Mortgage Rate Rises

[neocon]

The BOE are clearly stooges of the conservative party.

 

[BUDFORCE]

properly targeted taxes would've been more effective at combating the primary source of inflation

Whilst in an ideal world you are right, unfortunately that is easier said than done, and the tax system in this country is stupidly complex and weighted towards the wealthy.

A bit earlier in this it was being batted around about how the bank of england guy doesn't deserve his £500k a year salary, but I am sitting here thinking to myself that really, that isnt actually that much, particularly if thats PAYE.

Becuase of what I do for a living, I see a lot of very wealthy individuals who earn far more than this, and have assets totalling millions. The really amazing stuff is not so much how much they earn or their net worth, but actually how little tax they pay on it all.

 

[danlightbulb]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that elderly are still spending plenty on services, holidays, cars, etc. There's literally nothing to curb this.

Exactly. The rate rises are going to be effecting one group far more than any other (mortgage holders, and with knock on to renters).

Leaving everyone else (people who have paid off their mortgages, and the wealthy) free to continue as is. Whereas tax redistribution could more fairly impact everyone and spread the control of inflation far more equitably.

 

[Hyburnate]

Whilst in an ideal world you are right, unfortunately that is easier said than done, and the tax system in this country is stupidly complex and weighted towards the wealthy.

A bit earlier in this it was being batted around about how the bank of england guy doesn't deserve his £500k a year salary, but I am sitting here thinking to myself that really, that isnt actually that much, particularly if thats PAYE.

Becuase of what I do for a living, I see a lot of very wealthy individuals who earn far more than this, and have assets totalling millions. The really amazing stuff is not so much how much they earn or their net worth, but actually how little tax they pay on it all.

Well of course, the real wealthy aren't PAYE.

This situation isn't fun at all. I know for a fact my mortgage will double once my product ends and it looks like it'll take years for it to even start to drop down, all whilst trying to renovate an older property for which there are no grants available to assist in increasing energy rating and with oil prices doing what they're doing I'm looking at silly money on PVC etc

 

[adam cool dude]

The BOE are clearly stooges of the conservative party.

They are all in it together. This is just a hunch but in the Attlee days I don't think there was as much power held by really rich people pulling strings in the background so real change and government policy could be achieved. Then from the mid 70's where corporate world really started to kick off it has just gone downhill since then. People have just been complacent because it didn't impact them.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

As a business you would have labour cost percentages to hit, if that number has been reducing over the years then you are probably not paying your staff enough, if revenues are going up, but the percentage is staying the same look at your efficiency.

If your business is that spiky that you can have wild negative swings in revenue year-on-year, maybe have that factored in over a longer period than a year.

It's almost like being proactive is better than being reactive

Thats really funny, thanks for the "lesson"

 

[Sythe79]

Thats really funny, thanks for the "lesson"

well, you asked a stupid question, does it work both ways. no, and you know it shouldn't. If a business has to ask its employees to take a pay cut, it's a management screw up, and they have to ask, not dictate.

If you do have a business that has wild swings in revenue, then have your employees on commission or piecemeal or limited term contracts. but those are exceptions, not the rule.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

well, you asked a stupid question, does it work both ways. no, and you know it shouldn't. If a business has to ask its employees to take a pay cut, it's a management screw up, and they have to ask, not dictate.

If you do have a business that has wild swings in revenue, then have your employees on commission or piecemeal or limited term contracts. but those are exceptions, not the rule.

My point was, I see it has to be realllllly basic, was if your expecting large increase based on profit then if they are somehow irregular then do you accept a reduced pay afterwards.
Dan then clarified a bit more after that, which you seem to have missed. he clearly realised what he had said then started talking bonuses instead.

The rest of your post was full of nonsense anyway.

Source, I am an accountant who has worked in industry for over 30 years including at board level in a FTSE company.

