I am so glad you are not running the country, the capital flight would be devastating.
bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION
- Thread starter BoyceyLDN
- Start date
I am so glad you are not running the country, the capital flight would be devastating.
Man of Honour
I'm so glad you aren't running the country, with that policy it would be a total waste of time for anybody to start a business employing staff and send us back to the Dark Ages.
You really have given no thought to this
Caporegime
That would mean sainsbruys shelf stackers would be on £62,500 a year!
Caporegime
So to all the people who want people to be able to earn an uncapped amount of money, what do you think is the benefit of this. People wouldn't work for £1m/year or would it take £3m/year for it to be worth it. Oh and the argument about people running abroad is BS. Profit is profit and if we actually wanted to tax companies sensibly on revenue generated in the UK we could. Companies aren't going to pull out of the UK completely because they can only make £200m in profit instead of £1bn.
The problem with people earning hundreds of millions (especially in things like gambling) is that they are fundamentally doing it via exploitation. Bet365 are paying her that amount because they are taking billions of pounds from vulnerable people. They earn that much because they are paying their staff as little as possible and no doubt paying as little tax as possible.
There is almost 0 value to society in people earning 10, 20, 30m pounds vs 1m pounds. If the very wealthiest in society weren't a massive cause of almost all the biggest issues we face today I might have a little sympathy but they are. The pursuit of pure profit and wealth over literally everything else has killed millions and wrecked the planet.
Money buys power and power in the hands of people whos sole concern in life is amassing more money is bad.
The problem with people earning hundreds of millions (especially in things like gambling) is that they are fundamentally doing it via exploitation. Bet365 are paying her that amount because they are taking billions of pounds from vulnerable people. They earn that much because they are paying their staff as little as possible and no doubt paying as little tax as possible.
There is almost 0 value to society in people earning 10, 20, 30m pounds vs 1m pounds. If the very wealthiest in society weren't a massive cause of almost all the biggest issues we face today I might have a little sympathy but they are. The pursuit of pure profit and wealth over literally everything else has killed millions and wrecked the planet.
Money buys power and power in the hands of people whos sole concern in life is amassing more money is bad.
Caporegime
£1m a year max! Don’t be daft. You can’t live life like a multimillionaire on that money. You’d be exceptionally comfortable, but you’re stifling aspiration.
Caporegime
I'm not suggesting that as a limit but we are actively encouraging bad ethics and the principle of profit and growth over everything else and thats horrendously damaging to society. The banking sector is a prime example of a bunch of rich people who know they are above the law and manipulate, lie and cheat to make billions. When they are caught, the fines are laughable vs the money they make.
Corporate bosses are getting paid millions and paying out dividends to shareholders while they pay their staff barely enough to exist. Its a completely broken system from top to bottom.
There are a huge number of industries which have amazingly driven and fantastically intelligent and hard working people in them who earn a pittance. Money isn't the only driving factor for success and perhaps if we didn't reward borderline psychopathic tendencies in business we wouldn't have such a horrible system.
I'm so glad you aren't running the country, with that policy it would be a total waste of time for anybody to start a business employing staff and send us back to the Dark Ages.
You really have given no thought to this
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?
If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits
Isn’t bet365 privately owned by her and her family?
I’m fairly sure she is renowned for also being one of the few CEOs for taking her remuneration as an actual salary so it’s taxed like everyone else’s (about half of that will go to HMRC) rather than taking shares and other options which are taxed at a much lower rate.
Isn’t bet365 also known to pay its staff very well?
I’m fairly sure she is renowned for also being one of the few CEOs for taking her remuneration as an actual salary so it’s taxed like everyone else’s (about half of that will go to HMRC) rather than taking shares and other options which are taxed at a much lower rate.
Isn’t bet365 also known to pay its staff very well?
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?
If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits
That's a difference between an SME and an Enterprise.
No Enterprise CEO's who are running companies turning over tens of billions in profit would be doing it for 180k.
Welcome to a capitalist society.
Caporegime
So it's only worth starting a company if you can make millions in personal salary? If your lowest paid employee is on a £18k salary, you'd still be taking £180k home yourself. How is that not enough?
If you all think that businesses would run away if the upper salary was capped then all you're doing is proving that businesses are in it for nothing but greed and obscene salaries. Companies would still make profits
10x is probably too low. I run a business and I'm currently working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week and I'm sure plenty of other business owners do more. If I did that for 10 years and got my earnings capped at £180,000 I would think twice about the work. You would also be punishing certain industries more simply because they happen to have a lot of lowly paid staff vs others which are full of higher income earners.
Its not fair to say to a guy who runs a massive cleaning company, you can only earn £180k/year because your staff earn £18k but that guy running a development company can earn £500k/year because his cheapest employee is on £50.
There is 100% a much better way to do this however. The problem is that the decision makers are the wealthy and the last thing the wealthy want to be is any less well off. Make no mistake, most of these companies would pay their staff nothing if they could get away with it.
