Tory - The caring conservatives

[Diablo]

Capitalism has failed the massive majority of people in an internationalist world:
. Certainly many things have changed since the 19th century, but the limitless wealth accumulation of international capital continues untrammeled. This is accompanied, as it always was, by some philanthropy, but this is miniscule in comparison with the amount of inequality. Capitalism is a system based upon a competition for resources. .

All this "Problem with inequality" It would be a very peculiar world if everyone was equal..No incentive,No reward.How far do you want to go ? Everyone with same House and car? Same money whatever job ?

Most people me included wish to better themselves and anyone with drive can...and surely must be allowed so to do.

 

[cunning fergus]

I support both, as you well know. The EU is a big big deal for me, and the real test of my beliefs will be if Corbyn wants out as I believe he is best for the UK.

Well the way the TTIP is shaping up you won't have that luxury.

Either the unions are wrong about TTIP and its not a EU/US capitalist carve up of EU member state's assets and workers rights, or they are right and its a threat to the services like NHS.

I think we both know the answer here............its time for you to wake up.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

All this "Problem with inequality" It would be a very peculiar world if everyone was equal..No incentive,No reward.How far do you want to go ? Everyone with same House and car? Same money whatever job ?

Most people me included wish to better themselves and anyone with drive can...and surely must be allowed so to do.

I used to misunderstand this too.

Substitute "equality" with "equality of opportunity" and you have clarity about the goal shared by people on the left of politics.

 

[Hastings gull]

All this "Problem with inequality" It would be a very peculiar world if everyone was equal..No incentive,No reward.How far do you want to go ? Everyone with same House and car? Same money whatever job ?

Most people me included wish to better themselves and anyone with drive can...and surely must be allowed so to do.

I think in practice after all the nice-sounding clichés of "how I believe in equality" have been exhausted, most folk believe rather in "equality of opportunity", though this is very hard to achieve, given the differing drive levels of human beings. I doubt that in reality, if you work hard and see that the person doing the same job next to you, who is bone idle but getting the same pay, you would believe in equality. It is quite normal to want to better yourself, for your own self respect, say, and for the wellbeing of your dependent family.

 

[Hastings gull]

I used to misunderstand this too.

Substitute "equality" with "equality of opportunity" and you have clarity about the goal shared by people on the left of politics.

Why would this solely be the preserve of the left? what arrogance!

 

[El Presidente]

The theoretical answer comes down to ownership, and whether by common ownership you lift the poor upwards and by restricting the generation of profit for personal gain you narrow the wealth gap between the rich and poor.

That said I accept there has not been a successful example of this in practice, greed is a difficult mistress to tame.

State capitalism (which is what socialism effectively is) has not proven to improve the welfare of the many, neither has classic capitalism as espoused by the USA.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Why would this solely be the preserve of the left? what arrogance!

I can't actually see where he said that it was. Carry on.

 

[GT49er]

All this "Problem with inequality" It would be a very peculiar world if everyone was equal..No incentive,No reward.How far do you want to go ? Everyone with same House and car? Same money whatever job ?

Most people me included wish to better themselves and anyone with drive can...and surely must be allowed so to do.

Facile argument! Nobody is advocating complete equality, everybody driving the same car, etc. What rubbish!
Of course their will be rewards for abilities, skills, responsibilities. The CEO is going to command a larger salary than the office assistant, and the foreman or supervisor is going to earn more than the people they supervise - no problem with that. The problem is with the degree - how much more should the top person earn than the person at the bottom of the ladder Ten times? Twenty times? That is a matter for debate, but what is not for debate is that when some people expect (and get) a Christmas bonus that is more than other people will earn in a lifetime there is something very wrong with the current situation.

 

[Hastings gull]

I can't actually see where he said that it was. Carry on.

Ok, fair enough. he did not directly state that, so I was being rather too quick. Fair cop. But I am certain that this is what he meant!!

 

[Hastings gull]

State capitalism (which is what socialism effectively is) has not proven to improve the welfare of the many, neither has classic capitalism as espoused by the USA.
[video]https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_tudor_jones_ii_why_we_nee d_to_rethink_capitalism[/video]

This is all rather vague -what does "improve the welfare of the many" mean -give them more benefits? Make them happier? If you talk of the "many" then I would say that the "many" are actually doing rather well in this country. Yesterday's figure that new car registrations are the highest ever, would bear this out. Of course, not all are doing well, but then we are talking off the"many".

 

[Diablo]

I used to misunderstand this too.

Substitute "equality" with "equality of opportunity" and you have clarity about the goal shared by people on the left of politics.

Surely impossible without equality to have equal opportunity ?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Facile argument! Nobody is advocating complete equality, everybody driving the same car, etc. What rubbish!
Of course their will be rewards for abilities, skills, responsibilities. The CEO is going to command a larger salary than the office assistant, and the foreman or supervisor is going to earn more than the people they supervise - no problem with that. The problem is with the degree - how much more should the top person earn than the person at the bottom of the ladder Ten times? Twenty times? That is a matter for debate, but what is not for debate is that when some people expect (and get) a Christmas bonus that is more than other people will earn in a lifetime there is something very wrong with the current situation.

