Lost all faith in humanity

@CreativeDeduct @tristan_ja28476 @NunesMigs Depends if they include bonuses into the 10x wage structure, if not performance related bonus would be the way. Daft policy anyway as it only affects a rare few earners and doesn't encourage productive growth to accommodate higher wages for low earners.

@tristan_ja28476 @lafih22 @NunesMigs £12.5k/month... certainly won't be enough to attract anyone remotely qualified to run a FTSE100 company. I guess they'll move their headquarters abroad.

The 10:1 pay ratio is such infantile utopianism it frankly beggars belief. It's such an unserious, student-politics-like policy that it it almost incomprehensible that it is a real suggestion from a major contender in British politics. Mind blowing!

@DrGladimir @PositivFuturist You could actually do that by cutting staff and production (streamlining) & increasing profits, might seem a bargain to some, others not so. This may have perverse effects on the long term though even if short term it seems wise.

@PositivFuturist Some are. But a CEO who comes in and increases profits / value of company by saying £100 million? Suddenly £1m a year pay seems like a bargain.

Unimpressive people with no particular skills or experience think CEOs are paid too much huh.

@tristan_ja28476 @NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct Is that distinguished as a rule? I'd expect people in councils and other public services to definitely be on a salary but not sure how it applies to dividends

@lafih22 @NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct That isn’t a salary though, is it?

@runninggeek2 @David__Osland Best get back to work then, we don't want people thinking those in the echelons of business have time to trade quips with random people online do we? Personally, I think it's irrelevant and there are better ways to do things 😉

@lafih22 @David__Osland And your point is what…..I run a business quite a large one too I don’t need educating. Let’s get back on track and to the 10:1 ratio lunacy

The Greens 10:1 pay ratio proposal would drive chief executive pay at companies with minimum wage employees down to just £247,845 a year. How can anybody be expected to survive on that?

@malcolm_reavell For £12k that cleaner is working part-time. You could cut out all the CEOs breakfast/lunch/golf/gym meetings and reduce their hours to when they actually do something for £120k.. sounds good

Of course they could earn over £120k… but that would mean paying the cleaner more. I think I see how your mind works.

@MickeyDee43 @NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct As far as tax records go, only 100k people 'declared' paying themselves higher than £250k. So, no, there are (TV presenters and others on IR35) but not 'many'

@lafih22 @NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct Yes, many do but they tend to arrange their income as a low salary, high pension contributions and dividends

@runninggeek2 @David__Osland If you have a board of directors.. you're not really running your own business. How many conglomerates have a singular figurehead that is beyond reproach, most CEOs are voted in by the board unless it is a historic family business and even then they are beholden to the corporate

@lafih22 @David__Osland You clearly don’t run a business and understand how a board of directors works in these big conglomerates

@runninggeek2 @David__Osland Nearly as stupid as someone thinking 'one' person runs a business employing 1000s of people

@David__Osland Imagine running your own business employing many maybe thousands to be told by some lunatic hoping to become PM you aren’t allowed to earn that amount anymore more it’s going to be capped…….how stupid do you look and sound David even thinking of supporting it

@NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct The employees get more than 1/10th of what the owners pays themselves.. only a very small percentage, less than 1% make more than 10x the minimum wage.

@lafih22 @CreativeDeduct Look, I get your weaponized stupidity - it's the only weapon of the left. Almost 60% of businesses are sole traders (including small pubs). What they make is what the owner takes home (I know it's crazy). Do their employees deserve 1/10 of what the owner makes?

@martinrw @BenRamanauskas A CEOs value is the amount of profit their corporation makes, if they pay their workers more, they make less profit, and the value of the corporation and quality of the CEO is reduced. An Ouroboros scenario

@BenRamanauskas Again, I don't know what you mean by that or how you are defining it – and I don't think you do, either.

The pay ratio idea is idiotic and ignores the fact that CEOs tend to be incredibly valuable and are actually worth their huge salaries.

@LoftusSteve We have a job problem here.

