Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

Quote

There is evidence that, in some countries at least, state level transfers of wealth from the young are, to some extent, offset by private transfers from old to young within families.

What a great way to steer society. Rather then talent, work ethic and a dash of luck deciding how comfortable you are, we can take solace in that it will be largely luck, based on how rich your parents are, and the way they leave this planet (quick clean passing rather then expensive care heavy drawn out passing). How is this direction our society is heading in not the number one issue being discussed by politicians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Save me from the madness! said:

What a great way to steer society. Rather then talent, work ethic and a dash of luck deciding how comfortable you are, we can take solace in that it will be largely luck, based on how rich your parents are, and the way they leave this planet (quick clean passing rather then expensive care heavy drawn out passing). How is this direction our society is heading in not the number one issue being discussed by politicians?

Because they think they are largely immune from such tawdry issues, convinced they have feathered their nest sufficiently by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The limit is somewhere above what the leader of the opposition earns and what a footballer does.

So he's announced this policy with no firm idea where he's drawing the line.

The guy is a fcking moron.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richc said:

He said the cap would need to be above his own salary which would exclude most council wages and pensions.

Corbyn clearly has zero interest in ever winning a general election.

Hes gone on Tell and managed to contradict his 'not wedded to FOM'

He seems to be using the word 'wedded' a lot.

I never thought Id see the day when there was a politician stupider than IDS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, richc said:

He said the cap would need to be above his own salary which would exclude most council wages and pensions.

Corbyn clearly has zero interest in ever winning a general election.

It all depends upon who turns out to vote. Given the number of people employed in the public sector or with salaries pegged to the public sector, the level of the cap might not appear to be such a daft idea for someone in a bubble.

Fortunately, Brexit gives me encouragement otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he wants to go down this route a far more sensible approach is to introduce a wage ratio cap - ie no employee (or owner) in a company structure can earn more than 10x the lowest salary. That would pressure bosses that like their high salaries to drag the poor up with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Parkwell said:

If he wants to go down this route a far more sensible approach is to introduce a wage ratio cap - ie no employee (or owner) in a company structure can earn more than 10x the lowest salary. That would pressure bosses that like their high salaries to drag the poor up with them.

They could just outsource every low-paid employee to another company and get around this rule.  It would be very easy to do.

The whole question of income inequality is almost entirely irrelevant at the moment (so, of course, Labour decide to focus on it).  Income does not matter in the UK -- it's all about wealth and assets.  There is an enormous and increasing inequality of wealth in this country, driven almost entirely by self-serving and destructive government policies.  A moderate level of property tax (a real property tax, not council taxes or stamp duty) would go a long way to fix this situation.  What has Corbyn said about property taxes (that he would be paying on his mansion in Islington)?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every charity in Britain will raise their hands in horror at a limit on individual earnings. It costs £2.5m to launch a new all-weather lifeboat. Six out of ten are paid for by individual legacies. The majority of RNLI income is legacies, not cash donations.

https://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac12/what-are-the-main-trends-in-legacy-funding/

We don't like the thought of individuals accumulating obscene amounts of money. But without them you will see significant damage to Tate Galleries, British Museum, National Trust, Cancer Research, PDSA and RSPCA, RNLI, MacMillan Care and countless other cultural, welfare and sporting institutions. These all rely heavily on the very wealthy giving big donations and leaving significant legacies. Not to mention the founding of the Getty and Guggenheim museums by billionaire American benefactors and the like.

There's a chap died recently near me owning 2 rare Ferarri cars. Jointly worth 8 million. I don't like the idea of anyone spending £8m on boy toys. But the cars are shortly to be auctioned, and he has willed the money to RNLI. Good for him.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/rnli-receive-biggest-ever-legacy-sale-two-ferraris/fundraising/article/1346183

Sadly, without the obscenely rich a lot of worthy enterprises would be in deep, deep trouble. 

I suppose Corbyn's solution would be that the massive shortfall charities etc would suffer with a wage cap would be made up by... oh yeah...the tax payer. And the government would decide who is worthy and who is not..

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Parkwell said:

If he wants to go down this route a far more sensible approach is to introduce a wage ratio cap - ie no employee (or owner) in a company structure can earn more than 10x the lowest salary. That would pressure bosses that like their high salaries to drag the poor up with them.

Really......Lets get the bloated public sector under control first, listed businesses perhaps. Owners no and anyway unenforceable in a private business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not what people earn.......it is what some people who are  just as special, intelligent, knowledgeable, creative, able, amnicalble, ready, willing and able do not earn, not born in the right place, to the right people, at the right time, had the right education and chose the right occupation.....only so much to go around....still now we are living in the 'sharing society' is it possible that we can share what we have with others that have no hope in ever catching up with what others have, those who have so much they do not know where to put it......Perhaps only way out is to work for them.;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, juvenal said:

Every charity in Britain will raise their hands in horror at a limit on individual earnings. It costs £2.5m to launch a new all-weather lifeboat. Six out of ten are paid for by individual legacies.

https://data.ncvo.org.uk/a/almanac12/what-are-the-main-trends-in-legacy-funding/

We don't like the thought of individuals accumulating obscene amounts of money. But without them you can probably say good bye to Tate Galleries, British Museum, National Trust, Cancer Research, PDSA and RSPCA, RNLI, MacMillan Care and countless other cultural and welfare institutions. These all rely massively on the very wealthy leaving significant legacies. Not to mention the Getty and Guggenheim museums and the like.

