Absolutely no-one is saying there shouldn't be a reward for risk (as long as the counter to that is that the risk taker pays the price of failure, not the public). Plenty of successful & 'happier' countries - Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Austria - manage to have a much lower gap between low/high earnings.

Any "cap on earnings" could be managed with an efficient taxation system and not allowing offshore accounts, image rights, ghost companies etc.

One issue that does puzzle me on people "paying their share" is people always pointing the finger at Amazon, Google etc but, "we" are "happy" to allow our tp sportsman and entertainers to take their wealth abroad.

Getting back to taking risks etc to make money, the clever ones end up with very, very little personal risk as they use "borrowd money" to fund their ventures, leaving me and you to foot the bill.

There are two elements that concern me here.

1. Those that are paid huge amounts for delivering failure or even mediocrity.

2. While I’m happy for people who through some combination of luck, talent and hard work become multi-millionaires, nobody deserves to be a billionaire, imo. I don’t think it is healthy for society, including the billionaires themselves. I don’t believe in the idea of superpeople. Bill Gates excelled in what he did, but a lot of it was right time, right place - he lived down the road from one of the few decent computers of the time when he was a kid and had access to it. And I doubt he’d have sacked his endeavours off if he’d be told his net worth would would be limited to $93 million rather than being able to reach the current estimated $93 billion.

If I was king of everything, and somebody came up with something brilliant and valuable, I’d happily pay them handsomely from the world treasury i’d oversee. However, if when they’ve got tens of millions of dollars, euros or pounds, they’re still asking for more, i’d ask ‘what for?’. For me, at that point trying to ensure that other people can live fulfilling lives beyond just the basics of survival would be a much bigger priority.

To be able to say that anybody with any sort a roof over their head, with access to tap water and food in their belly is doing just fine, while fretting about motivating people who are concerned about only being super rich, rather than mind boggling rich, is a bit odd.

The last time the UK had very high personal taxation 98% at the top IIRC all the high earners simply left and the tax take went down - so not sure how you stop that happening. Its a balancing act tax rates against tax take - put it up too much and the take falls.

The amounts earned by top entertainers/sportsmen is tiny compared to the earning of our larger corporations there are so few mega earners - no doubt you would have them capped/taxed too?

Not sure you last statement is correct especially in their Genesis of their companies.

Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution.


Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though.

An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously

First of all, I'm not advocating a 98% top tax rate and secondly, my point regarding entertainers/sportsmen (and women) is that they are happy to take the rewards and "prestige" that comes with thier fame and fortune but many are just tax dodgers, finding any which way to avoid paying income tax and yet they are idolised in the media and press.

If you or I used the same evasion/avoidance we'd probably be hunted down and put behind bars. and thats with a top rate of income tax of 45% (not 98%).

Quote: Sal Paradise "Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution. Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though. An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously'" Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675

Quote: Sal Paradise "Where does the wealth generation come from that supports the whole economy? That is why these entrepeneurs are so important. THey create companies that employ people - its is the private sector that basically funds the whole economy, yes the government can borrow but that is not a long term solution. Yes there are people paid massive money to oversee failure - they don't usually last too long though. An entrpeneur builds a business that goes massive and it earns him billions what are you suggesting that a point in its development the owner hands over his shares when he has accumlated say £100m and the wealth in the business is then put in the hands of the likes of Corbyn/McDonald - seriously'" Wealth generation isn’t just one person having a good idea and employing people from a sense of altruism. Workers contribute massively to the success of these enterprises. You exaggerate their importance (the entrepreneurs) because you imagine they’re irreplaceable benefactors, whereas workers are seen as interchangeable. It’s economics’ answer to history’s great man theory. I’m not suggesting i really be made king of the world, but I would support measures to redistribute wealth quite dramatically. Through more progressive taxes on income and wealth, greater employee ownership and so on. Even if that were feasible, in the UK I feel like we have a second order problem though. A lack of social cohesion means that we have tiered ghettoisation. Most notably in terms of schools, perhaps. Therefore, there’s a danger that distributed wealth would just be sunk into spiralling housing costs as people scramble to get into better catchment areas. As for failing upwards - Donald Trump is a striking example, obviously. But Richard Fuld is still worth $160 million and he is one of those associated with massive failure during the crash who is back on Wall Street. https://www.ft.com/content/5fbb6f16-c33 ... 86f39ef675

