How could I possibly know what you don't understand? I don't have access to your mind, nor have you given any opinions or made any points about it for me to address or help me figure out where you stand on it. What a daft thread.

What I don't understand is how you can state that it is a daft thread it is The Sin Bin after all and our sport is salary capped. It seems to link in well whether you agree with it or not...life imitating (our) sport

People thought the national minimum wage would signal the end of the world and now all major political parties have bought into it for political gain. If there is a minimum national wage it is entirely logical there is a maximum too. As for the entrepreneurs, they could pay dividends to supplement therir maxima.

The minimum wage protects the vulnerable, encourages people to work, sets a social liveable level.

Capping the Maximum wage is jealousy. The best business leaders create jobs, maintain stable businesses..... Just leave high earners alone. Lets not chase them out of the country.

Perhaps if some of the highest earners had some social responsibility and didn't just look after number 1, there wouldn't be an issue.
For example, some of the highest businessmen and sportsmen/ celebrities plus, successful business paying a fair amount of tax, there wouldn't be a problem.
Without aspiration, the capitalist model just doesn't work.
Equally, those of us living in a "free" society, wouldn't want to swap that for the communist model of North Korea.

Maybe it's time to do battle with some of the worlds tax havens.

The minimum wage is actually a way of subsidising big business.
If they paid their workers a higher minimum wage, there would be no need for the government to chip in with tax credits and if you boil things down, there is something quite obscene about any person at the top getting £1000's per hour and paying their workers £7.
The person on £7 is probably working hardrer each day that the people in the board room, with a daily battle to put food on the table.
In a civilized society, can this differential be right ?

Except that most of the high earners are simply managers of established big businsses who haven't an entrepreneurial bone in their body. They sit on cash piles because they are too inept or scared to commit to generating new wealth when it is easier to cut costs (jobs) to gain their overinflated bonuses. I have a real problem with these second rate people running major companies and deducting shareholder value by being grossly overpaid.

Why do you "have a real problem" isn't this a matter a for the shareholders?

Sorry Dally this is the daftest thing that I've read in a long time.

I agree with wire-quin let the high earners get on with it with the wrencat proviso that the taxation system is administered fairly.

I suppose in the real world that would be over dependent upon the honesty of the tax payer, the gumption of the exchequer to collect correctly and fairly and the sensibility of the government and policy makers to redistribute that wealth for the greater good.

All of these 'real world' issues wouldn't be solved by having a maximum wage limit, the high earners would either be dis incentivised once they had reached their target, or more likely move to a freer market or spend time searching for and exploiting loopholes denying the exchequer of funds

What is working harder? Should labourers be the best paid workers in the country?

Should we also not be considering responsibility, competence........ or is it all about the 'graft'

This is entirely true, and the sole reason that the NLW has been scaled upwards; to take people out of tax credits and thus, reduce the benefit bill. This is of course ignoring the fact that the single biggest element of the benefit system is pensions - but you can't touch those, because pensioners vote Tory.



That however is nonsense; unless your only measure of 'hard work' is sweat and graft, which is clearly not the case. The harsh reality is that not many people have the skills, qualities and mindset to be a CEO - whereas many many more people are able to do the £7 an hour kind of job you're referring to - so the market values those rarer qualities accordingly. I'm uncomfortable about interfering with that.

That was written with my shareholders hat on.

Why? If a minimum wage is in order (a distortion of market forces), why is a maximum daft? Your logic defies logic.

So a director of a plc would work less hard and produce less for £1 million per year than £6 million? Really? If so, he / she is the wrong man for the job. There is simply no need to pay these managers so much if there was say £1 million on offer rather than say £6 million there would be just as many would be takers for the job.

The rate is what a company is willing to pay, its uncontrollable. The minimum wage of course can be set. If we limit the high earners potential they will move on which cant be good for business. Not to dissimilar to the Premier football league which it could be argued gets the best players because its willing to buy them.

Unlike the Premier League FTSE 100 companies still have a disproportionate number of British directors and so the top talent argument doesn't hold water. These people would still do the jobs for less pay of that there is no question. If they were any good and wanted more money they'd have gone to the USA years ago.