As I write, the House of Commons has recently voted unanimously that the businessman Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood. It is reported that this is the first time that MPs have ever held such a debate. It is not however for MPs to determine whether or not someone should be deprived of an honour. That decision rests with a committee known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee.
The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.
My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.
If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted. If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.
For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?
Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison. For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter. Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.
Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?
Showing posts with label Fat cats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fat cats. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 October 2016
Friday, 24 July 2015
Fellow blogger is wrong about the minimum wage
For the first time ever I am replying to another blog on this site. The blogger is someone whose output I tend to admire.
She has recently posted a comment in which she argues that the government is wrong to increase the minimum wage. The government announced in March this year (2015) that the minimum wage is to rise by 20p to £6.70, and Enza Ferreri links to a report on the BBC website which includes the following comment:
It ... would allow the recipient of that wage to rent a one-bedroom place in a dowdier part of London, so long as he or she didn't eat, use power, pay council tax, or wear clothes.
Before I continue, anyone who is new to my blog might like to know that I have written extensively on the subject of salaries, covering both low pay and the fat cat salaries often enjoyed by managers. I link to some of those previous posts below.
Ferreri claims that: If a worker A's skills don't have enough value for an employer B to pay A the minimum wage ... B will not hire A. What I would like to know is how employer B - or anyone else - is expected to place a monetary value on someone else's work. There is no simple formula that I know of which can determine the value of work.
Furthermore, many companies in Britain are led by company directors earning salaries way in excess of what most people can hope to earn. Nevertheless many companies still manage to go out of business, and I have never come across a single case of a company director agreeing to repay his salary in the event of his company failing. Surely the first duty of any company director should be to ensure that your company stays solvent. If you cannot do that, then maybe you do not deserve to earn much more than the minimum wage.
Ferreri also claims that a higher minimum wage would make it harder for the unemployed to find work, but that might not be the case. It is easy to envisage a higher minimum wage leading to workers having more money to spend, and this in turn leading to companies recruiting more staff because workers are spending more.
Another claim is that a higher minimum wage will drive up prices, but I have already tackled that misconception in a previous post which is linked to below.
Ferreri concludes that workers should seek to earn more by making themselves more valuable, but fails to explain the logic of this. Suppose I spend my evenings studying things which are relevant to the job I do, and as a result make myself more useful to my employer. It does not follow that my employer will pay me more as a result.
Consider pilots. Pilots in the UK tend to be very well paid, but anyone who has seen the 2009 film Capitalism: a love story will know that it was common at that time for pilots in the USA to be poorly paid. A search on the internet suggests that this might still be the case. Does anyone know for certain?
If workers are paid according to their value, then surely a pilot in the USA would earn about as much as a pilot in the UK - or am I missing something?
I could write a lot more on the subject of wages, but instead I will invite the reader to look at some of my other essays on this subject.
Related previous posts include:
She has recently posted a comment in which she argues that the government is wrong to increase the minimum wage. The government announced in March this year (2015) that the minimum wage is to rise by 20p to £6.70, and Enza Ferreri links to a report on the BBC website which includes the following comment:
It ... would allow the recipient of that wage to rent a one-bedroom place in a dowdier part of London, so long as he or she didn't eat, use power, pay council tax, or wear clothes.
Before I continue, anyone who is new to my blog might like to know that I have written extensively on the subject of salaries, covering both low pay and the fat cat salaries often enjoyed by managers. I link to some of those previous posts below.
Ferreri claims that: If a worker A's skills don't have enough value for an employer B to pay A the minimum wage ... B will not hire A. What I would like to know is how employer B - or anyone else - is expected to place a monetary value on someone else's work. There is no simple formula that I know of which can determine the value of work.
Furthermore, many companies in Britain are led by company directors earning salaries way in excess of what most people can hope to earn. Nevertheless many companies still manage to go out of business, and I have never come across a single case of a company director agreeing to repay his salary in the event of his company failing. Surely the first duty of any company director should be to ensure that your company stays solvent. If you cannot do that, then maybe you do not deserve to earn much more than the minimum wage.
Ferreri also claims that a higher minimum wage would make it harder for the unemployed to find work, but that might not be the case. It is easy to envisage a higher minimum wage leading to workers having more money to spend, and this in turn leading to companies recruiting more staff because workers are spending more.
Another claim is that a higher minimum wage will drive up prices, but I have already tackled that misconception in a previous post which is linked to below.
Ferreri concludes that workers should seek to earn more by making themselves more valuable, but fails to explain the logic of this. Suppose I spend my evenings studying things which are relevant to the job I do, and as a result make myself more useful to my employer. It does not follow that my employer will pay me more as a result.
Consider pilots. Pilots in the UK tend to be very well paid, but anyone who has seen the 2009 film Capitalism: a love story will know that it was common at that time for pilots in the USA to be poorly paid. A search on the internet suggests that this might still be the case. Does anyone know for certain?
