The Tory way of governance

Forgot to say, although that would bring in the most revenue, of course, no need for a magic low of 40% either, could be 41% and the higher rate could also have the same small hike.

Your link is from 'thinkleft* djen so it will be automatically skewed leftwards about everything.
'Not taking part in society as a whole' ww what exactly do you mean by that?
With regards to taxation, I think that putting up income tax to 21% is the way to go.
All council tax is going up anyway, as local authorities can now decide ( for the time being) but it won't be enough.
The government should not be fixated about income tax levels staying at a magic low of 20%

Yes that just about sums it up. It is the tail wagging the dog. The minority of the population with wealth seeks to keep even more of it by not taking part in society as a whole.

think-left.org/2017/02/26/pensions-thatchers-vision-is-coming-to-fruition/

There's a very worrying paragraph halfway down this link.

“We can trace the untimely demise of retirement to a number of assumptions about how society ought to be organised. At no other time since its inception has the welfare state been so hated by the governing elite. Social care. Unemployment assistance. Health. Local councils and libraries. Municipal parks. Anything relating to what used to be called “the public good” is attacked at the roots. Austerity redefines these things as fiscal liabilities or deficits rather than shared investments in common decency. It was only a matter of time before pensions too were put on the chopping block”.

It's so true, and yet May pretends it's not so.

Fitzy Tax really is the answer. I've already given one answer (pension contributions). I could give more, including the self-employed who pay themselves dividends instead of income, which avoids National Insurance. As I'm sure you know, NI is now 12% and is just another form of tax - a regressive one. They can also lower their tax by paying corporate tax rather than personal income tax and/or pay pension contributions (with a top of 40% from the government) in lieu of income. It's all perfectly legal, so could be stopped, and costs the country billions. That's before those who park their money offshore, but earn it in the UK, are taxed.

Council tax is another regressive tax, because the poorest generally pay a higher percentage of their income than the wealthiest. People in some of the richest areas, such as Westminster, hardly pay anything, while people in some of the poorest areas pay more for a property worth a fraction of a London property's value.

Tax collected from those who can afford it would make a huge difference.

I could go on, but I'm tired.

No, Fitzy, I was pointing out the discrepancies between top and bottom pay in all the companies mentioned. Do you really think it's okay for those at the bottom to get roughly £8 an hour pay and those at the top to get £4 million+ a year?
I don't at all.

I see that things have moved on a lot. Just to answer GGs question to me, I had been responding to WWs view that the rich should be taxed to make things fairer, even if the tax collected would make little difference to the tax take. I can't go along with that - we shouldn't tax anyone other than to create real, tangible, benefit for the country as a whole.
I agree that the level of CEO pay for the biggest public companies is very hard to justify, but I don't see tax as the answer. I'm hopeful that "shareholder spring" pressure and low wage legislation will continue to even things up from both top and bottom.
DJ your post about Tesco is encouraging inasmuch as you are pointing to them as out of step with their rivals - i.e. in general, things are rather better than the Tesco model would suggest.

" How paying CEOs less can help corporate performance

An era of shrinking remuneration might finally dawn — and the UK may lead the shift"

Sorry, the FT won't let me link, but for those interested it was on February 13th under the big read.

I was looking to see how many CEOs had lost bonuses for poor performance and came across this.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD5fKoy67SAhVM2GMKHVdWDNAQFggzMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2F10952312-ee30-11e6-930f-061b01e23655&usg=AFQjCNEotCh-LSDc8gDHFCYwE5y9uHIWCA

" But the wage rise puts Tesco’s terms and conditions well behind that of its rivals, including Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Aldi and Lidl. Last summer, Sainsbury’s agreed to give 137,000 shopfloor staff a 4% rise to £7.36, its biggest increase in a decade, after pressure from low-pay campaigners.