Every single employee is paid exactly what they agreed to be paid, which is what they think their job is worth. This whole argument is for people too unskilled to ever earn decent money so they want to either drag everyone else down, or see themselves overpaid.

@CreativeDeduct I agree, but that is not what politics is today. You could say Starmer is qualified (in statesmanship) but he's been a disaster

@lafih22 There are plenty of qualified people in the U.K. Zak Polanski is not one of them.

Does Green leader Zack Polanski know what he’s talking about? He certainly has some radical thoughts on Britain’s state finances, flirting with Modern Monetary Theory, a school of thought that claims that public spending should not be constrained by what can be raised in taxes and borrowing. Instead, as long as there is spare capacity in the economy, the government should ‘print money’ to achieve full employment. Though Polanski has not been specific, this is seemingly the “different paradigm” he’s talking about when he says that he doesn’t think “the market should be dictating democratic decisions.” In other words, public spending should not be reliant on the market’s willingness to keep buying Gilts to fund the deficits - straight out of MMT’s playbook. But is Polanski a fully converted MMT’er or has he simply borrowed few phrases that suits his political agenda and allows him to evade questions on the affordability of his spending commitments? Does he have a basic understanding of what he’s implying? On the Green Party website, you can read about how a “fairer tax system to fund investment will raise tens of billions of pounds” and about how the party is “prepared to borrow to invest.” Polanski proposes a "loophole-free" windfall tax on energy companies to subsidise utility bills. He has used the phrase “fully funded” to describe the Green policies on teacher pay, the NHS, housing, and other public services. Which one is it, Zack? Do we live in a world where taxes and borrowing funds public spending? Or don’t we? You can’t have both. The scary thing is, it seems that he doesn’t realise that you can’t. Polanski is not an MMT convert. As a socialist, he thinks about the world as it “should” be, not as it is. This is the sentiment behind statements like “I don’t the market should be dictating democratic decisions.” He is a grifter who has picked a few convenient phrases that he doesn’t understand, to support an incoherent and dangerously irresponsible fiscal approach. Let’s hope the British media has a better grasp on economic theory that Zack, so he can be held accountable.

@CreativeDeduct I know you are market biased, and I agree that a productive and competitive private sector is exceptionally important at maintaining a quality of life. No matter of public spending or excessive public control over the private sector will aid the former.

@CreativeDeduct The simple answer is no, the govt takes back 85-90% of everything it spends in tax. If it spends more it increases tax take and increases deficit at least in the short term, and vice versa. On technical terms that is true, it is not the whole story though.

@NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct You're currently already paying them at least the minimum wage, you can earn ten times that. Are you confusing turnover again?

@lafih22 @CreativeDeduct If, as a small business owner, you're paying your employees 1/10 of what you make you don't have a business - you do understand this?

@CreativeDeduct you say you want the media to be economically savvy but presenters these days focus more on character assassination than philosophical discussion, working on gotchas and talking over answers when someone actually tries to explain the points behind decisions..they got us here

@CreativeDeduct Unfortunately we don't train people up to be leaders and statesman these days, we don't have civil service routes where you have to prove capability at local level to get to national level, where philosophy of trade-offs trump and are discussed openly and

@PJW6466 @BenGrahamUK There will always be 'lay-a-bouts' in society, luckily they are a small minority, but that doesn't mean their kids should be punished. Most unemployed people don't want to be unemployed. We purposely run unemployment to reduce wage inflation.. it is a govt policy

@lafih22 @BenGrahamUK You're missing the point. We are providing child care to those that people WON'T workand have no intentions of ever getting a job. The is no incentive to work anymore. And we're not talking about those that CAN'T work.

There’s a legitimate question here about where responsibility lies. Welfare was designed as a safety net, not a permanent substitute for parental duty. If the state is now funding not just income support but also everyday essentials like breakfasts, we are right to ask whether the system has drifted too far.

@NunesMigs @CreativeDeduct Only about 100k people make over £250k in the UK, so yes, many businesses run fine at 10:1 ratio. It actually makes the whole policy kinda pointless

@lafih22 @CreativeDeduct My, you're not going to have a business if you pay you employee's 1/10 of what you make