Jump to content

Corbyn suggests earnings limit

Recommended Posts

It would be completely unworkable anyway. Hopefully nobody is deluded enough to think that it is remotely possible.

 

Clearly Jeremy Corbyn is, although on a positive note it would remove top level football from the United Kingdom which must be good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trident

Foreign wars

Rail subsidies

Farming subsidies

What farming subsidies (other than the EU's)?

 

A couple of years or so after large axes were taken to the CAP benefits paid in France and Italy (perhaps elsewhere as well, but I'm not as familiar with elsewhere as these 2 on the topic), there's an ongoing epidemic of farmer suicides in France and Italy atm. Not kidding. And very under-reported, perhaps unsurprisingly.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Particularly considering the forthcoming exit of the UK from the EU and the associated loss of CAP payments to UK farmers. May's government hasn't exactly been forthright in promising bridging subsidies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's essentially talking about 100% income tax (and presumably CGT) above a certain income. Not at all surprising as I always assumed these were his ideals.

The real world effect of this is to ensure that nobody with earning power over this limit takes up or retains residence in the UK, thereby devastating the economy.

Socialism makes everybody equally poor.

 

This assertion relies on the assumption that executive earnings are linked to performance, which is false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This assertion relies on the assumption that executive earnings are linked to performance, which is false

 

Earnings are linked to performance. They may not be perfectly coupled to it, but they are certainly linked to it.

The field of high earners is not made up even primarily of "executives" anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This assertion relies on the assumption that executive earnings are linked to performance, which is false

 

Is it? I always find this a very simple assumption that is common with socialists. Having worked with some people that run highly innovative companies (one of which was described as the dynamo of the Rheinland economy and created over 500 high-tech jobs in the area within 2 years) I know how much effort and work they put in to keep the place going - a lot of people depend on the work of these people, wouldn't you agree?

 

An Italian director, very much a socialist, handled an interesting formula - all employees earned a very solid income, based on a (from memory) ratio of retrieving 60% of their contribution to the whole revenue of the company. Non-salaried overhead was around 25%, taxes on profit and corporation tax around 12% and he earned the 3% left after that (around 4 million euros a year). His justification was straightforward and incredibly fair - he employed hundreds of people and paid them a very generous salary, but without him, their jobs wouldn't exist. He also didn't flinch at paying full Italian taxes over his income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earnings are linked to performance. They may not be perfectly coupled to it, but they are certainly linked to it.

The field of high earners is not made up even primarily of "executives" anyway.

 

How many non-exec earners are on more than £350k? That's what Corbyn calculates the cap would be where the lowest paid are on £16k.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 20:40 ----------

 

Is it? I always find this a very simple assumption that is common with socialists. Having worked with some people that run highly innovative companies (one of which was described as the dynamo of the Rheinland economy and created over 500 high-tech jobs in the area within 2 years) I know how much effort and work they put in to keep the place going - a lot of people depend on the work of these people, wouldn't you agree?

 

An Italian director, very much a socialist, handled an interesting formula - all employees earned a very solid income, based on a (from memory) ratio of retrieving 60% of their contribution to the whole revenue of the company. Non-salaried overhead was around 25%, taxes on profit and corporation tax around 12% and he earned the 3% left after that (around 4 million euros a year). His justification was straightforward and incredibly fair - he employed hundreds of people and paid them a very generous salary, but without him, their jobs wouldn't exist. He also didn't flinch at paying full Italian taxes over his income.

 

Apparently yes http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#3458a05c293a although as unbeliever says it's probably more accurate to say that exec pay is not strongly linked to performance, rather than not linked to performance at all. A 'negligible' link according to the Lancaster study

 

More recent study here https://www.ft.com/content/abc7085e-c857-11e6-9043-7e34c07b46ef

 

You'll note in the FT article that Theresa May is also considering curbs on exec pay, business-hating socialist that she is.

Edited by Bob Arctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it? I always find this a very simple assumption that is common with socialists. Having worked with some people that run highly innovative companies (one of which was described as the dynamo of the Rheinland economy and created over 500 high-tech jobs in the area within 2 years) I know how much effort and work they put in to keep the place going - a lot of people depend on the work of these people, wouldn't you agree?

