Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
tigertot wrote:You'd have thought with a lower CT rate they would be throwing money at the Exchequer. Rather than pay nothing that year.
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.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mild Rover wrote:How much CT did BP pay in those two periods?
BP paid £6.3bn in CT in 2013 in £2014 >£1bn in 2016 they paid £2bn
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mild Rover wrote: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 bullshit, 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.
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
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12647 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote:BP paid £6.3bn in CT in 2013 in £2014 >£1bn in 2016 they paid £2bn
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.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12647 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote: 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.
Sal Paradise wrote: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.
Sal Paradise wrote: 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.
Sal Paradise wrote: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.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Sal Paradise wrote:possibly explains why Socialism has never prospered anywhere
Mild Rover wrote:Tbf, here i’m advocating a progressive social democracy.
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.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mild Rover wrote: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.
Look at their financial statements.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mild Rover wrote: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
Mild Rover wrote: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
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
Sal Paradise wrote: 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?
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 31956 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
tigertot wrote: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.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 151 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