Aldi pledged to increase staff wages to a minimum rate of £8.40 an hour from this month, while Lidl agreed to pay workers at least £8.20 in line with the living wage. Morrisons pays its workers £8.20 an hour – but it funded that change partly by cutting paid breaks and Sunday pay."
From that link, Norah. Tesco is paying more for the normal hours but cutting elsewhere, robbing Peter to pay Paul, but not robbing the CEO.

Wage inequality has got more exaggerated under the Tories. Many workers have had little or no improvement in salary since 2009. Pay for CEOs of big companies has risen significantly.
I think the problem is DJ that although the CEOs may expend the same amount of energy on their work as someone in a more routine role, it is much easier to find someone with the skills and experience to fill the routine roles. And the possibilities for cock-ups are, generally speaking, much greater. So a select group of people with the right kind of CVs tend to negotiate higher and higher remuneration packages. Another reason why people earning salaries that go into the millions should be taxed a lot more.

durhamjen

The new CEO brought Tesco back from the brink. Viewed as worth his salary.

If I read this correctly, I believe it says Tesco will be paying the national living wage standard on April 1st. Correct?

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/02/tesco-store-staff-31-extra-basic-pay-but-cuts-bonuses

And how do you explain that the poor will be worse off by 20% when compared to the rich rose?

We know that many people voted Brexit and are turning to extreme political parties because they feel left behind, but although May is paying lip service they appear to be doing absolutely nothing to help the situation.

pbs.twimg.com/media/C5msKJtWAAQ2N_w.jpg

What about this, Norah?
Tesco aren't paying their workers enough. But this is what they paid their CEO last year.

www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/13/tesco-boss-dave-lewis-bonus-salary&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjanrS2xK7SAhVFIcAKHbGqBREQFggRMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHiHIK0LBTjmcm_xYuJALhGwIpiig

Yes, of course the CEO actually works much more than one of his workers djen
Are you really serious?!

Not everyone is cut out to be a chief, some have to be the Indians.All firms should be paying the minimum/living wage, but you have to offer good salaries to attract top people to a firm.Everybody knows this.These are the people who's own heads will roll if they don't perform well, and the stress that comes with these jobs is part of what the high salary is for.

daphnedill My opinion and your are 180* different.

I don't care what CEOs earn, I believe (until someone provides links) that the effective CEO is paying workers enough for what the CEO is achieving for the business.

I think money is tight for the younger generation, housing is costly, etc. We had it much easier financially that our children. But I don't blame CEO salaries.

I really can't believe that's what you think, Norah.
Jealousy?
What's wrong with fairness?
Do you think that a CEO actually works that much more than one of his workers that he earns that amount of money?
Does Martin Sorrell really earn £70 million a year? His company just earned another £2 billion profit, but that was because of the fall in the pound after the Brexit vote, nothing to do with how hard he worked.
Not jealousy, just bemusement.

I agree with ww. How come the poor are accused of jealousy, when the rich aren't accused of greed?

Why are the richest paid more to motivate them to work harder, while the justification for cutting benefits and paying low wages is supposed to make the underlings work harder? Something doesn't add up.

Norah I have no objection to a company affording a CEO's high salary, so long as it can also afford to pay other workers at least a living wage. There are plenty of companies which don't.

The other point is whether CEOs really are worth their pay in terms of how much value they add to a business (or public service) compared with somebody else doing the job. More often or not, companies compete with each other on high salaries and CEOs have themselves been responsible for setting them at such a high level.

norah it isn't about jealousy it's about fairness. How can it be fair that the poorest will be 16% poorer by 2020, but the rich 4 % better off?

Yes, I viewed your links. I don't care what the top CEO earns. I'm not married to the top earning CEO, I'm content with what we do have. How does jealousy over wage inequality help that which doesn't affect oneself?

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/12/ftse-100-use-tax-havens-full-list#data

98 of the top 100 FTSE companies used tax havens when this information was published.

highpaycentre.org/blog/New-film-the-shocking-rise-of-inequality-in-britain

We need the tax here.

highpaycentre.org/blog/New-film-the-shocking-rise-of-inequality-in-britain

Good video on this link.