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

Quote ="Sir Kevin Sinfield"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'" The facts are the facts CT rate reduced - CT revenues increased nobody really knows what has driven the movement but most casual observers would suggest there is a correlation - certainly those in the IR and the government. You know more than everyone else (sic) Do you think increasing the higher rate of tax to say 55% will generate more revenues? I think there is something wrong in system that once you are over c£46k you pay over to the government more than you retain - how is that equitable?

Quote ="Sir Kevin Sinfield"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'" The facts are the facts CT rate reduced - CT revenues increased nobody really knows what has driven the movement but most casual observers would suggest there is a correlation - certainly those in the IR and the government. You know more than everyone else (sic) Do you think increasing the higher rate of tax to say 55% will generate more revenues? I think there is something wrong in system that once you are over c£46k you pay over to the government more than you retain - how is that equitable?

It depends which years you compare. Your statement above, which is not a fact, clearly shows you have an agenda. For example I can list below CT falling and revenues falling. How do you explain these facts?

2007/2008 corporation tax 28% we took £47 billion
2013/2014 corporation tax 23% we took £40 billion

That is pretty simple BP the biggest payers of CT had an issue in the Gulf of Mexico that impacted their results.

How much CT did BP pay in those two periods?

You'd have thought with a lower CT rate they would be throwing money at the Exchequer. Rather than pay nothing that year.

You would, if that argument had any truth in it, but it doesn’t, it’s a myth peddled to justify lower taxes for multinational companies and billionaires.


How long did the oil leak last? How much corporation tax did BP pay in each of the years below?

2007/2008 corporation tax 28% we took £47 billion
2012/2103 we took £40 billion
2013/2014 corporation tax 23% we took £40 billion
2014/2015 we took £43 billion

You are forgetting the 'hidden hand of the market' more than makes up for it.

You have to make profit to pay CT pretty simple concept really - well it is to most - perhaps you need to remove those red blinkers.

Sadly the fines they paid to US wiped out their profits and the job of the CEO - tough at the top.

BP paid £6.3bn in CT in 2013 in £2014 >£1bn in 2016 they paid £2bn

Interesting post - if it hadn't been Bill Gates it would have been somebody else who would have been equally rich.

I agree about the gap which is why I said perhaps we need a multiplier between the top and the mean?

If you think board meetings at say Morrisons are just a back slapping exercise I think you have no grasp on the pressures or demands on top executives to deliver results. A man/woman from the shop floor would be completely out of their depth both intellectually and technically. Does Musk need a talking too yes that's what Larry Ellison is for someone who Musk can relate someone who understand the nature of what he is trying to achieve and who has specific experience - not sure how a man of the car production line is going to advise Musk not to tell the world he is taking the company private?


I don't agree with your last point - anyone can prosper no matter their upbringing they just need the desire, the idea and the ability to make it happen. Toffs will always invest in ideas where they see a personal return.

You can't give everyone the drive to make a difference in their life by attempting to do what you are suggesting you have to bring the top down you can't drag the bottom up - that for me is receipe for disaster and possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere

Are you sure that is not some sort of overall measure of contribution to the economy, rather than tax paid?

All the tax numbers I can find are in the tens and hundreds of millions - and that’s from their own communications, rather than the articles about them paying little or nothing.

Quote ="Sal Paradise" Interesting post - if it hadn't been Bill Gates it would have been somebody else who would have been equally rich.'" Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Quote ="Sal Paradise"I don't agree with your last point - anyone can prosper no matter their upbringing they just need the desire, the idea and the ability to make it happen. Toffs will always invest in ideas where they see a personal return. You can't give everyone the drive to make a difference in their life by attempting to do what you are suggesting you have to bring the top down you can't drag the bottom up - that for me is receipe for disaster and possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere'" Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.

Quote ="Sal Paradise" Interesting post - if it hadn't been Bill Gates it would have been somebody else who would have been equally rich.'" Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Quote ="Sal Paradise"I don't agree with your last point - anyone can prosper no matter their upbringing they just need the desire, the idea and the ability to make it happen. Toffs will always invest in ideas where they see a personal return. You can't give everyone the drive to make a difference in their life by attempting to do what you are suggesting you have to bring the top down you can't drag the bottom up - that for me is receipe for disaster and possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere'" Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.

Which is what the most stable, healthy, wealthy, content countries are. No-one on here or the vast majority of the opposition are suggesting anything but state ownership of the infrastructure & essential services.

Look at their financial statements.

