INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Modern economics

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#701 Post by Nick » August 4th, 2012, 11:21 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Thankfully, Alan, the answer is no.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#702 Post by Nick » August 4th, 2012, 11:25 am

Fia wrote:
Dave B wrote:but I still say that regulation is the only way to cure the problems in the whole of the financial industry.
Yup. Agreed. We can thank Thatcher for that initial stupidity, and now the doom and gloom mongers who say the UK economy will fall apart of we don't take their miserable tainted tax pounds :sick:
Dos that mean you are going to refrain from calls from crowd-pleasing but ineffective taxes on bankers' bonuses...?

What savage cuts in government spending are you seeking to make the sums add up...?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Modern economics

#703 Post by Fia » August 4th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Trident's a good start :D

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Modern economics

#704 Post by thundril » August 4th, 2012, 4:52 pm

As well as the military spending, I would chop the education budget drastically.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Modern economics

#705 Post by Dave B » August 4th, 2012, 5:38 pm

Might agree with the first (but what to do with all the surplus servicemen you would have) but why the latter. I would look for better, more pragmatic (non-ideological (except mine of course!)/political) uses to make of the money but not cut it.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#706 Post by Nick » August 4th, 2012, 5:56 pm

Fia wrote:Trident's a good start :D
OK, that's reasonable, but that's less than £2 billion pa. But it's only a start. What else?

Don't forget that the City of London and Canary Wharf contribute more in income tax than the whole of Scotland.

You've a way to go.... :wink:

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Modern economics

#707 Post by thundril » August 4th, 2012, 6:14 pm

Dave B wrote:Might agree with the first (but what to do with all the surplus servicemen you would have) but why the latter. I would look for better, more pragmatic (non-ideological (except mine of course!)/political) uses to make of the money but not cut it.
I think the whole question of public education needs to be reconsidered, root and branch. It's massively expensive, and doesn't seem to even have an agreed purpose, let alone achieve whatever-it's-supposed-to-be..
But then, approaching one service (like education) from so practical a POV invites reconsideration of our other institutions on the same basis. Now that I would like to see!

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Modern economics

#708 Post by Dave B » August 4th, 2012, 11:02 pm

I think we are basically on the same page, Jax. A bit like what I said about money, education is not an entity in itself but has all of its value in what it can achieve for the individual and the country. And, yes! Every institution that now exists just for its own sake, and that includes most financial institutions, is doing the future a disfavour. If it ain't building a better world it is failing miserably in the historical picture!

(And I have just imbibed half a bottle of good wine and a fair quantity of my first attempt at home made Tia Maria (though it seems it is technically "kahlua" since it was made with vodka and not white rum.) Still warmed the cockles and stuck to the ribs though; and has cleared my bronchitis a bit as well!)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Modern economics

#709 Post by Alan H » August 11th, 2012, 11:14 am

The scourge of our wealth divide
The annual Sunday Times Rich List...shows that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare.
We may have had this before, but worth repeating to highlight the inequalities it shows.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#710 Post by Nick » August 11th, 2012, 11:40 am

There is so much spectacularly stupid about Meacher's letter. Just for a start, 9 out of the top 10 are foreign nationals. The first thing they would do if Meacher were anywhere near the reins of power, would be to leave, taking their wealth with them (most of which is already overseas anyway).

Secondly, he blames the bankers and hedgies for the crash. It wasn't. It was government policy which caused it

And the increase in wealth is caused by the growth of their companies, the very thing which will get us out of the mess his government left us in.

The man's a dangerous loon.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Modern economics

#711 Post by thundril » August 11th, 2012, 12:48 pm

Nick wrote:There is so much spectacularly stupid about Meacher's letter. Just for a start, 9 out of the top 10 are foreign nationals. The first thing they would do if Meacher were anywhere near the reins of power, would be to leave, taking their wealth with them (most of which is already overseas anyway).
Exactly!
Secondly, he blames the bankers and hedgies for the crash. It wasn't. It was government policy which caused it

And the increase in wealth is caused by the growth of their companies, the very thing which will get us out of the mess his government left us in.

The man's a dangerous loon.
How come everyone who disagrees with you on economics is either stupid, illiterate or mad, Nick? Aren't there any legitimate differences?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Modern economics

#712 Post by Alan H » August 11th, 2012, 12:56 pm

Nick wrote:9 out of the top 10 are foreign nationals
So, do they live in the UK? Do they pay UK tax on their UK income? If so, how much?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#713 Post by Nick » August 12th, 2012, 10:50 am

thundril wrote:How come everyone who disagrees with you on economics is either stupid, illiterate or mad, Nick? Aren't there any legitimate differences?
Yes, but this isn't one of them. :wink:

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#714 Post by Nick » August 12th, 2012, 10:52 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:9 out of the top 10 are foreign nationals
So, do they live in the UK? Do they pay UK tax on their UK income? If so, how much?
If they are resident in the UK, they will pay tax at a top rate of 50% on their UK income and income brought into the country. Otherwise, they will be taxed where the income arises.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Modern economics

#715 Post by Dave B » August 12th, 2012, 11:27 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:9 out of the top 10 are foreign nationals
So, do they live in the UK? Do they pay UK tax on their UK income? If so, how much?
If they are resident in the UK, they will pay tax at a top rate of 50% on their UK income and income brought into the country. Otherwise, they will be taxed where the income arises.
That's if they have not found a way to avoid paying tax on their whole income. But then, who expects these people to be ethical or even moral?