There are plenty of solutions out there that could improve equality, but the conservatives are not interested in helping your average working class family. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-13804031

There are plenty of solutions out there that could improve equality, but the conservatives are not interested in helping your average working class family. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... d-13804031

No we wouldn't, as a director I could take a lower salary and pay myself a dividend - both are legal ways of reducing my tax burden. I could employ my wife and take a lower salary i.e. get double personal allowance. The taxation system has evolved and is continuing to evolve to max the tax take. It may seem unfair but it does appear to offer the best solution. If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates

You are right to say that, from the Exchequer's point of view, it's about maximising revenues. However, the system has to be viewed as being "fair".

One of the flaws in Labours manifesto is to believe that increasing corporation tax, will substantially increase revenues. Business will always try to retain as much cash as possible and investing in capital is an area where the UK, particularily through the 70's and 80's and currently (due to the uncertainty of Brexit), has dropped way behind other parts of the world.

Somebody has to get the ball rolling and it should be properly incentivised. But products fill needs. Just as we’d still have had Olympic sprint champions if Usain Bolt had chosen to be a couch potato, and Jimmy Carr not telling jokes would not impact much on GDP, other companies would have developed computer software and employed people to do it if Bill Gates could not have been bothered.

Everybody contributes - if there’s no vision from the top, opportunities will be missed and efforts misdirected. Take away those working on delivery, nothing gets delivered, and everything stagnates. Take away the support staff in payroll and the cleaners, and the other staff are unable to deliver and everything stagnates. Should the people at the top of the hierarchy with the most responsibility be better remunerated than those below them in the organisation? Absolutely. Is the gap currently too big? Well, you seemed to think so a few pages ago.

In terms of a cleaner on the board, I do think somebody who could puncture a few overinflated egos might offer some benefit. Just having somebody to call bull, and not laugh along with weak jokes or inappropriate behaviour might put a slight brake on the arrogance that power and extreme wealth can breed. Is Elon Musk a talented guy? Yes. Would he benefit from being told ‘no’ occasionally? Clearly he would. And obviously it doesn’t have to be a cleaner specifically.

While resources are limited, we will have inequality. Some are more intelligent or driven than others. But circumstance plays a huge role. Would I have enjoyed the same level of success in my life if i’d been born in a shanty in Manila, for example? Of course not. More worrying, would I have the same chances growing up in Hull now as I did 30 or so years ago? I dunno, maybe the barriers were just less clear to me back then.

A level-playing field may not be feasible in the foreseeable, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aspire to it and try to make things better. It is about equality of opportunity as well as wealth, and the game seems rigged to many - some of that can be put down to its ‘losers’ looking for something or someone to blame, but even you seem to think there’s a problem.

Meynard-Keynes 10 year cycle suggests the first thing that happens in a downturn in reduction in capital investment. A simple no deal would have been better from that perspective than the current situation. Business can thrive in any environment as long as it knows what its dealing with.

Quote: Sal Paradise " If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates'" Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html

Quote: Sal Paradise " If we left the EU and with a Tory government the first they would do is lower Corporation Tax - if they did that guarantee the tax take would increase. Between 2011 and 2016 CT take increased by £13bn despite the CT rate dropping from 28% to 19%. Its a balancing act its about revenues not rates'" Leaving the EU has nothing to do with our corporation tax rate, as you have said the Conservatives have already dropped it from 28% to 19% steadily over the last 8 years. Reducing taxes for millionaires and billionaires while cutting spending on essential public services is what they do. It is a complete myth dropping the corporation tax rate brings in more revenue, the reason we brought in more corporation tax in 2016 compared to 2011 is because we we were still recovering from the global financial crisis in 2011. It’s thought the rate at which increasing corporation tax will bring in less revenue is above 70%. nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ ... -deal.html