Quote ="Mild Rover"Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.'" How would you change/redistribute the human spirit and desire to innovate and financially maximise that idea. What do they say about the British great innovators but terrible marketers. There will always be extreme's that unavoidable - we have very tall people and very short people, we have model-like beauty and less striking people. We have Mensa types and less intelligent humans - you will never create a level playing field or anything close to it. In the more developed countries most have access to the same level of education and opportunity what they choose to do with it the state cannot/should not control. Agreed a mixed economy is needed it is about the degree of intervention you want from the state. How you redistribute wealth - it would interesting to understand how much of the wealthy they give away to charities - Gates £27bn, Warren Buffett £21bn, Paul Allan gave away £2bn - perhaps this is the best way of wealth redistribution

Quote ="Mild Rover"Only if the system isn’t changed - my point is that it could be without stifling innovation or being unfair, imo. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that we have a healthy and equitable system. You have to look at how much harder it is for some vs others. Also, the argument at the extremes (eg the mega rich vs the homeless and hungry), provides striking examples but it isn’t the most relevant. Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy. What we do if the value of labour plummets to ensure people are still valued will be... interesting. In terms of worker representation, perhaps the German model could work here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeter ... in_Germany Ultimately you can’t redistribute wealth and opportunity without doing just that.'" How would you change/redistribute the human spirit and desire to innovate and financially maximise that idea. What do they say about the British great innovators but terrible marketers. There will always be extreme's that unavoidable - we have very tall people and very short people, we have model-like beauty and less striking people. We have Mensa types and less intelligent humans - you will never create a level playing field or anything close to it. In the more developed countries most have access to the same level of education and opportunity what they choose to do with it the state cannot/should not control. Agreed a mixed economy is needed it is about the degree of intervention you want from the state. How you redistribute wealth - it would interesting to understand how much of the wealthy they give away to charities - Gates £27bn, Warren Buffett £21bn, Paul Allan gave away £2bn - perhaps this is the best way of wealth redistribution

So you efficiently & humanely plan social services, health systems, emergency services based on the occasional generosity of rich people, a number whom spend large sums avoiding their tax responsibilities?

Yes there is no problem with the uneven distribution of wealth in the USA.

No not at all - the current system already provides for that but how do you further redistribute wealth as yet none of you have come up with a coherent idea as to how you are going to achieve that.

So far we have had curtail the opportunities to the truly brilliant because opportunities afforded to them are not available to the normal citizen. Tax the rich - get real, tax corporations again get real. Curtail entrepeneurs again is the state seriously going to generate the wealth required to pump the money into the poor so they don't have to use Aldi they can all access Waitrose? or do we simply close Waitrose More Socialist mumbo-jumbo it's delusional.

Humans are not all the same - take education - there are parents who are prepared to sacrifice holidays/extras to pay for their kids to go to private school or in my case I take out an insurance policy that covered the costs. You would have denied me that opportunity because it isn't available to everyone. A lot of people could do the same if they were prepared to make the same effort but because some don't see it as a priority nobody should be allowed because those kids that do have an unfair advantage - really.

Gates and Buffet have given away the equivilent of the CT take in a year - the amounts given away by rich people is huge - shame the narrow minded on here cannot acknowledge that.

By improving the lives of all citizens, especially the people at the bottom.
Free education, it increases social mobility.
Free properly funded healthcare, it improves living standards.
More social housing, we used to build hundreds of thousands of council houses every year.
Rent controls, other European countries have this.
Free school meals for all, should any children go hungry.
State owned utilities (electricity, gas and water) and state owned transport (railways and buses) private companies running monopolies have been a disaster, they completely rip people off, especially the most vulnerable.

Corporation tax has been reduced over the last 10 years, reverse these tax cuts.
We have virtually no wealth taxes for individuals, we only really tax income, that needs to change.

We need to go back to a starting rate of income tax of 33 per cent.

Okay, so we’re incoherent, unrealistic and delusional by your parameters.

But, in fairness, your solution is international fiscal harmonisation. Which in of itself would do little or nothing to change wealth distribution, even if it were feasible. And on the Brexit thread there are some indications that you’re not that keen restrictions on national economic autonomy. S’been fun though.

How do you improve the life of all citizens?
We have free education - its available to everyone
We have free health care it is also available to everyone - the NHS delivers an amazing service especially if you are truly ill - it doesn't get everything but it gets a lot more right than wrong. You might not get looked after in 4 hours when you think Saturday night is alright for fighting but if you went in to A&E with a heart attack or had been involved in serious vehicle accident you would get seen straight away - there is a clue in its name.
Agree re housing unfortunately this is a very densly populated country and we have a nimby attitude to extending potential urbanisation
If you have more social housing you get your rent controls
Parents should ensure their children eat properly it should be a responsibility you adopt when you decide to have children
State ownership will increase costs to the user and you will see a reduction in quality of service. You will also see a rise in union power - which will lead to increased costs to the end user.
Reverse CT rates and you will see a stagnation/fall in tax revenues - is that really what you want?
What kind of wealth tax do you propose - we have taxes on unearned income e.g. dividends, capital gains etc.