[Closed] Tories threaten to suspend the Lords over Tax Credits

It's ma maw an am no playin anymare.

Yep, seems to me they're backing themselves into a corner at the same time as throwing the toys out of the pram.

they are just throwing their weight around, coz they think theynow own the world

which they kinda do since they got their majority

I just hope that the countries* not too shafted by the next election

*I say country, I mean the poor, unemployed, disabled, sick, doctors, teachers, police service etc

It's pretty interesting... Because usually they could play the undemocratic card, except that these are the secret cuts that they refused to admit to before the election. I'm not normally a fan of the unelected house overruling the elected government but the way they've gone about this, I think turnabout's fair play basically.

If they'd admitted before the election that they planned to drive 700000 households into poverty via welfare cuts, then they'd have the right to steamroller things past the Lords. But they kept that under wraps til after the election FOR SOME MYSTERIOUS REASON. So now they can suck on it.

Ah, "unnamed government sources" and "One option is to"

😆

The Treasury said the savings are equivalent to around 200,000 nurses and 70,000 doctors, or around 325,000 teachers, or more than the entire budget of the Home Office.

But if it goes ahead, those numbers won't be appointed, will they?

A lazy, offhand and pointless comparison?

Cash will just go into the deficit hole working towards the budget surplus as stated , to secure providence for the next election .

The Treasury said the savings are equivalent to around 20,000 holiday homes and 70,000 private school places, or around 325,000 personal health plans, or more than the entire income from consultancies of the front bench.

and "One option is to"

I rather like the paragraphs before which are much clearer in raising one of the the advantages of an unelected upper chamber -that is in challenging a government with a very slim majority, (decided by a turnout and percentage that would not see them elected in at all if they applied their propsed rules about industrial action ballots to elections as well) -doing something that the prime minister categorically stated (live on the telly and everything) that he wouldn't do six months ago before the election, and featured nowhere in their manifesto.

Now that is a bad enough story already. Looks like they will look rather undemocratic whatever they do from here. 😆

Kimbers you were right the first time, the whole country is forked with these mentalists in charge

Dave's problem isn't in the Lords, it's on his own backbenches. There are a lot of Tory MP's who know that the amount of the 'working poor' (who they somewhat laughably claim to represent) who are about to get seriously financially shafted, are considerably higher than their majorities. And they're getting very twitchy!

Dave seems to have got a bit too cocky - unusual for him - and forgotten that he only has a majority of 12.

They truly are a shower of utter and complete ****s!!!!

This why the idea of an independent unelected chamber of wise heads seems a good idea. Shame it doesn't normally work like that and is full of toadies and has beens or never was'.

Despite its design faults the second chamber works remarkably well!

Why is there shock here? The Tories were elected with (despite?) a mandate to deliver greater and faster cuts*. More and more areas have been ring-fenced (now security, defence and immigration???) so that leaves welfare to bear even more of the brunt. No surprises there.

The interesting bit is the extent to which May and Hammond are playing silly buggers in order to put Osborne in a tricky place. George has come out of the traps early and the other leadership contenders would love to slow him down.....

* non-ring fenced departments being asked to make 25-40% reductions

The interesting bit is the extent to which May and Hammond are playing silly buggers in order to put Osborne in a tricky place.

Not to mention his other competition....

[img] [/img]

Theres certainly a lot of jockying for position going on. You'd think Dave was about to go next week. Bozzer has been openly critical of Osbourne's tax credits policy, and said it needs to be reviewed.

But he does have a point. Remember Gordon Browns 10p tax rate fiasco? This has potential to be far worse than that. But very similar in lots of ways. In the respect that there seems to be no real concern at the top as to the very real impact that this is about to have.

There are an awful lot of people who are the very poorest workers in the country, already struggling, who are about to get absolutely clobbered. I'd say that a lot of them, at the moment, have no idea the extent of how much. So at the moment this is all largely academic. Come January when people can no longer pay their bills or feed their kids - because this is genuinely what will happen - and too a large number of people too - [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/osborne-confident-poor-families-wont-notice-losing-230-a-month-20151016103001 ]we'll see how self-satisfied George is looking then[/url]. Because this is not going to look good. And these aren't the 'scroungers' that everything is blamed on. This will be working families being forced into genuine poverty. By a gang of multimillionaires with their inherited fortunes. The Tory/Nasty party doing what it does best? That's certainly how its going to come across. Because that's what it is.

