2015 post UK election discussion

[marty mcfly]

How about, for example, Mike Ashley who has immigrants working on zero hour contracts in horrible conditions constantly fearing for their jobs, whilst he enjoys running a football club with big tradition into the ground by using it as a giant billboard for sports direct?

And I've said over and over insourcing and immigration are the biggest reasons why poor people here aren't doing better.

 

[bizzaro]

How about, for example, Mike Ashley who has immigrants working on zero hour contracts in horrible conditions constantly fearing for their jobs, whilst he enjoys running a football club with big tradition into the ground by using it as a giant billboard for sports direct?

Mike Ashley is widely criticised for using contracts meant for temporary workers for full time employees.

There will always be a come down on someone like him. That will happen sooner rather than later under this government.

http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/03/parliament-raises-pressure-on-mike-ashley-to-be-answerable/

Parliament raises pressure on Mike Ashley to be answerable
MPs are refusing to allow Mike Ashley to get away with the contempt he is holding parliament in.
So far, Mike Ashley has simply batted back requests by the Scottish affairs committee to get him to appear before them to explain the overwhelming use of zero hours contracts, plus the200 job losses after the sudden closure of the Ayrshire warehouse of USC, a fashion retailer owned by Sports Direct.

However, now the Scottish affairs committee have pushed the issue further and made public their latest letter to Ashley’s advisers, asking him to elaborate on what the ‘immovable commitments’ are that are preventing him appearing before the parliamentary committee throughout the entire month of March.

The letter reads:

“Please provide, without further delay, the information that the committee has asked for on what immovable commitments Mr Ashley has throughout the entirety of March which are preventing him from appearing before the committee.”


...
MPs do have power to formally summon those who refuse to give evidence but there was only limited time available ahead of the upcoming election.

If Mike Ashley continues to make his feeble excuses as to why he shouldn’t voluntarily justify how he treats his staff, then fingers crossed that when the new parliament is formed, the new/re-elected MPs don’t let the matter drop.

 

[Tubey]

You still earn the money that you then have to pay in tax.

Without you earning it there would be no tax.

Yes, and good on them... My point isn't complicated. Earn money, great. Pay taxes, super. Earn billions, pay taxes, absolutely wonderful, no complaints from me.

Earn money, then refuse to pay taxes like anyone else, it's greed, as you are cheating the system, legally or not.

As you said, honestly think there's something to be said for aiming for a universal rate as a proportion of income. If someone earns £25,000 and pays 30% of their income as tax, and someone earns £6bn and pays 30% as tax, both should be happy.

 

[marty mcfly]

Both figures are right - the Mail haven't looked at it as a proportion of overall income.

Of course the rich pay more as they have more, but as a proportion of their wealth they pay 8% less.

If earning money is a level playing field and everyone is only limited by their hard work, which is the Tory idealist mantra, why are you punished if you start off on the lower rungs?

The orange bar is share of total income.

 

[marty mcfly]

There is a reason I didn't bother responding to your US figure and that is because... Well, we're talking about the UK.

It's no different here except the poor pay less. America isn't known for it's generous wealthy elites and good public services.

 

[1966efc]

The super rich don't get rich of the back of anyone. Bill Gates didn't get rich of the back of anyone. Neither did Steve Jobs etc

The super rich get rich of their own ability. Granted not everyone is capable of that and the super rich should be doing more but neither party is going to go after them. They simply can't but if it did the money would instead go into our economy rather than internationally meaning the world would never improve and we would continue to live of the backs of the really poor in the world - just like during the colonial days.

However you also don't improve the economy by creating a load of new university places to give people degrees that are worthless because the students aren't capable to do those jobs when they come out or the degree is pointless.

If Labour where practically driven and not idelogically driven they would have invested in apprentiships.

Why instead of trying to shame people actually open yourself up to the arguments and practical global results and stop trying to assume everyone who is rich or supports those policies is evil.

