Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Dec 27, 2018.
Penalising the prudent dead. How wicked!
How do you think government could go about controlling what business owners pay their employees?
It's average pay. Everyone earning more than that could pay more tax to reduce inequality.
Have you done the maths. Shifting £175 billion in tax as a wealth tax could be onerous. How much would somebody owning a £250,000 property have to pay in addition to income and council tax? £8,000?
It does everybody good to be forced to re-evaluate and defend their opinions, and to be open to having that opinion changed. As for the status quo, the status quo is 320,000 people using foodbanks and the chief executive of Bet365 paying herself a salary of £268 million. I believe this to be indefensible, and I'm open to how the system should be changed, and how radically, but change it must.
I too miss the old Opinion, and the mix of truly "personal" threads about relationship break-ups, adoption and kittens sits uneasily with the political threads, but that apparently is what the TES people wanted, so hey.
About that, yes, but I would envisage that income tax would fall. At present government income comes from income and sales taxes. I would like the overall tax take to stay roughly the same from income and wealth (Property) taxes combined, while sales taxes are abolished - result: lower prices of goods and boosting economy.
How would you propose to stop her, as company owner, paying herself that salary. She would have paid around £134 million in income tax. Is that not a reasonable tax contribution?
If the rcihest 50% are paying more in wealth tax than they previously paid in VAT they have less disposable income to spend on those goods.
You mean taxing assets? Well that would require different accounting systems for businesses as well as tax regime surely and any property income is taxed already so would that make any difference but to perhaps take assets away from business or people? How long do you expect they will stay here with that plan in place, we already have non domiciles who can stay only 90 days pa but are happy to do so to avoid our tax system. Perhaps a policy of only UK citizens owning property would be a better idea.
I think part of the issue is how we talk about capitalism. It is spoken of as if it is some sort of entity or belief system whereas it is more a rag-tag collection of selfish business behaviours that are dictated entirely by the individuals concerned.
So I can start a business and pay people as little as I can get away with under the defence of that's the way capitalism works, whereas actually it's because I want to get as much as I can by getting other people to earn the money for me and preventing them from partaking in the rewards by as great a margin as possible. It's the way I (or whoever) and other businesses work until society and government force me and other businesses to stop taking advantage of other people because I can.
It's all fantasy money and do you have evidence that she pays 50% in tax on that £268M? The super rich tend to be able to avoid the levels of tax that ordinary people pay. Even if it was true, £134M is an obscene amount of money for a single person to get in a single year, the equivalent of 4,785 peoples wages on the £28,000 wage you are fond of quoting - before they have paid tax on it.
The system is flawed to allow someone to get that amount of money, she is sucking it out of the system, away from the people who actually do the work and generate it.
There was a similar destructive event, the crash of 2007-8, except this time the rich had in place the means to actually profit from it while the masses, including you and me, all paid and continue to pay the price.
Regulation of businesses and building wealth is not something that happens once and is fixed, it changes with time and with society and circumstances, we are well overdue for some fundamental changes.
We could tax some resources. If you need lithium you get taxed on any you import. If you need aluminium you get taxed on any you import. If you need labour you get taxed on any you import.
Somehow I don't think a 6% drop in GDP is comparable to two global conflicts slaughtering 80 million and an economic donwturn that wiped out 25% of global wealth.
It should have been an event that helped to level the playing field, except it increased the tilt. Quantitative easing gave the super rich loads more dosh, austerity helps to make things harder for the majority and easier for the minority.
Maybe that's fair enough though and it's capitalism working as it should. I am sure there are those who consider any alternative view to be the "politics of envy"
Speak clear, as what you stated is neither true or makes sense!Then again you might think it is something you score brownie points om by saterising a view.
It closed, I beleieve, because folks with opinions fell out with each other.Instead of stating a view or arguement they took it a step further and turned it nasty...just like folks on here who label groups of individuals as idiots, lazy, racist and a variety of other term.....or to the point of almost libel or slander in some named folks.
