Corbyn suggests earnings limit

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

I don't believe he's said anything about CGT actually. As far as I read he's talking only about salaried income.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 21:56 ----------

 

He must think he's more powerful than his job role entails. Does he really think he can stop football clubs paying outrageous salaries?

 

It would be fairly trivial from a legal point of view. 100% tax rate on income over £400k/annum for example.

Or illegal for anyone to be paid more than 50 times the rate of the lowest paid employee (or contractor perhaps).

[Robin-H 11]

I don't believe he's said anything about CGT actually. As far as I read he's talking only about salaried income.

 

Which surely makes it completely pointless. The rich generally don't get their income from salaried income. If there was a punitive tax on it, they would make sure they didn't.

[Cyclone 10]

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

The evidence I have seen (world happiness reort 2016)highlights a strong postie correlation between wealth and happiness.

 

All of the top 10 countries are European, save Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The highest country that falls below the average GDP of the world is Guatemala, in poisition 39. The only countries in the bottom 50 of average or better GDP is South Africa, Bulgaria and Gabon (none of which are wealthy). The bottom "rich" country is Greece at number 99.

 

Corbyn is dangerous, more dangerous than Trump.

 

The evidence I'd seen showed a strong correlation between income equality and happiness.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 21:58 ----------

 

T Rich people help us make money.

 

There is little evidence to support the trickle down economic effect, nor much of a justification for the massive increase in CEO salaries.

We're not talking about 2 or 3 times either.

The numbers I saw earlier were that they'd gone from about 40 times the median pay to about 130 times, with no evidence to support the often heard assertion that CEOs have to be paid this much to attract 'talent'...

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:01 ----------

 

What is Corbyn proposing? If he isn't included things like income from dividends from his cap then it is absolutely pointless, as that is how the super wealthy pay themselves - very few people actually have a salary in excess of £1million say, and anyway if they did, they'd just make sure they they were paid in dividends (or some other method) in the future.

 

On the contrary, CEOs are often paid enormous salaries. The CEOs may or may not have any stake invested in the company they work for and receive dividends as well, but given that we're talking about publicly listed companies, most are not in a position to pay themselves in dividends.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:04 ----------

 

Which surely makes it completely pointless. The rich generally don't get their income from salaried income. If there was a punitive tax on it, they would make sure they didn't.

 

Depends on who you're looking at I think.

 

With a near-£14m remuneration package, Bob Dudley isn't even the highest paid CEO in the FTSE 100. Blue chip bosses in the UK earnt an average of £4.96m in 2014, according to the High Pay Centre – and these are the 10 who made the most.18 May 2016

 

The problem is how to restrain the pay of such executives when they appoint their own pay review boards and just "scratch each others backs".

Shareholders can in theory restrain them, but have proven unable or unwilling to do so.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:07 ----------

 

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.

 

They are almost entirely unrelated to it.

[3 Tuns 10]

The evidence I'd seen showed a strong correlation between income equality and happiness.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 21:58 ----------

 

 

There is little evidence to support the trickle down economic effect, nor much of a justification for the massive increase in CEO salaries.

We're not talking about 2 or 3 times either.

The numbers I saw earlier were that they'd gone from about 40 times the median pay to about 130 times, with no evidence to support the often heard assertion that CEOs have to be paid this much to attract 'talent'...

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:01 ----------

 

 

On the contrary, CEOs are often paid enormous salaries. The CEOs may or may not have any stake invested in the company they work for and receive dividends as well, but given that we're talking about publicly listed companies, most are not in a position to pay themselves in dividends.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:04 ----------

 

 

Depends on who you're looking at I think.

 

 

 

The problem is how to restrain the pay of such executives when they appoint their own pay review boards and just "scratch each others backs".

Shareholders can in theory restrain them, but have proven unable or unwilling to do so.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:07 ----------

 

 

They are almost entirely unrelated to it.

