- This topic has 6,282 replies, 176 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by kelvin.
-
2019 General Election
-
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years ago
They can’t just confiscate assets – shares belong to someone. There has to be compensation, and if it’s your pension then it has to buy more shares elsewhere so you won’t lose out.
That’s what they’re going to do, listen to Long-Bailey. They’re going to take 10pc of the company. The existing share holders (typically pension funds) then own 90pc instead of 100pc the company. The shareholders have lost 10pc of the company. No compensation was mentioned.
Hence capital flight.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoso do all german pension funds invest only out of the country and have all their manufacturing companies moved out of the country?
If not what is so special about the UK?
NUrses pensions are revenue funded – ie was pay a significant extra amount that is effectivly tax then the taxpayer pays our pensions
MSPFull MemberPosted 4 years agoWe all lose 10pc of the value of our pensions.
The last figures I saw, “our” pensions represented less than 5% of the stock market. And given that pensions will be by far the biggest investment pot for 95% of people, increasing that ownership to 15% of the market through Government seems perfectly logical and beneficial to society as a whole.
Frankly IMO it is the only way the world is going to be able to deal with the next wave of automation many countries are having similar thoughts and once it starts it will become common. The problem is how it is being sold, it shouldn’t be class warfare, but a simple methodology for dealing with modern business strategies that allow the whole of society to benefit from advancement.
It isn’t even that radical. It is rather sensible, and would introduce levers to protect the share market from short termism and greed overriding long term growth.
It should be positive strategy not a negative one, unfortunately it would take a positive forward looking leader to get the public onside, not one trapped into a mindset of rebelling against everything.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoit also gives workers a stake in the company which is well proven to improve productivity.
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoit also gives workers a stake in the company which is well proven to improve productivity
A 10 percent stake, owned by the government – I’m sure the workers sense of agency is going to reach new heights. Hahah! The world is littered with publicly owned companies where the workers feel disenfranchised as well by the way.
Labours plan will cause capital flight and damage to the UK economy and it would then be undone by the next Tory government, so it’s utterly pointless in the long term. The things that can’t be as easily undone without political blowback are workers rights and the minimum wage, Labour should be focusing on that – not deranged economically illiterate ideas.
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years agoso do all german pension funds invest only out of the country and have all their manufacturing companies moved out of the country?
Germany did it though tax incentives not by taking ownership of 10pc of German firms. As far as I can see the German system has no catastrophic drawbacks at all most people would be totally in favour. …and the workers own the shares, the shares aren’t held in some sort of dodgy trust by the government with a cap on dividends.
NUrses pensions are revenue funded – ie was pay a significant extra amount that is effectivly tax then the taxpayer pays our pensions
So not invested in the stock market at any point, then this won’t harm them.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoWhen right wingers are whining about this and making up all sorts of apocalyptic nonsense about it then you know its right.
Remember the minimum wage? According to rightwingers it would destroy companies – guess what – it didn’t. It was actually good for them as it stopped the unethical low payers from undercutting employers who pay well
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThe last figures I saw, “our” pensions represented less than 5% of the stock market.
Whereas the stock market could form ~100pc of many of our pensions. If the government take 10pc of the stock market we all lose 10pc of our pensions if we are lazy enough to leave it invested in the UK stocks.
And given that pensions will be by far the biggest investment pot for 95% of people, increasing that ownership to 15% of the market through Government seems perfectly logical and beneficial to society as a whole.
If it’s “logical and beneficial to society” how about society *buying* the shares rather than taking them?
robdixonFree MemberPosted 4 years ago“I’m behind on this one…
But what could be the upside for the country? That has to be factored in.“
There are none:
– companies will relocate their HQs (leading to loss of some of the highest paying roles all of which pay the 45% tax band)
– anyone with a private pension (so not Corbyn or McDonnell with their £2m+ pension pots they have paid nowt towards) will lose 5% of their pension funds
– the government will lose £100b or more in corporation tax receipts – every year
– inward investment will dry up, leading to a compounding of the inevitable effect of Labour coming to power which is higher unemploymentCorbyn has played a blinder though – workers will vote for it because they think they will get £250 a year in shares when the reality is most will just lose their jobs.
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoCorbyn has played a blinder though – workers will vote for it because they think they will get £250 a year in shares when the reality is most will just lose their jobs.
Which will be more than entertaining.
Starting to really look forward to the coming bloodbath.
If the government take 10pc of the stock market we all lose 10pc of our pensions if we are lazy enough to leave it invested in the UK stocks.
Thankfully both me and my wifes pensions are with companies where we can stop it from being exposed to UK companies. We might do it this week actually, this country is having a collective psychotic break, I think the political risk UK stocks are exposed to is now too great. My wife (coincidentally in investment management) has been saying that the political debate in this country is starting to feel like her home country, the Philippines.