If workers are paid according to their value, then surely a pilot in the USA would earn about as much as a pilot in the UK - or am I missing something?
I could write a lot more on the subject of wages, but instead I will invite the reader to look at some of my other essays on this subject.
Related previous posts include:
Friday, 26 September 2014
Court victory on bank charges
I am impressed by this recent item in the national press:
Oliver
Foster-Burnell from Taunton, Somerset, went a few pounds over his £500
limit with Lloyds while he was in between jobs in 2008.
Within weeks, the 28-year-old received a letter saying for that every day since he had been charged £20 by the bank.
The fees spiralled to £750 before Mr Foster-Burnell was able to find a way out of his financial mess.
But,
after settling his debts, he took his case to county court where a
judge ordered the bank to pay back the fees with interest.
His
victory could pave the way for billions to be returned to customers in
similar situations if Mr Foster-Burnell is able to convince a High Court
Judge that his case could apply to others.
Saturday, 2 August 2014
The fat cat conundrum
This post is essentially a continuation of my previous post about Nick Hanauer's arguments about wealth creation. When you are poor you need to spend your money as productively as possible. By contrast, when you are rich you enjoy the luxury of spending your money unproductively.
In addition, you possibly also enjoy the luxury of helping to ensure that poor people remain poor. You can do this for example by exploiting the unwillingness of your employees to ask for a pay rise, or by exploiting the unwillingness of customers to quibble over prices.
If we start from the perfectly reasonable assumption that - collectively - rich people benefit the economy to a far lesser extent than middle class and working class people, then we are justified in asking why the government does not require rich people to pay more tax.
Surely therefore it makes sense for the government to encourage the nation's wealth to be spread as evenly as possible across the population. However this has not proven easy to achieve. Some governments, such as the French government led by President Hollande, have tried increasing the marginal rate of tax paid by rich people, but the outcome is often to drive prosperity out of the country. Rich people leave France to avoid the higher taxes, and take their wealth with them, and so wealth leaves the economy rather than being redistributed.
Some readers might see this as proof that rich people are in fact wealth creators, but this is not the case. Suppose I am rich because I win the national lottery. I am not a wealth creator because the lottery creates no wealth. It merely takes money from people who ought to know better and shuffles it around the economy. If I go to live in another country, then I am taking my money out of the economy, but the money I am taking out does not represent any wealth that I created.
The wealth I am taking abroad was created by invention and manufacture, and was distributed - efficiently or inefficiently - by market forces. Similarly, if I am rich as a result of playing the stock market, then I am rich because I bought shares that other people wanted to sell, and then sold the shares that other people wanted to buy. I did not make my money alone. If I am rich as a result of business, then I am rich because, for example, I sold manufactured goods which other people wanted to buy. Other people made me rich.
In my previous post I implied that Nick Hanauer was not entirely correct. He implies, or appears to imply, that there is a case to be made for increasing taxation on the rich, but he does not consider the likelihood that higher taxation would lead to rich people taking money abroad.
I wrote in an earlier post that:
If David Cameron wants to help businesses, then he should bring in a law requiring companies not to pay large salaries to their directors unless creditors are paid on time, and the company remains solvent.
I have since argued that employers should not be allowed to pay big salaries to their directors unless no one in the company earns less than 140 percent of the minimum wage. I see no need to step back from that point of view.
Related previous posts include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
Austerity versus democracy
In addition, you possibly also enjoy the luxury of helping to ensure that poor people remain poor. You can do this for example by exploiting the unwillingness of your employees to ask for a pay rise, or by exploiting the unwillingness of customers to quibble over prices.
If we start from the perfectly reasonable assumption that - collectively - rich people benefit the economy to a far lesser extent than middle class and working class people, then we are justified in asking why the government does not require rich people to pay more tax.
Surely therefore it makes sense for the government to encourage the nation's wealth to be spread as evenly as possible across the population. However this has not proven easy to achieve. Some governments, such as the French government led by President Hollande, have tried increasing the marginal rate of tax paid by rich people, but the outcome is often to drive prosperity out of the country. Rich people leave France to avoid the higher taxes, and take their wealth with them, and so wealth leaves the economy rather than being redistributed.
Some readers might see this as proof that rich people are in fact wealth creators, but this is not the case. Suppose I am rich because I win the national lottery. I am not a wealth creator because the lottery creates no wealth. It merely takes money from people who ought to know better and shuffles it around the economy. If I go to live in another country, then I am taking my money out of the economy, but the money I am taking out does not represent any wealth that I created.
The wealth I am taking abroad was created by invention and manufacture, and was distributed - efficiently or inefficiently - by market forces. Similarly, if I am rich as a result of playing the stock market, then I am rich because I bought shares that other people wanted to sell, and then sold the shares that other people wanted to buy. I did not make my money alone. If I am rich as a result of business, then I am rich because, for example, I sold manufactured goods which other people wanted to buy. Other people made me rich.