The Duke of Westminster?

 

[daylightrobber]

And I've said over and over insourcing and immigration are the biggest reasons why poor people here aren't doing better.

More bull. Lets blame the foreigners.

 

[bring the ghost on]

And I've said over and over insourcing and immigration are the biggest reasons why poor people here aren't doing better.

Right, so Mike Ashley pays peanuts on exploitative zero hours contracts to immigrants trying to earn a fair wage, and that is their fault?

 

[Sapie88]

What's everyone having for tea?

I had popcorn chicken. It was alright.

 

[Tubey]

The orange bar is share of total income.

That's not the same metric - unless I'm reading it wrong, that's the share of the total income to the treasury, not household income.

 

[bizzaro]

And I've said over and over insourcing and immigration are the biggest reasons why poor people here aren't doing better.

Wrong here. Whilst it has had some impact.

In 2009 the UK as a nation effectively decided to take a pay freeze for 5 years which partly ensured that mass unemployment was not seen.

Immigration has had some impact on wages.

However, we are in a global economy and the UK worker is having to compete with India and China, the USA and elsewhere for jobs.

Anyone that thinks the days of taking things easy and having things handed to you on a plate. Are not living in the real world.

 

[Seanjd]

Mike Ashley is widely criticised for using contracts meant for temporary workers for full time employees.

There will always be a come down on someone like him. That will happen sooner rather than later under this government.

http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/03/parliament-raises-pressure-on-mike-ashley-to-be-answerable/

Your source must be off, because they also wrote this.

http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/05/mike-ashley-nets-106m-windfall/

"The election result produced Champagne corks popping at Sports Direct (amongst the bosses anyway), as with Labour’s failure it means no crackdown on zero hour contracts which would have potentially given around 90% of Mike Ashley’s employees better employment rights."

 

[Woolly Blue]

I think you are wrong. This is exactly what the rich have/do. They don't 'invest' their money abroad. They aren't investing it, they are effectively putting it there for safekeeping because they aren't taxes on it. It's a way of boosting your profits.

I think you're wrong mate.
Lets run with an example, it's on a smaller scale, but the principle's the same.

I have a fictitious 100k burning a hole in my pocket, but don't need to spend it so have quite a few options, some of which are :-

1. Invest it in something in the UK and pay Income Tax on it, and / or CGT on any profits
2. Stick it in the bank, receive bugger all interest and pay next to no tax on the minimal income generated
3. Invest it abroad, generating a return outside of UK tax

I will only do (3) if I get a better return on the tax-free option than I'd get from the taxed option on (1). If option (3) was a poor investment, I'd be better off going for (1) and paying the tax on it. Anything else would be cutting my nose off to spite my face, and, in this hypothetical world, I'm rich, but not stupid.

The caveat to that is if the rich are worried about being on their assets rather than the profit generated by their assets then it makes sense to shift those assets out of reach of the state. The country's pretty goosed financially so that's a real concern for the super-rich.

 

[Groucho]

Wrong here. Whilst it has had some impact.

In 2009 the UK as a nation effectively decided to take a pay freeze for 5 years which partly ensured that mass unemployment was not seen.

Immigration has had some impact on wages.

However, we are in a global economy and the UK worker is having to compete with India and China, the USA and elsewhere for jobs.

Anyone that thinks the days of taking things easy and having things handed to you on a plate. Are not living in the real world.

I fear a 10 year pay freeze while prices rise as normal.

 

[marty mcfly]

Both figures are right - the Mail haven't looked at it as a proportion of overall income.

Of course the rich pay more as they have more, but as a proportion of their wealth they pay 8% less.

If earning money is a level playing field and everyone is only limited by their hard work, which is the Tory idealist mantra, why are you punished if you start off on the lower rungs?

They aren't though. They're limited by their abilty. However it's still a level playing field. That's why we should bring back grammar schools so gifted poor kids have a chance.