|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 22, 2014 14:42:27 GMT
Clegg? Now where have I heard that name before?  Last of the Summer Wine. Co-incidentally played by the same actor who plays the voice of the animated character who some people think resembles Ed Miliband. It's a conspiracy! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 22, 2014 14:56:00 GMT
In Peter Sallis' autobiography he says he is a Conservative, although of moderate opinions. And recounts that political discussions in the early days of LOTS got a bit difficult because Michael Bates was to the right of Margaret Thatcher, while Bill Owen was slightly to the left of Lenin.
Peter Sallis lives in Bayswater, incidentally.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 24, 2014 21:05:08 GMT
I'm not sure if I'm a "Progressive" or not, I used to think that I was a member of the general public who votes. Does anyone else know if they are a "Progressive" or not? Or just an ordinary voting unit? You can work out whether you are a progressive by completing this simple test: 1. Do you believe in levying taxes on hard working successful people and giving it to those who don't have as much? (a) YES (go to Q2) (b) NO - Your not a progressive then 2. Can you say "Fairness" and keep a straight face, when talking about taxing those who are better off because they work hard? You will also use clichés about those with the "broadest shoulders paying a little bit more than everyone else", without a trace of irony in your voice. (a) Yes (go to Q3) (b) NO - If you answer (a) to Q3 then you aren't a progressive I'm very interested in how this idea of changing the tax rate based on how hard somebody works, instead of how much they earn... |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 24, 2014 21:10:55 GMT
You can work out whether you are a progressive by completing this simple test: 1. Do you believe in levying taxes on hard working successful people and giving it to those who don't have as much? (a) YES (go to Q2) (b) NO - Your not a progressive then 2. Can you say "Fairness" and keep a straight face, when talking about taxing those who are better off because they work hard? You will also use clichés about those with the "broadest shoulders paying a little bit more than everyone else", without a trace of irony in your voice. (a) Yes (go to Q3) (b) NO - If you answer (a) to Q3 then you aren't a progressive I'm very interested in how this idea of changing the tax rate based on how hard somebody works, instead of how much they earn... You mean like pensioners not paying National Insurance, and the threshold for Inheritance Tax being so much higher than for Income Tax? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 13:36:19 GMT
You mean like pensioners not paying National Insurance, and the threshold for Inheritance Tax being so much higher than for Income Tax? Yeah, OK. My mate works for a big company in the city, the name of which everyone on here would know. He is on £150,000 a year, or thereabouts. But then he is a smart guy, but its not a fortune. He is always in his office at 8am or earlier. He rarely ever leaves before 18:30 - 19:00. Baring in mind his travel time, this is a twelve hour day, minimum. The reality is that he is often with client until 21.00hrs or even later. He spends a lot of time in Frankfurt. In fact he goes there for 3/4 days a week most weeks. When he is there he spends 12 hours a day in his office or out meeting clients, or maybe longer. He makes a lot of money for his company. He has three kids and lives in London. How does that equate to working 37.5 hours flexi-time at the council? Well.....it doesn't, does it? Most council workers would be mortified if such a suggestion was made to them. His reward for his hard work is to get to pay more tax.......he is PAYE. Very few people get high wages for doing nothing. Today I spent seven hours on the phone from 7:30 until about 20:00. The rest of the time I am typing, reading, researching things and so on......its hard work. The other night I was preparing a briefing at 1am in the morning. I aren't the highest paid man in the world, but I aren't worrying about my next meal either. I don't do it for nothing.....lets say that. My wife......tut....ex wife....earns a fraction of what I do. But, she works 9 to 5 and if I offered her a job like mine......she couldn't and wouldn't do it. If you want a 9-5 job then get one , but don't whine on about people earning more than you do. Some people are lucky enough to earn money without working a lot of hours to get it, but most aren't.....that sometimes happens to me. I have a whole day with nothing to do and get paid more for it than many people earn in a week. But that has been a relatively recent development and I worked hard to reach that situation.....quite often for nothing. Ill be doing long hours for only a little over 30K. :S |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 13:52:38 GMT
I'll be doing long hours for only a little over 30K. :S Yes, I know, but you are at the bottom of the ladder at the minute but you will get further up the ladder as you go on. You aren't on the breadline though, are you? Hopefully not |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 25, 2014 17:03:55 GMT
