The rich - poor gap

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

employees are on minimum wages , no contract.

Technical point, but no, they have a contract. Everyone in employment has a contract. They may not have a written copy of it, but they have one.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

There is a company that does just that ,the managers are on big bonus schemes whilst the 95% rest of the employees are on minimum wages , no contract.
I do not understand your antipathy toward the notion that employees of a company be given a fair share of reward when that company is successful .
John Lewis seems to do quite well with such a system in place.
I have no problem with "sustainable wealth creators"receiving commensurate salaries,it seems that you have a problem with anybody, apart from that tiny percentage of entrepreneurs that have your financial acumen and focus ,from having a reasonable lifestyle.

So let me get this right. Last year I spent over a fortnight flying to and from Australia, NZ and USA. Together with a Director we brought in a lot of business that is allowing us to employ some more people and, yes, make more profit.

Because of that my receptionist deserves to be paid more? Why?

Not suggesting that at all.
However if your company is doing well, and she is someone you can rely on to "go the extra mile "when required you might think it reasonable to give her a bonus at Xmas.
Contrariwise, if the company is going through a bad patch and the annual wage review comes around you would be justified in telling your staff that there would be no pay rises,
Obviously simplified scenarios for brevity.
You are being disingenuous however, you travelled to increase the profits of your company not through altruism to your staff,not saying you are not worth being rewarded commensurately.

Edited by avinalarf on Friday 18th April 19:34

[Justayellowbadge]

My personal favourite is the 75% social housing.

It won't force buyers to subsidise it, because no developer will build anything, as no-one would spend their own money to live on a sink estate with scum.

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

Not suggesting that at all.
However if your company is doing well, and she is someone you can rely on to "go the extra mile "when required you might think it reasonable to give her a bonus at Xmas.
Contrariwise, if the company is going through a bad patch and the annual wage review comes around you would be justified in telling your staff that there would be no pay rises,
Obviously simplified scenarios for brevity.

Ah but that's different, that's rewarding effort, it's always good to do that.

What I'm questioning is why you would pay someone based on profit rather than effort, reward those who cause profit to improve, of course, but why link the two for those who don't?

[turbobloke]

nightflight said:

Why is it that in this country, people who work hard and make a few quid for themselves are demonised. In America, success is celebrated. I remember back in the seventies when my Father had been successful in business and bought himself a Mercedes 450 SLC, which at the time was a very desirable car. It got very badly vandalised one day, and I remember asking him why someone would do such a thing. He said to me that he had committed the ultimate crime in the UK. He had worked hard, and been successful. This was a man who had left the navy after the war with nothing, and through sheer hard graft had made a nice life for himself.

Sadly, that's probably a very common experience on a website for car enthusiasts, or at least it was such a site once. The fact is that the loser or losers who damaged your father's Mercedes were still losers after their criminal act whereas your father had still served his country and made a success of his life afterwards.

[hidetheelephants]

Derek Smith said:

You should also be grateful to the Sally Ann. The efforts of their staff ensure that those whom no one else give a fk about can be hidden from the likes of us.

Perhaps the efficacy of the SA is hiding what problem there is, letting the government off the hook?

santona1937 said:

Tax wealth not income. Include pensioners.
Tax the profit on the sale of primary residences.
Raise the upper tax limit to 75% ( taxing wealth not income)

How are you defining wealth and income? On the face of it you're effectively banning unearned income which will result in flight of capital on a grand scale, followed by economic collapse and anyone mobile enough departing by the next available flight.

Siscar said:

My experience is that many people actually don't go for profit share. We tried it once by offering a choice of a pay rise of 5% or a profit share that would pay the equivalent of 10% at that time. Almost every one went for the 5% pay rise. Saved us a lot of money in the end.

I'd be tempted to mark their cards; they're effectively saying they have no faith in what the company does and don't expect it to grow or develop. You need better employees.

V8 Fettler said:

turbobloke said:

How about pulling legs off insects and boiling babies in the boardroom?

Don't be ridiculous.

That sort of thing doesn't happen in boardrooms, it's saved for the team-bonding days.

I always thought babies were supposed to be baked in clay; am I doing it wrong?

[Siscar]

hidetheelephants said:

.

Siscar said:

My experience is that many people actually don't go for profit share. We tried it once by offering a choice of a pay rise of 5% or a profit share that would pay the equivalent of 10% at that time. Almost every one went for the 5% pay rise. Saved us a lot of money in the end.

I'd be tempted to mark their cards; they're effectively saying they have no faith in what the company does and don't expect it to grow or develop. You need better employees.

Not at all, it's because many people prefer certainty to how much they will earn. Understandable, they have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay etc.

[turbobloke]

Siscar said:

hidetheelephants said:

.

Siscar said:

My experience is that many people actually don't go for profit share. We tried it once by offering a choice of a pay rise of 5% or a profit share that would pay the equivalent of 10% at that time. Almost every one went for the 5% pay rise. Saved us a lot of money in the end.

I'd be tempted to mark their cards; they're effectively saying they have no faith in what the company does and don't expect it to grow or develop. You need better employees.

Not at all, it's because many people prefer certainty to how much they will earn. Understandable, they have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay etc.

OK, but they're worse off in the end. Inability to judge risk in terms of short- and longer-term options suggests they're well placed as employees rather than employers. Which is fine, but then there will be some who would abuse employers for their greater reward having taken the considered risk and exercised sound judgement...including when it works out for everyone's benefit to one degree or another.

This business malarkey, it's MFOR.

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

Not suggesting that at all.
However if your company is doing well, and she is someone you can rely on to "go the extra mile "when required you might think it reasonable to give her a bonus at Xmas.
Contrariwise, if the company is going through a bad patch and the annual wage review comes around you would be justified in telling your staff that there would be no pay rises,
Obviously simplified scenarios for brevity.

Ah but that's different, that's rewarding effort, it's always good to do that.

What I'm questioning is why you would pay someone based on profit rather than effort, reward those who cause profit to improve, of course, but why link the two for those who don't?

You do realise ,of course,that I am indulging in a parallel universe where one is one's brothers keeper.
However to answer your question.
If a company makes a profit what is "wrong"with everybody in that company enjoying a teeny weeny share in that profit.
Not as much as you,of course,you would still have your humongous share,do not worry,I will make sure of that.
Yes ,you take the risk,work 12 hour days ,6/7 days a week,but say 20 years down line you sellout for gizzilllions ,that's ok,that's your reward.
Your staff,having worked hard in your company for 20 years, and without whom you would not have a business,retire on a modest pension.
Do you note the difference there ?
On a similar scenario..........
When you pay taxes ,ideally,they provide the infrastructure in which you live, work and prosper.
That infrastructure is the roads,the railways,etc.but it is also the policeman the nurse the school teacher etc.
Now they may not have your skills and enterprise or focus but without them you are in the st.
So you tell me if they all do not all have a right to a fair craic ?
When the country prospers there wages increase,when we are in the st ,like now,no wage increase for the majority.

Edited by avinalarf on Friday 18th April 21:24

[Derek Smith]

hidetheelephants said:

Derek Smith said:

You should also be grateful to the Sally Ann. The efforts of their staff ensure that those whom no one else give a fk about can be hidden from the likes of us.

Perhaps the efficacy of the SA is hiding what problem there is, letting the government off the hook?

santona1937 said:

Tax wealth not income. Include pensioners.

That makes two assumptions. The first is that the government would make a better fist of it when the evidence is that they would not.

Second, and more persuasive, is that in fact the the ones the SA assist are not hidden from the government so much as hidden from us.

[turbobloke]

avinalarf said:

Siscar said:

avinalarf said:

Not suggesting that at all.
However if your company is doing well, and she is someone you can rely on to "go the extra mile "when required you might think it reasonable to give her a bonus at Xmas.
Contrariwise, if the company is going through a bad patch and the annual wage review comes around you would be justified in telling your staff that there would be no pay rises,
Obviously simplified scenarios for brevity.

Ah but that's different, that's rewarding effort, it's always good to do that.

What I'm questioning is why you would pay someone based on profit rather than effort, reward those who cause profit to improve, of course, but why link the two for those who don't?

You do realise ,of course,that I am indulging in a parallel universe where one is one's brothers keeper.
However to answer your question.
If a company makes a profit what is "wrong"with everybody in that company enjoying a teeny weeny share in that profit.
Not as much as you,of course,you would still have your humongous share,do not worry,I will make sure of that.
Yes ,you take the risk,work 12 hour days ,6/7 days a week,but say 20 years down line you sellout for gizzilllions ,that's ok,that's your reward.
Your staff,having worked hard in your company for 20 years, and without whom you would not have a business,retire on a modest pension.
Do you note the difference there ?
When you pay taxes ,ideally,they provide the infrastructure in which you live, work and prosper.
That infrastructure is the roads,the railways,etc.but it is also the policeman the nurse the school teacher etc.
Now they may not have your skills and enterprise or focus but without them you are in the st.
So you tell me if they all do not all have a right to a fair craic ?

