Should the rich be squeezed more?

marklv

CLAPTON wrote: »

OK so the top 1% of earners get over about 150,000 (I can't find the exact figure but that will do)

People on over £150k a year are more like the top 0.5% of earners.

CLAPTON wrote: »

so if they were paid less or taxed higher lets see who would flood out of the country

-execs of most building societies
-ceo of many local authorities
-execs of water companies, gas utilities, electricity utilities
-lots and lots of bankers
-head of most housing trusts
-execs of most hospital amnd primary care trusts
-some doctors
-government ministers
-execs of huge numbers of quangos
-execs of the BBC
-top dogs at ofsted

-obviously all those hedge funds managers

the issue, which I accept is very difficult to solve, is that of executive pay and how its determined and whether there is a ready source of supply if the existing execs all walked out. There is a growing disconnect between the pay of top people and their value.

most of the execs of our major companies are not really entreprenteurs but career managers who rise to the top of the pile... many may well be clever and bright but there is loads waiting in the wings

genuine enterpenteurs are a different matter

What makes you think that all these people would 'flood out'? Where would they all go? If they wanted to go I would let them, but I would make life so difficult for them that they would have to think very carefully about it. As you rightly say, many high earners are people at the top of the managerial ladder and they can easily be replaced by capable people currently beneath them.

Kohoutek

Why do you think confiscatory taxation and throwing expatriates in prison will help our economy? These ideas are ridiculous. What about making the UK a more attractive place to do business, not a less attractive one, and reducing the government's share of GDP to a sensible figure, i.e. not 50%.

Saving

marklv wrote: »

Good riddens to them.

Yeah good riddens.

Whatever that means.

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

Why do you think confiscatory taxation and throwing expatriates in prison will help our economy? These ideas are ridiculous. What about making the UK a more attractive place to do business, not a less attractive one, and reducing the government's share of GDP to a sensible figure, i.e. not 50%.

I have already said that I would greatly reduce corporation tax - that would help businesses. My argument is simply that the very better off should pay more.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

What if your house was burgled by violent chavs one evening, and you dialled 999? What if the police didn't arrive until 40 minutes later because they were too busy with other incidents due to staff shortages and you got beaten up very badly? What if your wife and children were raped by these lowlifes? What then? Would you still support cuts in the public sector?

And you refer to my posts as alarmist.

Don't police spend something like 40% of their time on paperwork? That is the kind of rubbish that needs to be cut, perhaps not all, but please, they are police, they are supposed to be policing, not filling out forms.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I would introduce legislation to make all this very difficult. It can be done, quite easily.

Legislation to stop someone moving overseas to work?

Legislation to stop a company moving it's head office out of the UK?

That will really encourage future business and growth.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I have already said that I would greatly reduce corporation tax - that would help businesses. My argument is simply that the very better off should pay more.

And how would a "great reduction in corporation tax" be paid for? Do you even know the amount collected from corporations vs the top 1% of individuals. You would probably have to tax @ 100% for the top 1% if you wanted to use it to pay for a few % point reduction in corporation tax.

My argument is simply that 40% is enough. Yes close the loopholes, but 40% is enough. Nobody can prove either way, but imo, many would leave if the tax rate gets much past that.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

I would cut corporation tax to balance the higher income tax. This would ensure that businesses invest in creating jobs and not pay out to fat cat executives.

no it wouldn't it would mean that businesses would pay out higher dividends to its fat cat share-holding executives.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

Until Nigel Lawson came up with his catastrophic 'give away' budget the top rate of income tax was 60%. I am suggesting we restore that at a £150k level , and lower the 50% income tax threshold to c.£85k a year.

the catastrophic giveaway budget you are referring to was the 1988 budget.

here are some income tax receipt stats (£ millions):

1978-79 18,748
1979-80 20,599
1980-81 24,295
1981-82 28,720
1982-83 30,361
1983-84 31,108
1984-85 32,507
1985-86 35,353
1986-87 38,499
1987-88 41,402
1988-89 43,433
1989-90 48,801
1990-91 55,287
so, the "giveaway" budget you refer to actually increased tax receipts (basic rate reduced from 27 to 25 in the same budget). not really a catastrophe, was it.

punitive taxation would just result in remuneration being remodelled to take the most tax-efficient route. the losers would just be highly paid people in the public sector whose remuneration structure is controlled by the government.

the politics of envy is rarely practical.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

a great number of the rich are not entrpreneurs but people who simply manage businesses

they are on a merry go round, where a lot of non-execs who make up the remuneration committee are themselves the execs of other companies who's remuneration is set by a lot on non-execs who are execs on other companies whose remuneration is set up non-execs who.........

it would be most interesting to see breakdown of top pay and see the number of genuine entrepreneurs who have built up a business from scratch and the career managers like fred the shred, rover gang of 4, the pair who destroyed GEC/Marcony etc etc.

Sadly the fact that they are well paid doesn't of itself mean they are worth it.
It appears that the average board pay is now 80 times average salary whilst it was 'only' 40 times ten yers ago.

Does that mean they are really worth that doubling?

Lets leave enterpreneurs to benefit from their labours but the remuneration of many/most directors is another matter.

I can start with

Richard Branson
Alan Sugar
John Madejski
Duncan Ballantyne (Dragons Den)
James Dyson

For the record Fred the Shred's father was an electrician, and he was the first of his family to even go to University.

Don't mix politics and jealousy.

At least in Britain those who give everything to a career or business can reap the benefits.