Robert Peston on THAT Monbiot Tax Heist Article

Hudd indeed the shareholders should decide on this issue but whilst the pension fund directors are part of the snouts in the trough brigade it wont happen.

TCNY, Ok then how do the Scandenavian countries have a far more equitable and higher taxing society than the UK and still have a working economy after all the multi-national businesses left or maybe is it that a company like Nokia in Finland feels it has a social bond with the country taht nurtured it.

The problem is that the Anglo Saxon economies are based upon greed and explotation.

newwave- I think its an interesting idea and perhaps there are areas where regulations could be increased although I'm aware that many people in the business world feel we have too much red tape and that it is harming business.

Regarding pay I don't think the Government should limit the multiple of pay between lowest and highest paid workers in the private sector. The shareholders should decide on issues like this within the company. Its different in the public sector where the Government is the shareholder and we're all shareholders in that so I think a case could be made.

The problem with forcing people to keep manufacturing here by making it expensive to move is that they may then not be able to compete and go out of business, and no one moves in to replace them as they know the cost of leaving will be so great.

France has a real problem with companies not employing people on permanent contracts as it makes them to difficult to get rid of.

Well I happen to think that the case for financial privacy for anyone is pretty weak, as is the case any business dealings to be private, but that's to do with thinking these things distort markets.

But really senior executives don't care where they live. Because they are basically never there and spend their whole time in airports.

Lots of people, even with families change city or country all the time in order to advance their careers - I don't think we can assume that the lure of home is strong enough to counter act pressures to leave.

hudd, I seem to be putting things badly.

Ok how about indirect control such as greater worker protection and my idea of pay multiples.

Maybe if Dyson had be forced to pay far higher redundancy pay he might still have his products made in the UK.

The problem with that is that competition for where companies base themselves and pay their executives is international. So it would need to be an international agreement - like we have had with the stricter capital regulations for banks.

That may happen but I would still give it a try. How many will remove themselves from family and friends just to indulge their greed.

Maybe it is time to name and shame the greedy gits.

I loved the shit shoveled on Fred the Shred

I don't know about your example but it certainly sounds plausible. The thing is that would be a countries redundancy laws whilst if I understand you correctly you seem to be suggesting that the Government exerts some form of direct control at board room level in order to protect "society".

This was would be highly detrimental to investment as if an investor is putting up the capital he isn't going to want the Government having direct influence in how a company/project is being run.

The problem with that is that competition for where companies base themselves and pay their executives is international. So it would need to be an international agreement - like we have had with the stricter capital regulations for banks.

hudd, please correct me if i am wrong but I believe that Ford stopped making cars at Dagenham even though they were producing cars cheaper than in Germany because the German laws made it far more expensive to lay of German workers than UK workers.

A small thing like increasing redundancy payments to a high level would "force" companies to have a social conscience and take the workforce into consideration.

And I note that Germany has a thriving industrial sector.

TCNY

One idea that has been mooted is to make the top salary in a company a multiple of the lowest paid person.

I would add that in a company that pays bonuses to the top earners then a bonus must also be paid to everybody in the company with the top bonus also being a multiplle of the lowest paid as well.

Say no more than 200 x

The tax system would no longer come into play because the cost to the business will stop top pay galloping away.

That would be an incredibly difficult system to regulate though - how do you measure those things and who decides what is in the interest of society?

What you can do is try and compensate for externalities with, for instance environmental regulations, employment rights, banking regulations etc.

This aligns shareholder value (in the strict sense of financial value) with wider interests.

Shareholders own the company though so of course the companies main priority is going to be to them and their interests.

I don't see what law change you could make to make the workforce or "society" as a whole a major concern of a company even if you wanted to. If it were done though it would this country very unattractive to foreign investors and most of our FDI flows would collapse.

One problem as I see it is that a companies first (and it seems) only legal duty is to the shareholders and increasing "shareholder value".

If I am correct in my assumption then maybe the law needs to be changed so that the needs of the workforce and society in general are given equal weight.

newwave - the way to address spiraling boardroom pay and bonuses isn't taxation though. It it better coporate governance. These pay packets are paid out of SHAREHOLDERS money and they are the ones who need to address this. The problem is that shareholders are mainly represented by large funds, represented at board level by people on the boards of that particular fund, so it is actually just a giant circle jerk.

The solution to this is probably better regulations about how executive pay is decided.

Bankers bonuses are different - if one wants to say that these aren't as low as they can be, one has to prove that Investment Banks are not hyper capitalist institutions that put profit before else. The reason bankers make a lot of money is because their banks make to much money - and that is mainly due to insufficient competition. This is being solved by increasing the capital requirements for banks as it makes them less profitable. Breaking some of the bigger ones up would help as well.

I seem to have veered somewhat off topic, but the thing is I pretty much agree with you on the content of your post.

But I disagree that the way to achieve greater equality and a more balanced economy is through the tax system.

Lets be honest, this is way beyond Monbiots area of expertise, there are literally thousand of pages on corporate tax and its so complex he was never going to represent and explain it accurately. I often don't agree with him but I do find Monbiot interesting although he's dropped a bit of a clanger on this one.

"did not like" bangs head on desk.

NG2

I am not a socialist, I dont beleive in nationalisation, I did like like New Labours casual approach to our civil liberties. I detested Blairs warmongering and his alliance with Bush.

Then again New Labour wasnt a socialist party and Blair was Thatcher Lite.

I would like to live in a mixed economy and a fair and equitable society which reasonably rewards success and helps those in need.

I detest it that their are pay freezes for those on low to moderate pay whilst boardroom pay and bonuses spiral out of control. The gap between to top peoples pay and those at the bottom is nothing but an obscenity.

I am a Social Democrat and was a long term LD supporter I do however see much to admire in Ed Milliband.

An alliance between the Labour Party and a breakaway LD section of MP's and party lead by Tim Farron woud be great.

Clegg and his acolytes can then join the Tories where they will feel quite at home.

Was the University of East Anglia respected and renowned as one of the leading authorities on 'climate catastrophe' in the world?

And then God said, "Let there be light", and there was Climategate. But many are still in the dark and offer their respect willynilly.

If he was wrong about the 'tax heist of the century', could he be wrong about other things too? Could climate catastrophe in fact be the 'tax hesit of the century'?

isn't he always? Doesn't he have a column in the Guardian? Isn't he the one who talks about global warming and climate catastrophe?

Mellowfruitfulness - Monbiot was just plain wrong.

Thanks for your considered analysis, Niceguy2.

Monbiot's article was clear, concise and easy to understand. He talks sense and he knows what he's talking about.

Erm, except most of it was complete & utter bollocks and most people, even our beloved socialist friend Newwave have distanced themselves from it.

Monbiot's article was clear, concise and easy to understand. He talks sense and he knows what he's talking about. It all adds up to a very unpleasant picture of this government (and the previous one) and, worse, shows how democracy can be undermined by very clever, greedy, unscrupulous people.

What worries me most are the problems that are being created in the developing world. Surely these multinational banks can't continue fleecing the developing economies for much longer. We're seeing some of the effects of what Monbiot is talking about in North Africa at the moment, of course. Give it a few years and it could happen here. People will protest against the injustices of this system when they have nothing more to lose.