Pigs at the trough 2016

[sidicks]

oyster said:

£1m extra to CEO:
45% income tax
2% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs

£1m extra to low earners (say minimum wagers)
20% income tax
12% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs
41% tax credits

So the worker gets an 87% marginal tax rate and actually receives a minimal part of these new funds?

Suggests that government tax take on lower earners is the real problem, not CEO earnings...

[crankedup]

FredClogs said:

oyster said:

But have the sales of Dettol really gone through the roof?

They've gone down the toilet.

But the CEO is feeling flush.

[NRS]

iphonedyou said:

Maybe they were underpaid 20 years ago?

Why the automatic assumption that the 'correct', or 'better', figure was that paid 20 years ago?

Have results got better than 20 years ago? If not then why pay more for the same results?

crankedup said:

We know that dissatisfaction is rumbling within workers who have had their wages frozen or reduced over the past eight years, it is not too difficult to understand their frustration seeing the boss decide he/she is worth massive pay increases year on year.
We can say that the boss is responsible for the whole company and their jobs, but the CEO is adequately supported by the Board of Directors sharing that weight. The last point I would like to make is this, if the company goes bust the workers lose their jobs the CEO will be given a golden handshake and walk into the company or retire sitting upon a nice heap of tenners.

One of my main issues with CEOs getting such high wages is that a lot of it is given whatever the result. If they want to have bonus schemes that give massive bonus schemes linked to the success of the company (relative to normal workers) then perhaps they should have a "reverse-bonus" that means they have to give back a lot if they make a mess of it. Say they get the salary of a normal worker if they make a mess, if they do really well then yes, they should get a big pay out which is "x" times bigger than the average worker.

Our old CEO was on a few million per year. No problem with that considering the size of the company. He did a good job and then left to another company where he was going to get more than £30 million per year, for a slightly smaller company doing the same job. Our new CEO has come in on a similar salary to the old one, and to be honest there is very little change in the actual results. So in reality the difference in salary wasn't affecting the results that much. Which is where I have the problem when CEO salary becomes completely detached from the normal workers when that is often where a lot of the actual results come from.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

But the CEO is feeling flush.

[sidicks]

NRS said:

Have results got better than 20 years ago? If not then why pay more for the same results?

Because it's much harder to get the 'same results'...

NRS said:

One of my main issues with CEOs getting such high wages is that a lot of it is given whatever the result.

Except of course that's absolute bks.

[Jockman]

oyster said:

Jockman said:

oyster said:

For every extra £1m paid to the CEO, the government will receive £608k back in direct taxes and benefits (assuming the CEO isn't running a clever tax avoidance wheeze!)

For that same £1m paid to low income workers, the government will receive £868k back in direct taxes and benefits.

I'm struggling with your maths. Can you please share?

£1m extra to CEO:
45% income tax
2% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs

£1m extra to low earners (say minimum wagers)
20% income tax
12% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs
41% tax credits

Your figures have changed when requoting. That doesn't fill me with much confidence.

Tax credits are a spreadsheet that can be manipulated to suit any argument. I can give you an example that comes out at over 30% for a minimum wager. I can also give you an example that comes out at zero % for another minimum wager.

Indeed, why a minimum wager? Why not an average wager? How many to include - as many as will keep below the higher bracket I assume?

The basic assumption that awarding money to a 45% tax payer >can< lead to higher tax revenues than awarding the same money to a 20% tax payer is plausible.

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

It matters.

[NRS]

sidicks said:

NRS said:

Have results got better than 20 years ago? If not then why pay more for the same results?

Because it's much harder to get the 'same results'...

NRS said:

One of my main issues with CEOs getting such high wages is that a lot of it is given whatever the result.

Except of course that's absolute bks.

How is it much harder? You can argue it is easier for quite a few companies - big companies are generally larger and more consolidated due to globalisation so there is less competition from lots of similar companies. Take Google for example - almost no competition from other search engines now, whereas in the past you had lots of others who could have been the big thing. Facebook is another example. Now they effectively have the marketplace to themselves in regards to a big company - there are small alternative versions but they don't really matter on the scale the bigger companies operate.

You didn't read my sentence right - I said high wages - NOT bonuses.

[sidicks]

NRS said:

How is it much harder? You can argue it is easier for quite a few companies - big companies are generally larger and more consolidated due to globalisation so there is less competition from lots of similar companies. Take Google for example - almost no competition from other search engines now, whereas in the past you had lots of others who could have been the big thing. Facebook is another example. Now they effectively have the marketplace to themselves in regards to a big company - there are small alternative versions but they don't really matter on the scale the bigger companies operate.

You didn't read my sentence right - I said high wages - NOT bonuses.

