FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > A Wage Cap?
A Wage Cap?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
So, what does everyone think about Corbyn's suggestion of a wage cap?
Personally I think there are a lot of problems with a straight up cap on high earrnings, but I have given a lot of thought to a wage cap based on an operation of the lowest paid wages in the company.
For example, there could be a law restricting the highest wages be no more than 40 times (I'm just using this number as an example) that of the lowest wage in the company. That would address the issue of income inequality while still promoting competition and success.
There are problems with income inequality and competition for well paid jobs. I think ignoring these problems will cause more trouble in the long run. So what do you think about a possible wage cap? And if you don't like it, then what do you suggest should be done about the increasing problem of income inequality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"So, what does everyone think about Corbyn's suggestion of a wage cap?
Personally I think there are a lot of problems with a straight up cap on high earrnings, but I have given a lot of thought to a wage cap based on an operation of the lowest paid wages in the company.
For example, there could be a law restricting the highest wages be no more than 40 times (I'm just using this number as an example) that of the lowest wage in the company. That would address the issue of income inequality while still promoting competition and success.
There are problems with income inequality and competition for well paid jobs. I think ignoring these problems will cause more trouble in the long run. So what do you think about a possible wage cap? And if you don't like it, then what do you suggest should be done about the increasing problem of income inequality? "
Exactly, just putting an absolute number cap at the top doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see how that would achieve his goal of preventing us becoming a "grossly unequal bargain basement economy on the shores of Europe". Not unless as you say you make it a multiplier of the lowest in order to raise the lowest. I'm not sure how this would work in reality though.
Aren't there some other countries that do this?
I know my Norwegian friends say (or said about 10 years ago, no idea if still) that in Norway there is a much smaller gap.. e.g. a dustman might earn half what a head teacher might earn, but not a tenth. Not sure if that was just in reference to public sector jobs or all jobs though. The impression I got was that that was a social thing though, not due to some kind of law or regulation.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Can't find anything formal in Norway. Certainly not in private sector.
Corbin says "other countries" do it....having checked around it seems to be Cuba and North Korea...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it is badly thought out, does not address the issue of the growing gap between the top earners and the rest of the population and is easy to circumvent. If JC had any real guts he would put forward a progressive earnings tax system where all earnings regardless of origin would be taxed at source with a sliding scale starting at 10% and going up to 99% for anything over say a £1,000,000 pa. Let the twats at the top give themselves their £10,000,000 a year salaries but take £9,000,000 of it in tax. And as they all pack their bags to fuck off bring in a capital transfer tax of 99.9% on all untaxed monies being transferred out of the country with confiscation of all property for any individual or business caught smuggling funds overseas without paying all tax due...
Will never happen, but we can dream. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Can't find anything formal in Norway. Certainly not in private sector.
Corbin says "other countries" do it....having checked around it seems to be Cuba and North Korea......"
Does that matter though? Do we only do things that other countries have done?
If our politicians can come up with a way to make some type of wage regulation work, then does it matter what other countries, if any, have done the same? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think it is badly thought out, does not address the issue of the growing gap between the top earners and the rest of the population and is easy to circumvent. If JC had any real guts he would put forward a progressive earnings tax system where all earnings regardless of origin would be taxed at source with a sliding scale starting at 10% and going up to 99% for anything over say a £1,000,000 pa. Let the twats at the top give themselves their £10,000,000 a year salaries but take £9,000,000 of it in tax. And as they all pack their bags to fuck off bring in a capital transfer tax of 99.9% on all untaxed monies being transferred out of the country with confiscation of all property for any individual or business caught smuggling funds overseas without paying all tax due...
Will never happen, but we can dream."
So you propose no regulation on wages but a different tax system to solve the problem? Interesting.
I'm not sure it addresses the problem of people who work full time but still need benefits from the state to make ends meet. Do you not think low wages needs to be addressed as well as high ones? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
As much as it looks like a good idea the trouble is it didnt work in the past even labour admitted that the 50% tax rate took less in than the 40% bit it replaced, it would just mean companies would leave its the gap between the low and massive pay that is the problem, also as corbyn likes the human rights act he would have trouble having a wage cap, giving shareholders the power to enforce wage levels would be easier |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected."