I mean, you don't understand basic economics so you should just probably go study that then come back and revise your post afterwards. Essentially though you want to actively discourage people from going into business which will do untold damage to the economy.
Caporegime
There is nothing to suggest that taking money out of the pockets of the wealthy does any damage to the economy. Statistics don't support that argument at all. Unsurprisingly, the wealthy of society will tell you that if you tax them more or limit their earning potential then the sky will fall and nothing will work. It wont.
Humour me. How would taxing the wealthy more or limiting their earning potential stop people from starting or running businesses?
Man of Honour
10x is way too low though i do support the intention, I believe the John Lewis Partnership cap their CEO/Chairman's salary at 75x the lowest workers wage and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
I do find it bizarre that people talk about stifling business/aspiration when the argument is about how businesses are stifling society with disproportionate pay.
I do find it bizarre that people talk about stifling business/aspiration when the argument is about how businesses are stifling society with disproportionate pay.
So hang on, you want to take a company earning £1bn in profit and only let them earn £200m, and you don't think that will damage the economy? I understand how you would think that if you had no clue what you're talking about and assume that £800m sits in a vacuum and doesn't go into further investment in the company, research and development of new products, expanding the business, hiring new staff, giving pay rises, so generally creating opportunities for further growth in the company. Now take that and apply it to every company in the country and maybe you can see how it would do damage to the economy. Instead you want to take that £800m and give it to the government, who are VERY bad at spending money efficiently, far worse than a private company.
Caporegime
Thats because its not. People like to convince themselves that the markets are amazing and that they run the way they do because its the best way. Its simply the best way for the people at the very top. Laws are written by the rich, for the rich.
The ridiculous idea that everyone would leave the country if they could only earn £3m/year instead of £20m is quite frankly a joke and the fact some people believe this boggles my mind.
Its not as simple as changing tax and limiting earnings because the whole system is designed to allow massive companies to pay as little tax as possible and move as much of their operations abroad as they need to in order to minimise tax exposure. That can be fixed and would need to be fixed but unsurprisingly there isn't a lot of desire for that.
There are also a lot of apologists who think that its fine when we have people like Bezos who treat their employees like utter **** and make billions off their work.
Caporegime
I'm not quite sure I said that at all did I...
If the people at the top of companies can't funnel as much of their profits to themselves or there is a cap, perhaps they might not run their companies in such a scummy way which damages the environment and peoples lives simply to make a few million more each year.
Perhaps they will pay their staff a better wage.
Perhaps they will invest more in growing the company in a more sustainable way which is better for the environment. Perhaps they won't move all their manufacturing abroad to improve margins they don't need to improve.
Maybe they could hire more people and give their employees a better work life balance.
The relentless pursuit of profit is not healthy long term.
We currently have a system whereby companies sack thousands of employees and then post record profits for the year. Thats what the sensible business decision was because that saved them loads of money they could take as profits. **** the people eh.
I honestly don't care if a better system for the people leads to less value on paper because when a huge amount of that value is being filtered to a vanishingly small number of people then it doesn't matter. I don't think it would lead to less value either because companies would be healthier, more resilient and more money would be in the hands of normal people who would be paying the correct amount of tax.
Man of Honour
You could sum up the first part of that post by saying it trickles down....
Why does it matter if the private sector spends money more efficiently than the government? Their priorities are completely different.
I think the main issue is that you some how feel entitled to other peoples property, fundamentally you don't agree with the ownership of private property, you think someone who owns a company should be forced to give their assets to the state for redistribution if they are too successful by your arbitrary definition. Your issue is that you think the owners of private companies earning a lot of money are greedy and selfish and want to keep it for themselves, what you don't realise is that if you take that money and give it to the people in government to redistribute, you will also have people at the top of government with the exact same mindset, so they'll find ways of enriching themselves as we've seen in numerous governments across history. You think that everyone just needs a certain amount of money and poverty goes away, but you don't realise you need to actually have products on shelves for people to purchase, otherwise money is useless, and for that you need to encourage private business to invest and grow and compete. You don't even realise you're trying to argue for Communism because you haven't thought that far ahead, and you don't even understand the problems with Communism because like I said in my first post you don't understand basic economics, but also history. You think the Tories were bad with their PPE money? Yet you want to give people worse than them massive amounts of money, how do you think that plays out long term? I'll tell you, extremely ******* bad. Stop typing rubbish.
Caporegime
Thats quite the extrapolation
You're right. Unbridled capitalism is the only way and if you even stopped a tiny bit of the money funnelling to the richest few the whole system would collapse and we would be joining the queues for the gruel lines.
The mind boggles how you read what I have said and decided that I want communism.
Are you secretly Donald Trump?
Shares and options aren't taxed at a lower rate.
Perhaps you meant dividends and gains? But on "acquisition" the shares and options are employment income.