If You Were The Pm For Long Enough To Do One Major Thing

[DangerUXD]

what would it be?

[emmie]

get us out of the EU, and all troops home from Afghanistan, that's two, but thought would throw it in anyway.

[atalanta]

Bring in a law to state that all employers must publish on their websites the salaries of all employees, and their bonuses. Then we'd find out what the fat-cats really earn, and how much more the men earn than the women. You don't have to give people's names - just number or code the employees.

[Mosaic]

Make public transport dirt cheap, reliable, clean and safe

[DangerUXD]

em10 is winning so far, though I think the money saved could be used on the public transport idea.

[emmie]

i would do a lot more besides but no one elected me PM.

[naomi24]

Sort out the welfare state.

[jake-the-peg]

Change the law so that our armed forces could only be committed in the direct defense of the the UK and territories.

They could then be scaled back to fulfill that role and the money saved used to give those no longer needed a proper training so that they could get a proper job and contribute to the economy.

I'd call it the "No more foreign adventuring act"

[sunny-dave]

Full disclosure of earnings (and dividends and all other income) - then a 95% tax above about £150,000.

No-one 'needs' more than that & those who don't like it can bugger off to Russia ...

[emmie]

Sd, so you would be happy if you earned over 150 k to give most of it up ?

[sunny-dave]

No-one 'earns' more than £150k - some people are paid that much (usually for non-jobs that add nothing to society) .

If I was one of them I'd either grin and bear it or quietly move somewhere that appreciated my skills more ...

[brionon]

Try to make the Country independant of Electricity and Food. Then we would be safe.

[naomi24]

SB, //No-one 'earns' more than £150k - some people are paid that much (usually for non-jobs that add nothing to society) .//

That's not necessarily true at all. Many high earners work extremely long hours, take few holidays, and they work damned hard. They create jobs for others, and they bring business into the country - and therefore wealth into the economy. Make no mistake - they 'earn' their money!

[emmie]

so they do naomi, i can't believe some think it's ok to sting the somewhat better off, considering how some of our many citizens sit on their fat derrières and do nothing for the money they get...

[naomi24]

I agree Em. Without reward there is no incentive. Why would there be?

[humbersloop]

//Many high earners work extremely long hours, take few holidays, and they work damned hard. They create jobs for others, and they bring business into the country - and therefore wealth into the economy.//

As do many working people who earn next to nothing actually, particularly in manufacturing, transport, agriculture and construction.

[naomi24]

Humbersloop, I know - I'm not disputing that - but those people are not leaders of industry and do not shoulder the responsibility that many high earners shoulder - eg for the rise or fall of a company, and hence for the preservation of other people's jobs.

[tonyav]

Seen what some of these high earners can do ie bankers, almost bring a country to it's knees economically.
Totally agree with that sloopy.

[sunny-dave]

Sorry - I still think that a much higher rate of tax on excessively high incomes (perhaps tied to the salary of the Prime Minister?) is the only effective engine of fair distribution of wealth.

I paid higher rate tax for many years - no I didn't exactly like it, but I regarded it as appropriate that I should contribute more because of my higher income.

Using the argument of "it will be wasted on the indigent/feckless/workshy/foreign" is an irrelevance. That problem needs solving - but is no excuse for allowing those being paid obscene amounts of money to avoid paying higher rates of tax.

[naomi24]

Dave, a fair distribution of wealth? Why should someone who earns his money through sheer effort give it away? He already pays income tax at a higher rate, he pays a higher rate of council tax because he has a larger house, even though he takes no more from local services than the fellow in the council house; his children possibly attend private school and he probably has private health insurance and rarely seeks care from the NHS, so overall he takes very little from the system. Why should he be penalised further simply for being successful? What’s fair about that?

[sunny-dave]

I would rather have a society where everyone has 'enough', than one where some people have 'a lot' and others have 'a little'. What is unfair about that?