This is something that would have to be looked into because it would have consequences for tax intake. But that doesn't make it impossible. If you combined wage laws with tax reform then it could work. My suggestion (and that of the first poster) would also result in an increase in taxes being paid by low wage earners, which wouldn't be a bad thing if the cause was higher wages.
After all, the reason why the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected is because the top 5% have a vast majority of the money...
Three fuckin attempts!!!!   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it is badly thought out, does not address the issue of the growing gap between the top earners and the rest of the population and is easy to circumvent. If JC had any real guts he would put forward a progressive earnings tax system where all earnings regardless of origin would be taxed at source with a sliding scale starting at 10% and going up to 99% for anything over say a £1,000,000 pa. Let the twats at the top give themselves their £10,000,000 a year salaries but take £9,000,000 of it in tax. And as they all pack their bags to fuck off bring in a capital transfer tax of 99.9% on all untaxed monies being transferred out of the country with confiscation of all property for any individual or business caught smuggling funds overseas without paying all tax due...
Will never happen, but we can dream."
They will have got thier money out of the country well before you could do any of that and then we would have collected even less in tax  .
40% for ultra top earners is enough |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it is badly thought out, does not address the issue of the growing gap between the top earners and the rest of the population and is easy to circumvent. If JC had any real guts he would put forward a progressive earnings tax system where all earnings regardless of origin would be taxed at source with a sliding scale starting at 10% and going up to 99% for anything over say a £1,000,000 pa. Let the twats at the top give themselves their £10,000,000 a year salaries but take £9,000,000 of it in tax. And as they all pack their bags to fuck off bring in a capital transfer tax of 99.9% on all untaxed monies being transferred out of the country with confiscation of all property for any individual or business caught smuggling funds overseas without paying all tax due...
Will never happen, but we can dream."
I think Wilson's Labour government tried something similar, and look where it got the country then.
Do you really think that any foreign company would invest a penny in Britain if they were the rules? They would run a mile.
OK you would be able to hang on to the money that is already in the country, but where would the new money come from when that runs out?
That is original politics of envy thinking and would only lead to disaster.
Also from someone who advocates that Britain stays in the EU.   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected."
.
I'm sorry but I'm calling that bullshit.
85% of All income tax is collected through PAYE ....I can't for the life of me imagine very big earners even pay through PAYE??.
.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last looked a few years ago the top band of income tax paid about 35% of the total |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think one of states either in Canada or America already run a system where the maximum wage is required to be a 40x minimum wage, Washington maybe or BC cant remember now.
Anyhow it worked ok there  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
If you implement a wage multiplier you just sub contract out all of the low paid jobs. It doesn't really address huge multinationals either as wages vary widely across the world.
The basic problem is a sense of decency and propriety which was gone since the common experience of WW2. The disparity in wealth was much the same before then too.
Workers on boards and remuneration committes is probably the only thing that will get a handle on this. The only positive thing that May has come up with so far, but will not follow up on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The first thing you need to do is have the tax laws written by parliament who's parliamentarians actually do what's best for the majority..
Ie fuck lobbying off.
.
Once your clear of the wealthy bribing the state for protection you might be able to make in roads into inequality |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected..
I'm sorry but I'm calling that bullshit.
85% of All income tax is collected through PAYE ....I can't for the life of me imagine very big earners even pay through PAYE??.
.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last looked a few years ago the top band of income tax paid about 35% of the total"
Call it bullshit all you like, or look into it for yourself. I specifically and particularly said PAYE because it refers to the top wage earners. I dont recall the actual % but it was a dramatic difference. The claim was first made in a speech by Boris Johnson and it was indeed fact checked later on one of the politics programmes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected..
I'm sorry but I'm calling that bullshit.
85% of All income tax is collected through PAYE ....I can't for the life of me imagine very big earners even pay through PAYE??.
.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last looked a few years ago the top band of income tax paid about 35% of the total
Call it bullshit all you like, or look into it for yourself. I specifically and particularly said PAYE because it refers to the top wage earners. I dont recall the actual % but it was a dramatic difference. The claim was first made in a speech by Boris Johnson and it was indeed fact checked later on one of the politics programmes."
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think one of states either in Canada or America already run a system where the maximum wage is required to be a 40x minimum wage, Washington maybe or BC cant remember now.
Anyhow it worked ok there "
I'm too lazy to do the research but if I remember correctly I think you're right. I known I'd heard the idea somewhere before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"If you implement a wage multiplier you just sub contract out all of the low paid jobs. It doesn't really address huge multinationals either as wages vary widely across the world.
The basic problem is a sense of decency and propriety which was gone since the common experience of WW2. The disparity in wealth was much the same before then too.
Workers on boards and remuneration committes is probably the only thing that will get a handle on this. The only positive thing that May has come up with so far, but will not follow up on "
The issue of subcontracting could be dealth with in the minutia of the regulations. So I don't see how it would preclude anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Bullshit "
It actually sounds very plausible. It may seem unlikely but it probably also seems unlikely that the top 10% earn about the same as the bottom 40% combined and of course the top earners take ridiculous amounts.
The maths probably does pull out the statistic you're questioning even though it doesn't feel right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Bullshit
It actually sounds very plausible. It may seem unlikely but it probably also seems unlikely that the top 10% earn about the same as the bottom 40% combined and of course the top earners take ridiculous amounts.
The maths probably does pull out the statistic you're questioning even though it doesn't feel right."
He already posted a citation to a news source for his claim....so what "sounds very plausible" doesn't seem to be. Unless you have a conflicting cite? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected..
I'm sorry but I'm calling that bullshit.
85% of All income tax is collected through PAYE ....I can't for the life of me imagine very big earners even pay through PAYE??.
.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last looked a few years ago the top band of income tax paid about 35% of the total
Call it bullshit all you like, or look into it for yourself. I specifically and particularly said PAYE because it refers to the top wage earners. I dont recall the actual % but it was a dramatic difference. The claim was first made in a speech by Boris Johnson and it was indeed fact checked later on one of the politics programmes..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html"
OK - so the top 1% pay nearly a third?
That is a pretty damning stat in its own right isn't it? and probnably more shoking than 25% paying 75%
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Non story now anyway. He has completely backtracked on what was a daft idea."
It isnt a non-story. I actually like the idea of some type of regulation on wages, whether Corbyn agrees or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Non story now anyway. He has completely backtracked on what was a daft idea."
Doesn't he always have to do that....now doing the same on immigration.
The man is basically a knob! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Typical Corbyn it is idealistic crap,cannot work in reality he is away with the fairies and so are his followers it is scary"
Scary....because it will give us a one-party (Tory) state for the foreseeable as he has destroyed labour! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Typical Corbyn it is idealistic crap,cannot work in reality he is away with the fairies and so are his followers it is scary
Scary....because it will give us a one-party (Tory) state for the foreseeable as he has destroyed labour!"
Who knows if Trump can get in anything is possible in this new age of the crackpots |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Teach financial literacy and be very strict giving debt to people who can't afford it
The wealthiest are the wealthiest because they understand compound interest... It works up and down |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Baroness Chakrabarti on newsbeat now....trying to dig him out of a hole.
Jeremey's last word was "not ruling anything out" (political speak for 'I haven't got a fucking clue').
Chakrabarti is saying "we don't need to have a policy because we are not in a position of power".... so does that confirm they haven't got any alternative?
Typing these quotes directly as she speaks.....
"Corbyn was very genuine and spoke authentically in calling for a cap.... " she "doesn't recognise the way the BBC interpreted what he said this afternoon" even when given a direct quote. She is claiming it is spin! It is like watching a car crash in slow motion...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
Wealth redistribution is definitely the way forward. We haven't seen such a lack of social mobility and disparity of earnings since the first half of the twentieth century.
However, it is worth noting that postwar reform came almost at the barrel of a gun, ie, the government were scared of a nation taht they had armed and trained in combat, which is why we will never see "total war" ever again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
He already posted a citation to a news source for his claim....so what "sounds very plausible" doesn't seem to be. Unless you have a conflicting cite? "
Ah. I actually meant that the the original statistic sounded plausible not the call of "bullshit".