Here's Dave's chance to make a genuine saving.

Scrap the House of Lords, don't refurbish the parliament building, and move the government to a new facility on low cost land in an industrial estate somewhere central to the whole UK such as Carlisle. It will save squi££ions.

I'm sure he's probably got that idea at the back of his mind. 🙂

This has all the hallmarks of another U-turn, or at least a serious amendment to keep Boris happy.

Perhaps the lesson in this is, if your job is subject to the whims of the general public, don't do this whilst you're telling them you're taking all their money for their own good.

[img] [/img]

Total non story @Lifer. The accepted mode of operation is that the Lords will NEVER vote down a government manifesto commitment. What is being speculatively floated here by the huffington isn't even voting it down it's a sabotage tactic. If they where to do so the Lords would be significantly overstepping the mark. As such they should expect a robust government responce.

The government was elected on a cost cutting manifesto and as thm says the ring fencing of education, nhs etc means the cuts will be deeper elsewhere.

btw my ex wife gets tax credits, she worked "part time" (4 days a week, short hours) earning about half of what she could do if she worked full time. Then she claims credits as that's a better quality of life than the extra hours which would in total pay more. What started out as a sensible idea has like many welfare payments mushroomed into a benefits monster, many times greater than envisaged.

Another anecdote, tax credits and the self employed. There are people (I know) who run their own small business which doesn't make much money and they claim tax credits. The fact is they could get a normal job, even just working in a supermarket, and earn more than being self employed and therefore be entitled to less tax credits. It is it clear at all that the lady on QT would be suffering a reduction in credits, she just doesn't know. She too was self employed and making "no profit". I am a big supporter of small business but if you work at it and make no money should tax credits support your "failing" business ?

There is no doubt tax credits have subsidised low wages by employers. It's time to break that cycle.

Perhaps the lesson in this is, if your job is subject to the whims of the general public, don't do this whilst you're telling them you're taking all their money for their own good.

Good advice, hence that picture is of IDS's reaction to the announcement of the National Living Wage.

The government was elected on a cost cutting manifesto and as thm says the ring fencing of education, nhs etc means the cuts will be deeper elsewhere.

Thats not the point. Dave was promising all kinds of savings in public spending before May, but refusing to say where he was going to make them. So people speculated that it was tax credits. He was specifically asked, immediately prior to the election, if he intended to cut tax credits. His answer to that was a categoric statement that they had no intention of doing so.

Now he's about to do it.

That's just being a lying bastard!

Jammers - would you say that your ex wife is broadly representative of the people receiving tax credits?

I am a big supporter of small business but if you work at it and make no money should tax credits support your "failing" business ?

There is no doubt tax credits have subsidised low wages by employers. It's time to break that cycle.

The weak will die.

There is no doubt tax credits have subsidised low wages by employers. It's time to break that cycle.

By immediately making the poor poorer? But placing no onus on the employers to pay their staff a living wage?

Compassionate conservatism at work once again eh? 🙄

And before you start: Georges 'Living Wage' is nothing of the sort. Its spin. And it isn't even being delievered for another 4 years. What happens in the meantime. Workhouses? I'm sure IDS would love that

Another anecdote, tax credits and the self employed. There are people (I know) who run their own small business which doesn't make much money and they claim tax credits.

True. but this was Tory policy to massage the JSA figures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21260331

My wife was pushed in this direction when she was unemployed about 3 years ago. Managed to hold out and get a proper job in the end but they leaned on her pretty hard.

Another anecdote, tax credits and the self employed. There are people (I know) who run their own small business which doesn't make much money and they claim tax credits.

I find that anecdotes, particularly ones you heard down the pub, maybe involving a friend of a friend, are most definitely the best basis for government policy 😀

there were two facts on Radio4 this morning that surprised me:

1.the proposed cuts don't actually "hit the poorest hardest" as they will impact on working families not families where the parents are unemployed.

