[Closed] HR advice - been called into the office at a moments notice...

Either the market is free or it isn't

and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.

There are shades of freedom in markets as I explained earlier.

write the rules for them to suit themselves.

Fair points Stoner, and once upon a time I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.

But, my experience made me see things differently.
I was tupe'd to a new employer, who wanted to tear up our existing redundancy agreeement on the grounds that they were a young, expanding company and had no intention of making us redundant. Without union intervention the agreement would not have been incorporated into the sale.

Two years later this company was sold. The original employees made redundant received statutory. Those of us that had come in as part of the previous purchase received our enhanced terms. To me this was the equivalent of 9 months nett salary, rather than the 5.5 weeks I would have otherwise received.

Because of this I'll always support collective representation, and I defy anybody to think of a reason I'd have been better off without it.

Anyway moving away from political differences, where is the boy, what has happened to him ?

[i]where is the boy, what has happened to him ? [/i]

I've been wondering the same - maybe it's a really long meeting! Come on bushwhacked, what's happened?!

Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.

This is "motherhood and apple pie" as well as a contradiction in terms. You admit (as does Stoner) that intervention is required to limit the extremes that a "free" market would create.
Once you agree this then the rest is politics. Politics determines where these boundaries lie and attempts to overcome these extremes via intervention.
You and I may disagree about where these boundaries are set and that is a political argument.
By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"

[i]where is the boy, what has happened to him ? [/i]

Maybe he has more important things to attend to?

By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"

semantically you are correct. And I have argued with gus over the use of the word "free", but I was trying to simplify my economic ideology for the hard of thinking. We all know perfectly well that there is no such thing as a "free" market - what do we think taxes are? But, there comes a point where the state has so much control over the market that it utterly stiffles economic activity. Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly?

Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

And this is where you are wrong. Your stating that is right wing dogma. That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.

I thought you were a right wing ideologue. My view has changed - its a mix of ignorance, fear, jealousy and ideology.

beware the leftist bogyman!

You need to look to the German economy - moderate left concesus - social democratic with high union member ship and a partnership model between the boardroom and the shop floor

100! (Sorry!)

That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.

tell me by what mechanism the left believe growth can be encouraged?

Economic liberals would say reduction in taxation, reduction in state expenditure, de-regulation and worker mobility.

ignorance, fear, jealousy

where on earth do you get that from?

my economic ideology for the hard of thinking

Then maybe I fall into this category as your logic is not clear.

Ignorance - you are clearly ignorant of political philosophy

Fear - look at the language you use to describe the current government

Jealousy - were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?

I ain't going to argue with you any further. I am not the only one on this thread to see the ridiculousness of your position.

Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly[1]?
Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face [2]rather than encourage economic growth[3] to deliver the greatest benefit[4] to the greatest number[5].

Ignorance - you are clearly ignorant of political philosophy

Fear - look at the language you use to describe the current government

Jealousy - were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?

just because you say it, doesnt make it so, TJ.

I certainly dont need to make any defence against that ridiculous post you've just bundled out.

Equally, there are others that agree with me. Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine. You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.

and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.

Pot kettle and black to you sexy butt!

Actually, lets dance the dance if you're going to be like that. So please tell me exactly what is so great about the free market and consumerism Stones... please

ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people

moving on, what happened with the HR meeting??

ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people

and just where did I say anything of the sort?

Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine

You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.

Pot kettle black

All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.

What has anyone on the "left" (if I'm to be accused of being on the "right" - but we're talking economically here, not politically IMO) proposed? more of the same? greater regulation? higher wages and shorter working hours for all unionised industries? The left sees only progress in terms of legislation and regulation, not economic freedom and economic growth. You cant legislate to increase employment for example. As I said on another thread about the waste of undergraduates in further education, a liberal economist would remove NI contributions and allow tax deductibility for apprenticeships. What would the left propose? TJ?

What happened to the guy who was wrongfully sacked for inappropriate Internet use? This thread reminded me of it but I can't find the thread myself.

I am further from the left than you are from the right. Ernies your man for that. I am a dark green anarchist. I believe in the no growth society.

Robdob - that was zedsdead - IIRC after getting advice and support from here and other places he was reinstated but the final outcome was never clear.

I believe in the no growth society.

WTF? Shall we just stay in our caves, then?

I believe in the no growth society.

And Id agree with you there, right after we've licked the birth rate> death rate thing.

I was hoping zedsdead would come back in here with a full story one day. Daft employer getting a shoeing fo it. And amazingly he managed it without any union membership. Wonders will never cease.

[IMG] [/IMG]

All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.

You indicated you preferred £200bn distributed unevenly to £100bn distributed evenly. I dont want to misquote you however this only leads to greater wealth nor equity of distribution, unless you are a believer in the "trickle down" affect?

surfer- no you havent mis-quoted me. That is correct - id prefer to see a net wealthier economy than a poorer but more equitable one. Ultimately redistribution does occur (as you say, a kind of trickle down effect) but people get hung up on the long tails - those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of raising the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.