Oops  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Typical Corbyn it is idealistic crap,cannot work in reality he is away with the fairies and so are his followers it is scary"
What's wrong with idealism? That's how you start the process of getting to something workable and better no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Typical Corbyn it is idealistic crap,cannot work in reality he is away with the fairies and so are his followers it is scary
What's wrong with idealism? That's how you start the process of getting to something workable and better no?"
Apparently, subscribing to a political philosophy is bad nowadays.
What we should be doing is having regular focus groups and aligning our polucies to their findings in order that we get elected for being in powers' sake.
Obviously that encourages a lack of morality, but do we care? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
Interestingly, according to the ONS, income inequality has been falling due mainly to the poor being better off due primarily to the rise in the zero percent tax rate that those dirty stinking Lib Dems championed 
The poor are still poor though, just slightly less so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As much as it looks like a good idea the trouble is it didnt work in the past even labour admitted that the 50% tax rate took less in than the 40% bit it replaced, it would just mean companies would leave its the gap between the low and massive pay that is the problem, also as corbyn likes the human rights act he would have trouble having a wage cap, giving shareholders the power to enforce wage levels would be easier "
What does the HRA have to do with a wage cap? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
The problem with using multiples is, as has already been pointed out, the outsourcing of the lower paid jobs, where the cleaner/receptionist/admin etc. would be compared to the boss of the outsourced company rather than the huge multinational.
The other problem is that "normal" organisations such as Tesco, would look much was as a multiple, than organisations such as Goldman Sachs, because even their lowest paid workers earn ridiculous amounts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Perhaps, we should insist that MP' s salaries (JC) included, are capped at £50,000, per year.
That's £1000, per week.
Surely that is enough reward for their time and effort.
Let's then see, how many of them will still do the job, for the honour, not the money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It would leave a massive reduction in the tax take. Law of unintended consequences springs to mind as I recall seeing a report that the top 5% of PAYE earners paid 75% (or more) of all the PAYE collected..
I'm sorry but I'm calling that bullshit.
85% of All income tax is collected through PAYE ....I can't for the life of me imagine very big earners even pay through PAYE??.
.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last looked a few years ago the top band of income tax paid about 35% of the total
Call it bullshit all you like, or look into it for yourself. I specifically and particularly said PAYE because it refers to the top wage earners. I dont recall the actual % but it was a dramatic difference. The claim was first made in a speech by Boris Johnson and it was indeed fact checked later on one of the politics programmes..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html
OK - so the top 1% pay nearly a third?
That is a pretty damning stat in its own right isn't it? and probnably more shoking than 25% paying 75%
"
.
It does sound damming but so does the stat that the top 1% own 24% of the entire wealth of the UK or that the top 1% get 35% their earnings through wages.
Disparity in wealth causes major issues across the board, if you look at the country's that have the lowest disparity they also have a very cohesive happy Society.
But don't confuse the fact that I'm for taxing the rich more and lowering disparity with I'm also for giving away more to benefits, because I think we should be doing both taxing the rich more and lowering benefits.
It's what you do with the extra tax that's crucial and giving it away in benefits is very unproductive ... It's a sticking plaster for a tricky problem that no govt seems willing to tackle |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it is badly thought out, does not address the issue of the growing gap between the top earners and the rest of the population and is easy to circumvent. If JC had any real guts he would put forward a progressive earnings tax system where all earnings regardless of origin would be taxed at source with a sliding scale starting at 10% and going up to 99% for anything over say a £1,000,000 pa. Let the twats at the top give themselves their £10,000,000 a year salaries but take £9,000,000 of it in tax. And as they all pack their bags to fuck off bring in a capital transfer tax of 99.9% on all untaxed monies being transferred out of the country with confiscation of all property for any individual or business caught smuggling funds overseas without paying all tax due...
Will never happen, but we can dream."
Was replying to this, forgot to quote it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over!"
I don't actually think that a pay cap would work but China has created more jobs and lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than any country in history.
Also, huge wealth inequality.