2. Even after the cuts, the total spending on tax credits will still be significantly above the level of 2003 in real terms - so according to Labour, the Tories will be "hitting the poor" but will still be spending more than Labour did.

According to IFS and BBC figures when Labour left office more than 90% of families were receiving tax credits and 60% of households were net recipients from the state i.e. received more than they put in. Which is pretty good evidence of the need for reform.

2. Even after the cuts, the total spending on tax credits will still be significantly above the level of 2003 in real terms - so according to Labour, the Tories will be "hitting the poor" but will still be spending more than Labour did.

but real wages (adjusted for inflation) are still below 2003 levels. So tax credit spending probably should be above where it was in 2003.

1.the proposed cuts don't actually "hit the poorest hardest" as they will impact on working families not families where the parents are unemployed.

Those self-indulgent bastards eh? Working full time and expecting to have a better lifestyle than unemployed people. Pfft! That's what happens when you lavish people with £6.70 an hour, zero hours contracts luxury. They develop a culture of entitlement

If the Tories were a business and the 'National Living Wage' was a product they were selling they'd be in hot water under the Trades Description Act. It's an outright sham.

I don't think the main thrust of the argument against the changes has ever been about them hitting the poorest hardest.

I don't think there is anything wrong in principal with ending the subsidy of low wage employers but the current changes are going to give a kick in the chops to anyone who does to get out and work for a low wage.

I thought the left were opposed to the state subsidising employers to pay low wages?

There are, of course, very valid questions about how you do that without hurting the worst off, the benefit taper/withdrawal rate needs to be looked at very carefully (indeed, it could be argued that the changes undermined one of the most progressive elements of the universal credit system, which was a lowering of that taper rate) but the concept of the policy is robust.

I am, but I don't support taking away the subsidy while doing nothing about low wages (as above, the 'national living wage' is a joke).

But then according to Jeremy Hunt we all need to start working hard like people in a communist dictatorship. Well, not everyone obviously just the plebs.

Tax Credits were indeed bonkers. But that's not the fault of the low paid. Its the fault of employers who have effectively had their wage bills taxpayer subsidised for years. And the politicians who did it through being too cowardly to confront the greedy, self-serving, short term attitudes in the countries boardrooms*

But its the very lowest paid who are now being asked to shoulder the burden of changing this perverse system, while the companies who have benefited so enormously by having their staff costs partly paid by us, and thus their profits government funded, for years, aren't being asked to take a hit at all.

The final bitter irony to this is, somewhat predictably, that a lot of these very same companies are apparently based in Luxemburg, or the British Virgin Islands, so don't pay any tax

Isn't modern consumer capitalism BRILLIIIIIIAAAAAAANNNTTTTT!!!!!

* If the minimum wage had kept pace with boardroom pay rises since its inception, it would now stand at over £21 an hour.

What should the national living/minimum wage be then?

Say as a proportion of the median wage (and, of course, recognising that an increase in the minimum affects the median)

And, by comparison, what proportion of the median wage should someone receive on benefits so as not to be trapped in poverty? (Say, 60% of median wage? which is a commonly used poverty threshold? So in order to make sure that people in were better off in work than benefits, you would have to peg minimum wage somewhere significantly above this?)

There's a lot of 'X isn't enough' without a lot of thought as to what 'X should be'

[url= http://www.livingwage.org.uk/ ]All explained for you here Ninfan[/url]

binners - Member
...If the minimum wage had kept pace with boardroom pay rises since its inception, it would now stand at over £21 an hour.

I have always believed there should be a connection between the minimum wage and MPs salary, eg a multiple of 3. Then if MPs are feeling the pinch... 🙂

Also, it always puzzles me how you can improve an economy by impoverishing the bulk of the consumers, but I'm sure a [s]juju doctor[/s] economist will be along shortly to explain this.

But its the very lowest paid who are now being asked to shoulder the burden of changing this perverse system, while the companies who have benefited so enormously by having their staff costs partly paid by us, and thus their profits government funded, for years, aren't being asked to take a hit at all.

well, not strictly true, but....

one of the reasons why politicians get away with subterfuge is that sorting out the winners and losers is far from straightforward and GO for one has not been clear enough. But that doesn't mean that blanket statements are any better...

by impoverishing the bulk of the consumers

Where does that come from?

