it's been suggested that the CEO of a company should earn no more than 20 times the salary of the lowest paid worker. That seems "fair" to me.

Why? Need some logic for that. I know some countries have smaller ratios than others, and that does seem a good thing, but I'm not aware of any legislation about income – of course that 20x thing is before tax so it's not quite the same thing. We live in a market driven world so salaries are decided on that basis.

BTW, what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income. I also hate tax on capital which includes council tax IMO.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.

Blair? At least Branson's nice….

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I love that Ghandi quote.

Agreed junkyard.
It's a bit crap really. I'm not actually anti labour traditionally. Blair, brown, balls, mandelson etc just really boil my p1ss. Just bullies IMO. My local labour MP is also a tool, the tory one seems to actually give a sh1t about local issues (at the moment at least) instead of just trying to get as much wasteminster time as possible. Otherwise I'd quite like to vote green too.

BTW, what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income.

Why? Need some logic for that.

Yes I know that is a stupid question, but I'm just following your lead.

Because I don't think the state should benefit more than the employee from a pay rise.

tory arse weasel

I've never voted Tory in my life, I'm just paraphrasing some of the "labour economics and industrial relations" lectures I attended and applying the wisdom to the period of history we're talking about. I do quite like "tory arse weasel" though, if I add it to "pseudo frog" which is another apt thing I get called on another forum it makes "tory arse weasel pseudo frog". Excellent. Do you think the moderators would let me adopt it?

…Only if you take back everything you said about Scargill 😉

The following is included in the constitution of John Lewis

The pay of the highest paid Partner will be no more than
75 times the average basic pay of non-management Partners,
calculated on an hourly basis.

In the absence of wealth tax (or capital tax if you prefer) the rich get richer and the poor poorer Tiger. That benefits neither the rich nor the poor as another poster mentioned a page back. A fair tax system taxes income and wealth, and above all, inclome derived from wealth which the current UK system does very badly given the number of exemptions and loop holes.

I've lost interest in this thread, so I think it's time for some pictures:

Excellent, now can you do 'nazi cock monkey?'.

Coming right up…

Interestingly, Googling for images for 'Tory' came up with more grot than 'arse' or 'cock'…..

In the absence of wealth tax (or capital tax if you prefer) the rich get richer and the poor poorer Tiger.

Well not sure why the poor have to get poorer but the rich get richer if they carry on earning which is fine isn't it? We then grab a load of it when they die. 🙂

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

I love that Ghandi quote.

Ghandi !!!! 😆 🙄

Because if you don't tax wealth you have to tax income more to get the same tax revenue so the poor pay more tax and get poorer. The rich on the other hand are relatively unconcerned by income tax and PAYE. Most of their increase in wealth comes from accumulating assets which increase in value and on which they pay capital gains tax at a much lower rate than the poor pay income tax, only 18% at present and that only above a high threshold.

ermm tiger-roach – we don't grab very much of the rich's money at all; they're accountant has squirreled it off-shore waaaaaaay before inheritance tax comes along, that's if they were paying an tax due to their non-dom status.

Hmmmm the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer ermmm ever heard of Wat Tyler or just google 'economic riots'…

Well not sure why the poor have to get poorer but the rich get richer if they carry on earning which is fine isn't it? We then grab a load of it when they die.

I'm afraid the poor do have to get poorer for the rich to get richer. Our economy is based on debt. As most of us start with nothing, we have to borrow money to do anything (don't get picky – I'm generalising) we then have to pay back that money with interest to the people we borrowed it from. There are various ways this can happen, but essentially it ends up with the poor being obligated to the rich. The odd poor person may end up rich, but generally not.

On the other hand, Islam doesn't allow usury, so maybe we'd be better off in an Islamic state?

The odd poor person may end up rich

But with tighter policing we can stop that. 😉

"new money" is so vulgar isn't it.

"new money" is so vulgar isn't it

Just not in keeping with a old new Britain 😉

what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income

So you are not concerned that the richest one percent of adults globally own 40% of the entire worlds assets? The richest 10% 85 % of these assets and the bottom 50% own just over 1`%. This seems fair and reasonable to you then? Have they really worked that hard that they deserve all of that wealth/money? Are the rest really that lazy?Does it seem fair that they have billions of pounds they can never spend whilst other people have nothing? Often these people are starving and their children the victims of child labour?Really you are more concerned with having vast sums of your own personal wealth protected. If that is really the case then your moral compass is pointing to avaricious self centred assh0le.?

