies limited to paying maximum wage x10 their minimum wage (whether via a subcontractor or not)

That'd introduce more fairness.

I'd also like to see footballers paid tiny amounts of money and for the celeb nasty culture we have in this country to be chopped up and composted.

What's wrong is lending propping up/enabling high house prices, which are afforded by tax credits, so that shareholders and bankers get their dividend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Mr Corbyn said: "Only profitable employers will be paying dividends; if they depend on cheap labour for those profits then I think there is a question over whether that is a business model to which we should be turning a blind eye."

I've always found the idea of a dividend paying PLC a strange one. Would they tolerate paying interest on other perpetual borrowings (say, from a bank) in the same way? Or would they try to do something to reduce them?

I think the only point of PLCs is to allow the cash rich to indulge in exploitation of the genuinely productive, and as a kind of scoreboard for the chairmen to harangue each other with over golf and sodomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Corbyn even know what the purpose of a share buyback is (i.e. an obvious workaround of this non-starter of a policy)?

Actually, what is the purpose of a share buyback? - I've never understood how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I'd have problems if my employee screwed people on 0 hours or unpaid apprentices.

You work, you get paid. Its a good rule to have.

Don't be a ****!

Tell my son's employer that. He has the responsibility for care taking an empty castle, farm and estate. He goes to work on a Monday morning and reappears anything from three to ten days later, working 24 hours a day. He's paid for 16 hours a day. That takes him well under the minimum wage.

In the Isle of Wight jobs are difficult to come by. So it's take it or leave it. Employers don't have to change. Employees just have to shut up and get on with it. Complaining that they're committing a criminal offence isn't helpful.

Any advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, what is the purpose of a share buyback? - I've never understood how that works.

Once you've run out of ideas to grow the business you buy shares and cancel them. Thus the share price goes up and the executives get their bonus. They are also purchased for share award schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Tell my son's employer that. He has the responsibility for care taking an empty castle, farm and estate. He goes to work on a Monday morning and reappears anything from three to ten days later, working 24 hours a day. He's paid for 16 hours a day. That takes him well under the minimum wage.

In the Isle of Wight jobs are difficult to come by. So it's take it or leave it. Employers don't have to change. Employees just have to shut up and get on with it. Complaining that they're committing a criminal offence isn't helpful.

Any advice?

Is there nothing valuable he can steal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found the idea of a dividend paying PLC a strange one. Would they tolerate paying interest on other perpetual borrowings (say, from a bank) in the same way? Or would they try to do something to reduce them?

It is because the benefactors of the dividend are the same people who vote on how to structure the company - while it might make financial sense to use debt financing if it isn't in the interests of the shareholders why would they allow the directors (who they appointed) push it through?

Actually, what is the purpose of a share buyback? - I've never understood how that works.

This is the opposite of the statement above. If it is in the interests of the shareholders to make a quick buck and sell the shares back to the company for a substantial capital gain then they will. The company pays for this either because they've got loads of cash, or because debt financing is cheaper than equity financing . The resulting lower number of shares (because they've been bought back by the company - it is normal practice to cancel them) makes the proportion of the company owned by the remaining shares increase.

If the company has loads of cash they can distribute this to the owners as a special dividend - but this is treated like income to the recipients, so is taxed. A share buyback can increase the value per share and so owners can realise the cash as a capital gain - as this is normally preferentially treated for tax the recipient of the cash might be happy (but, of course, they now don't own that share of the company).

If the company can get hold of debt financing much more cheaply than equity financing (ie, how much dividend they're forced to shell out to support the share price) then they can buy the shares back for debt. In a normal world the effects of debt and equity are similar, with equity financing a bit cheaper than debt (due to the way risks are distributed) - so debt financing of the buyback increases the debt in proportion to the shares in issue, resulting in no gain in the share price (share price should really go down) - but we're living in a strange world where debt can be cheaper than equity - so, so long as the owners agree, it can make sense to pay for the buyback with debt. This is, of course, crazy - I expect there to be problems down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell my son's employer that. He has the responsibility for care taking an empty castle, farm and estate. He goes to work on a Monday morning and reappears anything from three to ten days later, working 24 hours a day. He's paid for 16 hours a day. That takes him well under the minimum wage.

In the Isle of Wight jobs are difficult to come by. So it's take it or leave it. Employers don't have to change. Employees just have to shut up and get on with it. Complaining that they're committing a criminal offence isn't helpful.

Any advice?

Is a large part of his job security? - if so, tell him to spend some of the quit time on learning new skills (whatever he wants, so long as there is an element which can be book-learnt). Probably best not to learn the skill of the location of the local fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell my son's employer that. He has the responsibility for care taking an empty castle, farm and estate. He goes to work on a Monday morning and reappears anything from three to ten days later, working 24 hours a day. He's paid for 16 hours a day. That takes him well under the minimum wage.

In the Isle of Wight jobs are difficult to come by. So it's take it or leave it. Employers don't have to change. Employees just have to shut up and get on with it. Complaining that they're committing a criminal offence isn't helpful.

Any advice?

Completely off topic, so this is the place

In this BBC Article today, how do you get a vertical lighthouse, but a crooked horizon ?

Your neck of the woods, I believe

_87749530_87749529.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there nothing valuable he can steal?

That was my idea.

Hire out the castle.

If he's living there, work to his hours and do something else when it stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

It is because the benefactors of the dividend are the same people who vote on how to structure the company - while it might make financial sense to use debt financing if it isn't in the interests of the shareholders why would they allow the directors (who they appointed) push it through?

It's the perpetual nature of any kind of financing that I don't get. Surely a 100+ years old company should be debt free, either in terms of shareholders, or in terms of pure debt. Ages old "successful" companies with mega debt burdens or dividend paying expectations, to me that's a failed business. It's more like an anti-business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there nothing valuable he can steal?

The place is so dilapidated (but Grade 1 listed) that potential buyers (offers over £1m) have to undertake to spend £10m restoring it. There's absolutely NOTHING worth stealing if som was that way inclined. He's too law abiding for that sort of thing. He does sometimes take the dogs with him to run in the fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   48 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.