If it's salary, it is subject to PAYE and NI.
That's because it is often not a salary, capital gain for instance.
If is she shared equally with her employees, they would get £62,000 each. Mostly they are overheads reather than revenue generators.
The sort of attitude that is at the heart of the problem.
Coates was paid a base salary of £220,004,000 in the year to March 2018, accounts filed at Companies House on Wednesday reveal. On top of this, she collected dividend payments of £45m from her more than 50% shareholding in the Stoke-based company.
It is an obscene amount. Coincidentally the second largest annual income ever awarded was by the same woman to herself the year before, £217M. I wonder how much of that came from problem gamblers whose addiction is being taken advantage of?
So, as I said, she did pay 50% tax plus EmpNI on the salary.
Not coincidence,. As she owns more that 50% of the company it is hardly surprising she receives such a huge share of the companies revenues.
And pays a lot of personal tax.
Well on topic with the thread title.
Capitalism and socialism are mere terms used to portray whatever view they wish to fight or uphold.
One one level capitalism is bad if it produces what folks describe as gross amounts of money. but okay if it keeps taxes down and provides you with a choice of whatever you wish to spend our wages on.
Socialism promises financial gain for all based upon a caring, sharing society, which in reality has never existed, or will exist, unless it's found in some tribal or socio-economic groups living and sharing as a group. It postulates a society in which the worker is given a fair reward for his labour(whatever the fair reward is deemed as appropriate). It deals with the distribution of that wealth and ensuring that the worker is as equal as the owner in that needs are met and sources of wealth are used 'fairly'
Reality? It has never been so despite the theory. The nearest example of such attempts would have been the forced change of some communist/socialist regimes. Even there it failed spectacularly and only the allowance of capitalist chances brought about change and profitability and industrial productivity to make wealth( noticing in passing that the leaders of such regimes didn't take on the ideals and demanded they get a bigger share than those forced to be equal!) In an ideal world the worker and the owner of the means of production would care for each other, the reality is to often wealth is seen as a sign of success . The richer you are the more successful you are. They become the figurehead other seek to emulate. Children want to be footballers because of the wonderful wages and fame those players get. Undertaking a more lawful, but important job on fewer wage rewards, is not seen as good . If you want our society has been blinded by the advertising. Goods are sold as success symbols and jobs on the basis of fame= success.
It's not that we should not care or do not care, There are many charities and organizations existing that show that caring does exist. The fact that some wealth is distributed to members of our society shows governments do care, or at least have to show care, That the amount they give may not be enough is arguable but there is something...and pre 1900 did not really exist in the UK unless administered by a society or charity. Before the introduction, you were indeed abused and abandoned when you were of no further use.
In the case where CEO and th like are given huge financial terms her the point is that shareholders should refuse and such terms and firms not allowed to offer such things, We have folks failing in their jobs yet still walking away with large golden handshakes. Or earning a huge bonus for failing a company or not completing jobs.
Having said that are these exceptions rather than the rule...a good leader can make or break a company! Yet I find it somehow wrong when fortunes can be made by leaders of charities when such monies should be going towards meeting the charity's needs rather than the pocket of some CEO or MD
To be clear, in Bet365 the shareholders are Denise, Peter and John Coates. It is a family business albeit a rather large one as measured by revenue.
1/3rd of company profits to herself as salary - salary, not dividends.
Did the rest of her employees get a commensurate salary? I'm going with no.
Did you miss the bit where her vast income is in part based on milking people's addictions? The worst kind of capitalism, but hey ho, the same old playground taunt - "You're just jealous", nope, she is part of the problem and so are you in condoning it.
Salaries are a cost and not taken from profits.
I've always said it was neary all salary rather than dividends, so no need to point it out to me,
That is also the reason she paid a huge amount of income tax and the company paid NI.
Reading the accounts might help.
The nature of the business is a separate issue from whether business owners, who are working directors, should be able to take a large salary uncontrolled by the state.