And, regarding big bonuses for growing business: I seem to remember fatcats expecting their big bonuses for watching the value of the firm decline during their tenure in the chair - then expressing surprise when the share-holders start shouting at them.

They have to understand some basic psychology: the mob will judge them mainly as a class and one good act goes unnoticed whereas one foul-up is illuminated and displayed for weeks and weeks. Answer - keep it honest, keep it ethical and own-up to the errors before the press get hold of them (and get it all wrong because they are also in the business of boosting their business by any means they can and sensation = sales, even if they have to invent it!)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Modern economics

#716 Post by Alan H » August 12th, 2012, 4:21 pm

Nick wrote:If they are resident in the UK, they will pay tax at a top rate of 50% on their UK income and income brought into the country.
Really?
The figures, released by the Government, show 6 per cent of £10 million-plus earners pay less than 10 per cent in tax and another three per cent pay below the basic 20 per cent rate. Fewer than three quarters pay more than 40 per cent.
Source.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Modern economics

#717 Post by Dave B » August 12th, 2012, 6:11 pm

C'mon, Nick, admit it, some of these people are just greedy money grabbing people with an obsessive compulsive condition that forces them to acquire far more money than any sane person could spend in a lifetime on the needs of even the most luxurious lifestyle (unless they give 90% of it to good causes of course.)
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#718 Post by Nick » August 14th, 2012, 10:51 am

Dave B wrote:
Nick wrote:If they are resident in the UK, they will pay tax at a top rate of 50% on their UK income and income brought into the country. Otherwise, they will be taxed where the income arises.
That's if they have not found a way to avoid paying tax on their whole income. But then, who expects these people to be ethical or even moral?
Most of the ways in which tax is "avoided" are specifically put there by the government. All artificial schemes have to be registered with HMRC who regularly close them down. And, because of our tax system, some people just don't come, reducing the tax-take further. Offer Usain Bolt £100,000 plus expenses to attend an athletics event in Britain, and he won't come. That's £10,000 per second of racing. The reason being, that the tax charge he'd incur would exceed £100,000. It is no surprise that such taxation is prohibited, in the bidding process for the Olympics.
And, regarding big bonuses for growing business: I seem to remember fatcats expecting their big bonuses for watching the value of the firm decline during their tenure in the chair - then expressing surprise when the share-holders start shouting at them.
It's up to the shareholders. (And yes, I think there is plenty of room for reform.) But it doesn't help to tar them all with the same brush. Some do transform companies. And in other cases, a successful businessman may need to be paid a large amount in order to entice him away from another, more secure job, to (try to) rescue a sick company. It is the shareholders who have signed the contract. It's not a reward for failure, it's the price for obtaining his or her services in the first place.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Modern economics

#719 Post by Nick » August 14th, 2012, 10:55 am

Dave B wrote:C'mon, Nick, admit it, some of these people are just greedy money grabbing people with an obsessive compulsive condition that forces them to acquire far more money than any sane person could spend in a lifetime on the needs of even the most luxurious lifestyle (unless they give 90% of it to good causes of course.)
Maybe some of them are, but all sorts of people have all sorts of obsessions. Just look at the Olympic competitors. But I suggest to you that the likes of Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Branson, Martin Sorrell or any of the Dragons on Dragon's Den, do not carry on work because of the money.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Modern economics

#720 Post by Dave B » August 14th, 2012, 11:14 am

Nick wrote:
Dave B wrote:C'mon, Nick, admit it, some of these people are just greedy money grabbing people with an obsessive compulsive condition that forces them to acquire far more money than any sane person could spend in a lifetime on the needs of even the most luxurious lifestyle (unless they give 90% of it to good causes of course.)
Maybe some of them are, but all sorts of people have all sorts of obsessions. Just look at the Olympic competitors. But I suggest to you that the likes of Bernie Ecclestone, Richard Branson, Martin Sorrell or any of the Dragons on Dragon's Den, do not carry on work because of the money.
Yeah, I know that is true, should have put a :wink: after my last!

Trouble is that you can do 99 good things without getting any notice - do one bad thing and . . . But it is always going to be the ones who think they deserve a bonus just because they have a specific title that are the rotten apples that spoil the whole crop. Not helped by Thatcher's encouragement of the "Me! Me!" generation.

Proportionate rewards for genuine achievement - all the way down to the bog cleaner. If the max achievable bonus is £1M for achieving 100% of projected growth then that's £100k for 10%. If there is a 10% loss in company value then the boss has his/her salary docked by 10%. Seems fair.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Modern economics

#721 Post by thundril » August 14th, 2012, 2:40 pm

Nick wrote: Offer Usain Bolt £100,000 plus expenses to attend an athletics event in Britain, and he won't come.
Really? How much did he demand for the last couple of weeks?

Post Reply