 

Just list the company on an overseas stock market and shift the head office there along with the tax liability. The man's a fool and thinks he's still living in 1960s Britain.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

It's a cap on salary he suggested, if someone owned the company then they would have the wealth inherent in the company wherever they lived.

US executive salary varies between $1 up to $100 million...

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:11 ----------

 

Just list the company on an overseas stock market and shift the head office there along with the tax liability.

 

The CEO of the company has no power to decide to move the listing of a company, and there is no incentive for shareholders to support such a move.

High C level salaries in the country don't benefit shareholders in any way.

[3 Tuns 10]

It's a cap on salary he suggested, if someone owned the company then they would have the wealth inherent in the company wherever they lived.

US executive salary varies between $1 up to $100 million...

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:11 ----------

 

 

The CEO of the company has no power to decide to move the listing of a company, and there is no incentive for shareholders to support such a move.

High C level salaries in the country don't benefit shareholders in any way.

 

OK. So you think there is no way that UK based banks could move their operations overseas. That's one Brexit myth blown then.

 

How many million pound plus salaries do you think there are in companies such as Apple, Google, HSBC and Yahoo.

Edited January 10, 2017 by 3 Tuns

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

Can you provide proof?

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:14 ----------

 

OK. So you think there is no way that UK based banks could move their opperations overseas. That's one Brexit myth blown then.

 

Of course they could, but they can't delist from the LSE on the CEOs say so.

 

This is the link to performance

HSBC posts unexpected $850million loss. The outcome.

CEO's 7.3 million-pound package is lowest since taking charge

Gulliver, 56, had his variable pay for 2015 cut to 3 million pounds ($4.2 million) from 3.4 million pounds a year earlier, the London-based bank said in its annual report on Monday.

 

Oh, boo hoo, he loses nearly a billion dollars in a year and takes a pay cut to a mere 7.3 million. I bet he was laughing all the way to bank...

 

Oh, and he's based in Hong Kong anyway, not the UK.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Cyclone

[3 Tuns 10]

Can you provide proof?

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2017 at 22:14 ----------

 

 

Of course they could, but they can't delist from the LSE on the CEOs say so.

 

This is the link to performance

HSBC posts unexpected $850million loss. The outcome.

CEO's 7.3 million-pound package is lowest since taking charge

Gulliver, 56, had his variable pay for 2015 cut to 3 million pounds ($4.2 million) from 3.4 million pounds a year earlier, the London-based bank said in its annual report on Monday.

 

Oh, boo hoo, he loses nearly a billion dollars in a year and takes a pay cut to a mere 7.3 million. I bet he was laughing all the way to bank...

 

Oh, and he's based in Hong Kong anyway, not the UK.

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. So the CEO takes head office out of UK because of UK tax regime. How much tax does the UK now collect on his salary?

[Guest makapaka]

He didn't exactly call for a cap at all - he talked about the unfairness.

 

Ie the massive discrepancies between CEO earnings and those delivering on behalf of the company.

 

He did mention the cap as a potential solution and the press have then jumped on that as a headline.

 

I would suggest listening to the interview and then form an opinion either way.

[Robin-H 11]

He didn't exactly call for a cap at all - he talked about the unfairness.

 

Ie the massive discrepancies between CEO earnings and those delivering on behalf of the company.

 

He did mention the cap as a potential solution and the press have then jumped on that as a headline.

 

I would suggest listening to the interview and then form an opinion either way.

 

But a cap wouldn't be a solution would it. It would be completely unworkable, so mentioning it was pretty foolish.

[Cyclone 10]

Thank you for proving my point. So the CEO takes head office out of UK because of UK tax regime. How much tax does the UK now collect on his salary?

 

I suspect you don't know what HSBC stands for...

[Guest makapaka]

But a cap wouldn't be a solution would it. It would be completely unworkable, so mentioning it was pretty foolish.

 

Not necessarily - I don't believe it is perhaps the right solution but it's not unworkable.

 

It's only foolish in that he left it open to manipulation - there's nothing wrong with putting forward ideas.