In my previous post I implied that Nick Hanauer was not entirely correct. He implies, or appears to imply, that there is a case to be made for increasing taxation on the rich, but he does not consider the likelihood that higher taxation would lead to rich people taking money abroad.
I wrote in an earlier post that:
If David Cameron wants to help businesses, then he should bring in a law requiring companies not to pay large salaries to their directors unless creditors are paid on time, and the company remains solvent.
I have since argued that employers should not be allowed to pay big salaries to their directors unless no one in the company earns less than 140 percent of the minimum wage. I see no need to step back from that point of view.
Related previous posts include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
Austerity versus democracy
Friday, 1 August 2014
The myth of the wealth creators
I am not sure to what extent Hanauer has changed my mind - if at all - but I do know that he has helped me to be a lot clearer about my point of view, which remains largely unchanged.
Anyway, please take a moment to watch this video of an interview with Hanauer. I will add my comments below.
At the most basic level, Hanauer is right. Suppose you open a shop, and lots of people buy from you without ever quibbling over the price. The outcome is that you become very rich, and you might find people referring to you as a wealth creator.
Now suppose instead that no one buys from your shop, and you end up bankrupt. If success makes you a wealth creator, then does failure make you a wealth destroyer?
If there are such things as wealth creators, then surely they are inventors. The mere act of buying and selling does not create wealth, but it allows some people to become wealthy. True wealth exists in the invention and distribution of new products. Some readers might be thinking that rich people help with the process of distribution, but it might be closer to the truth to say that they hinder it.
A digression is called for. Suppose you are a rich person, and you pay some workmen to dig great big holes in the ground and then fill them in again. On the one hand you have benefited a group of workmen by giving them employment, but on the other hand there is no lasting benefit to what you have done. At some point you will run out of money, and there will be nothing to show for it.
This may seem absurd, but take a moment to look around your home. You may possess such things as books you never read, DVDs you never watch, and board games you never play. The money you spent on those things might as well have been spent on digging a hole in the ground and filling it in again.
Now suppose you are rich. You might well be tempted to spend your money on cars you rarely or never drive, and houses you rarely or never live in. In other words, you might be tempted to spend your money in a way which has little or no lasting value.
It is not inevitable that rich people will spend their money frivolously. For example, Michael Owen bought an entire street of houses in the Welsh town of Ewloe for his relatives to live in. Nevertheless there does appear to be a lot of reason to be critical of the way in rich people spend their money.
Suppose a rich person gives ten million pounds to charity. The same benefit could be achieved by one million working class people giving ten pounds each. Suppose a rich person hires Gary Barlow to perform a private concert. Gary Barlow could earn the same money or maybe more by playing an arena concert to thousands of ordinary people. Suppose a rich person buys two large houses for five million pounds each. The same money could buy houses for maybe as many as one hundred middle Englanders.
Even if our rich person buys two houses that cost less than five million pounds each, then the fact remains that he owns one more house than he needs. Next time your local council allows a housing developer to concrete over another piece of green land in your home town, reflect that there would be less need for new housing if everyone owned just one house.
In short, the idea of rich people being wealth creators is massively flawed. Not only are they not really wealth creators at all, but depending on how they spend their money they could actually be stifling the prosperity of society as a whole.
Related previous posts include:
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
Fat cats and commies
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Benefits Britain: two young mothers
Steph Cocker is a young single mother from Sheffield who has outraged a lot of people by saying that she would not work for less than £5000 per month.
I will admit that her benefits are paid out of the taxes of large numbers of hard-working people, most of whom earn nothing like as much as £5000 per month. Nevertheless Miss Cocker does at least have some logic on her side. She would need to pay £400 per week on child care if she were working, and that alone works out at around £20,000 per year.
There are of course many people in Britain who earn £5000 per month or more, and I am sure that a lot of them do not deserve to earn anything like that much.
Miss Cocker has a boyfriend who does not live with her. I have a suspicion that had she been a young mother back in the 1970s, then she would probably have shared her home with a husband or boyfriend who would have worked to support her and the children. Social norms in this country have changed quite substantially over the last forty years, and Miss Cocker is too young to be able to take any blame for that.
Steph Cocker is one of a number of people who feature in the television programme Benefits Britain. Another young mother to feature in that programme is Leona, who lives with her boyfriend and daughter in Great Yarmouth. Her boyfriend eventually finds work as a scaffolder, but even that comes after several years of fruitless jobsearch.
Come to think of it, George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith both earn more than £5000 per month, and yet their record of achievement in respect of helping the British people into work is so abysmal that I somehow suspect that they would be overpaid if they earned only the minimum wage.
Related previous posts include:
The way out of Benefits Street
Tackling the abuse of benefits
Conservatives want jobs
I will admit that her benefits are paid out of the taxes of large numbers of hard-working people, most of whom earn nothing like as much as £5000 per month. Nevertheless Miss Cocker does at least have some logic on her side. She would need to pay £400 per week on child care if she were working, and that alone works out at around £20,000 per year.