Who should decide how much more the top person earns relative to the bottom of the ladder ?

If the excessive bonuses are taxed at a high level wouldn't that address your concerns?

 

[piersa]

State capitalism (which is what socialism effectively is) has not proven to improve the welfare of the many, neither has classic capitalism as espoused by the USA.

very good talk. Makes sense. Tapered capitalism is definitely the way to go. People who just scream socialism without any thought of the consequences are depressing. Socialism has been proved time and time again not to work. Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best we have and modifying it is the way forward imo.

 

[GT49er]

Who should decide how much more the top person earns relative to the bottom of the ladder?

As I said in my post, that is a matter for debate. Unlike some on here, I don't claim to know the instant answer!

If the excessive bonuses are taxed at a high level wouldn't that address your concerns?

Not really - a). it's never going to happen, and b). if somebody actually tried it, those at the top would probably just pay themselves more and more so that the net take-home remained the same.

 

[Diablo]

Facile argument! Nobody is advocating complete equality, everybody driving the same car, etc. What rubbish!
Of course their will be rewards for abilities, skills, responsibilities. The CEO is going to command a larger salary than the office assistant, and the foreman or supervisor is going to earn more than the people they supervise - no problem with that. The problem is with the degree - how much more should the top person earn than the person at the bottom of the ladder Ten times? Twenty times? That is a matter for debate, but what is not for debate is that when some people expect (and get) a Christmas bonus that is more than other people will earn in a lifetime there is something very wrong with the current situation.

Someone who turns around say a FTSE 100 business that is losing money, laying of Labour to a business that is very profitable and is again hiring Labour and expanding....Is entitled to ?? Is he wrong to feel entitled to large bonus??..

If bonus is result related....I have no problem with them.

 

[El Presidente]

This is all rather vague -what does "improve the welfare of the many" mean -give them more benefits? Make them happier? If you talk of the "many" then I would say that the "many" are actually doing rather well in this country. Yesterday's figure that new car registrations are the highest ever, would bear this out. Of course, not all are doing well, but then we are talking off the"many".

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21661654-britains-economic-and-jobs-performance-better-much-rest-europes

I'm talking about average earnings, which in the US have not increased for 50 years or so in real terms.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

As I said in my post, that is a matter for debate. Unlike some on here, I don't claim to know the instant answer!

Is that refreshing honesty or dodging the question. I'll go with the first one

Not really - a). it's never going to happen, and b). if somebody actually tried it, those at the top would probably just pay themselves more and more so that the net take-home remained the same.

a) Depends on what we agree is a 'high' rate of tax. b) And the tax take would increase benefiting the nation.

 

[El Presidente]

Someone who turns around say a FTSE 100 business that is losing money, laying of Labour to a business that is very profitable and is again hiring Labour and expanding....Is entitled to ?? Is he wrong to feel entitled to large bonus??..

If bonus is result related....I have no problem with them.

I suspect few will have a problem with that either. There's nothing wrong with a carrot based approach to pay. A look at the figures however reveals that there is little correlation between the pay of FTSE directors and performance in terms of revenue or profits.



It therefore begs the question who is awarding these pay rises, and the corporate answer is 'the remuneration committee'. Further investigation into who appoints the remuneration committee, and it turns out to be the company directors. There is a conflict of interest here surely?

 

[Diablo]

I suspect few will have a problem with that either. There's nothing wrong with a carrot based approach to pay. A look at the figures however reveals that there is little correlation between the pay of FTSE directors and performance in terms of revenue or profits.

View attachment 69031

It therefore begs the question who is awarding these pay rises, and the corporate answer is 'the remuneration committee'. Further investigation into who appoints the remuneration committee, and it turns out to be the company directors. There is a conflict of interest here surely?

I nearly agree although Graphs like figures can mislead..
In graph profits have increased approx 50% over a very low inflation period Lets say from £100m to £150m.The average CEO has seen his pay treble from say £666k to £2m.
If inflation would have increased profits only to £120m and the CEO has been responsible for £30m/year profit increase paying him £1.3m more makes good business sense.

 

[El Presidente]

I nearly agree although Graphs like figures can mislead..
In graph profits have increased approx 50% over a very low inflation period Lets say from £100m to £150m.The average CEO has seen his pay treble from say £666k to £2m.
If inflation would have increased profits only to £120m and the CEO has been responsible for £30m/year profit increase paying him £1.3m more makes good business sense.

You say that it has been a low inflation period, but the RPI increased by 42.5% between 2000 and 2012. If profits increased by 50%, then this is not significantly more than inflation.

The FTSE 100 fell from 6930 on 31 December 1999 to 5897 on 31 December 2012, a decrease of 15% during the period when prices rose by 42%.

I'm all for performance related rewards, but in the boardrooms of UK plc that doesn't exist, it's a self serving, self rewarding money go round.