No they don't - and you don't have to wait until you die to pass it on.

Of course they do - it's pretty much a tax on getting dementia.

So Tories tax and spend will defer (again) the removal of the deficit and therefore mean national debt will balloon even further. Where is the criticism?

wrencat - I've long had a huge issue with executive salaries. Whilst some of the totals amassed by people who create companies are a bit obscene, at least its because they've taken a risk and run with an idea/product. Executives arrive way after that has happened and expect to be rewarded as though they are taking the same kind of risks, which they are clearly not. Its also not a supply-demand issue - the argument that if UK exec pay was capped there'd be a big flight of 'talent' overseas is and always has been utter nonsense. Even if it was true, there'd always be someone willing to take their place. Added to that is the horrible 'remuneration committee' system whereby the CEO of one company sets the salary of another CEO and vice versa, which clearly is a nasty conflict of interest.

I'm all in favour of maximum multiples of salaries - i.e. nobody in a company should be able to earn more than X times the lowest FTE salary in the same company (the only exclusion would be for first generation company founders, not their progeny). That way if they can afford to pay everyone well then by all means get more at the top. I'm not sure how big "X" should be, but for me executive pay is by far the biggest failing in the anglo-saxon version of the capitalist system.

I think part of this argument is flawed.

The idea that you could get the same calibre of director for £300k as you get for £3m is like saying I will pay 10% of what Cameron Smith earns and I will get a player of equally quality. Part of the gulf in quality of SL compared to the NRL is down to difference in salary cap. There will always be outlets where the very best talent can financially maximise their abilities. The notion that the UK will put a cap on that and still attract the best talent logically doesn't stack up.

Why do these guys earn such huge sums? Its about three things: Risk management - they are being tasked with protecting huge investment from shareholders. They are hopefully going to generate growth through making the correct strategic decisions. Its longevity of position is quite short.

Why do people who start successful businesses sell out: Firstly to secure their family's future, secondly because the business needs funding that they cannot supply and lastly because they have taken the business as far as they can take and it requires a different skill set to take it to the next level.

There are skills in starting and developing a business but there are other skills in managing huge businesses/organisations and both carry risks in different ways.

Thats a very narrow minded view. Im assuming you haven't worked in a large business in an exec capacity. The risks at start up are very different to that of a mature business.

Mike Ashley the owner of sports direct plus many more companies and a billionaire has said publicly the company became to big for him to run.

Brisbane given you are in Aus lets take look at a established mining company.
To think any would be successful by plugging away at mining for iron ore in WA without looking at world demand and projection is folly. Companies like BHP, Rio Tinto etc are constantly looking at other commodities, projecting current and future demand(plus margins and regional costs), restructuring to suit, plus projecting for the future through exploration activity, securing licences, taking on additional commodities or equally dropping commodities(not forgetting legislation, reputational, legal, green/Env ..............issues) Thats nothing like a start up. That type of work is for the role of a skilled executive with years of global experience. See the Mike Ashley example above.

Why do some have an issue with 0.1 % of the workforce earning millions a year. If they are successful they typically create jobs which benefit many. We talk about media sensationalism then this is a classic example.

So if every shopfloor in the country went on strike for say a week, those said businesses would still be creating wealth by the owner/execs/managers still turning up to put a shift in?

I would suggest the owners could do the job of the shop floor I doubt very much the shop floor could do the job of the managers quite so easily.

If the managers hadn't found the customers in the first place I what would the workers do?

So you are seriously suggesting that a shop floor worker at say Dyson generates as much wealth as James Dyson himself

Having worked in a print environment I take your point so what would you do if the number 1 and 2 printers decided to down tools? If you were working on a long grain press pretty simple to outsource that a bit more tricky for a short grain product. Sheetfed you can get that done anywhere. Print has massive over capacity so placing the work at a competitive rate is not an issue - ask Williams Lea, H&H, Webmart none of these guys have a press between yet manage more print then anyone in the UK.

The problem with print is how it competes with other forms of marketing and how it embraces demand flexibility. Wyndham have introduced more targeted shift patterns and everyone is up in arms.

One of the issues in the UK is we are less productive then our European competitors how is Circle can get better production numbers than say YM?

Your sales guy may well have brought in £750k of work but at what margin? Is the work suitable for your press etc.

The managers have to appoint the correct specialist people e.g. Sales Director, Production Director etc that is a skill getting right makes a huge difference to the success of the business and should never be under estimated.

I disagree with you last point working hard mentally is far more taxing and stressful than physically manning a press - your one decision can make or break a firm and all the people who work for it.

Its not a question of getting people to work hard that has limits its about getting people to work smarter that has no limits to its effectiveness

QT was interesting last night - with Priti Patel getting savaged in the act of defending the indefensible; even with the help of Charles Moore, acting as Mrs May's cheerleader, she did a terrible job of sanitising the uncosted Tory manifesto.

The star performer was Jonathon Bartley of the Greens, with Caroline Lucas also doing a sterling job on the ITV Leaders Debate on the other side; I wonder how many seats they'd win if we had PR in this country? Although I guess that would also give UKIP a bigger presence, so swings and roundabouts.

One for the Boris highlight reel, as he put his foot in it, again.
I'm sure that they could but, they wont want to work for minimum wage, will they
All successful organisations value their staff from bottom to top.
Of course they are all paid differently, depending on their responsibilities but, every part of the business needs to perform well for that business to be successful, not just the management but the whole "team".
Yes, some staff are more easily replaced but, NOBODY is indispensable and that goes for the cleaner and the chief exec and all inbetween.
Good management make their staff feel valued and dont just bleed them dry, that would be more akin to slavery.