Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

But why should there be a difference? JK Rowling, Adele, Daniel Craig & Sergio Aguero are all staggeringly rich as a result of their talent (allegedly) and hard work. They may receive their financial rewards in different ways, but there doesn't seem to me be any moral justification as to why one should have his income capped but not the other three.[/QUOTE}

Who knows? The point i was making was that Corbyn was talking abut pay differentials amongst company employees'. None of those quoted appear to be directly employed. I was just explaining what the OP hadn't understood - I know Corbyn bashers hate it when the truth spoils a good smear but hey the can't all be Laura Kuenessberg
 
Or do you feel like that is because ceos tend to vote tory, whereas it's alright for these labour luvvies to earn as much as they like.

The issue is the disparity between the exceptionally rich and the poor/ jams.

I have no idea why you think it's ok to disincentivise the custodians of the working people's pension pots (which ceos are) by capping them but anyone not working for a company can earn as much money as they like?!

If Jeremy and his cronies feel so strongly about it perhaps they could forgoe their salary to the average uk salary and set an example to us all. Oh wait no they can't dianne abbot won't be able to afford her children's private school fees then, will she.

I have no idea to be honest. I assume you also don't know how all CEO's and "luvvies" as you call them choose t cote. Thats rather a sweeping generalisation. There's many people in the entertainment business that have said they vote Tory.

The issue Corbyn spoke about is pay differentials between employees in companies from the lowest paid to the highest paid. The names quoted are not employees. Sorry if the truth offends.
 
I have a question that is related, but not exactly on topic. If a job in the UK is posted at say £40,000 pounds. Is it like the US in that the gross pay at which taxes are extracted so the net/take home pay would be a significant amount less than that? I would assume so, but when I've looked at jobs over there, the pay scale is so much lower than here in the US, I'm trying to figure out the disparity. Considering the cost of living there is so much higher, how the hell can the wages be so much less?
 
Exactly. It's the singers and actors being defended on here that will pay as little tax as their clever advisers can get away with.

The CEO's don't have a choice.

I don't doubt that - Jimmy Carr is a fine example. However look at former CEO Sir Philip Green - he had a choice. Stuck loads in the wifes name registered in Monaco to avoid UK tax. Did as much as he could to be "tax efficient" when running BHS and left it in a fine state when he sold it on. The CEO's who's rewards when compared with the lowest paid in their organisation has gone from a differential of around X90 in 1997 to a multiplier of over X200 last year obviously did that in order to pay loads of extra tax............. laughable.
 
Corbyn's idea is to close the poverty gap by making the rich poorer. He needs to start concentrating on how to make the poor richer which I haven't heard him mention a single thing about beyond borrowing tons of money and handing it out.

What I find utterly astonishing, is that Ed Milliband spectacularly and very unexpectedly managed to hand the Tories a majority by being too left wing. He dwelled too much on how the state would support them, and not enough on painting a vision about how labour would make people better off personally, and how their standards of living could increase.

Yet bizarrely, Labour have decided to replace this too-left-wing-failure, with someone even further to the left. And the party is under this bizarre illusion that since its trotsky-filled membership is going up, it might actually win a general election. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth, as the country at large reels at this idiot's ludicrous policies. He is a complete joke to anyone other than the hard left, who are in a tiny minority in this country.

It's a great shame for the Labour party that they have allowed this to happen, and that no-one with the necessary gravitas and stature in the party had the balls to take him on in the last leadership election.
 
I don't doubt that - Jimmy Carr is a fine example. However look at former CEO Sir Philip Green - he had a choice. Stuck loads in the wifes name registered in Monaco to avoid UK tax. Did as much as he could to be "tax efficient" when running BHS and left it in a fine state when he sold it on. The CEO's who's rewards when compared with the lowest paid in their organisation has gone from a differential of around X90 in 1997 to a multiplier of over X200 last year obviously did that in order to pay loads of extra tax............. laughable.

No-one said differentials have gone up IN ORDER that the top brass could have the privilege of paying more tax. Merely that as their earnings have gone up, they are paying more tax. But twist things all you like mate, if it makes you feel more unhappy; a state of mind you clearly revel in.

But here's a thought - if you tried putting your bitterness to one side, you might actually find yourself being a happier person.
 
Corbyn's idea is to close the poverty gap by making the rich poorer. He needs to start concentrating on how to make the poor richer which I haven't heard him mention a single thing about beyond borrowing tons of money and handing it out.

The best way to get the poor out of poverty is always through jobs which means supporting businesses and the people who run them. Corbyn will slash at businesses by increasing minimum wages, taking top earner salaries away... He is anti-business and anti-jobs basically.

Restricting someone from £1M a year to £350,000 a year has zero benefit bar making certain people feel better in their spiteful, jealous heads.

I think the idea was to draw attention to what he sees as an issue - the idea that you just allow those at the top to get richer and richer and cream more and more off the top without questioning whether that is right is surely an equally bad idea in your eyes or is the way to solve it let them get richer and rely on the discredited "trickle down effect" that the Tories of the 80's relied on?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.