Gordon Brown crashes the Labour Campaign....!

[localzuk]

So basically your solution is that everyone in the country, no matter what they do, gets exactly the same income? Nice idea, but why would any of us work then?

 

Depends if you're a realist or not... The idealist in me dreams of a utopia where everyone is equal and money is non-existent, but that is unrealistic when you have limited resources. Give it a few thousand years of technological development and we may end up there but now? Not possible.

[tech_guy]

Lol, Rachel Elnaugh just re-tweeted one of my tweets about #bigotgate

 

 

All I tweeted was "Watching the #bigotgate affair unravel today was almost better than sex #gordonbrown #gordonbennettmorelike..."

[GrumbleDook]

Can I justify earning £250,000? Yes ... if I am making decisions and running a business that is generating several million pounds of profit a year.

 

I believe in a meritocracy ... and if I have more knowledge and expertise, am making bigger decisions and doing more good than someone else, then yes ... I would expect to be paid more, and depending on the sector I am in it would be a lot more.

 

I would also expect to pay more tax as a result, because I am in a position to do so ... but not to the extent of where I am having to make a choice about having to move countries as I am unfairly being penalised for having worked damn hard and gotten myself into a good position. Do I think that when I have kids and they end up having the benefits of my earnings (property, savings, etc) that they should be taxed purely for having money in the bank? Sure ... tax the interest ... and tax their earnings but as I mentioned before it seems that having wealth is a bad thing in some people's eyes (unless footballer, pop star, etc).

 

Screwing others over to get wealth is bad. Screwing others over to keep it is bad. Being in a position of comfort because family have worked hard is not. Abusing your position due to wealth is bad ...

 

Cow, Milk, Moo ... but don't stick the cows in a field of parched grass otherwise they will go and try to find somewhere else to eat (and drop the occasional cow-pat too!)

[tmcd35]

As Tony rightly said earlier - "With the wealthy it is a tough balancing act". I'm not against anyone making their millions, good luck to them. I agree that more responsibilty and superior skills = more pay. I think capitalism and the market economy can be a force for good. But at heart I'm still something of a socialist. At what point does it stop being a honest wage earned for a good days work and become just pure greed? And what is the best way to redistribute the wealth to bring those at the other end of the scale out of povety? As you say it's a balancing act. But hand on heart - does anyone really need to earn £250,000 per year in order to lead a comfortable lifestyle? I think not.

[localzuk]

Can I justify earning £250,000? Yes ... if I am making decisions and running a business that is generating several million pounds of profit a year.

 

I believe in a meritocracy ... and if I have more knowledge and expertise, am making bigger decisions and doing more good than someone else, then yes ... I would expect to be paid more, and depending on the sector I am in it would be a lot more.

 

So a Nurse on £20k a year, or a street cleaner on £18k a year aren't doing as much good as someone earning £250k who sits and makes decisions? How do you make that determination? Who are you to decide who is 'doing more good' based purely on perceived importance? That is what irritates me about the way pay is set at the moment. People who sit in rooms and act like Caesar of the 21st century, hiring and firing people, who in effect do very little other than act as a fall guy, get all the praise and those who do the work are just statistics...

[torledo]

I would also expect to pay more tax as a result, because I am in a position to do so ... but not to the extent of where I am having to make a choice about having to move countries as I am unfairly being penalised for having worked damn hard and gotten myself into a good position

 

say you work really really hard and reach the top of a lucrative field of expertise, and start earning half a bar a year...you might be a position with a lot of responsibility and pressures which required years of study and expense to undertake....how does over half of that 500k salary being deducted in tax and NI as a salaried employee sound ?

[torledo]

As Tony rightly said earlier - "With the wealthy it is a tough balancing act". I'm not against anyone making their millions, good luck to them. I agree that more responsibilty and superior skills = more pay. I think capitalism and the market economy can be a force for good. But at heart I'm still something of a socialist. At what point does it stop being a honest wage earned for a good days work and become just pure greed? And what is the best way to redistribute the wealth to bring those at the other end of the scale out of povety? As you say it's a balancing act. But hand on heart - does anyone really need to earn £250,000 per year in order to lead a comfortable lifestyle? I think not.