Ok, I retract my previous comment, sorry.

[crankedup]

Underneath I try to retain some degree of normality and humour. Vince has been busy writing the almost obligatory book, 'after the storm'. Also doing the usual media rounds as displaced MP's of all colours seem to latch onto, being the only source available t get his message out. Still as outspoken as ever, good thing, being angry at the TATA steel and BHS crisis, he can only offer advise now but still carries some influence apparently.
Sir Vince or Dr Cable seems to be doing OK.

[NRS]

sidicks said:

NRS said:

How is it much harder? You can argue it is easier for quite a few companies - big companies are generally larger and more consolidated due to globalisation so there is less competition from lots of similar companies. Take Google for example - almost no competition from other search engines now, whereas in the past you had lots of others who could have been the big thing. Facebook is another example. Now they effectively have the marketplace to themselves in regards to a big company - there are small alternative versions but they don't really matter on the scale the bigger companies operate.

You didn't read my sentence right - I said high wages - NOT bonuses.

Ok, I retract my previous comment, sorry.

No problem - I do it lots too!

I'm not sure if my "perfect" work is actually possible to exist - it's a bit of a blend between right wing economy and left wing looking after others. I do support free market stuff to a large extend, but I think we should also look after people. My experience from Norway is that society is much better overall having a relatively similar wage across a company. People tend to do the jobs they want, rather than try and get the most money and power (effectively the pay means it's not worth the extra responsibility to only do it for money - thus people who want to do it because they enjoy it, and so generally better at it too, become leaders). Since there's also less separation from the highest in society compared to the lowest it also means less jealousy, crime etc. Risk and responsibility should be rewarded personally, but when society separates too much it creates other problems. I am lucky (and specialised in the right area) that I have a good wage and am actually losing out compared to what I could buy in other countries with less tax but am happy with the trade-off. I appreciate others don't want that though - and fair play to them.

The problem I see in the future is with the system we have now. With free markets, growing and mobile labour and automation what will happen in the future to society? Machines and computers will reduce the number of jobs available, and a growing worldwide population that can move will keep the wages low for most people (and increase unemployment generally). The richest will grow in wealth due to more profits once automation is set up, but it will not be spread to as many people as less people are working there and those that are will be on lower wages. How does society then continue with this way of working - if the gap between richest and poorest grows too much it will create big issues. No idea how to solve it - I have seen it suggested that everyone gets a fixed "salary" and those doing proper work get a mega salary and are appreciated by those who don't work but have lots of free time. Humans being as they are will result in jealousy though, and so not sure that would actually work. Still, who knows what the future holds!

[richie99]

crankedup said:

Difficult to define but if we look at Greece during the last three years Social unrest is very evident. The lack of jobs, basic medications, small businesses bust all leading up to Social unrest. Now I am not suggesting that CEO excessive pay is going to cause a mirror image of the Magnitude we see in Greece, of course not. But comparatively minor social unrest has already been seen which is directly related to the growing wealth gap in the UK.
We know that dissatisfaction is rumbling within workers who have had their wages frozen or reduced over the past eight years, it is not too difficult to understand their frustration seeing the boss decide he/she is worth massive pay increases year on year.
We can say that the boss is responsible for the whole company and their jobs, but the CEO is adequately supported by the Board of Directors sharing that weight. The last point I would like to make is this, if the company goes bust the workers lose their jobs the CEO will be given a golden handshake and walk into the company or retire sitting upon a nice heap of tenners.

Whenever this topic of CEO pay comes along, I usually post it every year, certain posters will swack about the politics of envy, none of my business, sell your shares if you disagree and such like. Personally I don't believe it is these actions that resolve the growing issue.of Social unrest, Fundemental changes are required that will bring about the control of excessive board room pay, such as those changes Vince Cable was discussing when in Government.

Where is the evidence that social unrest in the UK has anything to do with your growing wealth gap? Greece is a red herring with its own problems.

[iphonedyou]

richie99 said:

Where is the evidence that social unrest in the UK has anything to do with your growing wealth gap? Greece is a red herring with its own problems.

I don't think there is any, at all.

[NRS]

iphonedyou said:

richie99 said:

Where is the evidence that social unrest in the UK has anything to do with your growing wealth gap? Greece is a red herring with its own problems.

I don't think there is any, at all.

That doesn't make too much sense depending how you define social unrest. A lot of the right wing people here complain about lefties moaning all the time, going on marches etc. - surely that would be social unrest?

[NailedOn]

MarshPhantom said:

NailedOn said:

Why be a CEO when you can be a PM?
http://gonetworth.com/tony-blair-net-worth/
Blair is now worth £60m. Trust funds. Deals with dictators. The works. Typical leftie hypocrite.

