Labours pension threat - daily express
Options
Comments
-
I take it you mean the plan to create employee ownership funds in large companies? Shares will be acquired at 1% per year until the fund reaches 10% and there's no reason to think those shares won't be aquired from willing sellers at market value.
It's not a policy I agree with particularly but describing it in the way you have is billy basic scare mongering at best, and could also be described as outright lying. If you want to convince people not to vote for Jeremy you'll have to be a bit more honest.
.
Firstly, “large company” based on Labour definition = over 250 people.
Secondly, what is your source? Everything I’ve seen talks of legislation to force companies to give 10% of shares to employees, aka confiscation from shareholders. In the words of FT:
“A Labour government would confiscate about £300bn of shares in 7,000 large companies and hand them to workers in one of the biggest state raids on the private sector to take place in a western democracy, according to analysis by the Financial Times and Clifford Chance.”
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
Guardian:
“Under the scheme, every company with 250 or more employees will be expected to create an “inclusive ownership fund” (IOF) under a future Labour government, John McDonnell will say.,”
There is nothing about “acquiring from willing sellers at market value”. You seem to be mistaken.
“ If you want to convince people not to vote for Jeremy you'll have to be a bit more honest.”
I don’t. Anyone still willing to vote for Jeremy is an immoral fool. Part of me wishes that these people get Jeremy but I am sorry for the decent people. Merely expressing my opinion. Certainly not trying to change anyone’s mind.
Also, your “outright lying” and “scare mongering” accusations = a lot of tosh.0 -
In the very Guardian article you quote https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-workEvery company with more than 250 employees in Britain would be required to transfer shares into an “inclusive ownership fund” that would be controlled by its workers. Firms would transfer at least 1% of ownership into the fund each year, up to a maximum 10%.0
-
Shares will be acquired at 1% per year until the fund reaches 10% and there's no reason to think those shares won't be aquired from willing sellers at market value.
Acquired by whom? If it's the Company then the cost is a direct hit to the Profiit and Loss account. Which then impacts the value of the shares held by other parties. Likewise will reduce distributable reserves. Losers are going to be the thousands of average people who are dependent on these companies for their pension savings. (Then there's private companies nonlisted companies to be considered.........)
At least John McDonnell has admitted Right to Buy is an unworkable concerpt therefore won't be included in the Labour manifesto. Concern is what other mad cap schemes have been dreamt up by this clueless bunch of clowns. That have yet to shown daylight.0 -
In the very Guardian article you quote https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work
Not exactly sure what your point is. My point is that government enforced “transfer” of property from one set of owners to another, without any compensation or anything at all in return = confiscation. This particular confiscation of company equity is on a massive scale.0 -
Deleted_User wrote: »Firstly, “large company” based on Labour definition = over 250 people.
Secondly, what is your source? Everything I’ve seen talks of legislation to force companies to give 10% of shares to employees, aka confiscation from shareholders. In the words of FT:
“A Labour government would confiscate about £300bn of shares in 7,000 large companies and hand them to workers in one of the biggest state raids on the private sector to take place in a western democracy, according to analysis by the Financial Times and Clifford Chance.”
https://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
Guardian:
“Under the scheme, every company with 250 or more employees will be expected to create an “inclusive ownership fund” (IOF) under a future Labour government, John McDonnell will say.,”
There is nothing about “acquiring from willing sellers at market value”. You seem to be mistaken.
“ If you want to convince people not to vote for Jeremy you'll have to be a bit more honest.”
I don’t. Anyone still willing to vote for Jeremy is an immoral fool. Part of me wishes that these people get Jeremy but I am sorry for the decent people. Merely expressing my opinion. Certainly not trying to change anyone’s mind.
Also, your “outright lying” and “scare mongering” accusations = a lot of tosh.
Details about how the shares would be acquired have not been released. You (and the FT) are assuming they will be "confiscated" or transferred without compensation, but that seems an extreme assumption. Even if that's what they wanted to do, I'm not sure that method would survive the legal challenges it would inevitably spawn.
More likely in my opinion is that the shares would be bought by the fund on the open market. At 1% per year up to a maximum of 10%, there will be more than enough willing sellers to buy from, so it would hardly make any difference to anyone.
Like I said I don't particularly like the policy, but that's mainly because of the dividend cap. If employees are going to own shares then they should get the full benefit. But I think the overall aim of the policy, to give employees more influence in the companies they work for, is a good one.0 -
Details about how the shares would be acquired have not been released. You (and the FT) are assuming they will be "confiscated" or transferred without compensation, but that seems an extreme assumption. Even if that's what they wanted to do, I'm not sure that method would survive the legal challenges it would inevitably spawn.
More likely in my opinion is that the shares would be bought by the fund on the open market. At 1% per year up to a maximum of 10%, there will be more than enough willing sellers to buy from, so it would hardly make any difference to anyone.
Like I said I don't particularly like the policy, but that's mainly because of the dividend cap. If employees are going to own shares then they should get the full benefit. But I think the overall aim of the policy, to give employees more influence in the companies they work for, is a good one.
So, you are just making stuff up and calling others “liars”. Makes sense. In the real world McDonnell said that a piece of legislation will be passed to force the companies to transfer shares into “inclusive ownership fund”.
How do you see “compensation”? Taxpayer footing the bill? That’s not happening because there is a limit on how much a country can borrow without defaulting. Then there is the question “why workers of 200 employee companies and retirees should subsidise workers of 300 employee companies?”
Re discussion on worker influence . Workers have different interests from shareholders. Their primary incentive is always going to be salary and employment (except in very specialized areas like startup software companies). I’ve seen how such companies operate. Bankrupt companies keep going forever. Employee-managed Banks keep giving them cash, because they are also interested in drumming up more business and employment over profit. There isn’t a shareholder who will keep his money in Britain under this scenario. UK is heavily dependent on foreign inflows because someone has to fund the deficit. UK will default soon after the news that Corbyn was elected.
Anyone thinking Corbyn has a chance of becoming PM should be selling UK assets around about now.
As for legal problems with this and other Labour ideas... Sure. None of it is feasible under the current system. The system will have to be changed.
https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/what-does-labours-inclusive-ownership-fund-mean-for-business/0 -
But I think the overall aim of the policy, to give employees more influence in the companies they work for, is a good one.
One suspects that the influence will come from the granting of increased Union powers. Given history not a welcome thought. Corporate accountability and governance issues can be addressed through other avenues without the need to hit shareholders.0 -
But I think the overall aim of the policy, to give employees more influence in the companies they work for, is a good one.
This sounds like a Thatcher policy. Back in the 1980s she justified selling off publicly owned industry in part by promoting individual stock ownership. The fact that most of the benefits of these sell offs went to a very small number of rich people could be used to argue for the shoe being ion the other foot now to redress the inequity.
I say lets increase the public's ownership of shares, surely that's a very "conservative" individual liberty thing to do. So McDonald is really a Thatcherite.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0 -
Deleted_User wrote: »So, you are just making stuff up and calling others “liars”. Makes sense. In the real world McDonnell said that a piece of legislation will be passed to force the companies to transfer shares into “inclusive ownership fund”.
No I have not made anything up. I've said that the method of acquiring the shares has not been confirmed and that it seems likely to me that they will be purchased at market rate. You on the other hand have pretended to know without doubt that the shares will be taken without compensation, something for which you have no evidence at all; you simply made it up. If you'd given that as your opinion, then it's a different story, but you presented it as a known fact when it's anything but.0 -
FYI to Mordko and ruperts....it's getting close to panto season so let me be the first to say
"Oh no I didn't"
"Oh yes you did" etc.“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards