Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B416 - Salary Cap limit Bill

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Perhaps though large corporations are generally more evil than small, local businesses (builders excepted!).
    I don't think this is black and white, and at the moment it's difficult to argue either way, nor is it really relevant here.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rice_Daddy)
    I don't think this is black and white, and at the moment it's difficult to argue either way, nor is it really relevant here.
    Well it is since most of the responses in this thread have resolved themselves into cliche, whether from the hard-right or the left. Attitudes to salary caps and demands to impose restrictions on the operations of capital aren't exactly inspired by small-time businesses operating at the local level are they? Rather, they're influenced - indeed created - by big-time, multi-national corporations. They do more gobbling than a turkey and enjoy getting fat like one too. Therein lies the problem and, though this bill might not be the solution, it's one we need to fix.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    To answer your question about Network Rail, a little, too confusing.

    Network Rail gets £4 Billion from Taxpayers and is found that have been performing badly according to the ORR. And Senior staff wanted Bonuses. The RL Government said it was going to vote against and NR backed Down.

    Is Network Rail in the Private or Public Sector?
    Can discuss this in further detail in the second reading of my railways bill but will answer here now.

    Network Rail is the trade name used by Network Rail Ltd. (Company number 04402220 incorporated in England and Wales) and various of its subsidiary companies. The most prominent public presence is in the form of its subsidiary Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (Company number 02904587 registered in England and Wales) which was previously named Railtrack plc..

    Network Rail Ltd is a statutory corporation created as "not for dividend" private company limited by guarantee; Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd was reported in the 2010 annual company report as 100%-owned by Network Rail Ltd.



    Private on paper however all profit is reinvested and it's entire budget comes from the government.

    Now here is where it gets interesting..

    Railtrack in 1993 was a fully private company however it was bought by the newly formed Network Rail for £500 million and then renamed into National Rail infrastructure LTD.

    To me (and the Office for national statistics) it is a government subsidiary.

    Why not direct government control you ask?? Because that would mean that the debts would be included which amount to £20 Billion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail

    Will copy this over to the second reading once it is done.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Cool, so we'll give you a million pounds and drop you off on an uninhabited island right? Money will do you fantastic without society! Why you value money so much, is because you can spend it, and pass it on to your kids. Why do you want to do that? Society.

    Re worthwhile, yeah, saving a MNC £Xm a year is really something to tell the grand kids isn't it?

    Ah, but one isn't poor if one doesn't earn 20X the average salary at one's company.
    Society is a let down and with money you can buy things that remove you from those that bring the entire thing down... everyone strives to be in a nicer place and how do you get there? by having money.

    It isn't just the money it is what you do to get the money.

    What? so by not earning 20x the average salary someone is not poor? I am using poor in a first world sense not third world sense so in many ways it can be someone is poor.
    • 31 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordyy)
    Network Rail is a Non-Profit Private Limited Company. From my single source I can see that the bonuses are justified. It doesn't really help that periodically Network Rail are forced to pay out large sums of money in court action due to "disruption caused by track maintenance". By 2060 Network Rail plans to have a complete overhaul of all the signals which is a massive scale operation as you can imagine. When the planned move to Milton Keynes happens this year, employees are to re-apply for their own jobs. Which I do think is not a good idea.

    The senior managers of Network Rail work extremely hard.
    Reading around it does seem that they have continuously cut the cost of running the railways even if the report in question did find them responsible for about 30% of the cost of a ticket.

    I suspect the government went solely by punctuation targets.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This won't work. What's to stop companies outsourcing cleaning and other low-skill low-pay jobs to companies like Sodexo? Suddenly they don't have a single staffer on less than £20k on their roll, and they sure as hell won't be taking any trainees on!

    And even if it wasn't impractical, it would be catastrophic to every single large enterprise within the country. Suddenly UK companies can't attract decent senior management (who leave in droves overseas, where they are every bit in demand) and end up poorly-run and fail.

    If you think the rich don't contribute enough and/or the poor contribute too much, demand more progressive taxation. Taxing the high-flying execs even more, possibly in combination with raising the personal allowance further, would be a far more practical solution.

    That and increasing capital gains tax so that the truly "ultra-rich" don't pay less tax than they should because it's all in stocks and shares. I'm sympathic to the motivation behind this bill but it's fundamentally flawed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Well it is since most of the responses in this thread have resolved themselves into cliche, whether from the hard-right or the left. Attitudes to salary caps and demands to impose restrictions on the operations of capital aren't exactly inspired by small-time businesses operating at the local level are they? Rather, they're influenced - indeed created - by big-time, multi-national corporations. They do more gobbling than a turkey and enjoy getting fat like one too. Therein lies the problem and, though this bill might not be the solution, it's one we need to fix.
    It's not really relevant because as small businesses grows into large corporations, unless something is done to ameliorate the inherent greedy nature of men, the circle of problem will come back, and talent will still leave the UK, as small business grow to a point where it can afford a larger payment gap, they may consider options to move its operations, even if we manage to keep all the small businesses, if the large corporations leaves the UK, or just the most talented people from them go, the consequences will still be huge.