 

have you seen house prices in parts of the south east ? a comfortable lifestyle involves meeting some level of expectations. A good sized house in a good location, plus decent car or two, couple or three holidays a year....so got to be 100k minimum. 250k is the right side of comfortable.....even then you'd probably be better off earning those amounts as contractor rather than PAYE employee.

Edited April 28, 2010 by torledo

[AyatollahPies]

So....... back on track, who's up for making a Jilted John song from a few decades ago, the number one song this weekend?

[torledo]

So a Nurse on £20k a year, or a street cleaner on £18k a year aren't doing as much good as someone earning £250k who sits and makes decisions? How do you make that determination? Who are you to decide who is 'doing more good' based purely on perceived importance? That is what irritates me about the way pay is set at the moment. People who sit in rooms and act like Caesar of the 21st century, hiring and firing people, who in effect do very little other than act as a fall guy, get all the praise and those who do the work are just statistics...

 

i think the point is the market determines the salaries paid. why would the public sector pay more than 18k a year for unskilled labour when the vacancies can be filled for the same amount [or less]. whereas how much does it cost to secure the services of someone who has the skills and experience to run a big company ?

[teejay]

So a Nurse on £20k a year, or a street cleaner on £18k a year aren't doing as much good as someone earning £250k who sits and makes decisions? How do you make that determination? Who are you to decide who is 'doing more good' based purely on perceived importance? That is what irritates me about the way pay is set at the moment. People who sit in rooms and act like Caesar of the 21st century, hiring and firing people, who in effect do very little other than act as a fall guy, get all the praise and those who do the work are just statistics...

 

Because the decisions of the people at the top of the company affect everyone in the company and their shareholders. Make a wrong decision, ooops, a few 100 or 100's of people lose their jobs, the shareholders lose their money, the majority of which are usually pension companies so you lose value on your pension as well. Make the right decisions, the company grows, employs more people who then get paid, greater tax revenue and greater return for the shareholders.

 

With your nurse, the nurse helps and saves lives of those they deal with, the director of the hospital is responsible for the lives off all the patients in the hospital, so a bad decision by a nurse may affect 1 person, a bad decision by the director of the hospital could put lives at risk of all patients in the hospital.

[GrumbleDook]

One of the problems is how you are paid for doing your job. If you own the business then you take a cut of the profits. If you run it for shareholders you might get a cut from the shares as well as the salary. If you have money and use investments to generate more money then are you really working, because you might be paying someone else to do the work. If I earn £500k from investments should I be taxed at a higher or lower rate than if I was salaried?

 

If I have incurred considerable expense to get me where I am (remembering that a number of companies have started due to considerable risk by the founder investing their own assets to get it going) then do I declare those original expenses and plead that I have struggled over the years? No .. not really ... any investment I have made will be returned otherwise I am not truly wealthy. Wealth is to have owned assets, whether it is money, property, cars, a portfolio of investments ... it is not about having debt-ridden assets. I am not wealthy if I have a 7 bedroom house which takes all my take-home salary to pay the mortgage for. I own a fraction of it.

 

This is one of the problems in society. We have taken on too much debt and it will take decades to dig ourselves out. National debt is only a part of it. Business debt is the next stage and personal debt is likely to be the last to be addressed. By taxing me more it will address the national debt but means there is less for me to spend so does not alleviate business debt and might increase personal debt as a result as there is the pressure to continue to spend to help churn the economy. If I have a tax cut I will have more money, but I am likely to deal with personal debt first and so we lose out on business debt and national debt. If it stays the same then I have to accept that there will cuts in other places to deal with the national debt, possibly meaning that people will lose jobs, possible increase in business debt as people try to keep going and then increase in personal debt.

 

There is no quick win. It is about make small cuts and savings all the way through.

 

Would I be happy to pay half my salary if I was on £500k? Yes ... but that is because I work in the public sector and my measure of being useful is based around what impact I have on others, not on what I generate in business and profits (though more and more frequently it can be measured by savings). If I owned a business and the large chunk of my earnings came through profits then I might objects as each pound taken out of my profits is a pound less to re-invest.