So if its not strictly true, how much are employers having to raise their wages rates by? What percentage? As their employees tax credits are stopped then?

Not in 2019... right now. Because that's when their employees wages are effectively about to be slashed

We're always told how absolutely bloody marvelous capitalism is. That the laws of supply and demand are god. Yet the likes of Tesco, at the same time, expect us to believe that they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage, and this needs to be subsidised by the taxpayer. While still paying dividends to shareholders on their massive profits, of course

Its not actually peoples wages that are being subsidised at all! Its corporate profits. That's the real 'benefits culture' on display here.

Yet once again its the poor that are being made to pay

We're all in it together apparently. Though I've not heard that phrase for a while now.

Have you?

Jammers - would you say that your ex wife is broadly representative of the people receiving tax credits?

Minimum wage vs boardroom pay, not really a relevant comparison is it ? The completion for minimum wage jobs comes from abroad in terms of international manufacturing and migrants willing to work for low pay. I'd imagine minimum wage hasn't kept up with IT consulting either for example.

@binners also if you've been following Tescos aren't making massive profits, in fact they've been fudging their accounts as their business is struggling. We pay too little for our food, its been a race to the bottom in terms of quality and price.

teamhurtmore - Member
"by impoverishing the bulk of the consumers"
Where does that come from?

You must be a Tory. 🙂

Simple. You have millions living just above the breadline propped up by supplementary money from the govt.

Once you have millions of people working full time and earning less than subsistence wages the traders whose income depends on those people will also suffer. The suppliers to those traders will suffer too, etc etc Fleas on fleas on the fleas on a dog principle.

Seeing as one of our big problems is collecting tax from the multinationals, perhaps we should be looking at other ways to tax them. I suggest they pay a tax on turnover instead of income, and if they don't like it tell them to eff off. A local competitor will soon pop up take up the slack.

@binners also if you've been following Tescos aren't making massive profits, in fact they've been fudging their accounts as their business is struggling.

Irrelevant. Tesco's present position is entirely of their own making.

The fact of the matter is that over the timescale that Tax Credits have been in place, massively profitable companies (of which Tesco is just a random example) have had their wage bills effectively subsidised by the taxpayer, thus greatly increasing their profits.

But they're still not being asked to pay for this.

The poor are.... AGAIN!

The whole thing stinks!

Its corporate welfare! And we're all paying for it!!!

Binners - again, the blanket inaccuracies are not helpful to the debate. As noted above, it is simply incorrect to state that

Yet the likes of Tesco, at the same time, expect us to believe that they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage, and this needs to be subsidised by the taxpayer. While still paying dividends to shareholders on their massive profits, of course

...as the 75% reduction in the 2014 dividend and the collapse in the share price in 2014 and basically flat share price this year illustrate

The point about taxpayers subsidies is more valid. Who introduced the idea and who seeks to eliminate it?

The where does that come from relates to the point that this policy with impoverish "the bulk" of consumers - I cannot see evidence of that. Of course, like any cut, it will negatively affect some, but "the bulk"?

Your optimism re the benefits of transaction tax and the substitution of local suppliers may be a little misplaced

Remember, who pays the wages? Where does that come from?

I think that you would find that capitalists and free-market supporters would be far keener of higher transparency of wages and their impact.

GO needs to be open about this - no point in pretending that policies balance each other out. They don't, clearly neither in magnitude nor timing. There are losers and some are being discriminated against and some for. The debate should be focused on the grounds of those decisions and or the prioritisation of different forms of spending IMO

...as the 75% reduction in the 2014 dividend and the collapse in the share price in 2014 and basically flat share price this year illustrate

And? Its absolutely irrelevant to the wider picture. I was picking Tesco as a random example. All the other supermarkets are the same. As well as every other business that just views the Minimum Wage as The Wage, for the majority of its staff.