Putting aside another use of the infinitely variable 'fair' word, which can mean what its user wants it to mean, by any reasonable measure they already get it - in spades - the problem is that the source of the craic is under constant bombardment and more than occasional vilification mererly because they already pay for everything while generally consuming less of the services they pay for...not least by taking the additional expense of alternative provision.

That makes perfect nonsense.

[avinalarf]

turbobloke said:

Putting aside another use of the infinitely variable 'fair' word, which can mean what its user wants it to mean, by any reasonable measure they already get it - in spades - the problem is that the source of the craic is under constant bombardment and more than occasional vilification mererly because they already pay for everything while generally consuming less of the services they pay for...not least by taking the additional expense of alternative provision.

That makes perfect nonsense.

Just for you TB....
BTW what does MFOR mean ?
fair1
fɛː/
adjective
1.
treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.
"the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members"
synonyms: just, equitable, fair-minded, open-minded, honest, upright, honourable, trustworthy; More
antonyms: unfair
just or appropriate in the circumstances.
"to be fair, this subject poses special problems"
archaic
(of a means or procedure) not violent.
"try first by fair means"

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

You do realise ,of course,that I am indulging in a parallel universe where one is one's brothers keeper.
However to answer your question.
If a company makes a profit what is "wrong"with everybody in that company enjoying a teeny weeny share in that profit.
Not as much as you,of course,you would still have your humongous share,do not worry,I will make sure of that.
Yes ,you take the risk,work 12 hour days ,6/7 days a week,but say 20 years down line you sellout for gizzilllions ,that's ok,that's your reward.
Your staff,having worked hard in your company for 20 years, and without whom you would not have a business,retire on a modest pension.
Do you note the difference there ?
On a similar scenario..........
When you pay taxes ,ideally,they provide the infrastructure in which you live, work and prosper.
That infrastructure is the roads,the railways,etc.but it is also the policeman the nurse the school teacher etc.
Now they may not have your skills and enterprise or focus but without them you are in the st.
So you tell me if they all do not all have a right to a fair craic ?
When the country prospers there wages increase,when we are in the st ,like now,no wage increase for the majority.

Edited by avinalarf on Friday 18th April 21:24

Hmm, not quite sure I follow it all through but I'll try.

Say, for example, you pay someone to come in a couple of hours a week to do some gardening. You have a good year, you make more money, do you pay them some more because of that? Some may, but many don't, because the two have no connection.

As for the concept that my taxes pay for infrastructure, of course they do, way out of proportion to what most pay. I've paid for lots of people's share of that, but equally used little of it. I use roads, but pay a lot for it, policemen - yes, I guess, nurses and teachers though, no. I pay for them all over again.

I'm not complaining though, just reacting to this concept that the rich are some foul drain on society who are to be punished, to be castigated. Some concept that you can tax the hell out of me is daft, because you can't, I'd move and the UK would be the worse off for it.

[Murph7355]

santona1937 said:

Tax wealth not income. Include pensioners.
Tax the profit on the sale of primary residences.
Raise the upper tax limit to 75% ( taxing wealth not income)
Raise inheritance tax
Put all schools under state control
Bring in a proper and working system of technical education ( I worked on the development of Modern Apprenticeships and for a lot of industries they are a joke)
Mandate a CEO/ Floor worker maximum spread in industries that do not manufacture, such as finance.
Raise the minimum wage to a regionally based living wage.
Require that companies that use zero hours contracts pay a 10% of amount earned annual bonus to staff on such contracts.
Tax cars on mileage per annum.
Reverse the conditions for new house builds, so new developments need to be 75% affordable housing and 25% at whatever the developer feels they can charge.
Disallow benefits to those who have not paid a certain amount of NI with exemptions for those who are physically unable to work
Ban transfer pricing in international companies
Lower Corporation tax but require that directors of any company doing business in the UK are annually personally liable for losses incurred without limitation
Remove all benefits from anyone working more than 16 hours a week.

Perhaps add "make everyone have the same haircut"?

[avinalarf]

Siscar said:

Hmm, not quite sure I follow it all through but I'll try.

Say, for example, you pay someone to come in a couple of hours a week to do some gardening. You have a good year, you make more money, do you pay them some more because of that? Some may, but many don't, because the two have no connection.

