What can be done about the avaricious and selfish

What happened to “ Corporation Pop”?

fancythat

My vicar said this in 2017.
Since then it has only got worse.

But then I read of people who think it is fine for bosses of charities to earn a lot of money.

It was then, at this point, that I personally gave up the fight.

It does seem wrong. However people who run big companies or charities successfully need to be go getters with their eye on the ball. They have the weight of responsibility on them 24/7. Special type of person. Someone who said they did not want to be paid much to do the job unlikely to be someone with the drive to do it well.
Water companies scandalous, yes. There is apparently no clause in their contractsto do the job that says any percentage of income should be reinvested in maintenance of the system.

If it would cost too much to tax payers for privatising the water industry then why not impose really hefty fines on companies that are failing to provide uninterrupted supplies, illegally discharging waste into rivers, failing to repair leaks etc. This would affect company profits and consequently the money available for increased wages and dividends to shareholders.

It was Thatcher Nanna8.

One word comes to my mind.. Corruption..

This is easy to solve, they are providing a public service, the government should control the salary of executives, there is no evidence that high salaries improve efficiency or service provided.

There are ways to take our water back into public ownership.
One way is The Special Administration Regime.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/special-administration-regimes-quick-guide#:~:text=Special%20administration%20regimes%20(SARs)%20are,public%20interest%20or%20economic%20stability.

The environment agency can issue unlimited fines ( thereby forcing the scum into redundancy) by issuing unlimited fines if the company has committed severe or catastrophic pollution incidents.
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen. Too many people in the position to actual fix this are not acting in our interest but for themselves 🤬

Tizliz

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

A friend of ours in Canada has 1000 employees and no-one earns more than 10 x the lowest salary.

That seems a sensible multiple to me. It's not that principle that concerns me, it's that it only the charity sector that people seem to be bothered about when it comes to high salaries.

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

A friend of ours in Canada has 1000 employees and no-one earns more than 10 x the lowest salary.

MaizieD

veronica678

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

I would start saving for a set of dentures right now.

The teeth grinding does terrible things to your teeth and I doubt if the practices which annoy you are going to stop...

Ain't that the truth!

The tax free amount of dividends has been reduced to £500, after this they will be added onto your income and taxed accordingly, but they do not incur NI payments.

Salary sacrifice into one’s pension pot is tax free, you can withdraw 20% of the pot tax free, all other draw downs are taxed at 40%.

This is strictly regulated, haven’t seen any loop holes.

Today on Bluesky Dan Neidle refers to a Times article (which I haven't seen or read) which says that the increase in Scotland to the top rate of tax, from 46% to 48% appears to have considerably diminished the tax take from Scotland's tax paying high earners. He does point out here is clearly a debate to be had about that as there are several factors which could be affecting the calculation, but that's not relevant to my reason for posting this.

What he does say is

That's because people with high incomes often have an ability to control the amount of their taxable income. They can make additional pension contributions, they can take dividends instead of salary, they can defer income.

bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky.social/post/3mrjxw2d7og27

Which, for me, illustrates not the apparent futility of raising tax rates but the need to make taxation more equal (e.g dividends are taxed at a lower rate than earned income as well as having a tax free allowance assigned to them) and less easy for the more wealthy to avoid.

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

No, IMO it shouldn't. But I think that should apply across sectors. I'm never sure why charities are singled out. Yes, they exist to raise money for the cause, but that can be done better if they have people in charge who know how to raise money and target relevant groups effectively. Relying on bring and buy sales and an occasional fete will not do that.

Neither I, not any of my friends and family have worked for a charity - I have no axe to grind - but running an international organisation, and the initiatives necessary to bring in a consistent income for the cause is not something most people could do, and needs to be properly renumerated.

I wouldn't be averse to a rule saying that nobody can earn more than X times the average in their company, but that's not about charities in particular, it's a much more general belief.

TerriBull

Knowing some charities pay huge salaries for CEO's, would not make me want to contribute. Who wants any donations going to support some fat cat rather than what the purpose of what the charity has been set up for. For example, David Milliband earns over $1,250,000 as CEO of a US based charity, International Rescue Committee plus additional perks such as housing allowance. I thinks that's way too much. Charities maintain that they must compete with the private sector, but they aren't the private sector they rely on donations from the public and large amounts of remuneration for their top strata undermines the goodwill of existing and potential contributors. High salaries make a mockery of what their actual purpose is for and undermine public trust. Worse still when the foot soldiers within the orgnisation are sometimes earning a pittance. That standard riposte of "well you need to pay to get the best people" is too much of a cliche" are they the best people if they're prepared to cream off people's hard earned money to go in their back pocket?

Well said Terribull !

Knowing some charities pay huge salaries for CEO's, would not make me want to contribute. Who wants any donations going to support some fat cat rather than what the purpose of what the charity has been set up for. For example, David Milliband earns over $1,250,000 as CEO of a US based charity, International Rescue Committee plus additional perks such as housing allowance. I thinks that's way too much. Charities maintain that they must compete with the private sector, but they aren't the private sector they rely on donations from the public and large amounts of remuneration for their top strata undermines the goodwill of existing and potential contributors. High salaries make a mockery of what their actual purpose is for and undermine public trust. Worse still when the foot soldiers within the orgnisation are sometimes earning a pittance. That standard riposte of "well you need to pay to get the best people" is too much of a cliche" are they the best people if they're prepared to cream off people's hard earned money to go in their back pocket?