Suprised he's not more popular on PH.

I guess you wouldn't have a problem if he was a current or former Tory PM?

Which is also rather hypocritical.

Hm, you make a point that you attribute to me then accuse me of being a hypocrite for making said point.
Weird.

[anonymous-user]

oyster said:

Jockman said:

oyster said:

For every extra £1m paid to the CEO, the government will receive £608k back in direct taxes and benefits (assuming the CEO isn't running a clever tax avoidance wheeze!)

For that same £1m paid to low income workers, the government will receive £868k back in direct taxes and benefits.

I'm struggling with your maths. Can you please share?

£1m extra to CEO:
45% income tax
2% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs

£1m extra to low earners (say minimum wagers)
20% income tax
12% ee NICs
13.8% er NICs
41% tax credits

By 'tax credits' do you mean the withdrawl of tax credits due to the higher wage?
So 87% effective marginal tax rate? New Labours legacy for the working poor!

[crankedup]

richie99 said:

crankedup said:

Difficult to define but if we look at Greece during the last three years Social unrest is very evident. The lack of jobs, basic medications, small businesses bust all leading up to Social unrest. Now I am not suggesting that CEO excessive pay is going to cause a mirror image of the Magnitude we see in Greece, of course not. But comparatively minor social unrest has already been seen which is directly related to the growing wealth gap in the UK.
We know that dissatisfaction is rumbling within workers who have had their wages frozen or reduced over the past eight years, it is not too difficult to understand their frustration seeing the boss decide he/she is worth massive pay increases year on year.
We can say that the boss is responsible for the whole company and their jobs, but the CEO is adequately supported by the Board of Directors sharing that weight. The last point I would like to make is this, if the company goes bust the workers lose their jobs the CEO will be given a golden handshake and walk into the company or retire sitting upon a nice heap of tenners.

Whenever this topic of CEO pay comes along, I usually post it every year, certain posters will swack about the politics of envy, none of my business, sell your shares if you disagree and such like. Personally I don't believe it is these actions that resolve the growing issue.of Social unrest, Fundemental changes are required that will bring about the control of excessive board room pay, such as those changes Vince Cable was discussing when in Government.

Where is the evidence that social unrest in the UK has anything to do with your growing wealth gap? Greece is a red herring with its own problems.

Red Herring!!! You must be joking, it's own problems, yes of course. I was using Greece as an example of Social unrest, it's an ugly thing. But are you suggesting the Greek problem is not related to financial problems?
If you are dismissing my example at least have the courtesy to spell out your take on the Greek problem.

Your asking me to show evidence of UK unrest being related to the growing wealth gap. Do you live in a cave in the outer Mongolian landscape? You must have seen/read/witnessed those protesters in and around London, Liverpool, Birmingham and other cities brandishing placards and banners condemning the growing wealth gap! Argue about it but don't deny knowledge, please.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Underneath I try to retain some degree of normality and humour.

It's not visible on the surface.

crankedup said:

But are you suggesting the Greek problem is not related to financial problems?

It's related to financial issues such as paying themselves silly salaries/benefits for bugger all work. It's not really related to salaries of FTSE CEOs. Please don't conflate the two.

[dudleybloke]

He should have had a 6% uplift on last years payout.
Makes sense.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Underneath I try to retain some degree of normality and humour.

It's not visible on the surface.

crankedup said:

But are you suggesting the Greek problem is not related to financial problems?

It's related to financial issues such as paying themselves silly salaries/benefits for bugger all work. It's not really related to salaries of FTSE CEOs. Please don't conflate the two.

Its all about money and a growing wealth gap, CEO and their ilk are part of the problem. Greek people have not paid themselves too much, their Government borrowed too much and the small businesses and ordinary people are the ones paying the price.
Salaries of FTSE CEO is, by normal intelligent persons perspective beyond excessive. This gives rise to wealth gap social problems, note wealth gap, this is the same wealth gap existing in Greece, albeit Greece is in the centre of the problem. It's not how the wealth gap is derived but the consequence of a wealth gap that is excessive and growing. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, demonstrations have already been publically voiced and demonstrated against CEO pay awards with more companies being targeted by dissatisfied shareholders railing against the greed and excess of tier company CEO and Boards. We have already seen ordinary people demonstrating against the inequality between the haves and have nots. The U.K. Is now one of the worst offenders regarding inequality apparently.
My example of how social inequality driven by unfairness in wealth distribution pointing to Greece is certainly warrented. The only difference is circumstances in how the inequality was born, but has the same result regarding social unrest.
Please do make an effort to broaden your mind, the CEO pay problem is only part of a much wider issue resulting in the risk of social unrest, disharmony.

Edited by crankedup on Sunday 8th May 00:13