You mean like pensioners not paying National Insurance, and the threshold for Inheritance Tax being so much higher than for Income Tax? Which is a distinction between doing some work for your money and doing no work for your money. It certainly isn't a distinction between working hard and slacking off, as Armchair was suggesting. Yeah, OK. My mate works for a big company in the city, the name of which everyone on here would know. He is on £150,000 a year, or thereabouts. But then he is a smart guy, but its not a fortune. He is always in his office at 8am or earlier. He rarely ever leaves before 18:30 - 19:00. Baring in mind his travel time, this is a twelve hour day, minimum. The reality is that he is often with client until 21.00hrs or even later. He spends a lot of time in Frankfurt. In fact he goes there for 3/4 days a week most weeks. When he is there he spends 12 hours a day in his office or out meeting clients, or maybe longer. He makes a lot of money for his company. He has three kids and lives in London. How does that equate to working 37.5 hours flexi-time at the council? Well.....it doesn't, does it? Most council workers would be mortified if such a suggestion was made to them. His reward for his hard work is to get to pay more tax.......he is PAYE. Very few people get high wages for doing nothing. Today I spent seven hours on the phone from 7:30 until about 20:00. The rest of the time I am typing, reading, researching things and so on......its hard work. The other night I was preparing a briefing at 1am in the morning. I aren't the highest paid man in the world, but I aren't worrying about my next meal either. I don't do it for nothing.....lets say that. My wife......tut....ex wife....earns a fraction of what I do. But, she works 9 to 5 and if I offered her a job like mine......she couldn't and wouldn't do it. If you want a 9-5 job then get one , but don't whine on about people earning more than you do. Some people are lucky enough to earn money without working a lot of hours to get it, but most aren't.....that sometimes happens to me. I have a whole day with nothing to do and get paid more for it than many people earn in a week. But that has been a relatively recent development and I worked hard to reach that situation.....quite often for nothing. Your mate's reward is not to pay more tax - it is, in fact, to earn more money. The marginal tax rate has sod all to do with how hard he works. The fact that he gets taxed more is because somebody chooses to pay him more for that work, and he still comes out a long way ahead of somebody earning less than he does. Stuart Gulliver, the chief executive at HSBC, was just awarded a 70% pay rise (taking his salary to £4.2 million). He almost certainly hasn't worked 70% harder this year than last year. Nor is he likely to work 70% harder next year as a result. And he certainly doesn't work 280 times harder than a full-time clerical employee on about £15,000. So whilst some (but certainly not all) high earners have worked hard to get where they are, it's pretty obvious that there's not a very strong correlation between earnings and work. So please do tell me how this link between how much tax you pay and how hard you work is supposed to happen. Because I'm still not seeing a workable system, let alone one that "progressives" are in favour of. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 25, 2014 17:49:55 GMT
Young singleton on 30K. The G&T line possibly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 18:35:28 GMT
Young singleton on 30K. The G&T line possibly. I'm married  |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 25, 2014 19:05:35 GMT
Forgot that :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2014 19:11:53 GMT
Stuart Gulliver, the chief executive at HSBC, was just awarded a 70% pay rise (taking his salary to £4.2 million). He almost certainly hasn't worked 70% harder this year than last year. Nor is he likely to work 70% harder next year as a result. And he certainly doesn't work 280 times harder than a full-time clerical employee on about £15,000. So whilst some (but certainly not all) high earners have worked hard to get where they are, it's pretty obvious that there's not a very strong correlation between earnings and work. So please do tell me how this link between how much tax you pay and how hard you work is supposed to happen. Because I'm still not seeing a workable system, let alone one that "progressives" are in favour of. Stuart Gulliver gets paid that amount because he is doing a job that neither I, nor, I presume, you, could do. Few people could do it adequately. He has huge responsibility. I dare say that he works long and hard at it. You are worth what somebody will pay you.......simples! Are you arguing that he got a 70% pay rise because the number of people capable of doing his job declined by 70%? Frankly, the argument that executives must be paid a king's ransom or you won't be able to get anybody competent doesn't survive five minutes contact with a remuneration committee. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,915
|
Post by Tony Otim on Feb 26, 2014 9:56:14 GMT
You are worth what somebody will pay you.......simples! Simplistic bollocks more like! Even working within the narrow financial definition of worth there are all kinds of other factors at play which make your kind of slogan nonsense. Firstly - what an employer can afford to pay. A voluntary or public sector organisation or a small business cannot afford the same levels of pay as a big multi-national. For your slogan to even come close to working then two things would have to be the case - everybody would need to be motivated purely by earning as much as they can, many people have other priorities (thankfully). Also recruitment would have to be based entirely on merit... hmm, well, exactly. Then there's choices people make. Many people choose to do lower paid jobs not because they couldn't do higher paid ones, but because they have other priorities - either believing/taking pleasure in the work they do and/or wanting the opportunities