There are of course many people in Britain who earn £5000 per month or more, and I am sure that a lot of them do not deserve to earn anything like that much.
Miss Cocker has a boyfriend who does not live with her. I have a suspicion that had she been a young mother back in the 1970s, then she would probably have shared her home with a husband or boyfriend who would have worked to support her and the children. Social norms in this country have changed quite substantially over the last forty years, and Miss Cocker is too young to be able to take any blame for that.
Steph Cocker is one of a number of people who feature in the television programme Benefits Britain. Another young mother to feature in that programme is Leona, who lives with her boyfriend and daughter in Great Yarmouth. Her boyfriend eventually finds work as a scaffolder, but even that comes after several years of fruitless jobsearch.
Come to think of it, George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith both earn more than £5000 per month, and yet their record of achievement in respect of helping the British people into work is so abysmal that I somehow suspect that they would be overpaid if they earned only the minimum wage.
Related previous posts include:
The way out of Benefits Street
Tackling the abuse of benefits
Conservatives want jobs
Thursday, 5 June 2014
When fat cats kill
Jaye Bloomfield is dead. She was killed as she crossed a road in Manchester in August 2013. She was killed by a speeding car driven by a black man called Michael Campbell.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Michael Campbell has not however been prosecuted for killing Miss Bloomfield because it appears that the thirty mile per hour speed limit on the road in question was not clearly marked. In other words, Campbell did not know he was driving too fast.
I remember a few years ago walking in a town I rarely visit. There was a paved footpath alongside the road, which was fine, except that it ran out shortly before a major roundabout. I then had to walk on a grass verge, and was lucky that the ground was dry. Then when I came to the roundabout, I had to make my way across a busy road without any crossing facilities. Had I been in any way frail or disabled, then it would have been a frightening experience.
I reflected at the time that whoever designed this roundabout was either a moron or else someone with no concern for the welfare of pedestrians. I reflected also that whoever designed the roundabout was probably very well paid.
Jaye Bloomfield is dead because the people responsible for road signage in Manchester made a mistake. I wonder how much the people responsible for the mistake are paid. I suspect that they are more likely to be fat cats than paupers.
In short, it appears that Jaye Bloomfield was killed by fat cats. There are far too many people working in positions of authority in this country who seem to care more about the perks of the job than about their responsibility to do their job well.
Do you vote in elections for political parties which refuse to take a stand against fat cats? If you do, then you could be voting for your own premature death as you walk across a road. You are certainly voting for your money to be wasted.
Friday, 21 February 2014
Do fat cats suffer from depression?
White Dee
from Benefits Street is supposedly suffering from depression, but some people argue that she is not. Meanwhile the
chief executive of Somerset County Council has quit her job by mutual
agreement.
According to The Daily Mail, Sheila Wheeler was absent from her desk from mid-November up
until her recent departure. So far no
clear explanation has been offered for either her absence or her departure, and
it appears that legal proceedings make it unlikely that a clear explanation
will ever be offered.
It is
reported also that her salary was £160,000 per annum, which by my reckoning is
close to thirteen times the minimum wage.
The job
market is not fair. If you are unable to read, then you will not be employed as a postman, and clerical work will probably be off limits as well. If you are tone deaf, then no one will employ
you as a musician. If you are unable to
walk, then your employment opportunities are also limited.
And so I
come to depression, which is hard to define.
Physical ailments generally have physical symptoms and bio-chemical
causes which can be studied and understood.
By contrast, depression is hard to study with any precision. Indeed it is very hard to be certain that
someone is suffering from depression, and certainly a lot of people do not
believe that White Dee is depressed.
Of course it
is hard to be absolutely certain that someone is illiterate or tone deaf, but
people do not tend to use either condition to justify taking time off work. By contrast it is common for people to use
depression and stress as reasons not to work.
Consider this testimony regarding a company founded by Samantha Brick:
Making close
to half a million in our first year should have meant profit, but this was
wiped out by high salaries and accounting errors by staff. Then, when we began
having cash-flow problems, Sarah [the general manager] signed herself off sick
with stress for a month. She also confessed she'd been dodging calls from
people who were due payment, thus ruining my firm's reputation.
Another thing we do not know is whether or not some people are more susceptible to depression than other people.
Another thing we do not know is whether or not some people are more susceptible to depression than other people.
I repeat
that we do not know for certain why Sheila Wheeler was off work for three months, or
why she left. What we do know is that
when we add in her payoff equivalent to three months’ salary, she has
effectively deprived the council of six months’ salary – and this is a fat cat
salary we are talking about.
People who
earn fat cat salaries should not be allowed to take time off work suffering
from depression except in very restricted cases. If you are going to pay someone a large
salary, then it should be on the basis that they deserve a large salary. It is only fair that people who are deemed to
deserve large salaries should be largely immune to depression. If we have to suffer the existence of fat
cats, then at least they should not also be prima donnas.