Odd comparison. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over!"
George Harrison even wrote a song about it - Taxman.
The Rolling Stones moved to the states, but the manager of the Beatles wouldn't let them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There is a name for what Corbyn is suggesting. It is called communism"
No, it's not. Oversimplification doesn't help the situation, nor does it help your argument.
You can do better than that, I'I'm sure.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over!
George Harrison even wrote a song about it - Taxman.
The Rolling Stones moved to the states, but the manager of the Beatles wouldn't let them"
.
You mean the same Beatles who were so skint from taxes they could barely afford.... Airline flights all over the world, drugs, buying rolls Royces and painting them with flowers and driving them into swimming pools, Lennon paid 74,000 for his house if I'm not mistaken but that was when a terrace was 300 quid.... Do you mean those Beatles who were crippled into poverty by taxes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I know people say rich people moved abroad because taxes were crippling them but can you actually name me any celebritys who were in poverty or even mediocre middle class from taxes?.... Rod Stewart maybe... Well actually he bought his mansion in Beverly hills for 1.8 million dollars... Oh and that's when you could buy a very very nice detached for 100 grand (pounds) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm asking because it's yet another widely reported media belief! That if you repeat often enough some dick on a swingers website will repeat 40 years later as a fact.
Here's not a fact but I did listen to a Paul McCartney interview by the man himself who said he made most of his money from song writing ownership.
He paid if I remember correctly....7 million dollars in 1969/70 ish for a catalogue of works...7 fucking million dollars, you could buy a 4 bed semi in the UK for about 4000 pounds in 1970.... Oh yes those poor old drugged up pissed out of their heads, woman in every town, back street abortion, secretly bunged anybody they felt up under 16 musicians who'd been forced into abject poverty by high taxes  .
I don't know what load of bollocks will be peddled for truth next on here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I've been thinking about this and it's a confusing question...
Socialism has proven disastrous for most economies
Should there always be wealth disparity, the ones at the top being the engines of the economy? It seems so, but then how do you make it both fair and productive?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Socialism has proven disastrous for most economies "
Has it?
Please name one economy where socialism has hurt it.
I can name many dictatorships that have claimed to be socialist but have been command economies that have been abject failures. I can also name many states that claim to be democracies that patently are not. I can name many unregulated capital economies that make the majority of their population nothing more than indentured labour and surfs of the super wealthy. The only economies I have ever encountered that work for all and which are essentially socially aware and therefore socialist in nature are mixed economies.
Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I may be totally mistaken and happy to be set straight .... but that was the takeaway from a book about world economics written in 94, using Russia as an example at the time. There were other examples at the time. The author was from the Austrian school of thinking and promoting free market capitalism sans propping up failing banks etc.
The author was arguing that there needs to be an incentive for people to do things. You couldn't even buy a simple postcard in Russia then because it was pointless to make them.
Are there particularly good examples? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism has proven disastrous for most economies
Has it?
Please name one economy where socialism has hurt it.
I can name many dictatorships that have claimed to be socialist but have been command economies that have been abject failures. I can also name many states that claim to be democracies that patently are not. I can name many unregulated capital economies that make the majority of their population nothing more than indentured labour and surfs of the super wealthy. The only economies I have ever encountered that work for all and which are essentially socially aware and therefore socialist in nature are mixed economies.
Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong."
One economy that Socialism has hurt: Ours!
Blair inherited one of the strongest economies in Europe when Labour took power. After he and his sidekick Brown had had their fun, how were we left? Crippled. They even left a little parting note: "There's no more money!".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over!
George Harrison even wrote a song about it - Taxman.
The Rolling Stones moved to the states, but the manager of the Beatles wouldn't let them.
You mean the same Beatles who were so skint from taxes they could barely afford.... Airline flights all over the world, drugs, buying rolls Royces and painting them with flowers and driving them into swimming pools, Lennon paid 74,000 for his house if I'm not mistaken but that was when a terrace was 300 quid.... Do you mean those Beatles who were crippled into poverty by taxes?"
And in those days of the supertax they had to keep buying and buying stuff just to keep from losing everything to the taxman or move out of the country.
