Labour propose confiscating 10% uk equities - pension planning response?

zagfles

Moby wrote: »

It's both and rightly so! The state of services in this country are a national disgrace. Labour's plans to address these issues may not be popular on a money saving forum but they are getting more and more traction in the country at large!

So why do your previous posts pretend it's a diversion of profits from shareholders to workers? When you now admit it's a diversion from workers and companies to the state?

If it's so popular, call it for what it is! Instead of pretending it's something it isn't.

Paul_Herring

Moby wrote: »

To accept this is to believe that our biggest companies are run by such greedy and venal individuals, that they will do whatever is necessary – including restructuring their entire business model or re-locating major operations – just to keep every penny of their profits for executives and wealthy investors, rather than sharing a tiny proportion with their workers. ’

Or, alternatively, they could do it to keep the greedy and venal government's hands out of it's pockets.

And it won't be a "tiny proportion." We are already overtaxed as it is - this proposed scheme is taking it beyond the pale.

Malthusian

Moby wrote: »

Labour’s proposals are based on the principle that when a company does well and generates a profit and pays a dividend, it should share a tiny proportion with the workers responsible for its success. No normal person would object to this.

Lots of normal people object to Labour's proposals so either the vast majority of people have misunderstood Labour's proposals, or you have.

Let me guess, the answer is that it's everyone else who have misunderstood Labour's proposals because the Zionist-controlled media is brainwashing them.

Why not discuss the actual proposals instead of making up imaginary proposals in your own head and demand that everyone agree with them? The subject of the thread is Labour's proposals for share confiscation for the benefit of the state.

All companies which do well share some of the proportion of their output with the workers. So do those which do badly, for as long as they can find the money. It's called wages or salary.

_CC_

Moby wrote: »

To accept this is to believe that our biggest companies are run by such greedy and venal individuals, that they will do whatever is necessary – including restructuring their entire business model or re-locating major operations – just to keep every penny of their profits for executives and wealthy investors, rather than sharing a tiny proportion with their workers. This is quite an ironic position to be held by groups who frequently accuse the left of being ‘anti-business.’

The biggest companies are, or at least should be, run to serve the owners - i.e. the current share holders. This policy clearly isn't in the current shareholders interests.



It's nothing about being greedy.


And since when has 10% of the entire equity of a company been considered a 'tiny proportion'.


It's nothing more than a smash and grab dressed up in a popular 'for the workers' disguise, hence the £500 cap.

Triumph13

Moby wrote: »

To accept this is to believe that our biggest companies are run by such greedy and venal individuals, that they will do whatever is necessary – including restructuring their entire business model or re-locating major operations – just to keep every penny of their profits for executives and wealthy investors, rather than sharing a tiny proportion with their workers. This is quite an ironic position to be held by groups who frequently accuse the left of being ‘anti-business.’

To accept this is to believe that company directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders - including everyone's pension unless they are lucky enough to work in the public sector. It would be a clear breach of that fiduciary duty to stand idly by whilst someone stole 10% of those shareholders' wealth.
As almost everyone on here has said, we would have little problem with steps to increase the genuine sharing of profits with workers - and most company boards would go along with that happily enough because it generally improves productivity. That is not what labour is proposing by any stretch of the imagination.

System

What does "taking some of the equity" mean?
Companies don't own the equity, it is owned by shareholders, most of whom are unit trusts, insurance companies and pension funds.

Does this proposal mean all individuals and institutions would have to sign over a proportion of any shares they own? I don't see what the government could do with them. A minority shareholder (5% ?) has virtually no influence on the company, so what would be achieved?
The government would end up owning a vast unplanned portfolio of tiny shareholdings in a medly of companies of all sizes and in all sectors. How would they manage that, and for what purpose?

Paul_Herring

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

What does "taking some of the equity" mean?
Companies don't own the equity, it is owned by shareholders, most of whom are unit trusts, insurance companies and pension funds.

It means that the companies would have to retrieve (i.e. buy back) 10% of those shares back from shareholders, and effectively hand it to the government in return for up to £10/week going to each employee, and a pretension that the workers have a say in how the company is run.

Moby

zagfles wrote: »

So why do your previous posts pretend it's a diversion of profits from shareholders to workers? When you now admit it's a diversion from workers and companies to the state?

If it's so popular, call it for what it is! Instead of pretending it's something it isn't.

You choose to use the words 'pretend' and 'admit'. I said it was both.

michaels

I have a low income but live frugally and have saved money in a pension that has purchased shares in UK companies. Moby proposes taking 10% of those savings and using it to give more income to company employees who almost certainly earn more than me in the first place, redistribution from those on a low income who have chosen to save to provide for themselves later in life to those on higher income. Don't forget managing directors are also company employees so will no doubt also get their extra £500 per year from this harebrained scheme.

Just as their seems to be an inability to recognise that govt spending is not free money but money taken from taxpayers, so there seems to be some idea that companies are an entity who can hoard wealth. Companies 'wealth' actually accrues to their owners who are not necessarily fat cats but could be anyone, rich or poor, who has saved for the future rather than spending all their income.

OldMusicGuy

Moby wrote: »

They are not taking it for themselves. They would be a democratically elected Government. Worker voice in corporate governance structures is a pillar of business practice in almost every other country in Europe, so bringing the UK up to the level of Germany or Sweden is hardly controversial. Mandating a share of dividends to workers effectively redistributes from one set of shareholders (existing investors) to another (workers).

They are taking it to spend in any way they see fit. Which means it is a tax. If they called it that, fair enough.

This is nothing to do with "worker voice in corporate governance" (which I do not disagree with). This is not what they do in Sweden, Germany or any other country afaik. They are giving a small slice of a tax to workers, not enabling them to participate in the management of their company.