Crosswords2 mins ago
More Barmy Stuff From Jezza!
44 Answers
http://
How do you define a "living wage" for a start? Assuming a company is within the law they are already paying at least minimum wage. When will lefties learn where the wealth for their crackpot schemes comes from?
How do you define a "living wage" for a start? Assuming a company is within the law they are already paying at least minimum wage. When will lefties learn where the wealth for their crackpot schemes comes from?
Answers
I will ask again. Why don't the union 'subscriptio
18:32 Sat 16th Jan 2016
Assuming a company is within the law they are already paying at least minimum wage.
big assumption there...
https:/
big assumption there...
https:/
Quite so, jno. Companies who do not pay the minimum wage should face legal action.
However, that’s not what’s being discussed here as I'm sure you realise. As 3Ts says, provided they are paying the minimum wage they should be free to do what they want with the company’s funds. This notion is about idealistic redistribution of wealth. Shareholders invest their hard earned in companies so that those companies can invest, grow (and employ more people). They run the risk of their investment going down the pan. I have invested in two companies in the past two years where I have lost all, or almost all of my investment. I’m not moaning; it was my choice and profits I have made elsewhere (much of it in the form of dividends) have offset my losses. But for that risk I expect reward in the form of dividends.
Nobody on the Left seems to have grasped that you do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Private companies create wealth. They create jobs. Their profits (after tax) are theirs to keep and do with as they wish.
However, that’s not what’s being discussed here as I'm sure you realise. As 3Ts says, provided they are paying the minimum wage they should be free to do what they want with the company’s funds. This notion is about idealistic redistribution of wealth. Shareholders invest their hard earned in companies so that those companies can invest, grow (and employ more people). They run the risk of their investment going down the pan. I have invested in two companies in the past two years where I have lost all, or almost all of my investment. I’m not moaning; it was my choice and profits I have made elsewhere (much of it in the form of dividends) have offset my losses. But for that risk I expect reward in the form of dividends.
Nobody on the Left seems to have grasped that you do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Private companies create wealth. They create jobs. Their profits (after tax) are theirs to keep and do with as they wish.
New Judge,
\\Nobody on the Left seems to have grasped that you do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Private companies create wealth. They create jobs. Their profits (after tax) are theirs to keep and do with as they wish.\\
I recently heard someone that was clearly on the right and extremely wealthy disputing this principle.
\\Nobody on the Left seems to have grasped that you do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Private companies create wealth. They create jobs. Their profits (after tax) are theirs to keep and do with as they wish.\\
I recently heard someone that was clearly on the right and extremely wealthy disputing this principle.
My view is Mr Corbyn has not thought this through properly and is wrong (although the Bbc article states a Labour government COULD ban companies from paying dividends to shareholders). As already stated by NJ, it simply runs a real risk of damaging future growth by reducing the number of active speculators/investors who factor in dividends into their risk to reward model, particularly the smaller Plc's, meaning potential loss of jobs, taxes and even bankruptcy.
Mr Corbyn and his fellow travellers can spout whatever tripe they like.
They are only there to keep a place in the queue for when Dave and Gideon finally P-off enough people to allow somebody else to have some big ideas.
When that happens, the rabid left will be sidelined again and the whole rule by inadequates thing will continue.
They are only there to keep a place in the queue for when Dave and Gideon finally P-off enough people to allow somebody else to have some big ideas.
When that happens, the rabid left will be sidelined again and the whole rule by inadequates thing will continue.
-- answer removed --
NJ...tell that the owner of Sport Direct ::::
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
While I am at it, the only reason that we have minimum wage laws at all is because Blair defeated Major in the 1997 Election, something that seems to pass our AB right-wingers by most of the time.
The Tories had from 1979 to 1997 to introduce such laws, and showed not the slightest inclination to do so. In fact, they removed a whole series of employment laws, like Wage Councils, that resulted in lower wages being paid to millions of people, the ones that still had a job, of course.
When the Minimum Wage was being debated in the early months of the Blair administration, the Tories fought tooth and nail against the new legislation, but were unable to do anything about it, having lost so badly in the landslide Election of May 1997.
Of course, todays Tories think that the minimum age isn't so bad after all....funny that isn't it ?
The Tories had from 1979 to 1997 to introduce such laws, and showed not the slightest inclination to do so. In fact, they removed a whole series of employment laws, like Wage Councils, that resulted in lower wages being paid to millions of people, the ones that still had a job, of course.
When the Minimum Wage was being debated in the early months of the Blair administration, the Tories fought tooth and nail against the new legislation, but were unable to do anything about it, having lost so badly in the landslide Election of May 1997.
Of course, todays Tories think that the minimum age isn't so bad after all....funny that isn't it ?
Jeremy Corbyn (I've just looked up) has never done a real day's work in his life, everything he thinks he knows about the working man and woman comes second hand to him. He did a couple of years voluntary work and then straight into trade union offices before entering politics. During his life, he has always had a very nice "living wage", paid for by real workers and taxpayers.
Speaking as a working class person, I don't know anybody who's wages went up under the minimum wage but nearly everyone I know had a decrease.
Corbyn presents a wonderful opportunity for our virtue signallers. Whether it's the NHS, Foreign Aid or subsidising immigrants their answer is give, give, give, (at absolutely zero cost to themselves)
Now they have a chance to vote for their infantile world view and prove their commitment by forgoing all or part of their pensions. No dividends- no pensions.
Corbyn presents a wonderful opportunity for our virtue signallers. Whether it's the NHS, Foreign Aid or subsidising immigrants their answer is give, give, give, (at absolutely zero cost to themselves)
Now they have a chance to vote for their infantile world view and prove their commitment by forgoing all or part of their pensions. No dividends- no pensions.
I will ask again. Why don't the union 'subscriptions 'go towards buying up shares and ultimately whole companies. Then the new ''controllers' could pay the workers a squillion quid a week with 51 wks holiday and unlimited sick pay on 10 hour a week contracts between the hours of 12 noon and 1pm, with a bonus for working their lunch hour.
Latest Posts
News8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.