it offers for a greater work-life balance. I have no doubt that I could quite easily do a job that would pay me double what I currently earn or more. It just doesn't interest me. I do believe in and enjoy what I do (or at least I did before having it crushed out of me by years of incompetent, bureaucratic senior management who are definitely not worth what they get paid  ). It also offers me the flexibility to compress hours and have an extra day a week to spend with my son - that's nothing I'd swap for ten times the salary. Priorities - I know where mine are. I'd also dispute that hard work can purely defined in terms of hours worked anyway. Some consideration of responsibility involved needs to be considered. I'm sure some people in the finiancial industry do take important decisions, but so do people who have to make decisions about somebody's health or a child's safety, etc... and unlike others they don't get huge pay offs if they fuck it up. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 26, 2014 16:45:06 GMT
Which is a distinction between doing some work for your money and doing no work for your money. It certainly isn't a distinction between working hard and slacking off, as Armchair was suggesting. Your mate's reward is not to pay more tax - it is, in fact, to earn more money. The marginal tax rate has sod all to do with how hard he works. The fact that he gets taxed more is because somebody chooses to pay him more for that work, and he still comes out a long way ahead of somebody earning less than he does. Well of course it does. The rate of tax should be the same across all income. Graduated tax rates are what has allowed the state to continually expand, without any widespread complaint, since 1909 when it was introduced......unless David tells me it was some other year Again, utterly unconnected to your original comments about progressive tax systems penalising hard work. Graduated taxes are about incomes, which have a very tenuous correlation, at most, with hard work. It's arguable that he isn't doing it adequately. HSBC's recently announced results were considered to be disappointing by the people who speak for the markets. And there is little, if any, relationship between executive pay and company performance. Could you or I do his job? Quite possibly.From what I can gather, the job of a CEO of a multinational corporation consists in large part of meetings, presentations, and making high-level decisions. Unless the role requires sector-specific knowledge (unlikely, given how CEOs move around companies in different industries quite easily), or specific kinds of knowledge about how these companies work, none of it looks like the kind of thing somebody actively involved in politics would be unable to do. Though it might take some time for the likes of us to get up to speed. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 26, 2014 17:22:28 GMT
Could you or I do his (Stuart Gulliver, HSBC) job? Quite possibly. From what I can gather, the job of a CEO of a multinational corporation consists in large part of meetings, presentations, and making high-level decisions. Unless the role requires sector-specific knowledge (unlikely, given how CEOs move around companies in different industries quite easily), or specific kinds of knowledge about how these companies work, none of it looks like the kind of thing somebody actively involved in politics would be unable to do. Though it might take some time for the likes of us to get up to speed. I have a much financial qualifications as Paul Flowers, I'm sure I could run a bank. Gimmie half a million quid, bargain! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 7:20:15 GMT
I agree with GreenChristian no one is worth so much more than the rest of the people within the same organisation.
I guess if they didn't have a CEO, much like if we didn't have MPs now they would still function. The banks would open and do the transactions they would keep our money invest it and give it us back when we needed it. If anything it has been the gambling of the people at the top which has almost destroyed the system and stopped the money coming back to us. Why? I guess because they have to prove why they are worth so much more than us.
If a teller has a bad day they might give away a bundle of notes at worst when they have a CEO has a bad day he could ruin a country. Difference being the Teller gets the sack, the CEO gets a knighthood and a golden handshake. Due to the fact of those who put them in place don't want to look fools and also wish to be next to try the job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 7:23:59 GMT
Could you or I do his (Stuart Gulliver, HSBC) job? Quite possibly. From what I can gather, the job of a CEO of a multinational corporation consists in large part of meetings, presentations, and making high-level decisions. Unless the role requires sector-specific knowledge (unlikely, given how CEOs move around companies in different industries quite easily), or specific kinds of knowledge about how these companies work, none of it looks like the kind of thing somebody actively involved in politics would be unable to do. Though it might take some time for the likes of us to get up to speed. I have a much financial qualifications as Paul Flowers, I'm sure I could run a bank. Gimmie half a million quid, bargain! If you need as much qualifications as Flowers then Shaun Ryder of the Happy Mondays would be over qualified for the job. |
|
). It also offers me the flexibility to compress hours and have an extra day a week to spend with my son - that's nothing I'd swap for ten times the salary. Priorities - I know where mine are. 