Wyllow3

It is very, very needful: the costs however are very real, not at all straightforward, unless there is a sort of political takeover - well it would be literally a seizure of assets? That cuts out the shareholders.

Probably illegal, and almost certainly some pension funds will be seriously affected and my goodness opposed by some of those who currently cry something must be done

Seriously, I see no easy way out of it because of the costs involved in buying them out. We'll take over Thames Water as the cost of keeping them going is already so very high but really it makes no sense to just control one does it?

Thatcher did a lot of damage encouraging sell off of council houses, but this has turned out to be one of the most pernicious things she ever did. And counter intuitive, and...words fail. 😡

If Thatcher had used the money to attract new industry to the old mining towns, & put something more worthwhile than the old YTS in place for unemployed young people, then it would be more understandble (although still need reversing probably , at this point).
But what dod she use it for? Cutting taxes on the wealthy, as far as I can remember.

veronica678

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

I would start saving for a set of dentures right now.

The teeth grinding does terrible things to your teeth and I doubt if the practices which annoy you are going to stop...

Whitewavemark2

Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

I'm puzzled as to why you expect fairness to be 'on the agenda'.

It is not part of the neoliberal economic policy agenda which has been implemented in the UK since the Thatcher era. The supremacy of 'markets' and the interests of owners thereof are the focus.

I posted about the Companies Act 2006 to show that the only duty of care a company's directors' legally have is to the members, i.e the shareholders, of the company. The rest they merely 'have regard too' which is a vastly different from a 'duty'. While neglect of customers and suppliers would have serious financial repercussions for a business the directors can try to get away with poor wages and terms of employment as much as they can. Cheap labour increases their profits and weak unions are unable to do much about them.

When unions, which are the only defence for many employees against exploitation, try to do something radical to change this they are castigated by the media, by politicians and by a very significant portion of the general populace.

What is more, neoliberal economic theory convinces us that better pay and conditions for labour would only lead to increased prices and inflation. An argument as old as the hills, if not older...

Corporate greed is fine. Workers' desire for a larger slice of the pie is reprehensible...

(And before GG13 starts objecting, yes, some employers are excellent)

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

eazybee

Selfishness:Prime Ministers who use a Government Jet to fly from London to Glasgow, then Glasgow to Manchester the following day.
Trips could have been made via train or standard air transport well within the time available.
No wonder Burnham said it was the 'happiest day of his life.'
Not for taxpayers.

Labour (Rachel Reeves) criticised Tories for Sunak's 'private jet habit'
and said Labour would seek to save taxpayers millions of pounds.
Ministerial Code: private planes should only be used when no other alternative is available.

eazybee please could you back this up with timetabled proof. Factoring in any PM’s ability to work during the time they were travelling. Thankyou.

Whitewavemark2

Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

That is disgraceful and makes me so angry.
😡

Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

I agree- if there is any justice for those that died charges should be levied against Paula Vennells. Police investigations into the Horizon scandal are complex, and any potential charging decisions depend heavily on the final findings of the ongoing public inquiry. I would guess charges being made in 2027.

The most legally viable and serious criminal charge under English law regarding a loss of life or suicide linked to corporate and individual executive misconduct in this context is gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter, alongside charges of perverting the course of justice.

Potential Legal Avenues
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: This requires proving that an individual owed a duty of care to the victim, breached that duty in a way that amounted to gross negligence, and that this breach was a substantial cause of death. Legally, tying an individual executive's actions directly to a suicide as a criminal "cause" carries an extremely high legal threshold of proof in UK courts. This would be a difficult charge to prove

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007: This applies to organisations rather than individuals directly, focusing on whether the way the activities of the organisation were managed or organised by senior management amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care. This is likely

Perverting the Course of Justice / Fraud / Perjury: Prosecutors and legal analysts note that building a criminal case against former executives is more reliably anchored to charges like perverting the course of justice, fraud, or misconduct in public/corporate office regarding the systemic wrongful prosecutions and cover-ups, rather than direct homicide charges.. This is a highly likely charge- would be an outcry if not levied





I think Vennells should face charges of negligent manslaughter at the very least. As should those who were in the know either with the PO or working for the company that installed the bloody awful hardware that destroyed peoples lives.
When will those at the top face accountability for anything??
Whilst the rest of us poor mortals face accountability all our lives.

TerriBull

Yes agree Oreo and depressingly because of the binding nature of contracts, it seems they're set in stone, why can't some clauses apply dependent on performance Managers of Health Trusts where overwhelming negligence has occurred on their watch are some of the worst imo and then they just move on to another lucrative position.

Paula Vennels is another who springs to mind she picked up a fair whack and the lives she ruined

Query: has Paula Vennells been prosecuted over her wilfull vendetta against innocent Postmasters? Some did commit suicide so would she be culpable in some way, ie: manslaughter?

She appears to have moved Heaven and Earth in order to save face.