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

ColdIron

If Old Semtex McDonnell was serious about giving the workers £500 he could simply raise the Personal Allowance by £2,500

Sapphire

michaels wrote: »

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 would 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.

Quite. I'm in the same position as you, Michaels.

In passing, I wonder what their proposals for companies like John Lewis (who already have a form of profit sharing, minus theft by labour) would be?

DavidJonas

Shell has 92,000 staff. Its profits in 2017 were £8.5bn. 8500 million pounds. Which is £92,391 per worker. It used to do better. In 2006 it made more than £200,000 per worker.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/aug/27/ftse.observerbusiness

Back then British Gas made £445,200 per worker. Tesco only £7,000. Thowe figures arew out of date, but you get the idea. Successful firms can make a lot of profit per worker. Of course, unsuccessful firms can lose a lot of money per worker. Wouldn't like to think what a company like Tesla is losing per worker.


So, reduce Shells 2017 profits to 10% and what do you get?

Shells liability would be £9,231 per worker. £500 for the worker, £8731 for the State.

In 2006 the state would have extracted £44,520 from British Gas per worker, not forgetting to tip the worker £500 for his trouble of course.

These are pre-tax figures, but presumably the state wouldn't expect to pay tax on it's share. Or wouldn't care if it did.



Where does all this come from? The answer is Communism. The idea that profits are stolen from the aching hands of drone like workers is classic Karl Marx. This should alarm everyone who is more interested in the future than the class struggle.

Are we really to think that Corbyn and Chums would stop at 10%? Or would the glorious revolution find it more convenient to go for 15%. 25%. 50%. Gracious, these proposals are wild enough as it is. But they have no doubt been watered down for public consumption. If this is what Labour proposes when out of power - while hoping to win an election - what could we expect if they got in?

Profits reflect a return on capital and labour. They are the investors reward - and punishment - for risk taking. What risks does the state take, exactly? Or the workers? Will they make good the companys losses? Will they resign if their board reps make bad decisions? Or will they simply be invisible in bad years and show up to feast in the good?

Why not just bump up corporation tax by 10% and sweeten in-work benefits to the tune of £500?

zagfles

Sapphire wrote: »

Quite. I'm in the same position as you, Michaels.

In passing, I wonder what their proposals for companies like John Lewis (who already have a form of profit sharing, minus theft by labour) would be?

The state would take most of it, as above.

mgdavid

Moby wrote: »

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

I know logic might not be your strong point but it cannot be 'both'.
Fail.

AnotherJoe

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!

You've confused addressing the state of services with an unrelated topic, theft* from a section of the public, especially those with pensions. . Most likely, ironically from those not well paid or invested enough to have got out of the U.K. economy, indeed those who show most faith in the U.K. will be punished the most harshly. No good deed etc.

* and theft from only those british companies that cannot swiftly move to be domiciled elsewhere.

JoeEngland

DavidJonas wrote: »

Shell has 92,000 staff. Its profits in 2017 were £8.5bn. 8500 million pounds. Which is £92,391 per worker. It used to do better. In 2006 it made more than £200,000 per worker.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2006/aug/27/ftse.observerbusiness

Back then British Gas made £445,200 per worker. Tesco only £7,000. Thowe figures arew out of date, but you get the idea. Successful firms can make a lot of profit per worker. Of course, unsuccessful firms can lose a lot of money per worker. Wouldn't like to think what a company like Tesla is losing per worker.


So, reduce Shells 2017 profits to 10% and what do you get?

Shells liability would be £9,231 per worker. £500 for the worker, £8731 for the State.

In 2006 the state would have extracted £44,520 from British Gas per worker, not forgetting to tip the worker £500 for his trouble of course.

These are pre-tax figures, but presumably the state wouldn't expect to pay tax on it's share. Or wouldn't care if it did.



Where does all this come from? The answer is Communism. The idea that profits are stolen from the aching hands of drone like workers is classic Karl Marx. This should alarm everyone who is more interested in the future than the class struggle.

Are we really to think that Corbyn and Chums would stop at 10%? Or would the glorious revolution find it more convenient to go for 15%. 25%. 50%. Gracious, these proposals are wild enough as it is. But they have no doubt been watered down for public consumption. If this is what Labour proposes when out of power - while hoping to win an election - what could we expect if they got in?

Profits reflect a return on capital and labour. They are the investors reward - and punishment - for risk taking. What risks does the state take, exactly? Or the workers? Will they make good the companys losses? Will they resign if their board reps make bad decisions? Or will they simply be invisible in bad years and show up to feast in the good?

Why not just bump up corporation tax by 10% and sweeten in-work benefits to the tune of £500?

Where do you get a reduction in profits by 90% from?

Paul_Herring

JoeEngland wrote: »

Where do you get a reduction in profits by 90% from?

I think the point was the remaining 10% is what is shared (unequally) between the workers and the would-be Labour government; I don't think the implication was that the profits as a whole would be reduced to 10%.

Moby

mgdavid wrote: »

I know logic might not be your strong point but it cannot be 'both'.
Fail.

Of course it can. The worker gets some and so does the Govmt to pay for the services we all need and use and which are in a complete mess!

DairyQueen

This proposal looks like a first step to nationalise every UK company masquerading as a populist response to fat cat elites. Why would JC and his Marxist cronies stop at 10%?

Private ownership of the means of production = capitalism.
State ownership of ditto = communism.

If it looks like a duck, waddles and quacks....?
Or am I missing something?