Put you're self in the same position, say you earned 10,000,000 in a year and thren someone said "oh by the way we are going to take 9,000,000 away from you"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The logical thing to do is to work about 90% less in that case and not waste ones time
That's why an especially draconian wealth tax can't work
I imagine something much less can be palatable and beneficial to all and not hamper ambition to generate value and growth. Its all about getting the sizing and redistribution right to raise living standards for all fairly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You should move to China, you'd be happy there! Without those "twats at the top", who have worked crazy hours all their lives to build their companies, there would be no jobs for the rest of us. The Labour Party tried taxing high earners years ago, at 98%, and guess what, a lot of the very high earners left the country. You may be happy about that but then who is going to employ you and your 9-to-5 minded mates? Rant over!
George Harrison even wrote a song about it - Taxman.
The Rolling Stones moved to the states, but the manager of the Beatles wouldn't let them.
You mean the same Beatles who were so skint from taxes they could barely afford.... Airline flights all over the world, drugs, buying rolls Royces and painting them with flowers and driving them into swimming pools, Lennon paid 74,000 for his house if I'm not mistaken but that was when a terrace was 300 quid.... Do you mean those Beatles who were crippled into poverty by taxes?
And in those days of the supertax they had to keep buying and buying stuff just to keep from losing everything to the taxman or move out of the country.
Put you're self in the same position, say you earned 10,000,000 in a year and thren someone said "oh by the way we are going to take 9,000,000 away from you"
"
.
That was the entire point of the tax being high.... Not to tax them but to force them to reinvest it in something else to avoid the tax... Then some bright spark decided to lower taxes and let them just bank the money and the banks will now reinvest it.... Unfortunately we've all seen just what the banks reinvested it in... Ponzi schemes that when they collapse the tax payer then picks up the tab!!.
.
It's the market that creates jobs and wealth and it requires only two things... Investment and buyers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My opinion is that an outright cap is a bad idea.
However, working out a system whereby if your CEO or managers earn "X" amount, then your part time and 'boots on the ground' staff must earn "X" percent of that, would help.
People are still encouraged to work hard and innovate, you just have to share the wealth you amass in a fair and proportional way to those who keep the company functioning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism has proven disastrous for most economies
Has it?
Please name one economy where socialism has hurt it.
I can name many dictatorships that have claimed to be socialist but have been command economies that have been abject failures. I can also name many states that claim to be democracies that patently are not. I can name many unregulated capital economies that make the majority of their population nothing more than indentured labour and surfs of the super wealthy. The only economies I have ever encountered that work for all and which are essentially socially aware and therefore socialist in nature are mixed economies.
Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong.
One economy that Socialism has hurt: Ours!
Blair inherited one of the strongest economies in Europe when Labour took power. After he and his sidekick Brown had had their fun, how were we left? Crippled. They even left a little parting note: "There's no more money!".
"
If you think Blair and Brown were socialists, then you probably need to read a bit more - I'm not advocating pure socialism, but socialist policies have their place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The logical thing to do is to work about 90% less in that case and not waste ones time
That's why an especially draconian wealth tax can't work
I imagine something much less can be palatable and beneficial to all and not hamper ambition to generate value and growth. Its all about getting the sizing and redistribution right to raise living standards for all fairly.
"
.
That's all very well and good but the data actually shows the economy worked at its best when taxes were high and not low the boom between 1945 and 1973 had high taxes and high union membership, not just here but the USA, Germany, France, Australia, in fact that boom was only brought down by the 73-79 energy crises where effectively you saw the price of oil go from 1 or 2 dollars a barrel to 11 dollars and then from 11 dollars to 30 dollars, the equivalent today of seeing oil go from 40 dollars a barrel to 1200 dollars a barrel...I mean what do you think would happen? And where do you really think the 70s inflation came from now looking at those figures?.
By 1986 with OPEC pushing demand and big new fields like north sea in full flow oil prices constantly fell to lows of about 10 dollars a barrel in the late 90s.
.