As a final point, it is utterly wrong that we are not allowed to know the reason for Sheila Wheeler's departure. It is common for workplace disputes to be resolved in a way that binds both parties to confidentiality, but that should not apply in the public sector. We have the right to know what our money is being wasted on.
Related previous posts include:
Fat cats in Cambridgeshire
The way out of Benefits Street
As a final point, it is utterly wrong that we are not allowed to know the reason for Sheila Wheeler's departure. It is common for workplace disputes to be resolved in a way that binds both parties to confidentiality, but that should not apply in the public sector. We have the right to know what our money is being wasted on.
Related previous posts include:
Fat cats in Cambridgeshire
The way out of Benefits Street
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
We get monkeys anyway
Once again I return to the subject of fat cats. Some of you may have read the Daily Express comment which argues that MPs are entitled to a pay rise. It begins by comparing the salary of an MP with the salaries of people who earn more:
the director-general of the BBC gets £450,000, the chief executives of major firms can pocket millions in shares, and footballers regularly pick up more in a week than most of us can expect to earn in a year
However as I noted in a previous post about MEPs (who earn the same salary as MPs):
Nevertheless £66,396 is more than the salary of a university professor, and also more than the typical earnings of road maintenance workers - but of course they do an important job and do it well.
I have also in another previous post discussed the comparison between fat cat salaries and those of football players and pop stars.
The DE comment also argues that If we pay peanuts we'll just get monkeys in Parliament, but we get monkeys in any case. If Britain's legislators are fit for purpose, then why has Britain not had full employment in more than forty years? Why is violent crime no longer shocking? Why is the nation drowning in debt? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
If you feel that MPs do not earn enough, then feel free to keep on voting Labour or Tory or LibDem. If however you want a change, then feel free to JOIN a political party which actually seeks change.
Previous posts about fat cats include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
Fat cats and commies
the director-general of the BBC gets £450,000, the chief executives of major firms can pocket millions in shares, and footballers regularly pick up more in a week than most of us can expect to earn in a year
However as I noted in a previous post about MEPs (who earn the same salary as MPs):
Nevertheless £66,396 is more than the salary of a university professor, and also more than the typical earnings of road maintenance workers - but of course they do an important job and do it well.
I have also in another previous post discussed the comparison between fat cat salaries and those of football players and pop stars.
The DE comment also argues that If we pay peanuts we'll just get monkeys in Parliament, but we get monkeys in any case. If Britain's legislators are fit for purpose, then why has Britain not had full employment in more than forty years? Why is violent crime no longer shocking? Why is the nation drowning in debt? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
If you feel that MPs do not earn enough, then feel free to keep on voting Labour or Tory or LibDem. If however you want a change, then feel free to JOIN a political party which actually seeks change.
Previous posts about fat cats include:
The cats stay fat
Energy sector fat cats
Fat cats and commies
Monday, 18 November 2013
Fat cats and commies
Once again I find myself writing about fat cats and communism. It is reported today that the fat cats are still very much in the business of putting themselves first, with directors of big companies enjoying huge pay rises while millions of people are struggling and some are even turning to food banks.
How exactly do these companies benefit from paying excessive salaries? Are they guaranteed not to become insolvent? Are they guaranteed never to break the law? Are they guaranteed always to pay their creditors in good time?
When people are poor, it is only to be expected that they will vote for socialism. Socialism basically means that the state intervenes to assist people who would be disadvantaged otherwise, and so even the Conservative Party can be seen as a socialist party - in spite of the fact that they do nothing to curb fat cat salaries. The main problem with socialism is that it can so easily spill over into communism.
Of course the Conservatives - like Labour and the LibDems - are communists. Together they are leading Britain into ever higher levels of public spending and ever decreasing levels of personal freedom. People should not vote for this, but they do.
If the fat cats do not want Britain to become a communist country in the next few decades, they should immediately cut their salaries and pay larger salaries to all of their employees regardless of status. That way the ordinary people would have less incentive to vote for socialism, and thereby risk adding petrol to the fire of communism.
How exactly do these companies benefit from paying excessive salaries? Are they guaranteed not to become insolvent? Are they guaranteed never to break the law? Are they guaranteed always to pay their creditors in good time?
When people are poor, it is only to be expected that they will vote for socialism. Socialism basically means that the state intervenes to assist people who would be disadvantaged otherwise, and so even the Conservative Party can be seen as a socialist party - in spite of the fact that they do nothing to curb fat cat salaries. The main problem with socialism is that it can so easily spill over into communism.
Of course the Conservatives - like Labour and the LibDems - are communists. Together they are leading Britain into ever higher levels of public spending and ever decreasing levels of personal freedom. People should not vote for this, but they do.
