Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Not sure any of the voters knew what he was, even he didn't seem to know, his policies were a right mixed bag.
    When you've got the aura of Mr Bean then you'll struggle whatever your policies are.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    inequality out of control.
    Inequality will always be out of control, under any government that is not totalitarian. As the country gets wealthier all sections get absolutely wealthier but the wealthiest ones more so. It is inevitable.

    The question for lefties is, do you want the poor to be better off or do you want to bring the wealthy down to nearer the poor?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Inequality will always be out of control, under any government that is not totalitarian. As the country gets wealthier all sections get absolutely wealthier but the wealthiest ones more so. It is inevitable.

    The question for lefties is, do you want the poor to be better off or do you want to bring the wealthy down to nearer the poor?
    I'm not opposed to a maximum wage to tackle inequality, for example nobody in a company can earn more than 30x anyone else.

    If the person at the bottom is on 10-20k then the person at the top would be on 300-600k, I can't see how anyone really needs more than 600k a year.

    Trickle down is BS IMO.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I can't see how anyone really needs more than 600k a year.
    To encourage them to stay in the country and not take their business (and taxes) elsewhere. We want their tax contribution and business acumen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    To encourage them to stay in the country and not take their business (and taxes) elsewhere. We want their tax contribution and business acumen.
    I was just thinking out loud.

    Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with the current system of inequality(unless there's some international consensus on the idea) or a worldwide Communist revolution, so I'd have to choose the former.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Inequality will always be out of control, under any government that is not totalitarian. As the country gets wealthier all sections get absolutely wealthier but the wealthiest ones more so. It is inevitable.[/QUOTE}It does not have to be totalitarian. Just pay those at the bottom more.

    The question for lefties is, do you want the poor to be better off or do you want to bring the wealthy down to nearer the poor?
    By making the poor better off, it will filter up to the middle as they spend it, evening out the difference. the very wealthy are mainly now just sitting on the wealth by playing the markets or investing in objects,
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'm not opposed to a maximum wage to tackle inequality, for example nobody in a company can earn more than 30x anyone else.

    If the person at the bottom is on 10-20k then the person at the top would be on 300-600k, I can't see how anyone really needs more than 600k a year.

    Trickle down is BS IMO.
    Then there would be no incentive to be successful. Anyone capable of earning more than your max wage would just leave the country, and you'd be left with incapable people.

    Also, at 50% tax, why on earth wouldn't you want as many high earners as possible? Your people on £10-20,000 pay almost no tax, make no contribution in that sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Then there would be no incentive to be successful. Anyone capable of earning more than your max wage would just leave the country, and you'd be left with incapable people.

    Also, at 50% tax, why on earth wouldn't you want as many high earners as possible? Your people on £10-20,000 pay almost no tax, make no contribution in that sense.
    The reasoning behind it is that it would increase wages for most workers. The maximum figure is in relation to what employees at that company are paid(no more than 30x above the lowest earner).

    If a chief exec wants to award himself a £1 million salary that means at least 33k for everyone at the company.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The reasoning behind it is that it would increase wages for all workers. The maximum figure is in relation to what employees at that company are paid.

    If a chief exec wants to award himself a £1 million salary that means at least 33k for everyone at the company.
    Perfect neo-socialism.

    Money for nothing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Perfect neo-socialism.

    Money for nothing.
    Not really, just reduced income inequality from the obscene levels currently seen.

    It's not actually my idea but doesn't sound crazy enough that it wouldn't work IMO.

    http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-p...quality-133970

    I'm well aware it'll never happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    By making the poor better off, it will filter up to the middle as they spend it,
    Do you not read anything back before you hit "submit"? Wealth filtering up from the poor to the middle classes?

    :toofunny:
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Not really, just reduced income inequality from the obscene levels currently seen.

    It's not actually my idea but doesn't sound crazy enough that it wouldn't work IMO.

    http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-p...quality-133970

    I'm well aware it'll never happen.
    But you're suggesting addressing income inequality by artificially increasing pay for no work.

    Let's say entrepreneur X starts a chain of retail stores. Many of the employees will be carrying out what is objectively low skill work. People work in shops as first jobs or part time jobs because it requires this low skill and training level.

    Entrepreneur X has created these jobs, this entity and the revenues that come with it. No doubt there will be managers, finance staff, logistic staff etc. Nothing will change the reality that the shop floor staff objectively have work product that isn't worth a great deal more than what they are paid.

    The people at the top are worth whatever they can pay themselves, either by salary or dividends. That's the point of entrepreneurship - otherwise, why do it?