As for the concept that my taxes pay for infrastructure, of course they do, way out of proportion to what most pay. I've paid for lots of people's share of that, but equally used little of it. I use roads, but pay a lot for it, policemen - yes, I guess, nurses and teachers though, no. I pay for them all over again.

I'm not complaining though, just reacting to this concept that the rich are some foul drain on society who are to be punished, to be castigated. Some concept that you can tax the hell out of me is daft, because you can't, I'd move and the UK would be the worse off for it.

I have never suggested you should pay more tax,don't know where you get that from.
We are getting a bit bogged down in your personal affairs let's move on,please.
All I am saying is that we do not live in a bubble.
It's just the principle of living in a society where there is such a huge differential between the "rich" and "poor" will inevitably breed envy and discontentment and all the social unrest that will bring.
Now how that is achieved without unduly punishing the wealth creators, whilst allowing for the dreams and aspirations of the large majority, is the question !
The big problem is how to frame this legislation so that it is "fit for purpose".
A recent example is the "spare bedroom tax".
Theoretically it is not unreasonable to ask those with more bedrooms than they need to move to another property,but there appear to be so many anomalies that it is causing huge resentment.
Obviously not all that resentment is justified but the system cannot deal with each individual case as sympathetically as one might wish.
The same goes for say Inheritance tax ,where the threshold has been kept in place for so many years that it catches out people it was never intended to affect when first introduced.
Like many of you I work hard,pay my taxes and wish to give my kids a "decent"start in life.
I recognise that there are lots of people worse off than me but feel "I do my bit "and do not want the state to take any more off ME.
So we have a conundrum,how to let the "rich"keep most of their hard gotten gains whilst insuring that the less well off are also given a "fair"chance to live a "decent"lifestyle.
I am certain TB will come along to play semantics with me but that really doesn't solve a very real problem.

Edited by avinalarf on Saturday 19th April 07:13

[turbobloke]

avinalarf said:

Now how that is achieved without unduly punishing the wealth creators, whilst allowing for the dreams and aspirations of the large majority, is the question !

Firstly, these are not separate entities originally except in a few rare cases. Dreams and aspirations in employment are part of the typical recipe mix that generates and fosters individual enterprise. Depending on others to realise dreams and aspirations has limitations, and always will. Secondly, the wealth creators pay for everything so the logical response is to take care of them, as they take care of everyone else who can't take care of themselves. Words of empathy from the left in support of the poor bloody infantry which are then followed by tax and control, increased poverty, wider wealth gaps and an economic trainwreck only do harm to everyone (except the top 1% ironically). Finally this 'large majority' which is claimed to exist, but may in fact be a vocal minority alongside a silent majority, needs to take care also that the sheer dead weight of whatever influence is available from selling their vote to wordsmiths and snake oilers doesn't bite the hand that feeds them, then take off the arm, then most of the body.

[DanL]

900T-R said:

DanL said:

Nope - the purpose of management is to set the goals, vision and direction for the company (if only that could be written with less management speak!) as well as deciding what it is that the engineers or whoever create - the person creating the widget, or whatever, is just one piece.

Um, that's not 'management' in a strict sense. Goals, vision and strategy are the remit of the entrepreneur, the CEO, the board - management is by definition executive. Although I've known more than a few managers with delusions of grandeur...

Well, that would be dealt with by my second paragraph.

DanL said:

If you're thinking lower down the chain (line managers, etc.) then they're paid more due to the extra responsibility they shoulder.

That being said, there are a number of places where managers can be paid less than the people they manage - particularly in IT, if the coders are skilled contractors, for example.

[98elise]

Siscar said:

hidetheelephants said:

.

Siscar said:

My experience is that many people actually don't go for profit share. We tried it once by offering a choice of a pay rise of 5% or a profit share that would pay the equivalent of 10% at that time. Almost every one went for the 5% pay rise. Saved us a lot of money in the end.

I'd be tempted to mark their cards; they're effectively saying they have no faith in what the company does and don't expect it to grow or develop. You need better employees.

Not at all, it's because many people prefer certainty to how much they will earn. Understandable, they have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay etc.

Agreed. I once ran a maintenance team, and our company introduced a performance bonus. It meant a very small reduction in normal pay, but as long as the company stayed even, then your bonus would take you above your original salary. If we did well then it would be a decent wedge.

