Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
1% of £3 million a year is £30.000. That would be a fair wage for most of us!
These chief executives cannot be allowed to continue milking our economy dry.
The Government must surely see this!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
its legal (or some of it)
but this cobbled together govt encourages it
whilst others try to find a way to be able to eat
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, is it legal?
It seems quite obvious that 700.000 public sector workers are being laid off because there isn't money there to pay them, while in the private sector, many have seen their wages decrease, or have also been laid off, or are about to be, while these characters are still giving themselves wage increases - way beyond the inflation rate - and ever bigger bonuses, with money that IS NOT THEIRS.
It is stealing!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander,
in a fashion yes it is legal
but as you have stated in your post, are they on the high moral ground?
i suggest they are not.
many wage increases at the top are obscene
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, they have detracted the money from the share company dividends beyond any reasonable measure. The dividends are supposed to be paid to the share holders,
It is not the money of the chief executives to appropriate it as they feel fit.
These executives are employed people, they are not the private owners of the share companies. If they too are share-holders in the same company, this does not attribute them the right to detract from the dividends of the share-holders in general to their own exclusive advantage.
What their pay should be, and what it became, are two different things. Their pay has been established on their own authority, through self-serving, and it should be up to the courts to decide if they have practically been stealing money under the guise of a legitimate pay-rise or bonus.
We must not give in to their greed and self-serving attitude.
There has to be a wealth redistribution, and these people must pay up!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
your talking like a socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just to be fair and even minded, the bosses try to justify these increses as they had gone through shareholders.
of course many don't even have share holders just get the rises anyway
it is obscene in many cases in todays climate
and i welcome you alexander to the socialist cause lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
A commoner, Keith!
The House of Commons needs Levellers. We need the original Commonwealth as once envisaged by common English people in the 16th and 17th centuries. We never achieved it, because at the end the rich aristocrats always prevailed.
In the 16 hundreds England should have abolished slavery in the Caribbean islands, but instead, people were being deported from the British Isles to the plantations there, which were run by wealthy English landowners.
This flaw in England's Justice system led to the wealthy becoming rich through unjust means, at the cost of Society and of Justice; it resulted in the horrors of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, when rich factory owners made people work 14 hours a day 6 days a week, and 5 year-old children were sent down in the coal mines.
Always remember, Keith, that commoners are not wealthy, and shun unjust means of gathering wealth. A commoner will never aspire at becoming financially rich, and must never renege the ideals of a true Commonwealth.
The rich chief executives represent the exact opposite of "Commonwealth".
They siphon off the revenues of the company (company = common) and that which should go to the share-holders they take for themselves.
They are not bound by any share-holder opinion when establishing their wages and bonuses. These are the same people who used to own plantations in the Caribbean and run coal mines in 19th century Britain.
I've always been a Socialist, Keith.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Rail Fares are going up by a lot and the Rail Chiefs are being awarded ....Big Bonuses....................
salt in the wounds ?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Asil Nadir is just one among thousands who have had and still have their fingers in the till..............
we really must get a grip on the `unacceptable`rich and wealthy but it costs a fortune in legal costs.
We need laws to `control` their `wayward behaviour`and we can start by sorting out our taxation
system...............
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander;
always a socialist??????? well iv been baffled by many of your posts but that realy has to take the -biscuit(excuse the pun)
you have alexander jumped ship across the political divide
tory, ukip, lib dems etc etc cozy to them all
reg;
rail fares to go up on fares that are already far to high
directors of rail companies continue to get big bonus's even though poor services
provided.
its time to move towards a more integrated rail system if wwe believe in a public service.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith:
I only do what I'm told! After all I learn as I go along.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
another baffling comment
your a socalist?
you do as your told(by who????)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, I do not believe in any political party, political parties don't interest me, and I'm a free man with the right to express my views!
I don't believe in tribal politics.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're probably not alone there alex, the tribal stuff is old hat with many people switching their allegiances or not having any at all.
always used to be a class divide when people voted but the issue of class is now blurred plus we now have an underclass who don't vote at all.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Very true Howard.
My upbringing would suggest I'd have seen the red-light, being born and brought up in a council house; Mum and Dad both Labour supporters early on, but then I grew up and saw what Labour were really about and then became a Conservative supporter.
Working-class votes for Labour is a myth, it' all about having a social conscience, financial management and ability and common sense - and in my view, the Conservatives win on all three; especially locally.
But I don't expect many on here would agree with that, but as we are all entitled to our view, that's mine.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, when the Coalition came in in 2010, they had a Localism programme and so did I, and I hope Gov. makes the right decisions for the future.
As for socialism, probably the vast majority interpret this as an inversion of the big-time capitalism that allows people to get stink rich while others go without, and in my view, the New Labour of T. Blair was the most capitalist (in every negative sense of the word) government that ever struck the British Isles.
Socialism and T. Blair are two opposite poles, two completely different worlds.
A free and fair society doesn't mind wealthy people, if they're being wealthy doesn't mean grabbing all the pies.
I'm still waiting for Gov.UK to realise that the stink-rich in Britain need addressing, they can't carry on privately owning half of Britain's financial wealth, while still skimming the economy on a daily basis.
I wish the Government were to get really hard on this, introducing measures for the benefit of the common people.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
had to smile at your last paragraph alex, the likes of dave and george will always look after their own.
if either should see common people close by they would call the police.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/banks-stimulus-plan-has-lined-pockets-of-the-rich-8076938.htmlGuest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
From Howard's link:
"The ONS also estimated that the richest 10 per cent of households held £569bn in financial assets at that time, as against the poorest 10 per cent, who, in contrast, owed around £9bn"
Note the third to last word: owed, not owned!
So if £9bn were taken from the £569 bn of the stink-rich, that would suffice to cancel the debt of the poorest in Britain.
The extreme wealthy would still "own" £560 bn!
However, the article explains how the richest people have massively benefited from Quantitative Easing, about 240 times more than the poorest.
Surely this is all wrong!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
of course its all wrong,rich,poor and the in be tweeners.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
of course roger is wrong
but like he says we are entitled to a view.
alexander; you have made many comments and even joined political parties
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