 

An Italian director, very much a socialist, handled an interesting formula - all employees earned a very solid income, based on a (from memory) ratio of retrieving 60% of their contribution to the whole revenue of the company. Non-salaried overhead was around 25%, taxes on profit and corporation tax around 12% and he earned the 3% left after that (around 4 million euros a year). His justification was straightforward and incredibly fair - he employed hundreds of people and paid them a very generous salary, but without him, their jobs wouldn't exist. He also didn't flinch at paying full Italian taxes over his income.

..........but most socialists want to think every company boss is a so called fat cat like Phillip Green because it suits their take on Socialism!

Actually there may be more Phillip Greens drinking coffee and hiding in the public sector than we know about!..........I have met a few £150k types over the years that would not have lasted 6 weeks in some of the companies I have run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our CEO's earn more than there French , Dutch or German counterparts. WHY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many non-exec earners are on more than £350k? That's what Corbyn calculates the cap would be where the lowest paid are on £16k.

 

Well I suppose if a Brit founded the next Google, Apple or Microsoft and started to earn some serious wedge, he could always jump on the first plane out of here and take the business with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jezza is used to a more sedate kind of politics.

He seems to get flustered when confronted.

Not an ideal trait for a politician in this country at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
our CEO's earn more than there French , Dutch or German counterparts. WHY.

 

Any evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
our CEO's earn more than there French , Dutch or German counterparts. WHY.

 

Any evidence?

 

Here you go

 

https://www.ft.com/content/585f41d4-c778-11e6-9043-7e34c07b46ef

 

Study also fails to find link between higher pay and better performance.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 21:53 ----------

 

Just clicked again on link to FT article &it's a pay per view so I'll copy & paste it here:

 

 

UK chief executives earn much more than European peers

Study also fails to find link between higher pay and better performance

 

Chief executives of big UK companies are part of a pay “premier league”, earning substantially more than their continental European peers.

But unlike in football, where total spending on players is reflected in team performance, paying a UK chief executive more does not guarantee improved results, according to new comparative research by Vlerick Business School’s Executive Remuneration Centre. Xavier Baeten, the centre’s founder, said: “People say ‘if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys’. Our study doesn’t show that you can pay peanuts, but it does show that you won’t get the best chief executives by overpaying them.” The study of 701 companies also found that UK chief executives receive a higher proportion of their total remuneration as variable pay, relative to continental European business leaders. Such bonuses and long-term incentive plans are often tied to earnings per share and total share holder return, which Prof Baeten warned could encourage short-termism and “may even be dangerous”. Executive pay has become a lightning rod for discontent about inequality and unfairness in the UK. Theresa May, the UK prime minister, has promised to tackle the problem, though last month the government watered down plans for an annual binding shareholder vote on pay at UK companies. The Vlerick study found that the median total pay, incentives and pension contributions of chief executives of the biggest UK companies by market value was €6.175m in 2015. That was almost 50 per cent higher than chief executives of similarly sized German companies, who were the next best paid, and almost one and a half times the overall earnings of chief executives at Sweden’s biggest companies. UK pay figures were translated into euros at the exchange rate before the referendum on Brexit, which has pushed down the value of sterling against the European currency.A higher percentage of chief executives in the UK received pay rises than those in Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, which were the other countries studied. A total of 70 FTSE 100 chief executives saw an increase in short-term incentives in 2015, 73 saw long-term rewards increase, and all but two received a rise in fixed salary. The research also found that, across Europe, better performing companies do not pay their chief executives more. “Differences in pay are very clearly explained by difference in firm size, much more than by difference in performance,” said Prof Baeten. Well-paid executives occasionally echo that view. John Cryan, Deutsche Bank’s chief executive, told a conference in 2015 that he did not understand why he had a bonus clause in his contract, because “I will not work any harder or any less hard in any year, in any day because someone is going to pay me more or less”. The Vlerick research also points to the increasing complexity of executive pay. To take account of the various elements in remuneration reports at the 701 companies, researchers had to analyse 120,000 spreadsheet cells.

Edited by Mister M

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
×
×
  • Create New...

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.