If the fat cats do not want Britain to become a communist country in the next few decades, they should immediately cut their salaries and pay larger salaries to all of their employees regardless of status. That way the ordinary people would have less incentive to vote for socialism, and thereby risk adding petrol to the fire of communism.
Thursday, 17 October 2013
Energy sector fat cats
So once again I find myself writing about fat cats. Today it is reported that Centrica is run by fat cats. Centrica is in the energy industry.
Many people will be wondering why energy company bosses should have big salaries when millions of people are struggling to pay their gas and electric bills. I have previously written about fat cats, but the energy sector is perhaps worthy of further comment.
I believe that company directors have a duty - and ought to have a legal duty - to ensure that employees and suppliers are paid in good time, that laws are complied with, that the company remains solvent, and that shareholders receive appropriate dividends. Ordinarily I would be happy for any company which met all of these requirements to pay its directors large salaries.
The energy sector is different, however. Energy is something which almost all of us consume, and many of us have little control over how much we use. In cold weather the heating tends to go on. In theory the existence of a competitive market should help us all to get the lowest prices, but not everyone is good at working out which supplier is the cheapest. Matters are not helped by the fact that some suppliers seem to derive sadistic pleasure from not being clear about tariffs.
Surely it would make sense for companies in the energy sector to be required by law not to pay large salaries to their directors unless they cut prices at the same time. Can anyone think of a reason why not?
Many people will be wondering why energy company bosses should have big salaries when millions of people are struggling to pay their gas and electric bills. I have previously written about fat cats, but the energy sector is perhaps worthy of further comment.
I believe that company directors have a duty - and ought to have a legal duty - to ensure that employees and suppliers are paid in good time, that laws are complied with, that the company remains solvent, and that shareholders receive appropriate dividends. Ordinarily I would be happy for any company which met all of these requirements to pay its directors large salaries.
The energy sector is different, however. Energy is something which almost all of us consume, and many of us have little control over how much we use. In cold weather the heating tends to go on. In theory the existence of a competitive market should help us all to get the lowest prices, but not everyone is good at working out which supplier is the cheapest. Matters are not helped by the fact that some suppliers seem to derive sadistic pleasure from not being clear about tariffs.
Surely it would make sense for companies in the energy sector to be required by law not to pay large salaries to their directors unless they cut prices at the same time. Can anyone think of a reason why not?
Monday, 14 October 2013
The cats stay fat
David Cameron has said something about wanting to help small companies get paid on time by larger companies. I'll believe it when I see it.
There seem to be a lot of company directors in this country who are happy to earn huge salaries, but who are not always keen to ensure that creditors are paid in good time.
Add to this that paying large salaries to its directors brings very few real benefits to a company. For example, do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be prosecuted? Do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be the target of litigation? Do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be insolvent?
If David Cameron wants to help businesses, then he should bring in a law requiring companies not to pay large salaries to their directors unless creditors are paid on time, and the company remains solvent.
I have previously written about fat cats as follows:
A woman scorned
A small victory in Barnet
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
HS2 fat cats
There seem to be a lot of company directors in this country who are happy to earn huge salaries, but who are not always keen to ensure that creditors are paid in good time.
Add to this that paying large salaries to its directors brings very few real benefits to a company. For example, do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be prosecuted? Do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be the target of litigation? Do large salaries guarantee that the company will never be insolvent?
If David Cameron wants to help businesses, then he should bring in a law requiring companies not to pay large salaries to their directors unless creditors are paid on time, and the company remains solvent.
I have previously written about fat cats as follows:
A woman scorned
A small victory in Barnet
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
HS2 fat cats
Thursday, 26 September 2013
HS2 fat cats
I have already made clear my views on both HS2 and fat cats:
A woman scorned
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
A small victory in Barnet
It is now reported that HS2 is squarely in the hands of fat cats. Its chief executive Alison Munro is earning ten thousand pounds per month of your money, while its newly appointed chairman is going to be paid nearly SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS each year - and once again it's your money (or at least it was).
Alison Munro has claimed that HS2 does not need a blank cheque, but I for one do not believe her. Are we to assume that the overpaid Munro and the obscenely overpaid Higgins will inevitably work together to ensure that HS2 does not exceed its budget?
If you believe that, as the Duke of Wellington once said, you'll believe anything.
Higgins has urged cross-party support for HS2, but any political party with any sense will pledge to scrap it.
A woman scorned
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
A small victory in Barnet
It is now reported that HS2 is squarely in the hands of fat cats. Its chief executive Alison Munro is earning ten thousand pounds per month of your money, while its newly appointed chairman is going to be paid nearly SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS each year - and once again it's your money (or at least it was).
Alison Munro has claimed that HS2 does not need a blank cheque, but I for one do not believe her. Are we to assume that the overpaid Munro and the obscenely overpaid Higgins will inevitably work together to ensure that HS2 does not exceed its budget?
If you believe that, as the Duke of Wellington once said, you'll believe anything.