There's a guy recently died near me owning 2 rare Ferarri cars. Worth 8 million. I don't like the idea of anyone spending £8m on boy toys. But the cars are to be auctioned, and the money is willed to RNLI. The majority of RNLI income is legacies, not cash donations.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/rnli-receive-biggest-ever-legacy-sale-two-ferraris/fundraising/article/1346183

Sadly, without the obscenely rich a lot of worthy enterprises would be in deep, deep trouble. 

I suppose Corbyn's solution would be that the massive shortfall charities etc would suffer with a wage cap would be made up by... on yeah...the tax payer. And government would decide who is worthy and who is not..

Would you be capping the slary of those ex terrorists, who've been caught wasting millions of tax payers money?

Surely these people should have their salary withdrawn from them?

Arn't they your friends Jeremy? How do you feel about people who murdered Nortther soldiers wasting millsions? Are you not partly responsible mr Cotbyn?

 

The above is what Labour will face in the North at GE time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, richc said:

They could just outsource every low-paid employee to another company and get around this rule.  It would be very easy to do.  


Easy: 10x the lowest wage paid to abnyone outsourced by any company.

Therefore anyone who uses sweatshop labour would also be a bit embarrassed in the wages department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see with a policy like this is if it is designed to win over the average Joe the cap would need to be incredibly low. I mean even £100k sounds like a vast wage if you are on £20k. Can people really tell the difference between someone earning say £1m a year and someone earning £50m a year? I bet only the guys earning £1m a year can tell the difference. To everyone else it is just they earn far too much.

The only thing that stuck in my mind from reading that article is of course the cap has to above his own salary which is already an eye watering amount. Feels like a PR disaster in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richc said:

They could just outsource every low-paid employee to another company and get around this rule.  It would be very easy to do.

The whole question of income inequality is almost entirely irrelevant at the moment (so, of course, Labour decide to focus on it).  Income does not matter in the UK -- it's all about wealth and assets.  There is an enormous and increasing inequality of wealth in this country, driven almost entirely by self-serving and destructive government policies.  A moderate level of property tax (a real property tax, not council taxes or stamp duty) would go a long way to fix this situation.  What has Corbyn said about property taxes (that he would be paying on his mansion in Islington)?   

Precisely. 

Even if this weren't the case, it's fixing the symptom not the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what a daft sod he is. He's basically looking back at the huge tax rate of the 70's and thinking it was a great idea. Not only would a move like this force most reasonably intelligent and qualified people abroad, but those that stayed would just divert their income into other avenues that aren't wages so that the cap doesn't apply. 

How does he ever expect to get elected with stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately he is correct for certain employment sectors.

Should be CUT and CAP.

It's the only way a Brexit Britain can hope to remain competitive.

First place I'd start is the public sector.

No manager in the public sector is worth £100k. Ever.

Anybody argues otherwise I'll introduce them to ones in private sector on half that rate with double the responsibility.. and some actual accountability.

But it will be the little people that get it.

A very easy fix to the economy... such as a 10% surtax on all earnings over £1,000,000 will fill the coffers.

Instead, we live in a nation that loots that extra £1 from 100,000 sub £25k earners and give a free pass to the big earners.

Rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pieman Pieface said:

what a daft sod he is. He's basically looking back at the huge tax rate of the 70's and thinking it was a great idea. Not only would a move like this force most reasonably intelligent and qualified people abroad, but those that stayed would just divert their income into other avenues that aren't wages so that the cap doesn't apply. 

How does he ever expect to get elected with stuff like this.

To be fair the last year seems to have exposed most of the entire political class and plenty of their corporate etc cronies as daft and not having a clue although Corbyn might be said to be coming into his own in that regard with some of his statements.

He has an inkling of the problem but goes straight to a solution without regard to unforeseen consequences.  

It probably isn't even populist because a lot of the general population have already rumbled how daft, ineffective and self serving some of their statements and policies are.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, billybong said:

To be fair the last year seems to have exposed most of the entire political class and plenty of their corporate etc cronies as daft and not having a clue although Corbyn might be said to be coming into his own in that regard with some of his statements.

He has an inkling of the problem but goes straight to a solution without regard to unforeseen consequences.  

It probably isn't even populist because a lot of the general population have already rumbled how daft, ineffective and self serving some of their statements and policies are.

I think he doesn't realise that it's the middle class he has to win over. He won't do that if they start fearing for their own wage packet. The electorate actually doesn't give a damn about the real low earners, or the billionaires. They might have preferences that people get paid more but it doesn't really affect them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, juvenal said:

Sadly, without the obscenely rich a lot of worthy enterprises would be in deep, deep trouble. 

 

 

Without the obscenely rich we probably wouldn't need most of these worthy enterprises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   9 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.