[tmcd35]

even then you'd probably be better off earning those amounts as contractor rather than PAYE employee.

An example of a grossly unfair tax system at work! Surely the tax burden should be the same regardless if how it was earned? silly me thats just too simple - I'd be doing accountants out of a job if I'm not careful

 

have you seen house prices in parts of the south east ? a comfortable lifestyle involves meeting some level of expectations. A good sized house in a good location, plus decent car or two, couple or three holidays a year....sogot to be a minimum. 250k is the right side of comfortable.....

 

I'd admite £250k was an example figure plucked out of the air. Sounds like a shed load of money to someone on my migre end of the pay scale, maybe I'd think differently if I was earning it? Besides we haven't started on annual bonuses, golden handcuffs and share dividends that they paying for their fourth holiday, third home and tenth car in cash with!

[amvc]

My Fave policy so far...

 

Monster raving loony party want to introduce a 99p coin to reduce change

[srochford]

I like the idea of the 99p coin but could you imagine the chaos in a shop when you hand over half a dozen 99p coins for something that cost £5?? You'd have to redesign tills so that the assistants could key in "99p coin" followed by the number of them!

[amvc]

I like the idea of the 99p coin but could you imagine the chaos in a shop when you hand over half a dozen 99p coins for something that cost £5?? You'd have to redesign tills so that the assistants could key in "99p coin" followed by the number of them!

 

Its bad enough when the item is £1.10 and you give them £5.10, the confusion on their face sometimes make me wonder how some people survive.

[ICT_GUY]

http://www.dorsetwebdesigns.com/Gordon_Brown.jpg

 

I made this one at home for obvious reasons.

[Jamo]

say you work really really hard and reach the top of a lucrative field of expertise, and start earning half a bar a year...you might be a position with a lot of responsibility and pressures which required years of study and expense to undertake....how does over half of that 500k salary being deducted in tax and NI as a salaried employee sound ?

 

Are you telling me that you would be unhappy donating money to those who are disabled? Or children of this country so that they can grow up to be the next generation of high earners? Or to help those who are ill, or those who have lost their jobs due to the BSF machine?

 

I could buy my house twice in one year with the take home pay from that job. Its not living in the normal world when you earn that much and I'm not saying that you should be penalised.

 

Look around your school I bet there are a few staff who hardly pay any tax becuase the wages are so low.

 

If the tories win I think the country will stand still, budgets will be cut and our core services are the things that will suffer. The only ones who will benefit are the elites and business, the rest of the country will be taking the fall for businesses shortcomings.

[torledo]

Are you telling me that you would be unhappy donating money to those who are disabled? Or children of this country so that they can grow up to be the next generation of high earners? Or to help those who are ill, or those who have lost their jobs due to the BSF machine?

 

I could buy my house twice in one year with the take home pay from that job. Its not living in the normal world when you earn that much and I'm not saying that you should be penalised.

 

Look around your school I bet there are a few staff who hardly pay any tax becuase the wages are so low.

 

If the tories win I think the country will stand still, budgets will be cut and our core services are the things that will suffer. The only ones who will benefit are the elites and business, the rest of the country will be taking the fall for businesses shortcomings.

 

i don't disagree with progressive taxation. but that maybe it should be applied across more types of 'earnings' beyond PAYE income. half of 500k is a huge sum of money, yes 250k take home pay is also a lot and there are bonuses and share options to consider.....

 

income has to be looked at in relation to maintaining a standard of living and the area where a person chooses to live. saying that a 500k salary is enough to buy this or that much more in a different part of the country misses the point......a person could probably move location and get more value for money, but then they have more reasons to not do that.

 

i think you and i have a different idea of why taxes exist. there is a redistributive element to it, but having fewer people paying higher rate of tax does not stop the disabled or the vulnerable receiving help from the govt. That's a political choice, how much and whom to pay. it's not dictated by tax revenues.

[mattx]

Wraps it up quite well for me.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSIBnDptJvE