Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
If you spread the wealth amongst the population the tax take doesnt drop or shouldnt drop. The few higher earners pay higher levels of tax ..yes sure, but this would be easily compensated for if you spread the wealth amongst the other employees in the same company.. more people having more money and therefore more people taxed accordingly...so the tax take doesnt drop..so the same level of funding will be there for schools hospitals etc.
Thats my take on fairness.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB - That is an incredibly naive and simplistic view that does not reflect what would happen in reality.
Do that and you will shrink the total pot quite dramatically. You would instantly remove aspiration from the equation, it would not be worth taking risks, working hard or expanding a business. Not only that how would you realise the assets that would need to be sold? Who would buy them? Glut the market and the price drops. Your premise is simply absurd.
Secondly even if that were possible (it is not) within 12 months you will be back where you started. There will again be rich and poor and almost certainly it will be broadly speaking the same now who are rich and the same who are poor. But, yes it will all be relative, as the total 'pot' of wealth will be a lot smaller so the poor will be poorer than now.
If you want proper fairness then forget the socialist idea of fairness. Focus fairness on creating opportunity for people to improve their own lives by their own efforts and for that you need a booming and prosperous economy. To do that you need lower and simpler taxes, less red tape and rules, a lower state burden overall and a system that provides a basic temporary safety net for when people 'fall out of bed' to help them pick themselves up - not as now a state benefit system that locks them into the poverty of benefits.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Im not talking about total socialism but I suppose perhaps a more socialst leaning view. I realise that bosses would still have high wages and thats understandable, but less high. It is almost universally accepted now that there is something wrong with the current system which sees these excesses going to a few... while some workers in the same organisation doing the same hours cant keep their homes warm and are literally freezing.
Even Tory leading lights, not normally given to such awareness of the these excesses, are realising now that things need to change...you need look no further than Mr Cameron himself who agrees the excesses of the few are unacceptable.
A curtailment is easily accomplished by allowing shareholders and fellow employees/workers onto boards everywhere. This will curtail the rampant often undeserving pay to a more acceptable level and lead to greater democracy within business, and greater fairness. The wealth of the more successful companies should be spread more evenly amongst the staff generally..if they the employees have more money they will create more jobs, more well being throughout, by spending it on the things that they now cant buy. After all if everyone can buy a toaster thats good news, if only one man can buy a toaster thats bad news!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Board members are usually shareholders as well PaulB now. That said shareholders as owners of companies should have more say over pay I agree. I do not agree about Boards being forced to have employees on them (or quotas of any other group either) but if they choose to do so then fine.
Try to clamp down on high pay through taxation or legislation however then you will seriously damage the economy. Better to build growth and a bigger economic pot from which the State can take a small share to pay for essential services rather than damage the economy leaving a smaller pot with a bigger share going to government just to spend the same amount. The latter would create an ever declining economic spiral - something we have now.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I don't pretend to have BarryW's, level of knowledge when it comes to business but if you shorten the gap, then the lower end would have more money to spend, boosting economy.
Yes that is simplistic but I believe it to be true.
I also believe he simply cannot see further than business (politics) or does not want to see any further.
Anyone that helps business to avoid paying tax (which I know is a litigable occupation) but condemns people on JSA proves to me right.
BarryW.
Are you really saying that your way of thought is giving aspirations to our young un-employed?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Governments and politicians in general are, for a whole host of reasons, responsible for;
-the lack of jobs
-the number of people on benefits
-the ill-education of the young and their perceived un-employability
-the 'sound' and the 'unsound' economy of the country
The main reason why they are responsible is that politicians are the only group we as an electorate can affect.
Not that an electorate at present can hope to do more that bring about a reshuffle in the House of Commons. As the 'deck' remains the same.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - I want higher salaries and many fewer unemployed, whether the young or older. It is in all our interests to get that. What we have a disagreement over method.
I suggest and this can be confirmed by analysis of what has actually happened as well as from common sense, that the best and indeed only way to gaining more wealth is by making the economy more successful and competitive.
That has to come from boosting business by encouraging growth. This can come by reducing the burden businesses carry by way of tax and costs, the red tape imposed on them is a huge extra and unproductive cost. Some is necessaries, I agree but a lot of it, far too much, is gold plating waste of time and resources. In addition businesses need investment and this can come in a number of ways, debentures and other loan stock or from sale of equity ownership (shares), not to mention borrowing from banks. Owners of businesses also need to be encouraged to take risks with their own money in order to build their businesses and invest. People also need incentives to invest, work harder and take risks. High taxes, particularly on those who potentially have the greatest capacity to risk their money, the higher earners', are counter productive to generating growth. In addition higher earners are more mobile and have more choice about what they do and if you hit them with high taxes HMRC can result in a lot less revenue and we have seen this time and time again.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Sky News has just released some shocking figures:
Millions of people in Britain are on payday loans, the number has increased fourfold in one year.
The interest rate is 37% a month (not a year)!
With some banks, to overdraw can actually mean repaying at an annual interest rate of 1000%.
The number of people saying they have financial worries has gone up by 50% from 3 months ago.
There is no legal cap on interest rates that can be charged in the UK.
Many are "zombi debtors", who repay the interest on their loan without managing to reduce the original credit, and so they just keep on paying, as the interest goes on month after month from new.
Many of these must surely be working people with a job.
Barry, you are far too one-sided in your ideals, you don't see the harsh and worsening reality that is leading this Country into social failure.
Without a very strong social programme of wealth-redistribution, no future government will succeed in Britain.
If enough people get together, there might just one day be a general strike till the bitter end, with only the essential services working, especially now that the top brass in government have promised us all 13 years of misery.
It's time to change, the governing lot are just a cynical bunch full-stop.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
I only read your first paragraph, I expect the rest is just the same old blah you keep spinning me and you don't read my posts properly so I don't feel I am disrespecting you.
The first paragraph says it all for me anyway.
"I suggest and this can be confirmed by analysis of what has actually happened as well as from common sense, that the best and indeed only way to gaining more wealth is by making the economy more successful and competitive".
This might come as a shock to you BarryW but not everyone wants to be wealthy.
Many thousands of people simply want a job with a decent wage and to be able to feed, heat and have a bit of a social life with their families.
I do feel sorry for you, if you think most people are envious of you.

"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - That is exactly what I am saying. Your way to that is the way to more unemployment, ignoring the needs of businesses on which we all depend for jobs and security. Yes even retired people and the public sector ultimately depend on businesses.
You really hate reading things that disturb your cosy view of the world.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander. Pay day loans are madness and I certainly do not approve of them, the APR is a lot more than 1000% on most. But, to be fair, they are not meant to be repaid after a years but in less than a week so the actual charge paid is small. Think for a moment, borrow say £100 (most of these are small amounts) and with more 'reasonable APR of 50% (sic) you would, after a week, be repaying about 60p interest and that would not be enough to cover the admin. That is why the APRs are so large, a small fee of £10 on a £100 loan repaid after a week, if extended to a whole year with compound interest it would be £14200 to repay. People should avoid these like the plague even if the fee is small for a week it is disproportionate.
Alexander - I have said before, your way would see the economy shrink creating more unemployment and more poverty. Redistribution policies beyond a particular point becomes self-defeating and right now in the UK we are well beyond that point. Time after time we have seen such policies in action and there is a massive gap between intention and what actually happens, every Labour government we have had has driven the economy into crisis in this way.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Wrong again BarryW.
I have stated time and time again the importance of bussiness, it is you that chooses to be selective with what you read.
What I hate is your view, to only see the needs of bussiness and your inability to see the needs of others.
If you think I have a cosy view of the world, then I do have to start to questioning your sanity

"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - The needs of business are to take care of the needs of others... That is exactly my point. Everyone from, pensioners to the unemployed ultimately depend on business as the source of their wealth.... by the way, wealth does not necessary mean riches as such, but the wealth that caters even just for our basic needs.
All I see you do is advocate the kind of policies that damage businesses and therefore ultimately damages everyone, employed/unemployed.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Ok Baz you win, yet another pointless thread.

