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%).

Sal Paradise wrote: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

Sal Paradise wrote: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

Mild Rover wrote: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 Yes I take you point about the workers but without the entrepeneur the workers never get a chance and everything stagnates. Someone has to get the ball running and manage the growth both financially and operationally and that isn't the workers. The Labour idea of having a cleaner on the board of a PLC is completely bonkers - what would they actually contribute at that level. Education is an interesting one - you will always have inequality that is the human condition - some are genetically more intelligent than others and some parents see education as a way of progress and some see it as a necessary evil you can never have the level-playing field utopia that Labour seem to think is possible.

Mild Rover wrote: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 Yes I take you point about the workers but without the entrepeneur the workers never get a chance and everything stagnates. Someone has to get the ball running and manage the growth both financially and operationally and that isn't the workers. The Labour idea of having a cleaner on the board of a PLC is completely bonkers - what would they actually contribute at that level. Education is an interesting one - you will always have inequality that is the human condition - some are genetically more intelligent than others and some parents see education as a way of progress and some see it as a necessary evil you can never have the level-playing field utopia that Labour seem to think is possible.

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.