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

Malthusian

AndyAdams wrote: »

Surely if any company is near the 250 threshold there is a disincentive to recruit more PAYE staff, won't it stifle free enterprise and growth?

I think the policy throws up more questions than answers.

That particular question throws up one answer, which is "Yes. That's the point."

Paul_Herring

AndyAdams wrote: »

I think the policy throws up more questions than answers.

You make this sound like an unusual occurrence where political pronouncements (especially those made off the hoof[1]) are concerned - it's not


[1] Corbyn wiping out student debts, Clegg not increasing student fees, Tories balancing the books by 2017...

NewShadow

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Hmm. I got this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/23/labour-private-sector-employee-ownership-plan-john-mcdonnell

Nothing there about 'shares' - simply 'ownership,' and the possibility of smaller companies (who are less likely to have shares) doing this voluntarily..

Hence my paranoia...

Completely get where you're coming from and say again it will have to wait for the wording of the specific piece of legislation but - I think it's fair to say - it won't be 'ownership' rather than an entitlement to a portion of the profit. The challenge will be accurately valuing private companies

Unless we think labour would intend to make the workers liable for the losses as well as the gains?

The speech in full is here: https://youtu.be/G0uQuEqgPLI

Skip the rhetoric by jumping to 9:30

...we will legislate for large companies to transfer shares into an inclusive ownership fund. The shares will be held and managed collectively by the workers. The shareholders will give the workers the same rights as other shareholders to have a say over the direction of their company.

The 'ownership' bit seems to be about the company boards being required to hold a third of the seats for workers representatives - which I'd be fine with, if we had assurance that they were for actual workers - not union side reps...

Either way, I can see accountants working out ways to limit eligible dividend payments already. Off the top of my head I'm thinking the shares could count as two classes - given one set can be traded and the other can't - meaning something with buy-backs combined with stock splits to maintain the value might work.

ETA:

Found this:

Many privately owned companies do not routinely pay dividends, and the shadow chancellor’s team admitted these groups could not be forced to do so. This could incentivise public companies to delist from the London Stock Exchange.

Labour has also admitted that foreign owned companies would also be exempted from its policy.

https://www.ft.com/content/4cad1c50-bf59-11e8-8d55-54197280d3f7

kangoora

Silvertabby wrote: »

I worked in the canteen (I'm female). Prior to my expulsion, I racked up two official warnings from the union rep - one for going to the loo in my lunchbreak (union says - you go the the loo in bosses time, not workers time) and the other for NOT taking 2 days a month paid sick leave (the fact that I hadn't been ill was not an excuse). The final straw came when I refused to strike in support of a guy who had been sacked for stealing enough Leyland Motors tools and equipment to start a small factory.

I do remember getting a refund of my pension contributions - that £80 came in very handy for the suitcase and new clothes I wanted to take with me when I joined the WRAF.

Still happens today, my sister was in hospital a couple of years ago and overheard 3 nurses all planning to take their 'sick leave entitlement' in November/early December to do their Xmas shopping because they hadn't been sick all year........

I suppose we should be thankful they had the decency to arrange their 'sickness' so they didn't clash with each other and leave the ward even shorter staffed

letspretendforaminute

@andyadams; my ex wife runs the UK operation of a medium sized company that is 2 years into a 5 year turnaround with eventual plans to list on the LSE with an anticipated market capital of £1billion+ they also have four factory's, two based in the UK and two in Poland and a central headcount of ~300 people (HR, Finance, Sales and Marketing, IT functions). If Labour's proposal was to become a reality the stock market listing would go else where (NYSE), the two UK factory's would be shut down and manufacturing ramped up in Poland and staff from UK HQ would be trimmed or relocated to their European HQ (Holland). It's a terrible idea.

Paul_Herring

with an anticipated market capital of £1billion+

£900m+ now...

Spreadsheetman

Another consequence could be every UK company that qualifies for the confiscation acquires a European parent shell and becomes a foreign-owned subsidiary asap.

I bet there are already various scenarios to make that possible as part of the whole global corporation tax avoidance industry.

letspretendforaminute

@paul_herring

It's an established business that's been around since the 1950s with a global reach, profitable to the tune of tens of millions and is owned by a private equity house. It's value will only become apparent when it makes its debut on the stock market.

Paul_Herring

@letspretendforaminute, t'was a poorly executed attempt at some humour

AnotherJoe

AndyAdams wrote: »

Interesting. I would argue the equities are not confiscated as they will still exist and I assume would need to be bought from the market, and the money to buy them comes from where ?or companies would be made to made to=confiscated "give up" some of their equity if they held any equity in their own company.

Hilarious. So if i remove your 50 inch plasma TV from your house and put it in mine, I haven't taken it because "it still exists"? Is that the nub of your argument?

AndyAdams wrote: »

So in my opinion a new paradigm is being introduced.

That new paradigm appears to be "newspeak".