Higgins has urged cross-party support for HS2, but any political party with any sense will pledge to scrap it.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
A small victory in Barnet
There are a lot of items in the news today which I could comment on. An immigrant called Desmond Brooks has been arrested for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder; a 12yo girl has been raped by two immigrant teenagers in Walthamstow; a church near to Marble Arch has put railings around its font to stop homeless immigrants from using it as a wash basin; more than six thousand households in Slough have people (possibly immigrants) living in sheds in their back gardens.
In 1937, Sir John Betjeman wrote: Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough! I merely observe the fact.
Anyway, which news item to comment on? How about this one - a lawyer in Barnet has won a legal battle against his local council about the price of parking permits. What annoys me in particular about this matter is the fact that it is nowadays commonplace for local authorities across Britain to employ senior staff on hugely inflated salaries.
Presumably the decision by Barnet Council to hike the price of parking permits was taken at a high level, and presumably was cleared by at least one high ranking council officer. How much was that high ranking officer paid? Did that high ranking officer know that the council was acting illegally?
If councils are going to pay huge salaries, then maybe they should restrict those huge salaries to those officers who are actually competent. Maybe Barnet Council should reduce the salaries of its senior personnel with immediate effect.
In 1937, Sir John Betjeman wrote: Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough! I merely observe the fact.
Anyway, which news item to comment on? How about this one - a lawyer in Barnet has won a legal battle against his local council about the price of parking permits. What annoys me in particular about this matter is the fact that it is nowadays commonplace for local authorities across Britain to employ senior staff on hugely inflated salaries.
Presumably the decision by Barnet Council to hike the price of parking permits was taken at a high level, and presumably was cleared by at least one high ranking council officer. How much was that high ranking officer paid? Did that high ranking officer know that the council was acting illegally?
If councils are going to pay huge salaries, then maybe they should restrict those huge salaries to those officers who are actually competent. Maybe Barnet Council should reduce the salaries of its senior personnel with immediate effect.
Thursday, 25 July 2013
The banksters are not Jonathan and Charlotte
Nationwide chairman Geoffrey Howe has defended his obscene salary with the ludicrous assertion that he and his fellow directors are just like pop stars and footballers.
No one needs to earn the kind of money that many directors earn, and very few people actually deserve such salaries. A comparison with football players and pop stars does not bear scrutiny. A football player can make money doing what very few people can do - win matches against tough opponents. As soon as a player loses the ability to contribute to a winning team, he is out of a job. Pop stars can make money when people buy their records or tickets for their concerts, but as soon as public interest dries up then so does the flow of money.
By contrast, banks and building societies make money by lending. It is not on the whole a difficult job. You either lend to a given client or you do not. As long as you avoid silly decisions, then you can expect to make a lot of money for your shareholders (or members).
Then again, you can expect to make a lot of money for yourself however well you do. When the banks were in meltdown a few years ago, the government bailed them out, but the banksters did not forego their huge salaries. Therein lies another difference. Pop stars and football players are not bailed out with government money when things go wrong for them.
I wish Britain could elect a government which is dedicated to reforming the way banks and mutuals operate. I for one have had enough of greedy fat scumbags.
No one needs to earn the kind of money that many directors earn, and very few people actually deserve such salaries. A comparison with football players and pop stars does not bear scrutiny. A football player can make money doing what very few people can do - win matches against tough opponents. As soon as a player loses the ability to contribute to a winning team, he is out of a job. Pop stars can make money when people buy their records or tickets for their concerts, but as soon as public interest dries up then so does the flow of money.
By contrast, banks and building societies make money by lending. It is not on the whole a difficult job. You either lend to a given client or you do not. As long as you avoid silly decisions, then you can expect to make a lot of money for your shareholders (or members).
Then again, you can expect to make a lot of money for yourself however well you do. When the banks were in meltdown a few years ago, the government bailed them out, but the banksters did not forego their huge salaries. Therein lies another difference. Pop stars and football players are not bailed out with government money when things go wrong for them.
I wish Britain could elect a government which is dedicated to reforming the way banks and mutuals operate. I for one have had enough of greedy fat scumbags.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
A woman scorned
Caroline Mathiesen is a rich divorcee who is upset that her ex-husband, company director Per Mathiesen, is able to pay himself £2m each year from the business he runs. Apparently she thinks that he should earn less so that she can have more.
I will not comment on this case in detail, but I sincerely believe that far too many company directors in this country earn far too much money without good reason. I used to own shares, but nowadays I will not own shares. One reason is that it is so hard to find a company whose directors put the interests of shareholders above their own.
What does a company gain by paying its directors huge salaries? Certainly not immunity from bankrupcy, that's for sure. Likewise huge salaries do not grant immunity from either litigation or criminal prosecution.
Why can't there be a law which regulates how much money company directors can earn? Let me think ... could it be because government ministers enjoy having lunch with rich company directors?
I will not comment on this case in detail, but I sincerely believe that far too many company directors in this country earn far too much money without good reason. I used to own shares, but nowadays I will not own shares. One reason is that it is so hard to find a company whose directors put the interests of shareholders above their own.
What does a company gain by paying its directors huge salaries? Certainly not immunity from bankrupcy, that's for sure. Likewise huge salaries do not grant immunity from either litigation or criminal prosecution.
Why can't there be a law which regulates how much money company directors can earn? Let me think ... could it be because government ministers enjoy having lunch with rich company directors?
Saturday, 8 June 2013
The Craig Alexander saga does not surprise me
Craig Alexander first made headlines in a local newspaper in 2007 when he was convicted of an armed robbery committed six years earlier.
At the time of his prosecution, Alexander was a project manager with the NHS, but it is not clear how he obtained such an advantageous position at such a young age. Although project management can be studied at university, Alexander had little in the way of academic qualifications. One possibility is that he lied about either his qualifications or his experience when applying for the job.
Depending on when he secured the post in question, such an act of dishonesty would have put him in breach of either Section 16 of The Theft Act 1968 or Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006.
Alexander was dismissed from his job with the NHS, and spent nearly two years in prison for the crime of armed robbery. Nevertheless upon his release he quickly returned to employment as an NHS manager, and held four lucrative jobs over the next four years.
The Daily Mail reports that: in the four years or so since his release, he has been a senior executive with Bristol Community Health, NHS Sutton and Merton, South West London NHS Cluster and the Brent Primary Care Trust.
The last became NHS Brent in March when responsibility for patient care was transferred to new clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) across the country.
The major issue here is that a convicted armed robber was able to secure one senior post after another within the NHS without anyone bothering to check his background. He was eventually uncovered by a junior staff member.
Another issue is that Alexander was paid an obscene salary, and was expected to implement budget cuts, but apparently saw no reason to seek to reduce his own salary. In that respect at least, he may be very typical of public sector management.
My own view of the public sector - as a former employee - is that it is full of people, even at the highest level, who are completely out of their depth. The public sector ought to exist to serve the public interest, and yet far too many of its employees are obsessed with their perceived divine right to a taxpayer-funded salary.
In many cases these salaries are huge - way in excess of what most ordinary people can ever hope to earn.
There is very little accountability in the public sector. Why should there be? If you are an elected politician with your snout in the trough, then why should you want to tackle the pen-pushers who share the trough with you?
Some readers may be thinking that large public sector salaries are justified on the grounds that you have to pay well if you want to attract talent, but that is just plain silly.
Paying large salaries makes it more likely that you will end up employing people who are just in it for themselves.
Update: I can find no mention of Craig Alexander having been prosecuted for fraud. I wonder also if the junior staff member who exposed him as a convicted criminal was rewarded in any way for doing what others far senior to her should have done.
At the time of his prosecution, Alexander was a project manager with the NHS, but it is not clear how he obtained such an advantageous position at such a young age. Although project management can be studied at university, Alexander had little in the way of academic qualifications. One possibility is that he lied about either his qualifications or his experience when applying for the job.
Depending on when he secured the post in question, such an act of dishonesty would have put him in breach of either Section 16 of The Theft Act 1968 or Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006.
Alexander was dismissed from his job with the NHS, and spent nearly two years in prison for the crime of armed robbery. Nevertheless upon his release he quickly returned to employment as an NHS manager, and held four lucrative jobs over the next four years.
The Daily Mail reports that: in the four years or so since his release, he has been a senior executive with Bristol Community Health, NHS Sutton and Merton, South West London NHS Cluster and the Brent Primary Care Trust.
The last became NHS Brent in March when responsibility for patient care was transferred to new clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) across the country.
The major issue here is that a convicted armed robber was able to secure one senior post after another within the NHS without anyone bothering to check his background. He was eventually uncovered by a junior staff member.
Another issue is that Alexander was paid an obscene salary, and was expected to implement budget cuts, but apparently saw no reason to seek to reduce his own salary. In that respect at least, he may be very typical of public sector management.
My own view of the public sector - as a former employee - is that it is full of people, even at the highest level, who are completely out of their depth. The public sector ought to exist to serve the public interest, and yet far too many of its employees are obsessed with their perceived divine right to a taxpayer-funded salary.
In many cases these salaries are huge - way in excess of what most ordinary people can ever hope to earn.
There is very little accountability in the public sector. Why should there be? If you are an elected politician with your snout in the trough, then why should you want to tackle the pen-pushers who share the trough with you?
Some readers may be thinking that large public sector salaries are justified on the grounds that you have to pay well if you want to attract talent, but that is just plain silly.
Paying large salaries makes it more likely that you will end up employing people who are just in it for themselves.
Update: I can find no mention of Craig Alexander having been prosecuted for fraud. I wonder also if the junior staff member who exposed him as a convicted criminal was rewarded in any way for doing what others far senior to her should have done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)