 

[TNA]

Wondering what bridge would be the easiest to throw myself off of

Dartford bridge should do mate

 

[CapitalOne]

You would say that as an accountant though
obv a joke

 

[Uther]

Wondering what bridge would be the easiest to throw myself off of

You jest (I hope) but I'm sure there will be people getting to that stage now.

 

[robfosters]

Dartford bridge should do mate

Got to pay to go on there though

 

[TNA]

Got to pay to go on there though

Even when walking? Lol

 

[danlightbulb]

My point was, I see it has to be realllllly basic, was if your expecting large increase based on profit then if they are somehow irregular then do you accept a reduced pay afterwards.
Dan then clarified a bit more after that, which you seem to have missed. he clearly realised what he had said then started talking bonuses instead.

Well I think the point I was trying to make was about shareholder returns really. If shareholder dividends are 10% and employees aren't getting inflation payrises, then maybe the shareholder should take a lower dividend and treat the employees better.

 

[Uther]

Still, Rishi looked really concerned for us all just before he boarded the plane for his Californian holiday.

 

[robfosters]

Still, Rishi looked really concerned for us all just before he boarded the plane for his Californian holiday.

That’s why he’s gone on holiday. It was worrying him to the point of illness, so he’s gone for a short holiday to recuperate mentally.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Got to pay to go on there though

To be fair you pay after you have crossed so you would have nothing to pay.
Anyway, dont do it!

Well I think the point I was trying to make was about shareholder returns really. If shareholder dividends are 10% and employees aren't getting inflation payrises, then maybe the shareholder should take a lower dividend and treat the employees better.

Shareholder dividends aren't regularly 10%.
The other issue in that case is, its literally a statutory duty (under UK law) for directors / board to act in the best interests of the owners (shareholders)
Pay is a contentious issue in that regard. Certainly paying over market rate could be argued by some to be negligent in regards that duty. Would depend on how much it was over IMO.
Often friction between directors/board comes in regards pay, sometimes in regards those very people themselves.

 

[Sythe79]

My point was, I see it has to be realllllly basic, was if your expecting large increase based on profit then if they are somehow irregular then do you accept a reduced pay afterwards.
Dan then clarified a bit more after that, which you seem to have missed. he clearly realised what he had said then started talking bonuses instead.

The rest of your post was full of nonsense anyway.

Source, I am an accountant who has worked in industry for over 30 years including at board level in a FTSE company.

fair enough but as an account then you would know you don't tend to base wages on profit but on revenue, it comes across as you saying that we can't give you a pay increase this year even tho we made a profit because next year if we make a loss we will give you a pay cut.

but thanks for the clarification.

 

[robfosters]

To be fair you pay after you have crossed so you would have nothing to pay.
Anyway, dont do it!



Shareholder dividends aren't regularly 10%.
The other issue in that case is, its literally a statutory duty (under UK law) for directors / board to act in the best interests of the owners (shareholders)
Pay is a contentious issue in that regard. Certainly paying over market rate could be argued by some to be negligent in regards that duty. Would depend on how much it was over IMO.
Often friction between directors/board comes in regards pay, sometimes in regards those very people themselves.

I am only joking don’t worry. My position is actually a lot better than many so don’t worry.

It was more a generalised observation that this is indeed sadly the point at which some less fortunate may be starting to veer dangerously down that path.

I haven’t heard much about mental health at all. The effects of this COL crisis seem to be being sorely overlooked.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

fair enough but as an account then you would know you don't tend to base wages on profit but on revenue, it comes across as you saying that we can't give you a pay increase this year even tho we made a profit because next year if we make a loss we will give you a pay cut.

but thanks for the clarification.

Its neither TBH.
No my point was Dan was initially saying if they make a profit they can afford to pay more wages. Most businesses do not have stable profits, they vary for many factors.

Anyway hes moved on again to saying that its about shareholders dividends now and that should be shared more equally.

Which is not an impossible model but quickly runs into (as I listed above) a fairly significant issue in regards directors duties.
The bonus model is certainly a way to try to improve staff efficiency but it has its flaws as well.