    So if the person at the top decides he's worked hard enough to pay him/herself £1m - what exactly is the rationale that the shop floor workers now get paid £30-40,000 for doing exactly the same work? They've not invented anything, created anything, taken any risk - all they've done is carried out a low skill job. You'd then get massive wage inflation. The HR manager might be on £40,000. Why should she do that skilled, possible graduate role, when she can have next to no responsibility as a retail assistant for the same money? She'd either demand much more, or transfer herself to the shop floor.

    The people at the bottom are benefitting for not having done anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    But you're suggesting addressing income inequality by artificially increasing pay for no work.

    Let's say entrepreneur X starts a chain of retail stores. Many of the employees will be carrying out what is objectively low skill work. People work in shops as first jobs or part time jobs because it requires this low skill and training level.

    Entrepreneur X has created these jobs, this entity and the revenues that come with it. No doubt there will be managers, finance staff, logistic staff etc. Nothing will change the reality that the shop floor staff objectively have work product that isn't worth a great deal more than what they are paid.

    The people at the top are worth whatever they can pay themselves, either by salary or dividends. That's the point of entrepreneurship - otherwise, why do it?

    So if the person at the top decides he's worked hard enough to pay him/herself £1m - what exactly is the rationale that the shop floor workers now get paid £30-40,000 for doing exactly the same work? They've not invented anything, created anything, taken any risk - all they've done is carried out a low skill job. You'd then get massive wage inflation. The HR manager might be on £40,000. Why should she do that skilled, possible graduate role, when she can have next to no responsibility as a retail assistant for the same money? She'd either demand much more, or transfer herself to the shop floor.

    The people at the bottom are benefitting for not having done anything.
    The point I'm making is that Companies can afford to pay people properly, they just choose not to. I don't subscribe to the rationale that low paid people don't work hard. John Lewis manage to operate without exploiting workers and they are very successful.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...-model-lessons

    The current levels of inequality are ridiculous and are what's contributing to the rise of populist politics.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6779201.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you not read anything back before you hit "submit"? Wealth filtering up from the poor to the middle classes?

    :toofunny:
    You seem to have picture of the economy where the middle and the top create all the wealth, and those at the bottom are either, lazy, thick or unproductive. The following is a bit of a simplification, but it generally reflect the current economy. The top (£million plus salary or earnings) who are represented in parliament and have their interests looked after by the Tories are happy as Larry. This sector either own or have shares in virtually all essentials, land, property, energy, supermarkets, chain stores, banking, key products, mass production etc. They syphon wealth from the middle and bottom to the top, via our spending, on life's more basic requirements and debt. Very few of them do any work, they have people from the middle and bottom do it for them. The middle level is a combination of inherited wealth, higher salary earners and smaller business owners. The biggest middle sector is the service industries, who predominantly rely on the surplus income of the middle and bottom. If the bottom don't have any surplus, it is not the top that suffers, it is the middle. If the bottom and middle had generally higher wages a good portion of this would go into discretionary spending. The top would get more business, which would offset the cost of higher wages, as automation has reduced the level there anyway.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    The point I'm making is that Companies can afford to pay people properly, they just choose not to. I don't subscribe to the rationale that low paid people don't work hard. John Lewis manage to operate without exploiting workers and they are very successful.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...-model-lessons
    Just lol. You should see how John Lewis treats its suppliers and contractors - like dirt - that's how they afford to price match and throw money at more senior employees. Also, the partnership model of John Lewis doesn't even come close to touching the kind of free money you're talking about.

    JLP Partners get a few thousand pounds a year on average as a bonus, and there are factors like seniority involved- they don't get a universal free money for doing the same job.


    The current levels of inequality are ridiculous and are what's contributing to the rise of populist politics.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6779201.html
    Sure, there's income inequality, but more often than not, it's linked to ability. More able people get paid more. What do you do about the structures where the labour, rather than the management get paid the most? What about entertainment, sports, medicine? The actor/singer/player is getting paid millions, therefore everyone around them has to as well? Good recipe for hyper inflation, and everyone crying about rip-offs.

    What about surgeons? If they earn loads because of their skill, does that mean that their managers should earn more too? What about the person that does the cleaning?

    What you're suggesting is a kind of parasitic model of employment, where people can do low-skilled work, but earn more by seeking out high skilled employers. Can you not see what kind of disaster that would be?

