Pigs at the trough 2016

[crankedup]

0000 said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk must be having a day at the seaside or he isn't aware Simon Walker is the boss of Institute of Directors. Like me and thousands of shareholders he. Is a very fierce critic of excessive bosses pay. Presume that rovinghawk will diss him as jealous because his income isn't excessive.
Apparently Mr Walker again warned last week that unless excessive pay was reined in public pressure will force the Government into the introduction of legislation which will rein in the payments.
Sooner the better.

Well, he did grow up in a house with a picture of Stalin above the mantlepiece. So far as I can work out the IoD are financially dependent upon spamming the hell out of anyone listed with Companies House. No wonder their membership is in decline.

And what exactly has that got to do with the thread, 'as far as you can work out' or put another way you really don't know but feel the need to make an attempt in minimising the effect of true facts.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

Jockman said:

Some people are not primarily motivated by money.

I'm not. This is why I don't bleat about others earning more.

You don't feel the need to bleat because you do not have any connections with investments perhaps? Why do you think shareholders make their voices heard at the meetings, anger at the CEO and board regarding wages they earn? Surely not!

[0000]

crankedup said:

0000 said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk must be having a day at the seaside or he isn't aware Simon Walker is the boss of Institute of Directors. Like me and thousands of shareholders he. Is a very fierce critic of excessive bosses pay. Presume that rovinghawk will diss him as jealous because his income isn't excessive.
Apparently Mr Walker again warned last week that unless excessive pay was reined in public pressure will force the Government into the introduction of legislation which will rein in the payments.
Sooner the better.

Well, he did grow up in a house with a picture of Stalin above the mantlepiece. So far as I can work out the IoD are financially dependent upon spamming the hell out of anyone listed with Companies House. No wonder their membership is in decline.

And what exactly has that got to do with the thread, 'as far as you can work out' or put another way you really don't know but feel the need to make an attempt in minimising the effect of true facts.

If you make an appeal to dubious authority, expect it to be considered questionable.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk......... isn't aware Simon Walker is the boss of Institute of Directors.

Didn't know, don't care.

crankedup said:

Presume that rovinghawk will diss him as jealous because his income isn't excessive.

Don't know, don't care.

crankedup said:

Apparently Mr Walker again warned last week that unless excessive pay was reined in public pressure will force the Government into the introduction of legislation which will rein in the payments.
Sooner the better.

He can predict the future?

Edited by Rovinghawk on Sunday 8th May 20:45

[crankedup]

0000 said:

crankedup said:

0000 said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk must be having a day at the seaside or he isn't aware Simon Walker is the boss of Institute of Directors. Like me and thousands of shareholders he. Is a very fierce critic of excessive bosses pay. Presume that rovinghawk will diss him as jealous because his income isn't excessive.
Apparently Mr Walker again warned last week that unless excessive pay was reined in public pressure will force the Government into the introduction of legislation which will rein in the payments.
Sooner the better.

Well, he did grow up in a house with a picture of Stalin above the mantlepiece. So far as I can work out the IoD are financially dependent upon spamming the hell out of anyone listed with Companies House. No wonder their membership is in decline.

And what exactly has that got to do with the thread, 'as far as you can work out' or put another way you really don't know but feel the need to make an attempt in minimising the effect of true facts.

If you make an appeal to dubious authority, expect it to be considered questionable.

I would rather accept the boss of the institute of directors considerations than some unknown poster on a motoring forum. Besides which mr Walker is spot on whereas you are not, but hey ho.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Rovinghawk......... isn't aware Simon Walker is the boss of Institute of Directors.

Didn't know, don't care.

crankedup said:

Presume that rovinghawk will diss him as jealous because his income isn't excessive.

Don't know, don't care.

crankedup said:

Apparently Mr Walker again warned last week that unless excessive pay was reined in public pressure will force the Government into the introduction of legislation which will rein in the payments.
Sooner the better.

He can predict the future?

Edited by Rovinghawk on Sunday 8th May 20:45

Quite, not much to contribute have you, aside from personal remarks to myself.l

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

mr Walker is spot on whereas you are not, but hey ho.

He knows what the future holds? How can he do this? I think he's guessing.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Quite, not much to contribute have you, aside from personal remarks to myself.l

You keep saying that- I've called you jealous. That's hardly an insult.