But if you did want to still use Tesco as an example. Tax credits were introduced in 2003. How many billions has tesco made in the last 12 years. All while having its staffing costs partly paid by the taxpayer

Its an indefensible policy! And its a scandal that the poor are now being asked to pay for this, while once again, corporations shirk their obligations and responsibilities, which nowadays seem to amount purely to paying dividends (and certainly not tax).

teamhurtmore - Member
...The point about taxpayers subsidies is more valid. Who introduced the idea and who seeks to eliminate it?

One thing I can agree on is that there should be no taxpayer subsidies to earnings. But, and it's a big but, I see it as the govt's job to ensure that a minimum wage is sufficient to support a household.

Employers are effectively being subsidised to screw their workers at the taxpayer's expense.

Let's stop welfare for the wealthy before attacking the poorest in our community.

However if prices go up to pay for higher wages, who will be hit the worst?

I know this will sound pretty outrageous to the toryboy contingent.. But isn't there an option of profit being reduced rather than prices increased.. Apply a threshold with some sort of subsidy for smaller companies maybe?
[i]Reduce[/i] profit..
I know!! Wild huh?

You could call it Outlawing GREED or summink

But if you did want to still use Tesco as an example. Tax credits were introduced in 2003. How many billions has tesco made in the last 12 years. All while having its staffing costs partly paid by the taxpayer

[url= http://www.redmayne.co.uk/research/securitydetails/financials.htm?tkr=TSCO ]i'd guess 20-30 billion in pre-tax profits by the looks of this.[/url] - and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/apr/21/tesco-record-profits-supermarket ]this,[/url] which suggests 3.1bn profit in 2009 and 2.8bn in 2008

this year's loss was a bit of a shock, although they still booked trading profits of £1.4bn

so no tears for poor old tesco

....if we take £25bn as a ballpark for Tesco's cumulative profit over 12 years, that works out to roughly £4200 per employee per year. Basic working tax credit is £1960 per year

Wonder how much they have paid in tax per employee (Corp tax, business rates, income tax, NI, VAT etc). I'd be willing to bet the government hasn't done badly out of the deal.

Wonder how much they have paid in tax per employee (Corp tax, business rates, income tax, NI, VAT etc)

I don't know. Maybe you should ask the appropriate authorities in Luxembourg, where they're apparently based?

I'd be willing to bet the government hasn't done badly out of the deal.

Well if you're willing to bet on it, then that's as good as fact. Please ignore all my previous posts 😆

Hang on - if its indefensible, eliminate it then?

Then when you/we have, what are the implications...

One thing I can agree on is that there should be no taxpayer subsidies to earnings

Are you IDS in disguise? 😉

So after we eliminate profit, where does the investment come from? Where will the government raise their money from?

Yunki, are you proposing that governments set thresholds for the maximum returns that private enterprises can deliver?

Who said eliminate profit?

So after we eliminate profit, where does the investment come from?

A bit melodramatic there THM. We're not talking about tractor production in the Ukraine

Over the last 30 years the proportion of company profits paid as dividends to shareholders has increased enormously. Funnily enough - who'd have thunk it - as the proportion paid to the majority of their staff (not the ones at the top, obviously) in wages has shrunk.

Nobody is saying that profit is wrong. What we're saying is that the distribution of that profit needs to move back towards those who are, after all, creating it.

Beauty of the free market though isn't it Binners

Tesco (profit rapists and poverty wages) making a loss, Aldi and Lidl (first retailer to pay all staff living wage IIRC) go from strength to strength.

There are a couple of points within this debate I'm struggling to understand, mainly because I don't have time to research them:

If investors require a return on investment and tax credits hadn't existed to support earnings, would investors have accepted a lower return or would prices have been forced up to compensate - i.e. is government subsidising investors or consumers?

Did we end up with tax credits because the minimum wage became the maximum wage (as feared by some commentators prior to min wage introduction) where an absence of fixed min wage might have forced some wages higher otherwise?

Pondering what implications these points have for workers post tax credits.

Over the last 30 years the proportion of company profits paid as dividends to shareholders has increased enormously.

No it hasn't, in fact its done the opposite, essentially since the 60s.