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years agoWhen right wingers are whining about this and making up all sorts of apocalyptic nonsense about it then you know its right.
“Man with a gold plated state funded pension supports grabbing 10pc of everyone else’s pension shocker.”
But let’s discuss the “apocalyptic nonsense” shall we? There’s a 50/50 chance my pension is about to be devalued by 10pc and I have two options. 1) Leave the it inUK funds as it is. 2) Move it to other markets which aren’t about to devalue by 10pc?
Making the change requires me to log on to a website and select from a drop-down list.
Is it really “apocalyptic nonsense” to think a lot of people are going to choose to do that? 10 minutes work to save a tenth of a lifetime’s pension savings?
“apocalyptic nonsense” about Capital Flight from the Shadow Chancellor:
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoAlready going to do it outofbreath. Public workers don’t get how easy it is to move investment money around and collectively **** an economy over night.
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThankfully both me and my wifes pensions are with companies where we can stop it from being exposed to UK companies. We might do it this week actually,
Agree with you and it needs to be done ASAP and before the election because the market’s going to factor this in before it happens. I’m watching the FTSE to try and pick a high point. (Today would have been good.)
Plus “Labour has prepared for a run on the pound and capital flight” which sounds like there might be immediate measures to prevent movement of capital after the election. (Is that even legal in the EU where where we have free movement of people and capital?) Or do these preparations include an immediate hard Brexit to enable halting of capital movement?
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoAs I said – apocalyptic nonsense from right wingers.
How is your pension / the stock market going to be devalued by 10%? If a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoAnd of course we are back to Schrodingers companies
so you rightwingers claim none will move because of brexit but ensure workers have a stake in the companies and every one will immediatly fold their UK operations
a
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoAs I said – apocalyptic nonsense from right wingers.
How is your pension / the stock market going to be devalued by 10%? If a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
It’s already been explained to you.
You’re a nurse TJ, my wifes almost CFA chartered – I’m going to listen to her and what her centrist colleagues think. Stop labeling anyone who disagrees with you a right winger, you are peddling the same post truth bullshit that Trump and the Brexiteers did.
so you rightwingers claim none will move because of brexit but ensure workers have a stake in the companies and every one will immediatly fold their UK operations
It’s my understanding that most of the people in this thread, including outofbreath are remainers and have a good understanding of the economic consequences of brexit. We also understand that asset seizing is just as, if not scarier to UK companies than a hard brexit.
outofbreathFree MemberPosted 4 years agoIf a companies issues 10% more shares does that devalue it by 10%?
Yes, if you give 10pc of something away there is only 90pc of it left in the hands of the original owner.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agogo on – explain to me in simple words I can understand why giving workers 10% of the company is any different that giving shareholders more shares? which I believe happens fairly often that there is a share issue which dilutes existing shares?
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoBecause when that happens, the shareholders have more shares at a lower value per share – but the same total value as before.
That is not what Labour is proposing.
This is key stage 3 level maths dude.
The other scenario is that a company issues new stock as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an asset on the company’s balance sheet – hopefully negating stock dilution.
which I believe happens fairly often that there is a share issue which dilutes existing shares?
It doesn’t – because shareholders take a dim view of companies who’s stock issue leads to devaluation of the shares. Just as they will take a dim view of the government doing something that has a similar effect.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoso what are labour proposing then if its not the equivalent to a new share issue – are you really trying to claim they are going to take 10 % of everyones shares rather than just increase the number of shares?
They are not removing 10% of the value of the company – it still remains in the company. Or are you trying to claim they are going to take 10% of the value out of the company?
apart from anything else its proposed to be 1% a year not 10% the moment labour take power.
#
there is no money being taken out of the company in any form. Its just that 1% of the value of the company willbe transferred to the workforce each year.raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoso what are labour proposing then if its not the equivalent to a new share issue – are you really trying to claim they are going to take 10 % of everyones shares rather than just increase the number of shares?
If they forces companies to create 10 percent more shares and give them to the government, that still devalues the 90 percent that is remaining.
Once agaim, this is key stage 3 maths.
there is no money being taken out of the company in any form. Its just that 1% of the value of the company willbe transferred to the workforce each year.
Wealth managers, manage investments with long term goals in mind – 10 percent over 10 years would certainly be factored into how they pick funds.
Needless to say, Labour would only allow 500 quid of dividends to go to the workers in a company before the rest goes to the state. Have you any idea how much 10 percent in a company can reap in terms of dividends?
It’s not about the workers at all, a 500 quid bonus is crap compared to what German companies voluntarily give their workers.