"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You and I are on totally different and opposite wavelengths Gary - you certainly do not understand me and it seems do not want to and I certainly do not understand you.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i doubt whether barry and gary will ever see eye to eye, would be very dull if we all agreed on everything.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No doubt, Barry, no-one would ask for a payday loan if they could avoid it. One may assume that millions of people in Britain are so desperate that they feel they have to go for such a loan, having no other alternative.
It's legalised extortion, and it seems that the banks are not lending money that easily, so-by pushing people into the jaws of the loan-sharks.
The interest rate on a £100 30 day loan would be 50p a month if the interest rate were based on annual inflation.
That would be about right.
To charge £38 is taking advantage of people's despair in a shameless manner.
But you missed my point again. This kind of legalised extortion has dramatically increased over the past year by 300%. The alarm bells should be ringing.
The Government's economic policies are alright for tin soldiers on a showroom battlefield, not for a human society!
They are leading the Country down the drain. Can't see Dave and Osborne and those other jokers at the top lasting long before they are asked politely to step down before people have had enough.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Surely the more jobs that businesses can create, the more people will be employed and so then there'll be more disposable income that they will have, this then leads to more spending and more growth for businesses as more people are buying things.
The problem (as I see it) is that the more unemployed people we have, the less growth we'll have and so less spending will be done, so businesses will contract and more people will become unemployed and so the cycle goes downwards.
To encourage growth in business, which means taking on more people and creating employment, there has to be a better reason for people to want to work as the benefits system is now greater than a safety net, so as I mentioned a few weeks ago, I still can't see why raising the minimum pay to say £10.00 per hour, more people will want to work and increase their pay/income over their benefit payments and the companies would get paid for the increase in their wage bill - the Government would pay out the same amount of money, but this time, to employers.
There would need to be tax-breaks and other incentives (business-rate reductions, cheap loans etc. ?) to encourage businesses to expand and grow, but it will have to start somewhere.
Too many people are being made unemployed (Barratts are the latest to shed over 4,000 people); this in turn, means that they'll have less money and so will the government - in less tax income and greater benefits payments.
What am I missing ?
Roger
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
It is no surprise to see that this thread has divided broadly upon party political lines, one side promoting big business and the other more money for the 'workers'. Again it is no surprise to see the old myths about benefits being rattled out, based, it would seem, on the tabloids horror stories of families raking it in rather than the reality for the majority on benefits of scraping through from one payment to the next.
Some things to remember on benefits are; they are taxed with payment expected as soon as a claimant starts work, they do not pay for "everything" as too many appear to believe but rather provide only a basic amount that has to be spread on fuel bills, utility bills, food and clothing and any emergency payments are deducted from the regular payments. For most claimants it is a continuous struggle to stretch them from one fortnightly payment to the next.
Jobs are scarce and yet the government help schemes, such as the old Jobclubs, offer no help for those who wish to start their own small business as the system prefers to see results in terms of people being taken on by established companies. While companies can get payments for taking on unemployed and so-called training providers get assistance for employing unemployed people the unemployed person is discouraged from taking it into their own hands and creating a job for themselves.
In a modern economy diversity is needed in order to create opportunities for employment and for the creation of an environment that will attract investment. The most visible example is the demise of the 'high street', a grouping of a few "big name" stores may attract the weekly shoppers but it does little for visitors who want to be able to browse through a variety of shops and look for products other than the cheapest tin of beans or the latest Richard and Judy book choice.
Without the small businesses all you get is creeping stagnation as the bigger firms will continue to modify whatever they produce, a new computer game or a better pair of shoes are still just extensions of what we already have. Had this been the case in the past, with huge companies breeding horses and building carriages we might now have very sleek horses and beautifully sprung and aerodynamic carriages but it would still be horses and carts, not motor cars.
A balance needs to be sought between keeping larger employers viable and functioning, encouraging new smaller businesses and providing jobs for all those who just want enough cash to pay their bills and enjoy a social life. A balance needs to be found, not along political lines but along practical paths that cater more for peoples varying aspirations than idealogical fancies.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
A higher minimum wage will create more unemployment and many of those employed on a min wage will see hours reduced. Businesses will contract as well. That is no answer. A progressive reduction in benefits would help, say by increases set at half the inflation rate each year would be a start. I would only exclude long term incapacity benefit though they really should make sure that only those genuinely disabled get it.