High taxs and unions had nothing to do with it, we've been in an energy crisis in effect since 1973 hence the push into the middle East |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The logical thing to do is to work about 90% less in that case and not waste ones time
That's why an especially draconian wealth tax can't work
I imagine something much less can be palatable and beneficial to all and not hamper ambition to generate value and growth. Its all about getting the sizing and redistribution right to raise living standards for all fairly.
.
That's all very well and good but the data actually shows the economy worked at its best when taxes were high and not low the boom between 1945 and 1973 had high taxes and high union membership, not just here but the USA, Germany, France, Australia, in fact that boom was only brought down by the 73-79 energy crises where effectively you saw the price of oil go from 1 or 2 dollars a barrel to 11 dollars and then from 11 dollars to 30 dollars, the equivalent today of seeing oil go from 40 dollars a barrel to 1200 dollars a barrel...I mean what do you think would happen? And where do you really think the 70s inflation came from now looking at those figures?.
By 1986 with OPEC pushing demand and big new fields like north sea in full flow oil prices constantly fell to lows of about 10 dollars a barrel in the late 90s.
.
High taxs and unions had nothing to do with it, we've been in an energy crisis in effect since 1973 hence the push into the middle East"
Sorry you've lost me, what does it have to do with design of progressive tax rates?
The real crisis is consumerism and overworking would you agree?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There might be a problem in lots of companies with unjust high wages.
But what about people who have took geat personal economic risk and hard work setting up companies that go on to be successful, why limit those people to what they can earn? E.g the hi-tech inventor entrepreneurs?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There might be a problem in lots of companies with unjust high wages.
But what about people who have took geat personal economic risk and hard work setting up companies that go on to be successful, why limit those people to what they can earn? E.g the hi-tech inventor entrepreneurs??"
Exactly! This country needs these people. They are the job creators. They are the ones that worked all hours and put everything they owned on the line. They believe in themselves and have the guts to keep at it. They deserve all they earn, hard work is rewarded. Dyson is a great example, look up his story. We should be making it easier for these people to create wealth (and jobs), not thinking of ways to take it from them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The logical thing to do is to work about 90% less in that case and not waste ones time
That's why an especially draconian wealth tax can't work
I imagine something much less can be palatable and beneficial to all and not hamper ambition to generate value and growth. Its all about getting the sizing and redistribution right to raise living standards for all fairly.
.
That's all very well and good but the data actually shows the economy worked at its best when taxes were high and not low the boom between 1945 and 1973 had high taxes and high union membership, not just here but the USA, Germany, France, Australia, in fact that boom was only brought down by the 73-79 energy crises where effectively you saw the price of oil go from 1 or 2 dollars a barrel to 11 dollars and then from 11 dollars to 30 dollars, the equivalent today of seeing oil go from 40 dollars a barrel to 1200 dollars a barrel...I mean what do you think would happen? And where do you really think the 70s inflation came from now looking at those figures?.
By 1986 with OPEC pushing demand and big new fields like north sea in full flow oil prices constantly fell to lows of about 10 dollars a barrel in the late 90s.
.
High taxs and unions had nothing to do with it, we've been in an energy crisis in effect since 1973 hence the push into the middle East
Sorry you've lost me, what does it have to do with design of progressive tax rates?
The real crisis is consumerism and overworking would you agree?
"
.
I was countering this notion that high taxes as unions were bad, the data shows the opposite.
The only reason consumerism is in crises is because the vast majority of the market don't earn enough to buy the products the market are providing, we've been pushing that using debt.... And debt you can't keep up forever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I just double checked my memory. Oil varied between 1 dollars and 1.6 dollars from 1955 to 1970
Oil went from 1.2 dollars a barrel in 1970 to 36 dollars a barrel in 1980 a 30 fold increase in ten years!... The inflation rate hit 24% in 1977.
That is the reality of economics... ALL growth requires more Energy and not just more energy but cheap energy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Wage caps in the public sector are a must do......Why do we have many hundreds of civil servants earning more than the PM ?.......
But never forger that those working in the city are rogues who pick our pockets ... either through mis-selling of worthless products, or tax "deals" or bail outs when the poo hit the fan...while the working man/woman suffers through services being cut and jobs shed.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
