Corbyn wants to ban Co.'s which don't pay living wage from paying dividends
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Reue
If they are already getting punished through share price, why double it up with dividends?
One is a % of, the other is a % increase. Without going into the full financial accounts to find total figures for shareholder capital and headcount expenditure it's the best comparison available.
One is a % of, the other is a % increase. Without going into the full financial accounts to find total figures for shareholder capital and headcount expenditure it's the best comparison available.
With industry averages they can be made a bit more comparable, presumably the 2% is of revenues, and if we take the rail sector the average staffing costs are about 25%, of the whole, so you're looking at a net 6pc increase, before considering knock on costs from suppliers and the likes, which gives you a 2% divided and a comparable 6pc wages change.
Of course it doesn't work across the board given other industries have different percentages, but it isn't too hard to pull up data to make things roughly comparable in instances.
As an aside, people complaining about rail fare increases clearly didn't want the staff to get a pay rise given that the vast majority of the fare rise will go to covering higher wages.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
I suspect he will mean the over inflated "living wage with major comforts" as given by the living wage foundation rather than the "national living wage"
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Yeah and that living wage campaign was forwarded and has the strong backing of none other than the raving socialist Boris Johnson.
If a company can't afford to pay its electricity bills or a venue, it should not be in business. Likewise if it can't afford to pay it's staff a wage they can reasonably live on then they should not be in business.
Original post by Bornblue
Yeah and that living wage campaign was forwarded and has the strong backing of none other than the raving socialist Boris Johnson.
Vote winners win vltes
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
How unprincipled of him.
Lots of tories support it. David Cameron has issues all government departments to pay the living wage. What a horrible socialist.
The idea that a living wage is some made socialist left wing ideal is simply untrue. If a business can't afford to pay its staff a wage they can live on then frankly they shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Adam smith turns in his grave
Reading this thread is like watching bald men arguing over a comb.
There isn't going to be a Corbyn Government, this policy will never be implemented, and discussing its merits is about as relevant to the real world and British industry as arguing whether there is intelligent life on Mars
Which isn't to say, mind, that it wouldn't be used by the Tories and leaders of industry as yet another stick to beat Labour over the head with.
You know to join all the others. The country's safety and security? Leave NATO, ditch Trident, destroy the US alliance and shrink the armed forces. Terrorism? UNDERSTAND them and don't shoot to kill when the bad guys are in the sights of a drone. Immigration? It must be uncontrolled and the more "rapefugees" the better! The NHS? Support the JDs even if their strike kills patients. Trusted on the the economy? Spend spend spend! Borrow borrow borrow! Tax tax tax!
This is yet another, ridiculously bonkers lefty proposal, which if brought in will be ripped apart in GE campaign, when the Tories and their friends in the press have tired of gorging and feasting on all the others above.
There isn't going to be a Corbyn Government, this policy will never be implemented, and discussing its merits is about as relevant to the real world and British industry as arguing whether there is intelligent life on Mars
Which isn't to say, mind, that it wouldn't be used by the Tories and leaders of industry as yet another stick to beat Labour over the head with.
You know to join all the others. The country's safety and security? Leave NATO, ditch Trident, destroy the US alliance and shrink the armed forces. Terrorism? UNDERSTAND them and don't shoot to kill when the bad guys are in the sights of a drone. Immigration? It must be uncontrolled and the more "rapefugees" the better! The NHS? Support the JDs even if their strike kills patients. Trusted on the the economy? Spend spend spend! Borrow borrow borrow! Tax tax tax!
This is yet another, ridiculously bonkers lefty proposal, which if brought in will be ripped apart in GE campaign, when the Tories and their friends in the press have tired of gorging and feasting on all the others above.
Original post by Jammy Duel
As an aside, people complaining about rail fare increases clearly didn't want the staff to get a pay rise given that the vast majority of the fare rise will go to covering higher wages.
Posted from TSR Mobile
As an aside, people complaining about rail fare increases clearly didn't want the staff to get a pay rise given that the vast majority of the fare rise will go to covering higher wages.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Even you don't believe that. For a clever guy you say some ridiculous stuff.
Of coures they want staff to be paid more, but they want a nationalized system where money isn't leached out for the benefit of a few individuals.
The taxpayer gives huge grants to the railway companies, we pay huge rail fares and it's the few at the top who get all the profits.
All money should be reinvested back into the system to create a better service which treats its staff well.
Crazy idea I know, that crazy socialist company Germany for example has the best all round rail network in Europe, far cheaper and faster than ours and it's nationalized. Crazy.
Original post by Bornblue
If a company can't afford to pay its electricity bills or a venue, it should not be in business. Likewise if it can't afford to pay it's staff a wage they can reasonably live on then they should not be in business.
If it can only afford to pay its staff the minimum wage or it will go out of business and is forced to pay more and then goes out of business...
How have you helped the workers who were on the minimum wage but are no longer on any wage at all?
Or (and this is probably more likely) how does forcing a company to pay more than they can afford on wage levels, so they don't take on new staff to stay in business, or make a profit for their shareholders (which is WHY they are in business), help the unemployed who would have liked that job even at the minimum wage but now don't have one?
Original post by JezWeCan!
If it can only afford to pay its staff the minimum wage or it will go out of business and is forced to pay more and then goes out of business...
How have you helped the workers who were on the minimum wage but are no longer on any wage at all?
Or (and this is probably more likely) how does forcing a company to pay more than they can afford on wage levels, so they don't take on new staff to stay in business, or make a profit for their shareholders (which is WHY they are in business), help the unemployed who would have liked that job even at the minimum wage but now don't have one?
How have you helped the workers who were on the minimum wage but are no longer on any wage at all?
Or (and this is probably more likely) how does forcing a company to pay more than they can afford on wage levels, so they don't take on new staff to stay in business, or make a profit for their shareholders (which is WHY they are in business), help the unemployed who would have liked that job even at the minimum wage but now don't have one?
If a company can't afford its offices or to pay its bills it goes out of business. If it can't afford to pay its workers a wage they can live on, the same should happen.
Stop treating people like dirt and pay them a respectable wage.
Tax breaks for companies who pay a living wage.
Original post by Bornblue
How unprincipled of him.
Lots of tories support it. David Cameron has issues all government departments to pay the living wage. What a horrible socialist.
The idea that a living wage is some made socialist left wing ideal is simply untrue. If a business can't afford to pay its staff a wage they can live on then frankly they shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Lots of tories support it. David Cameron has issues all government departments to pay the living wage. What a horrible socialist.
The idea that a living wage is some made socialist left wing ideal is simply untrue. If a business can't afford to pay its staff a wage they can live on then frankly they shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Because it's a well known fact that the Tory party actually are proper right wingers
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
If a company can't afford its offices or to pay its bills it goes out of business. If it can't afford to pay its workers a wage they can live on, the same should happen.
Stop treating people like dirt and pay them a respectable wage.
Tax breaks for companies who pay a living wage.
Stop treating people like dirt and pay them a respectable wage.
Tax breaks for companies who pay a living wage.
Tax breaks are a good idea, no problem with that, the less tax on companies the better, taking away dividends though would be disastrous.
Companies are in business to make profits, not employ workers. It like you don't get that??
If it is the choice of having profits or employing staff, profits will come first. You will raise the levels of unemployment and throw people who want to work and are prepared to, out of work. Adding to the national welfare bill to boot.
As for you naive, moral argument, in that case, just who is treating whom like dirt?
Original post by Bornblue
Even you don't believe that. For a clever guy you say some ridiculous stuff.
Of coures they want staff to be paid more, but they want a nationalized system where money isn't leached out for the benefit of a few individuals.
The taxpayer gives huge grants to the railway companies, we pay huge rail fares and it's the few at the top who get all the profits.
All money should be reinvested back into the system to create a better service which treats its staff well.
Crazy idea I know, that crazy socialist company Germany for example has the best all round rail network in Europe, far cheaper and faster than ours and it's nationalized. Crazy.
Of coures they want staff to be paid more, but they want a nationalized system where money isn't leached out for the benefit of a few individuals.
The taxpayer gives huge grants to the railway companies, we pay huge rail fares and it's the few at the top who get all the profits.
All money should be reinvested back into the system to create a better service which treats its staff well.
Crazy idea I know, that crazy socialist company Germany for example has the best all round rail network in Europe, far cheaper and faster than ours and it's nationalized. Crazy.
Wait, are you seriously saying that you think I don't believe that 0.25x0.03=0.0075? That this is in turn 0.35% less than the average fare increases, and that if we continue to suppose approximately 25%, staffing costs up the supply chain that gives us nearly a further 0.2?
Is it not totally mad, the sheer innumeracy of people. If all the fare rises are going straight to profits, how recently do you think the railways started making a profit? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Nope, they started in 2014, so somehow they were running at a massive loss for decades.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Wait, are you seriously saying that you think I don't believe that 0.25x0.03=0.0075? That this is in turn 0.35% less than the average fare increases, and that if we continue to suppose approximately 25%, staffing costs up the supply chain that gives us nearly a further 0.2?
Is it not totally mad, the sheer innumeracy of people. If all the fare rises are going straight to profits, how recently do you think the railways started making a profit? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Nope, they started in 2014, so somehow they were running at a massive loss for decades.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Is it not totally mad, the sheer innumeracy of people. If all the fare rises are going straight to profits, how recently do you think the railways started making a profit? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? Nope, they started in 2014, so somehow they were running at a massive loss for decades.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You have completely ignored what I said and as usual thrown in a load of random figures which don't pertain to the point I was making to try and make you sound clever.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Tax breaks are a good idea, no problem with that, the less tax on companies the better, taking away dividends though would be disastrous.
Companies are in business to make profits, not employ workers. It like you don't get that??
