Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Maximum Earnings Cap
28 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I'd like to see the disparity addressed but I dont think the cap is the way to do it, for starters it could end up stifling entrepreneurs and end up with them taking their business base outside the UK.
What would be good to see is people being rewarded for a good job, not for failure and that is where the Government could set the example. For business perhaps more power to Shareholders would be the answer.
What would be good to see is people being rewarded for a good job, not for failure and that is where the Government could set the example. For business perhaps more power to Shareholders would be the answer.
I do not believe that. After a certain point accumulating more riches is pointless. Success carving out an empire, and maybe doing good for the community, has more attraction. It is achievement not simply riches. If ridiculously rich and someone still just wants to simply grab of the world's wealth for theirself, then I think that individual has a problem/addiction/whatever.
OG! The sense of achievement you speak is recognised in how much money you get for that achievement. If it were not the case then all those that have 'made it big' would give away their wealth and keep only that which allows them the lifestyle they want. As it is even Bill gates, who has started charitable foundations etc, has more money and continues to make more money that I will ever see in my or my children's life time.
Capping earnings and telling people they are not allowed to earn as much as they can/want is not the way to go. Educating and encouraging them to be more philanthropic and a better employer is much better.
Capping earnings and telling people they are not allowed to earn as much as they can/want is not the way to go. Educating and encouraging them to be more philanthropic and a better employer is much better.
jesus politics of envy again
mushie - come out of your ivory tower and think about tax base....
the tax base is the number of people the change would affect
here it is the Royal family and a few footballers - depending on the level set which we notice is higher than ( o god ) the amount Jerry himself gets
I would be interested to know how many people get £50m a year
( pay - not assets or transfer fees )
good help us when Jerry is think about wages when he should be thinking about Brexit
( perhaps he is "thinking" - why bother ? I will never get to power )
mushie - come out of your ivory tower and think about tax base....
the tax base is the number of people the change would affect
here it is the Royal family and a few footballers - depending on the level set which we notice is higher than ( o god ) the amount Jerry himself gets
I would be interested to know how many people get £50m a year
( pay - not assets or transfer fees )
good help us when Jerry is think about wages when he should be thinking about Brexit
( perhaps he is "thinking" - why bother ? I will never get to power )
OG
//Under Labour in the Seventies, the top rate of income tax rose to 83 per cent and reached 98 per cent when an investment income surcharge was applied.
But while Healey is often remembered as the villain of the piece, it was Roy Jenkins who raised taxes on income to an all-time record of 136 per cent.//
Many high earners did leave, pop start doctors all sorts. Of course what labour failed to realize is that these high earners can move about(which they did) and that 98% of 0 is the princley sum of, well 0.
//Under Labour in the Seventies, the top rate of income tax rose to 83 per cent and reached 98 per cent when an investment income surcharge was applied.
But while Healey is often remembered as the villain of the piece, it was Roy Jenkins who raised taxes on income to an all-time record of 136 per cent.//
Many high earners did leave, pop start doctors all sorts. Of course what labour failed to realize is that these high earners can move about(which they did) and that 98% of 0 is the princley sum of, well 0.
YMB....(13:18)....Ashely should be prosecuted for breaking employment law, along with all the other Fat Cat employers that are getting away with it at the moment.
A business with a similar name was exposed only a few weeks ago. I also suggest that the various Government Depts. that oversee employment law make many more snap inspections of shyster employers, and not leave it up to the BBC, Guardian, etc to do their jobs for them.
In the mean time I will continue to boycott these outlets.
A business with a similar name was exposed only a few weeks ago. I also suggest that the various Government Depts. that oversee employment law make many more snap inspections of shyster employers, and not leave it up to the BBC, Guardian, etc to do their jobs for them.
In the mean time I will continue to boycott these outlets.
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.