The Tory way of governance

highpaycentre.org/counter

Have you looked at this, Norah?
By the way, I said him intentionally as most of the top CEOs are men.

There was a conference for the Northern Powerhouse, and the few women who were invited decided to boycott because of the lack of women included.

I have to duck out for a while as well. Will get back to this - interesting discussion.

durhamjen

"Fitzy, do you really think it fair that a top CEO earns more in a day that many people working for him earn in a year?"

If the company can afford her wages and views her as worth those wages, she must bring something to the table, so why not pay her well?

I am sorry Fitzy; I realise we are all asking you questions. I am ducking out for a while as I have things to do so you can draw breath a little

Why does the money the rich have count as their money Fitzy? When the Barons stole all the land would that have counted as theirs just because they had taken it? If income were more evenly distributed the tax could be too but who set up the system that made the rich continue to get richer while the poorer end of the spectrum continued to get poorer. They may not have attacked with axes and swords but they have stolen the riches of this country in just the same way. Would you say we should never have increased the inheritance tax that broke up the great estates because it was their money?

Fitzy, do you really think it fair that a top CEO earns more in a day that many people working for him earn in a year?
How many more hours work can that CEO put in to be given what he is?

highpaycentre.org/counter

Well, there are a lot of points here! I'll have a crack at a few at least.
WW - I really can't get along with any idea of taxing anyone unless there is a truly significant benefit for the country as a whole. If it doesn't put a serious dent in the tax gap, I wouldn't support it. The money which the wealthy have is, after all, their money.
In terms of investment, I see the argument, but it could very easily get completely out of control. I don't have a great deal of confidence that the right choices (how much, which projects etc) would be made.
DD - when you quote £8bn saved through limiting pension tax relief to the basic rate, does this figure take into account that the pension on the way out should then will only attract basic rate tax, even if over the higher rate threshold? That would, in the long run, reduce the saving. The affect of pension tax relief is reducing anyway as a consequence of the caps on contributions by higher earners.
More generally, GDP isnt red herring. I agree it isn't the end of the story but historically it does seem to give a fair indication of how much we can collect in taxes, whatever taxes or rates may apply.

Why wouldn't charging pensioners a reduced NI be a 'goer'? They're in the minority, so the majority would gain? Seems fair to me!

roses Abolishing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would only lose the votes from the people who pay it. Only a minority pay it, although they skew average (mean) income figures. Anyway, I thought you believed in democracy, so surely the majority (who don't pay it) should have their way. Do you really believe that the richest should be subsidised by the government more than the poorest?

Being a vote loser doesn't make something wrong! The point is that it's possible, if there's a will.

Maybe it's time for a revolution, after all! I'll get my knitting ready and practise being a 'tricoteuse'!

fairtaxmark.net/breakthrough/

Is your council signed up to the fair tax mark?

It wouldn't lose my vote, roses.

Here's one way to make tax dodgers play fair.

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/08/corporate-tax-dodgers-evasion-avoidance-local-councils-public-procurement-purchasing-power-paul-monaghan

I can't see that charging pensioners NI would ever be a 'goer' , chasing offshore investments is something that up to now has not been done by any Government,
And abolishing the higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would not be favoured either ( a vote loser.)

whitewave It's not just income - the real problem is wealth. A person can make more from owning a London property from price inflation than most people can make from working. The UK has one of the most uneven distributions of wealth in the world and wealth is undertaxed compared with most Western European countries. It only gets worse from one generation to the next.

Fitzy As we've discussed before, growing the economy doesn't matter if the wealth doesn't get into people's pockets - and it isn't. GDP is a red herring. We really don't tax the super wealthy enough.

roses That's nonsense. £8 billion could be saved by abolishing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions. There is also the question of charging pensioners for NI. And that's just for starters. The tax gap, caused by offshore investment runs into billions. The price for not taxing the people who could pay is to have millions of people at the bottom living in real poverty.

daph especially if the poor has no representation in parliament. The boundary changes are a real challenge to democracy in this country.

No, we're not. The UK has low productivity. The classic way for managers to deal with that is to make redundancies and try to get people to work harder and/or more effectively. There is a real threat in the next few years technology will cause even more unemployment. There's also a real threat that the government will try to turn the UK into a tax haven post-Brexit, which will also mean less money spent on public services. It's going to be the industrial revolution all over again. I'm really wondering how much people will tolerate.

Of course it also very much depends on ones attitude to state intervention and the size of the state. Which I think is the crux of the matter and this governments real intention.

fitz well I would like to see a more even distribution across the income scale, simply because it is fairer. But I really don't expect it to contribute to the gap. What I do think would help is government investment - money in incredibly cheap - in all sorts of infrastructure projects in order to grow the economy. Tax receipts will then close the gap, and austerity cuts would not be so necessary.

There aren't enough super rich around to make much difference to money coming in through taxation, and as Fitzy says they are already being taxed.

WW we are growing the economy and we are taxing the very rich. Some financial stimulation probably is a good idea, but leaving that aside for a moment, what sort of increase in taxes, and who (how rich?) did you have in mind?

It won't just be Tesco though Jen. With the government already subsidising so many employers in this way I would ask if we are really seeing the economy we have described to us.

pbs.twimg.com/media/C5msKJtWAAQ2N_w.jpg

Can we affect this?

I am enjoying reading your posts but nothing is simple is it Fitzy? I agree that working in the gig economy is not much fun but it will also cost us in the long-run. It is not just those working in a warehouse though, its others who will be able to command much more money now they have realised what is happening. The country isn't benefiting from this nor is it benefiting from the current use of platform economy set-ups. People will rebel against being used and excluded from previously hard won benefits.

I can already see the changes in some areas of teaching. This is leading to burn-out among 'salaried' staff and the very flexibility that college managers were looking for being used by those they need so they are finding they do not have people to fill the posts and those that will work in these jobs only do what the new job descriptions (paying less) ask of them heaping more work on salaried staff. Of course, some may not feel education of our whole population matters, but for the sake of the economy and for all of us it probably does.

This may be the way to go perhaps we will all run ourselves as Fitzy Ltd or GracesGran Ltd but I think those employing any of us will then find they have lost the choices the unrecognised flexibility the original salaried staff gave them.

Rather than just legislation catching up someone just has to think about where we are going and realise they cannot do everything on the backs of the workers while those living on capital get richer - it only works for so long.

...and council houses.