Saying your remarks made no sense is a statement of fact.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

Well their we have just another thoughtful and unintelligent debating point.

Apart from the bad spelling, this makes no sense and so tends to undermine whatever you were trying to say.

You're jealous that someone is making a lot more money than you & you're trying to justify your envy by wrapping it up in moral socialism.

No insult from rovinghawk, here is what you said, nothing to do directly with the subject matter just a poke at me!
I have no objection at all to a good debate or argument, but to simply post this personal insult with worse to follow is unacceptable.

[Rovinghawk]

Whatever.

[crankedup]

Rovinghawk said:

crankedup said:

mr Walker is spot on whereas you are not, but hey ho.

He knows what the future holds? How can he do this? I think he's guessing.

You seem to be blinkered, if the boss of the insituition of directors sends out warnings, thousands of shareholders voice dissatisfaction and reject company following company pay board recommendations.Another shareholders 'Spring' looming this year with the media stirring the pot I fail to understand how anybody, opposed or not, can fail to recognise or at least acknowledge the problem shareholders voice regarding excessive board pay.
Obviously we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this matter and I will never be able to convince you to move from your current position, oh well as you say, whatever.

[0000]

crankedup said:

I would rather accept the boss of the institute of directors considerations than some unknown poster on a motoring forum. Besides which mr Walker is spot on whereas you are not, but hey ho.

You've picked the wrong place to post your thread then.

[oyster]

sidicks said:

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...

It does indeed show that.

But my answer was in direct reply to someone saying the CEO getting more pay would result in greater tax revenues.

[oyster]

Jockman said:

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.

I added 13.8% for employers NICs.

[Mr Whippy]

I don't get the issue here.


If you're a shareholder and care sell up and buy elsewhere, or cash out into some other investment vehicle.


If you're a consumer and care, swap products.

Or if you can do without then do so and stop feeding the mega-corporate trolls.

Winston said:

But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet-!

[lenny007]

oyster said:

sidicks said:

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...

It does indeed show that.

But my answer was in direct reply to someone saying the CEO getting more pay would result in greater tax revenues.

Your employee NI rate for CEO's isn't correct. It's exactly the same as the low earners - 12.8% up to UEL and 2% above that.

It also depends on their age, sex and marital status as various alterations may be made dependent on these factors.

It all boils down to withdrawal of tax credits at the end of the day.

[johnfm]

Fittster said:

The OP should remember that most PHers admire the rich unquestioningly

"We frequently see the respectful attentions of the world more strongly directed towards the rich and the great, than towards the wise and the virtuous. We see frequently the vices and follies of the powerful much less despised than the poverty and weakness of the innocent…The great mob of mankind are the admirers and worshippers, and, what may seem more extraordinary, most frequently the disinterested admirers and worshippers, of wealth and greatness. (Theory of Moral Sentiments)

"a disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich."

Adam Smith.

Edited by Fittster on Thursday 5th May 17:05

It is called 'outgroup favouritism'. A strange phenomena where those disadvantaged by the behaviour of antoher group still support that other group even though such support is to their own detriment.

• Note: the detriment here is nebulous and could be argued for quite some time, as has been done before.

[Jockman]

lenny007 said:

Your employee NI rate for CEO's isn't correct. It's exactly the same as the low earners - 12.8% up to UEL and 2% above that.

The CEO is already above UEL so all NI would be at 2%. This is a scenario for extra money

[Mr Whippy]

johnfm said:

*Note: the detriment here is nebulous and could be argued for quite some time, as has been done before.

Well the 'followers' are the ones who tend to get killed fighting in wars for the fruits of the rich.

It's quite an absolute detriment too.

[crankedup]

0000 said:

crankedup said:

I would rather accept the boss of the institute of directors considerations than some unknown poster on a motoring forum. Besides which mr Walker is spot on whereas you are not, but hey ho.

You've picked the wrong place to post your thread then.

On the contrary, this and others that either have no opinion or disagree with a 'shareholders spring' are the very places or venues that need to be picked out for debate. It's pointless preaching to the converted. In any other debate I would expect people to at least know of the boss of the insituite of directors!