Indeed old bloke - key questions.

sorry yunki - cap not eliminate profits? who decides the cap?

Any evidence for that THM? A quick google suggests you are talking nonsense.

Yet the likes of Tesco, at the same time, expect us to believe that they can't afford to pay their staff a living wage, and this needs to be subsidised by the taxpayer. While still paying dividends to shareholders on their massive profits, of course

Waitrose employees get a share of company profits, as well as staff discounts (as do Tesco employees, but the Waitrose discount is greater and uncapped).

Shop at Waitrose.

Unfortunately, most people will always strive to pay as little as possible for the goods that they want.
This forum is a shining example.
Everday people post up "PSAs" of links to cheap goods (often from companies known to be huge corporate tax avoiders).

Well done.
You really are doing the public a massive service.

no grum made it up, why?

"love a bit of nonsense me"

no grum made it up, why?

So why not just post it?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/26/capitalism-woes-tesco-meltdown ]A pretty good assessment of the modern 'Tesco' business model[/url]

[i]This is how too much of business works in 2015. The justification of capitalism is not that it enriches the top 0.1% and the wealth trickles down. Its justification is that a plurality of companies experiment in solving human problems and so create worthwhile value, which capitalism can do better than any other system. Tesco went wrong because of a very particular British ownership and financial architecture that places no value on this social, human mission but sees its duty as only to maximise the share price for a floating body of shareholders[/i]

[img] [/img]

Here's the first graph I found. I think it's from America so maybe it's radically different here but I doubt it. I'll leave you to guess which line is which.

May be wrong on this but if the graph above is just for American companies it may be distorted by the tens of $trillions that US companies are holding offshore from wholly their owned operating companies - until the profits are repatriated to the US no tax is paid, so companies just hold the reserves out of the country. I think that's just the way their tax system works i.e. profit can be booked but isn't taxed until the money is bought onshore... hence the increase in profit and decline in tax paid.

In our tax system, I think a different accounting treatment applies whereby company profits from offshore subsidiaries are subject to UK tax irrespective of whether the money is brought back to the country and disbursed to shareholders or not.

sorry yunki - cap not eliminate profits? who decides the cap?

I dunno.. The same people who decide minimum wage, benefits caps, tax brackets..?

Somebody sat down and decided that a middle aged family can exist on a minimum of x, surely that same body could work out what the sensible minimum would be for a corporation?

An economist of some description?

Dividend payouts have been in long term decline - until very recently.

How often did you read about yields or dividend discount models in the FT? Since the 60s, an increasing level of profits has been re-invested back into companies (tick) and or used to fund M&A (??) or share buy-backs. The 80s and 90s in particular were about growth and capital appreciation, not income. Companies that paid out (apparently) ever increasing amounts to shareholders were considered stodgy and boring.

Interesting and as consequence of the Tories' policy of artificially distorting interest rates, dividends have been back in fashion with a vengeance - look at the performance of income funds and companies that pay 6-7% dividend yields. They have rocketed...

Reference to the FT - check
Lack of any evidence - check
Use of jargon - check

We're just missing a haughty put down and we'd have a full house.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/government-powerless-to-intervene-in-non-banking-industry-20151020103119 ]Meanwhile.... back in the real (non financial sector) world....[/url]

Cap Profits? What criteria would be used for what a profit should be? Don't get it.

you will be waiting a while....

Google Robert Shiller and his LT data on the US market as a starter. Late 19C companies typically paid out mid 70%s, by the 1950s/60s this was 50-60%, early 2000s 30%s etc, last data plot 40.111839% to be precise

Quote respected data source and academic from Yale (check. Shiller has built a LT model based on dividends in the US and a recent criticism included

Dividend payout ratios for U.S. companies are lower now than they used to be, with a greater share of U.S. corporate profit going to reinvestment.

Hmmm...

Its the same in this country too. Look....

[img] [/img]

Oh... hang on a minute....

It doesn't have the increase in staff wages. I presume its the same as the directors pay index. Which explains why tax credits are no longer needed. They must be leading the life of bloody Riley those Tesco shelf stackers.

Cap Profits? What criteria would be used for what a profit should be? Don't get it.

Well the standard argument for not increasing wages is that it would mean price increases.. sooo errr, what's wrong with using company profit to increase wages instead?

seems pretty simple, but I'm a painter, not an accountant/economist so I'm not blindly and inherently [i]utterly obsessed with gain and growth[/i]

Binners - now, directors' pay is a different thing altogether!!

But while there has been a LT decline in wages/GDP - high 50%s to low 50% with some volatility in between over past 80 years or so - its higher now that it was in early 80s and mid 90s

Of course, what those stats ignores is the changing nature of GDP but that's another story

teamhurtmore - Member
"One thing I can agree on is that there should be no taxpayer subsidies to earnings"
Are you IDS in disguise?

I'm more of a capitalist than you may think. 🙂

However I don't like the way corporate structures promote amoral practices.

I strongly believe that no system is sustainable if the workers who ultimately produce the wealth are not properly rewarded. Earning enough that they don't have to fear loss of their shelter or scratch for food is a minimum requirement. If they have more, then they consume more, which benefits Tories big and small.

And persecuting the poor and vulnerable is something only arseholes and porcine fellaters do.

I'm more of a capitalist than you may think.

And I am less of one!

However I don't like the way corporate structures promote amoral practices.

If they do , then they should be criticised and prosecuted, true

I strongly believe that no system is sustainable if the workers who ultimately produce the wealth are not properly rewarded.

Those who supply all the factors of production - of which labour is one - should receive their just rewards. Workers are one of those groups, but they alone do not produce wealth. Furthermore the percentage of output that wages represent has not declined in a way that supports the argument that workers have been shafted. They haven't. There is an argument, however, about relative trends in pay between CEOs etc and the average worker, true.

Earning enough that they don't have to fear loss of their shelter or scratch for food is a minimum requirement.

True (99%)

And persecuting the poor and vulnerable is something only arseholes and porcine fellaters do.

Ok, so cuts to tax credits (and welfare generally) creates losers, by defintion. And the balanced argument put forward by Osborne falls over under scrutiny. Plus the changes provide a disincentive to work for many involved which goes against the basic principle that it is better to work. However, to extend the argument to "persecuting" the poor is simply an exaggeration as basic analysis of recent trends in wages, living standards and income inequality show.

Anyway, perhaps the democratic process is having a desired effect if last night is anything to go by. We shall see.....

Workers can sell themselves to the highest bidder.

[img] [/img]

I strongly believe that no system is sustainable if the workers who ultimately produce the wealth are not properly rewarded.

The issue you raise is the one the Tories are trying to address, employers are relying on tax payers to subsidise wages

Well the standard argument for not increasing wages is that it would mean price increases.. sooo errr, what's wrong with using company profit to increase wages instead?

But (jambas) its not only one (to use economists' jargon) factor of production that is important eg, the workers or the designers or the shareholders etc. [b]Its all of them.[/b] At its simplest this includes land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship - and each will have their own (factor) payment eg, rent, wages, interest and profit etc. The extent to which income is distributed between each is determined by their own supply and demand. No silver bullet or single answer to how that is distributed. But of course if you are the supplier of any of those factors, you are in a stronger position if the demand for that factor outstrips the supply.

FWIW, Jeremy Warner has some interesting historical context in his piece on tax credits today in the (ok, I know...!) Torygraph today

Going from economists' speak to management speak - there are three constituents that a company's management has to satisfy - customers, staff and shareholders. Balance needs to be achieved across all three - you cannot prioritise one at the LT expense of the others

Dividend payouts have been in long term decline - until very recently.

So why has boardroom pay sky-rocketed as they are not producing what they are employed to do, increase shareholder value (I value a fat cheque more than asset growth, I can't spend the asset growth)?

Maybe a legal cap on CEO pay. Those that piss off will be replaced by people who will work for the money on offer, it's the capitalist way (see Polish and Eastern European construction workers for recent examples).

EDIT If you screw people over enough and threaten dire outcomes if those in charge don't get their way eventually there comes a point where bluff will be called as those at the bottom have nothing more to lose. Hopefully it will be a Velvet Revolution rather than the Terror.