    Cleaners at normal, small business, or at businesses that are just doing ok, would be earning market rates - whatever they're on now. People doing the cleaning for brain surgeons or pop stars would be earning triple that for doing exactly the same work. Everyone would want that work, and you'd have exactly the same income inequalities, but also with the added dimension of the total unfairness of workers for some organisations earning far more than workers at others - due to no effort of their own.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    But you're suggesting addressing income inequality by artificially increasing pay for no work.

    Let's say entrepreneur X starts a chain of retail stores. Many of the employees will be carrying out what is objectively low skill work. People work in shops as first jobs or part time jobs because it requires this low skill and training level.

    Entrepreneur X has created these jobs, this entity and the revenues that come with it. No doubt there will be managers, finance staff, logistic staff etc. Nothing will change the reality that the shop floor staff objectively have work product that isn't worth a great deal more than what they are paid.

    The people at the top are worth whatever they can pay themselves, either by salary or dividends. That's the point of entrepreneurship - otherwise, why do it?

    So if the person at the top decides he's worked hard enough to pay him/herself £1m - what exactly is the rationale that the shop floor workers now get paid £30-40,000 for doing exactly the same work? They've not invented anything, created anything, taken any risk - all they've done is carried out a low skill job. You'd then get massive wage inflation. The HR manager might be on £40,000. Why should she do that skilled, possible graduate role, when she can have next to no responsibility as a retail assistant for the same money? She'd either demand much more, or transfer herself to the shop floor.

    The people at the bottom are benefitting for not having done anything.
    Your scenario seems to imply that it is only the entrepreneur that is producing the wealth, when in reality he is just facilitating the ability for it to be created. Yes he should get the most as his/hers is the most important role, but the actual wealth is created by all of those working in the business. The value of the roles will vary, but in total they will equal the profit. It just needs to be shared out a bit more fairly.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Your scenario seems to imply that it is only the entrepreneur that is producing the wealth, when in reality he is just facilitating the ability for it to be created. Yes he should get the most as his/hers is the most important role, but the actual wealth is created by all of those working in the business. The value of the roles will vary, but in total they will equal the profit. It just needs to be shared out a bit more fairly.
    Wow, straight out of Marx.

    Any other failed 19th century doctrines you'd like to propose? Wooden bicycles? Inflatable corsets?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Just lol. You should see how John Lewis treats its suppliers and contractors - like dirt - that's how they afford to price match and throw money at more senior employees. Also, the partnership model of John Lewis doesn't even come close to touching the kind of free money you're talking about.

    JLP Partners get a few thousand pounds a year on average as a bonus, and there are factors like seniority involved- they don't get a universal free money for doing the same job.



    Sure, there's income inequality, but more often than not, it's linked to ability. More able people get paid more. What do you do about the structures where the labour, rather than the management get paid the most? What about entertainment, sports, medicine? The actor/singer/player is getting paid millions, therefore everyone around them has to as well? Good recipe for hyper inflation, and everyone crying about rip-offs.

    What about surgeons? If they earn loads because of their skill, does that mean that their managers should earn more too? What about the person that does the cleaning?

    What you're suggesting is a kind of parasitic model of employment, where people can do low-skilled work, but earn more by seeking out high skilled employers. Can you not see what kind of disaster that would be?

    Cleaners at normal, small business, or at businesses that are just doing ok, would be earning market rates - whatever they're on now. People doing the cleaning for brain surgeons or pop stars would be earning triple that for doing exactly the same work. Everyone would want that work, and you'd have exactly the same income inequalities, but also with the added dimension of the total unfairness of workers for some organisations earning far more than workers at others - due to no effort of their own.
    A lot of services are sub-contracted so the cleaners getting paid like doctors would never happen anyway.

    Even just a proper minimum wage would be a step in the right direction, employing someone for £7 per hour is criminal IMO. I'm suggesting fair pay not free money. At the moment we've got a system of low pay with in-work benefits subsiding it(corporate welfare in other words).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    Wow, straight out of Marx.

    Any other failed 19th century doctrines you'd like to propose? Wooden bicycles? Inflatable corsets?
    Which part of my analysis did you find inaccurate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Cameron and Blair were both moderate by their respective party's standards.
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Cameron may have been moderate for a Tory, but he is hardly centre. The days of a Blair type option are over as demonstrated by Brown and Milliband's poor showing. If people want right of centre they are going to vote Tory. When Labour try to move right they stop representing the left, which are really what they are about, and lose more votes than they gain.
    Neither was Blairites . Blair was centre right (I kid you not) many called him center left, the only thing he was left on was social issues, Brown was more if a statist (moderate left) and milliband was more left than brown
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 7, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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