The scheme was optional and a bit of a no brainer, but one of my mechanics did not want to do it. He was a solid dependable bloke, and was easliy the best mechanic we had, but he didn't want to have any doubt in what his salary would be. He prefered overtime to increase his salary, rather than be involved in a scheme that he could do little to influence.

[Siscar]

avinalarf said:

I have never suggested you should pay more tax,don't know where you get that from.
We are getting a bit bogged down in your personal affairs let's move on,please.

Well I don't want to quote personal stuff but it's by doing so that a lot of the nonsense published gets exposed as nonsense.

avinalarf said:

All I am saying is that we do not live in a bubble.
It's just the principle of living in a society where there is such a huge differential between the "rich" and "poor" will inevitably breed envy and discontentment and all the social unrest that will bring.
Now how that is achieved without unduly punishing the wealth creators, whilst allowing for the dreams and aspirations of the large majority, is the question !
The big problem is how to frame this legislation so that it is "fit for purpose".
A recent example is the "spare bedroom tax".
Theoretically it is not unreasonable to ask those with more bedrooms than they need to move to another property,but there appear to be so many anomalies that it is causing huge resentment.
Obviously not all that resentment is justified but the system cannot deal with each individual case as sympathetically as one might wish.

Well firstly it is wrong to suppose that there is anything new about a differential between rich and poor, there's always been one. The problem now is that we are increasingly a skills based economy, and an increasingly mobile economy where people with skills can achieve. However there is a large group of people without the skills to do so and they increasingly get marginalised, unwilling to do the more menial jobs. The net result is an immigrant population willing to do those roles.

So you have a sector of the population who are at the benefit claiming, minimum wage level for whom society has very few opportunities not helped by an education system that seems more geared to it's own agenda of meaningless politically correct courses than one that is focused on giving people the skills they need to get on with life.

avinalarf said:

The same goes for say Inheritance tax ,where the threshold has been kept in place for so many years that it catches out people it was never intended to affect when first introduced.
Like many of you I work hard,pay my taxes and wish to give my kids a "decent"start in life.
I recognise that there are lots of people worse off than me but feel "I do my bit "and do not want the state to take any more off ME.
So we have a conundrum,how to let the "rich"keep most of their hard gotten gains whilst insuring that the less well off are also given a "fair"chance to live a "decent"lifestyle.
I am certain TB will come along to play semantics with me but that really doesn't solve a very real problem.

I may be in a small minority but actually I would make inheritance hard harder than it is, I see no reason why I should be able to bestow riches on people who have done nothing to earn it. Wealth should be earned, not given to you.

[avinalarf]

turbobloke said:

avinalarf said:

Now how that is achieved without unduly punishing the wealth creators, whilst allowing for the dreams and aspirations of the large majority, is the question !

Firstly, these are not separate entities originally except in a few rare cases. Dreams and aspirations in employment are part of the typical recipe mix that generates and fosters individual enterprise. Depending on others to realise dreams and aspirations has limitations, and always will. Secondly, the wealth creators pay for everything so the logical response is to take care of them, as they take care of everyone else who can't take care of themselves. Words of empathy from the left in support of the poor bloody infantry which are then followed by tax and control, increased poverty, wider wealth gaps and an economic trainwreck only do harm to everyone (except the top 1% ironically). Finally this 'large majority' which is claimed to exist, but may in fact be a vocal minority alongside a silent majority, needs to take care also that the sheer dead weight of whatever influence is available from selling their vote to wordsmiths and snake oilers doesn't bite the hand that feeds them, then take off the arm, then most of the body.

Once again TB you grab a phrase out of a lengthy comment where I have tried to discuss a difficult dilemma as briefly as possible.
I really do not know why you choose to denigrate the huge majority that have not got your talents for making money.
Almost everybody ,except for a tiny minority of feckless who play the system,should be valued and treated with respect,and that minority that "play the system" exist on both the Left and Right.
I do wonder whether you just enjoy a wind up.
Your army analogy is apposite ,as in the 1st WW ,when the infantry were used as cannon fodder whilst the Generals sat back and watched them suffer.
Unlike you I do not see this as a Left /Right problem,it is a problem that will benefit both sides if an equitable solution can be found.
I am no fan of most politicians,either from the Left or Right ,but prefer "small"government which legislates a framework where all can thrive.
It is true that the majority,in this country,are largely silent but that does not mean their silence should be ignored.
We now have situation where because the majority are so frustrated with both main parties that in desperation, they are going to vote UKIP..

Edited by avinalarf on Saturday 19th April 10:26