Deluded

like it.

very good deluded!
trickle down doesnt work, while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen

minimum wage helped to offset this to start with but its never gonna be enough

my firends in the city go to great length to ensure that the large amounts of money they make are safe from the greedy taxman and im sure that they are not alone

but people get hung up on the long tails - those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of rainsing the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.

Aggregate wealth is something we would all welcome but you choose not to mention the "mega poor" at the other end. I am not a great believer in the apparent disincentive effect of higher taxation at the margins as I suspect you are.
Rather than relying on a fictitious method of wealth distribution I would rather rely on an interventionist government to minimize the losers in your "tail"

while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen

And who presided over this rise in inequality? Oh yes....

Hello,

Two cod and chips, large
1 Hadock and chips, standard.
Mushy peas and 1 pickled egg,

Thanks

[i]And who presided over this rise in inequality? Oh yes....[/i]

it was the torries i mean nulabour,,, erm same thing

while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen

Welcome to Labour's lousy taxation legacy. Huge increases in duty and regressive taxes like NI (The "Stealth" taxes) hit the poor greater than the wealthy.

Attempts to increase taxation on the wealthy tail simply encourage tax avoidance. The government can have a go at legislation, but as he says: "my firends in the city go to great length to ensure that the large amounts of money they make are safe from the greedy taxman and im sure that they are not alone" there's plenty of people who will find a way.

clumsy tax credits have been needed to fix the mess and even then they get it wrong.

My solution: increase personal tax allowances from £6.5k to £10k, scrap 10p tax rate, increase the tax rate from 22p to 25, 26, 27p ish, harmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes. Cut VAT to 12%, 0% on food/kids clothes/Green energy products.

Everyone wants to know the outcome in a supportive non voyueristic way ...obviously,

but the freemarket isn't free discussion is an interesting diversion while we do surely ?

Sorry, out of eggs.
Pickled onion ok, on the house?

Attempts to increase taxation on the wealthy tail simply encourage tax avoidance.

Therefore we should avoid this by not taxing them? isnt that a bit like saying criminals try to escape so to avoid this pesky state of affairs lets not lock them up? There may exist a perception that high tax rates on those earning over 150k are unfair. However that perception needs challenging. As I mentioned before its overstating it to say that such high marginal tax rates act as a disincentive.

My solution: increase personal tax allowances from £6.5k to £10k, scrap 10p tax rate, increase the tax rate from 22p to 25, 26, 27p ish, harmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes. Cut VAT to 12%, 0% on food/kids clothes/Green energy products.

Fine and how are the other side of the accounts looking? What about the 50% rate?

i get all the rest i think but what does

harmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes

and agree with much of it but would like to see higher taxes at the top end , like these guys [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8321967.stm ]Rich Germans demand higher taxes[/url]

surely tightening up tax loopholes properly and stiff penalties for avoidance is the way forward

the way i see it nulabour cosied up to the city far too much following the dream of big money in the city means the nation will be wealthier, which it wasnt we (the plebs) just borrowed more because rich banks were happy to lend us more

but will the torries continue the same policy of kissing city and bank ass??

actually, that ought to balance pretty much.

Im happy with a c.40% of GDP tax take in the UK.

On the other side of the accounts though there needs to be some serious belt tightening to get our deficit back down. Income surpluses would be needed to pay down our national debt not plump up the public sector.

So what happened??

Nice sidestepping of the freemarket thing and wazzing off up the I'd like to pay less tax alley, dont you think??

variation in capital gains tax, income tax and corporation tax allow individuals room for arbitration of taxation on income and investments - in other words gives opportunity to avoid tax. It also means that structurally as a company grows the taxtion environment of it's owners changes - which over complicates the issue.

On the other side of the accounts though there needs to be some serious belt tightening to get our deficit back down. Income surpluses would be needed to pay down our national debt not plump up the public sector.

One persons "fattening up" is anothers crucial service but in principle I agree. I cant help feeling that you wont be feeling the "belt tightening" however to paraphrase a Tory chancellor, I feel the deficit (managed down over a reasonable period) is a price worth paying to avoid the misery of the 80's.

Nice sidestepping of the freemarket thing and wazzing off up the I'd like to pay less tax alley, dont you think??

jeezarse Bandit.
Do you never read anything?
Im advocating the better off paying higher taxes pro-rata. 🙄
It doesnt need a 50% tax rate to do that. As Ive said before the 50% rate is a red herring and a distraction.

National debt is a pretty meaningless measure of how well off a country is. All through the Victorian and early Edwardian period our National Debt was up near 80% of GDP, and it saw the greatest level of expansion in our history. Japan's is up near 200%, and yet they have some of the highest living standards, France and Germany think nothing of having National debt running at about 70-75% all the time. Not having debt as an individual is a good idea, as far as country's go, it don't matter all that much.