If it is the choice of having profits or employing staff, profits will come first. You will raise the levels of unemployment and throw people who want to work and are prepared to, out of work. Adding to the national welfare bill to boot.
As for you naive, moral argument, in that case, just who is treating whom like dirt?
Companies are in business to make profits, not employ workers. It like you don't get that??
If it is the choice of having profits or employing staff, profits will come first. You will raise the levels of unemployment and throw people who want to work and are prepared to, out of work. Adding to the national welfare bill to boot.
As for you naive, moral argument, in that case, just who is treating whom like dirt?
Sorry I forgot the idea of basic human decency offends your type.
We should treat people like with respect and not like dirt.
That's not a crazy socialist idea, that's one of basic human decency. If you want people to make money for you, then pay them a wage that they can afford to live on. We're not talking outrageous amounts. Just a few more pounds an hour so they can afford to live not on the breadline.
Paying staff well also creates a more productive, happier workforce.
If you want people's services, pay them a wage they can live on. If you can't afford to then you shouldn't be in business. I'm more than happy to have tax breaks for companies who pay their staff more.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
You have completely ignored what I said and as usual thrown in a load of random figures which don't pertain to the point I was making to try and make you sound clever.
Or alternatively I was sticking with the matter at hand rather than following your digression. Feel free to go and verify the figures, even for you it shouldn't be too hard to find the relevant information.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Or alternatively I was sticking with the matter at hand rather than following your digression. Feel free to go and verify the figures, even for you it shouldn't be too hard to find the relevant information.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Not at all. You were trying to make out those people who complained about rail fares don't want staff to be paid well. Your narrow focus misses the idea that they want a nationalised service where staff are paid more, the service is better and the fares are much cheaper.
But only radically socialist countries like Germany have such a service.
Original post by Bornblue
Sorry I forgot the idea of basic human decency offends your type.
We should treat people like with respect and not like dirt.
That's not a crazy socialist idea, that's one of basic human decency. If you want people to make money for you, then pay them a wage that they can afford to live on. We're not talking outrageous amounts. Just a few more pounds an hour so they can afford to live not on the breadline.
Paying staff well also creates a more productive, happier workforce.
If you want people's services, pay them a wage they can live on. If you can't afford to then you shouldn't be in business. I'm more than happy to have tax breaks for companies who pay their staff more.
We should treat people like with respect and not like dirt.
That's not a crazy socialist idea, that's one of basic human decency. If you want people to make money for you, then pay them a wage that they can afford to live on. We're not talking outrageous amounts. Just a few more pounds an hour so they can afford to live not on the breadline.
Paying staff well also creates a more productive, happier workforce.
If you want people's services, pay them a wage they can live on. If you can't afford to then you shouldn't be in business. I'm more than happy to have tax breaks for companies who pay their staff more.
You haven't answered my point at all, just resorted to an ad hom. If you do attempt to reply I will respond, otherwise there is nothing further to say.
There were a few British industrialists who think like you. The Quaker founders of the chocolate and cocoa companies. Very enlightened, very decent, and their companies prospered for many years. But look what happened to them?
The couldn't survive in the cut throat world of global capitalism. Rowntrees were taken over by Nestle, a huge, brutal, Swiss multinational and Cadburys by Kraft, an American one.
Original post by Bornblue
Not at all. You were trying to make out those people who complained about rail fares don't want staff to be paid well. Your narrow focus misses the idea that they want a nationalised service where staff are paid more, the service is better and the fares are much cheaper.
But only radically socialist countries like Germany have such a service.
But only radically socialist countries like Germany have such a service.
You !want like a nation that invested huge amounts into new railways in the last century because they had basically no railways left compared to a nation where most of the min lines are 200 years old?
But hey, all I was saying is that that 1.1%, pretty much covers wages.
I also put to you that if the question of nationalists were to be put in a realistic manner, I.e. the fates are lower but general taxation increases to compensate, support will drop significantly, especially amongst those who don't use the railways, after all, people tend to not like subsidies they do not benefit from, why should those rich people commuting into London have their transport costs paid for by the working poor?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Working at KFC
- Which is more realistic going college or forgetting dreams and paid cleaning job?
- Is My Pay Rise Expectation Unreasonable? (AAT Apprenticeship)
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Can an independent student have an LTD company and benefit from student financing?
- Cifas removal request
- Is earning 25k a year considered poor?
- University of Pennsylvania - Fundamentals of Finance - MOOC
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- 50k what would you do with that
- No Guarantor, No Co-Signer, Being Kicked Out, What Can I Do?
- Pre-reg salary + contracts
- What should I do if my workplace is investigating allegations of gross misconduct & i
- Can someone help me with this task?
- How to earn money and live independently
- What to do??
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Is a grand in 2 months good?
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 5 minutes ago
Kingston or Westminster university for architecture?Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1020
Last reply 13 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 17 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 23 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1292
Last reply 24 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 26 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 27 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 29 minutes ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 3 (H567/03) - 3rd June [Exam Chat]Last reply 31 minutes ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2 (H567/02) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