    As for who is more evil, small organisations can be just as evil as large corporations, but arguably their scale might be different, for small businesses, they might be looking for every possible way to increase profit margin at the expense of customers, whereas a large corporation may also do that, but it also exploit its employee at the same time, the reason why small businesses don't seem as evil is because they can't do as much, not because they're less evil. On the other hand, there can also be perfectly good and honest small business and large corporations.

    More importantly, if you excessively encourage small businesses whilst neglecting larger corporations, not only are the large corporations going to accuse the government of undue bias, but it would discourage small businesses to grow beyond a certain point.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ridiculous idea, in this case the only way to get very wealthy is to start your own company. You are not preventing someone starting a company to earn 50 million pounds a year, why prevent someone from earning a million pounds a year working for the company.

    Of course it also entirely distorts the economy. Essentially top level management will be outsourced to a different company, as it is the only way to pay them properly.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rice_Daddy)
    It's not really relevant because as small businesses grows into large corporations, unless something is done to ameliorate the inherent greedy nature of men, the circle of problem will come back, and talent will still leave the UK, as small business grow to a point where it can afford a larger payment gap, they may consider options to move its operations, even if we manage to keep all the small businesses, if the large corporations leaves the UK, or just the most talented people from them go, the consequences will still be huge.
    If greed be the reason why people leave then, quoting Indie from earlier in the thread, they can piss off! Talent doesn't just mean wealth generation. There are plenty of talented people living in the UK who get paid peanuts for it but they still carry on because that's all they have. We're talking about according a tiny number of people such levels of privilege that we lose perspective on things. But anyway, the point I was trying to get at was that it's possible to be both pro-business (mutuals especially) but anti-big-time-corporations. That's how the left squares the circle and ends the silly charade of right-wing propaganda. After all, the Co-op is one of the most successful businesses in the UK. Its business ethics were entirely focused on mutual benefit.

    More importantly, if you excessively encourage small businesses whilst neglecting larger corporations, not only are the large corporations going to accuse the government of undue bias, but it would discourage small businesses to grow beyond a certain point.
    Got it in one.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    If greed be the reason why people leave then, quoting Indie from earlier in the thread, they can piss off! Talent doesn't just mean wealth generation. There are plenty of talented people living in the UK who get paid peanuts for it but they still carry on because that's all they have. We're talking about according a tiny number of people such levels of privilege that we lose perspective on things. But anyway, the point I was trying to get at was that it's possible to be both pro-business (mutuals especially) but anti-big-time-corporations. That's how the left squares the circle and ends the silly charade of right-wing propaganda. After all, the Co-op is one of the most successful businesses in the UK. Its business ethics were entirely focused on mutual benefit.



    Got it in one.
    I've already address the 'piss off' point, not going to do it again.

    As for the discouraging business from growing, seriously? Are you suggesting that the government should discourage businesses from growing? People from from being ambitious? WTF kind of argument is that, frankly, this is so stupid, and there are so many arguments against it, I can't even be bothered.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rice_Daddy)
    I've already address the 'piss off' point, not going to do it again.
    How do you hope to change our minds, then?

    As for the discouraging business from growing, seriously? Are you suggesting that the government should discourage businesses from growing? People from from being ambitious? WTF kind of argument is that, frankly, this is so stupid, and there are so many arguments against it, I can't even be bothered.
    Discouraging the emergence of global corporations is rather different from discouraging businesses from growing. Businesses will grow and people will have ambitions but perhaps it's time to instill in society and in people notions other than ambition = money. It's old, crusty and quite clearly destructive. What about ambition = to learn, to understand, to comprehend? What about ambition = to create, to enjoy, to experience? None of you have yet explained why we should be goaded into believing / accepting that the only form of ambition or model of success is that allied to wealth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    How do you hope to change our minds, then?



    Discouraging the emergence of global corporations is rather different from discouraging businesses from growing. Businesses will grow and people will have ambitions but perhaps it's time to instill in society and in people notions other than ambition = money. It's old, crusty and quite clearly destructive. What about ambition = to learn, to understand, to comprehend? What about ambition = to create, to enjoy, to experience? None of you have yet explained why we should be goaded into believing / accepting that the only form of ambition or model of success is that allied to wealth.
    I don't think you're familiar with other things I've posted, I'll reiterate what I think we should do, encourage unions, employee associations, and transparency, among other things, this will close the income gap without a blanket slap. This way, change will be gradual, people will have time to adapt, talent will not be lost and can continued to be developed.