😆 – don't hold back Junkyard, tell 'em how you really feel. 😛

(I quite agree though – use of the word 'fair' there is pretty ironic)

"new money" is so vulgar isn't it.

As before, the simple fact is that the old money seems to stay put and not get spent somehow. So in short Junkyards theory above is worsened by the fact that the influence/financial might/power is in fundamentally the same hands that it was in 1000 years ago. Personally, I have no issue with wealth or who has it beyond the simple desire that everyone on day one starts off with a reasonably flat playing field. Regretably for the vast majority of us this is simply not the case.

I think the point you highlight Junkyard is valid, certainly for extreme wealth.

However, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.

Who is anyone to say that this person hasn't worked damned hard for that money? There total tax and national insurance bill would be in the region of £80,000.

Now, where do you stop / start tax brackets is another question, and one I don't have an answer for.

So a total income tax burden of 30 – 33% is not reasonable for a very wealthy individual? Most of whom would not pay anything like that due to employing slick accountants to assist them in avoiding it in every way possible.

Who should pay this instead? Given that raising a similar amount elsewhere would almost automatically mean that those lower done the earnings scale and less able to pay would have to pay more?

what does seem unfair to me is taking home less than 50% of any part of income

So you are not concerned that the richest one percent of adults globally own 40% of the entire worlds assets?

Seems to be some confusion between income and assets. Are you Gordon Brown by any chance?

Defining what is reasonable is not something i am in a position to state in all honesty. Everyone will have their differing opinion on this.

However IMO, yes, it is too much. To give-up £80,000 out of the £200,000 I had earned is too much. Thats a total tax liability of 40% on everything (and lets not try and separate tax from NI!).

Other people I am sure would disagree and I am not going to tell them they are wrong.

As a side, IMO earning £200k a year does not make someone "very wealthy".

However, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.

You really think earning 250 k a year wont put you in the top 10 % of world earners ? You think that 10 times the average wage in one of the 7 richest countries in the world is not excessive? I suspect you are wrong

Seems to be some confusion between income and assets. Are you Gordon Brown by any chance?

Nice line 😆
I could not get the figure for income but I suspect they are similar in nature. People with assets tend to make the most money don’t they? Will quickly Google before leaving work

edit: As i said, not everyone will have the same view point.

Junkyard – communism is a lovely idea I'm sure.

However, i think for someone who earns £200,000 a year, which IMO doesn't fit in with your extreme above, to see £25000 of that £50000 over the £150000 threshold just lost to tax, seems rather extreme to me.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you, I'm sure they'll manage ok.

I never mentioned communism why the reluctance to defend your own view rather than mention something I never mentioned? …I hope it is the fact you are ashamed and embarassed about what you said and no longer wish to defend it 😉
INCOME FACTS

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day

At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day – your [roughly] $1000 dollar a day salary of £250K does fit excessive surely?

The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income

Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 2.5%
highest 10%: 29.5% (2003 est.) – that is from the CIA factbook apparently

Need to be over $40k dollars per annum to be top 1 % of world in income
Here
http://www.globalrichlist.com/how.html

Look if you want to help the world's poor then do so but the tax we pay mostly stays in this country.

You are comparing taxation and salaries within Britain. You can not compare it against the worlds worst earners. Otherwise, on a scale, you would say an average salary of £30k a year is excessive in comparison.

LHS,are you saying that you would find it hard to get by on takehome pay of just £120 k ?

And when you say 'worked damn hard' just how hard would that be? Would it be as hard say as psychiatric nurse, or a bomb disposal expert, or an underwater welder, or a trawlerman, etc, etc.

See, it's a meaningless thing to say.

Its not meaningless to say at all.

By your rational, it would mean that no matter what career path you took, as long as you work hard at it then you should all earn the same money?

I think if you move a little further geographically east you will find the lifestyle you are looking for! 😉

You are comparing taxation and salaries within Britain. You can not compare it against the worlds worst earners. Otherwise, on a scale, you would say an average salary of £30k a year is excessive in comparison.

Well I think people would do well to realise that living on 30k a year makes you a very well off person by world standards. Plenty of people even in this country manage just fine on an awful lot less.

Because I don't think the state should benefit more than the employee from a pay rise

The state is all of us. We are the beneficiaries overall of taxation. It's called sharing the wealth. Is that so bad?

As for the wealth gap – rich people getting a lot richer, poor people getting a bit richer – the wealth gap widens, but why is this bad?

Yeah but £30k goes a lot further in many places than it does here – the US for a start.