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoso the same as a share issue which is done all the time. a 1% share issue a year
tjagainFull MemberPosted 4 years agoThey are not being given to the government – they are being given to workers in a trust. so you see if you start to argue from false premise then you get false answers.
cromolyollyFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThat is not what Labour is proposing.
I think this is Labour doing peak labour and using language which appeals to their base, who were going to vote for them no matter what, and drive away those who are in the fence.
As I understand the proposal, they aren’t going to confiscate shares held privately ‘in the market’ They are going to require corporations to find and sequester 10% of their shares in a pot for the employees. Those shares will remain ‘out there’ in the sense that they will still count towards the number of outstanding shares, will fluctuate in value and will pay the same dividends as all the others. They will not be raiding your pension fund. The corporations will fulfill the requiremnt however they choose. While issuing more shares to do it might lower the value of the shares in the short term, because they can’t be sold on the market in the middle or longer term they will probably balance. The dividends are more dilute but companies that have employee input and representation are often more profitable, so that will be a wash.
There really is no need to panic over this. It will have far less effect on shares than the underhanded tactics boards and CEOs get up to.
Brexit, on the other hand, is something to worry about, if you are concerned about your market funds.
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThey are going to require corporations to find and sequester 10% of their shares in a pot for the employees. Those shares will remain ‘out there’ in the sense that they will still count towards the number of outstanding shares, will fluctuate in value and will pay the same dividends as all the others. They will not be raiding your pension fund.
They will have to unless they are going to issue new shares.
so the same as a share issue which is done all the time. a 1% share issue a year
Under certain circumstances, to raise capital.
martinhutchFull MemberPosted 4 years agohttps://www.ft.com/content/dc17d7ee-ccab-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6
We’re through the looking glass now. At least it takes the spotlight off Boris for his ‘**** Business’ comments.
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThe dividends are more dilute but companies that have employee input and representation are often more profitable, so that will be a wash.
The cap on the dividends per worker is £500, under Labours scheme – which is laughable. Especially considering that many of the FTSE250 companies will be giving their employees half decent performance related bonuses anyway.
cromolyollyFree MemberPosted 4 years agobecause shareholders take a dim view of companies who’s stock issue leads to devaluation of the shares.
That’s usually only true when the shares aren’t offered to existing shareholders first.
And issuing more shares doesn’t automatically or frequently lead to a drop in share prices. If they don’t discount them then the market capitalisation to #shares remain constant. It might even increase if the shares go for above market.
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoAnd issuing more shares doesn’t automatically or frequently lead to a drop in share prices. If they don’t discount them then the market capitalisation to #shares remain constant. It might even increase if the shares go for above market.
Yes – but this is how competent companies issue shares.
It’s not the same as removing or creating shares for a workers pot that is not on the free market.
cromolyollyFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThey will have to unless they are going to issue new shares.
They might offer to buy from your pension fund but a private company can’t confiscate them. They’ll have to pay fair value.
There are plenty of sources of shares beyond that which they tap all the time.
The cap on the dividends per worker is £500
Per year.
mattyfezFull MemberPosted 4 years agoconsidering that many of the FTSE250 companies will be giving their employees half decent performance related bonuses anyway.
You are taking the piss, right? Hahaha! If you’re senior management maybe…
kimbersFull MemberPosted 4 years agoYeah arguing about Labour’s policies are great, but let’s all be honest it’s gonna be a Tory government until 2025*
Maybe we should be looking at their plans… They’ve got a brexit that’s set to take £bns from the economy, spending promises through the roof & tax cuts too
The magic money tree is in full
* Oh crap, do the FTPA mean every election will ruin an Xmas every five years?
raybanwombleFree MemberPosted 4 years agoYou are taking the piss, right? Hahaha! If you’re senior management maybe…
Most pharma companies I’ve worked for even gave the cleaners at least double that in bonuses.
martinhutchFull MemberPosted 4 years agoIt’s not the same as removing or creating shares for a pot.
Especially when the dividends for those shares are being either handed to different people or, for the most part, the Exchequer, rather than the existing shareholders. They are not just being sequestered off with no effect on shareholders, the dividends they generate, which support their value for investors – is being removed.
cromolyollyFree MemberPosted 4 years agoMost British pharma companies I’ve worked for even gave the cleaners at least double that in bonuses.
Cos they are a massively representative sample.
cromolyollyFree MemberPosted 4 years agoThey are not just being sequestered off with no effect on shareholders, the dividends they generate, which support their value for investors – is being removed.
Just like CEOs donto boost share prices for their own reasons – no one worries about that. Who is looking out for shareholders then?
The topic ‘2019 General Election’ is closed to new replies.