    As for allying ambition with wealth, no one is saying that people should do that, people have the freedom to choose, but at the end of the day, it is the money a country makes that make up the economy, and there is no reason why people can't pursue these other forms of ambitions elsewhere, with the major difference being they can potentially be paid more. The problem is that there are likely a lot of talented people who will leave as a result of this bill, and the effects will be disastrous.

    Introducing the bill would result in such dramatic change in such a short time that its effect can hardly be anything but destructive, corporations in the UK will not be able to compete globally.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with the bonuses culture but I thnk that you have to be careful when it comes to trying to dictate how much a company can and cannot pay their people.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I hate jobs! I love welfare! Why are the government cutting????
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No! Wave goodbye to people looking to invest in Britain!
    • 17 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: jpg 15040486.jpg (48.9 KB, 0 views)
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Society is a let down and with money you can buy things that remove you from those that bring the entire thing down... everyone strives to be in a nicer place and how do you get there? by having money.
    Yeah the sort of money we're talking about, having a Ferarri will put someone in much more of a nicer place than someone with a renault clio.

    Money is not and should never be the driving factor in anyone's life.
    It isn't just the money it is what you do to get the money.
    So, RL example, I made sure 25 people lost their jobs and a department closed down to save £1m + a year. Hey, grandson, don't you wish you were me I got 25 people sacked and managed to save xx PLC more than £1 million a year!!!

    You think that's worthwhile enough to tell your descendants. Really?
    What? so by not earning 20x the average salary someone is not poor? I am using poor in a first world sense not third world sense so in many ways it can be someone is poor.
    Yes, if someone earns less than £520k a year they can still be classed as not poor. In fact, even if someone earned £30k a year, I wouldn't go so far as to class them poor. Even in a first world sense...
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Not sure why this is any worse than the current situation.
    This is worse in the fact that at least now we have a bit of competition. Were the government to completely step out, and us not have any anti-competitive laws etc we'd have Tesco dominating everything alongside another one or two MNCs with their word and actions being treated as gospel.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    This is worse in the fact that at least now we have a bit of competition. Were the government to completely step out, and us not have any anti-competitive laws etc we'd have Tesco dominating everything alongside another one or two MNCs with their word and actions being treated as gospel.
    Tesco and ASDA. The latter more especially since they are owned by Wal*Mart.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    I'll concede that you make so very valid points, some of which I agree with. I'm certainly not an economic liberal who wants the government to stay out of everything - there does need to be (and should have been) greater regulation of areas like banking, which to a large degree is responsible for the current mess the UK and world economies are in. I also agree that financial success shouldn't be the be-all and end-all.

    However, in your argument you largely paint all businesses in the same negative light - as wreckless, evil leviathons that destroy economies and then shrug their shoulders and continue to pay those responsible exorbitant sums of money. We should be targeting these companies for greater accountability. But we shouldn't be punishing the majority for the actions of a few. A private company is just that: private. As long as it's not negatively impacting the public, why should the government get involved in the internal affairs of a private company. Quite simply, in my view, the government has no business in dictating to a private company that's doing no harm to the public.
    I would say that by direct taxation, regulating anti competition actions, creating "industry forums" etc we are more involved than we would be by just saying hey, no more than 10,000 employees.
    [/quote]
    Any company that gets to the stage of having 10,000 plus employees is at the stage where it's so large it is ridiculously easy to lose sight of both what the point of business is, and also what the point of that specific industry is. In fact, the former CEO of IKEA makes my point nicely - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ormer-CEO.html

    Once a company becomes so large it can absorb losses in any department, then it erodes ingenuity and innovation and replaces it with corporatism and internal regulatory compliance. Neither of which are particularly entrepreneurial.

    Another point I should perhaps ask, while a Labour member is actually present in the debate, is what effect this proposal would have on income tax receipts? I'm guessing putting a ceiling on the salaries of so many people will impact this quite heavily.
    So it is well worth bearing in mind the wording of this bill. the limit is an internal, 20X limit. If the average salary at a firm is £24k then you're talking around £520k being the limit. I.E. the income tax from anyone who was previously earning more than £520k would reduce to the income tax of their new salary level (£520k).

    For investment banks for example, the average salary is ridiculously high and the top earners will still be able to earn £6m +. It is virtually impossible with the data available to quantify any loss in income tax for both the reason above and also the fact that some CEOs will aim to bring up the average salary in their company so that they can be paid more themselves - providing a positive bonus to income tax.
Updated: February 26, 2012
New on TSR

Talk about SQA results day

Join the chat ahead of grades coming out on Tuesday

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.