Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Bruce Wayne]

With respect, I think you are confusing the way dividends are calculated/paid, and this limit I raised.

If I owned 10 shares, and the company declared a dividend of X% per share, I would get that, times 10. And I would continue to receive it until the company stopped paying a dividend, or I sold my shares.

Under this idea, if those 10 shares had been given to me from other shareholders, (for free), I would be paid the same dividend, until I had received the limit of say £500. The company would still pay a dividend to shareholders, but not me now. That would now go to HMG.

I have seen far more detailed analysis than the FT up there about this, and the money diverted to HMG is billions and billions.

We're all equal comrade, just some are more equal than others.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Besides @roydo, that money needs to pay for a statue of Corbyn, McDonnell, McCluskey...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Always thought this looked a bit like Corbyn.

 

[magicjuan]

What do you mean competitive divide?

Where some are rewarded and some aren't

 

[tsubaki]

With respect, I think you are confusing the way dividends are calculated/paid, and this limit I raised.

If I owned 10 shares, and the company declared a dividend of X% per share, I would get that, times 10. And I would continue to receive it until the company stopped paying a dividend, or I sold my shares.

Under this idea, if those 10 shares had been given to me from other shareholders, (for free), I would be paid the same dividend, until I had received the limit of say £500. The company would still pay a dividend to shareholders, but not me now. That would now go to HMG.

I have seen far more detailed analysis than the FT up there about this, and the money diverted to HMG is billions and billions.

No, I was pointing out the way the FT have calculated this - which does not include any of your examples, just the 10% (£300 bn) of the firms who would be affected by it (£3 trillion).

 

[magicjuan]

When BT was privatized, the public ended up owning over 1/3 of the company, with each share costing the apparently sizable sum of £1.30. Had you spent buying the princely sum of £135 worth of shares in BG at the time of their privatisation, that would be worth about £2,000 now.

But I didn't have £135, nor did anyone I know or have met since.
You know it isn't that simple.

 

[roydo]

No, I was pointing out the way the FT have calculated this - which does not include any of your examples, just the 10% (£300 bn) of the firms who would be affected by it (£3 trillion).

I didnt actually read it, hence me stating in my first post about this, "If its the same plan that was mooted before"

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But I didn't have £135, nor did anyone I know or have met since.
You know it isn't that simple.

You don't/didn't know anyone with £1.30 spare to buy a share in BT?

 

[tsubaki]

With respect, I think you are confusing the way dividends are calculated/paid, and this limit I raised.

If I owned 10 shares, and the company declared a dividend of X% per share, I would get that, times 10. And I would continue to receive it until the company stopped paying a dividend, or I sold my shares.

Under this idea, if those 10 shares had been given to me from other shareholders, (for free), I would be paid the same dividend, until I had received the limit of say £500. The company would still pay a dividend to shareholders, but not me now. That would now go to HMG.

I have seen far more detailed analysis than the FT up there about this, and the money diverted to HMG is billions and billions.

It would be, if the firms were paying out that much in dividends. If firms instead retained the money (which would be a lot more than the amount above £500 payable on 10% of the stock) and spent it on assets, training, paying down debt, increased research or whatever then they wouldn't - and to encourage that sort of behaviour might be what the policy is actually about.

 

[roydo]

It would be, if the firms were paying out that much in dividends. If firms instead retained the money (which would be a lot more than the amount above £500 payable on 10% of the stock) and spent it on assets, training, paying down debt, increased research or whatever then they wouldn't - and to encourage that sort of behaviour might be what the policy is actually about.

It was deffo not a policy to discourage dividend payments mate. And you make it sound like paying dividends is a bad thing. Its the reward to shareholders for financing the company in the first place. Like interest from the bank. Its also a sign that a company is well run, profitable, and has most likely achieved that position by doing exactly that.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Where some are rewarded and some aren't

I support the idea of shares being awarded based on performance. That should be available to all in my book. Like any bonus scheme part would be based on individual performance and part on company performance. Seems fair to me.

 

[magicjuan]

I support the idea of shares being awarded based on performance. That should be available to all in my book. Like any bonus scheme part would be based on individual performance and part on company performance. Seems fair to me.

I get that, but how do you quantify for someone who does their best but also has a sick child, a parent with dementia, someone who cannot 'put the company first'? As opposed to that wonderous singleton who 'goes the extra mile'?
The fairest way is to pay them properly, to rein in this overiding drive of profit and unfettered expansion and consumption and to look at the connectivity to every action within society itself.
Worth should not be measured by finance alone.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I get that, but how do you quantify for someone who does their best but also has a sick child, a parent with dementia, someone who cannot 'put the company first'? As opposed to that wonderous singleton who 'goes the extra mile'?
The fairest way is to pay them properly, to rein in this overiding drive of profit and unfettered expansion and consumption and to look at the connectivity to every action within society itself.
Worth should not be measured by finance alone.

Holier than thou rubbish. I'm joking but you have to draw a line somewhere. I'm not suggesting only rewarding superhuman behaviour but the idea Bob should get a load of shares for simply turning up is madness in my opinion. That's one small step away from communism.

 

[zzr45]

But I didn't have £135, nor did anyone I know or have met since.
You know it isn't that simple.

I bought a load the other week, then sold them at a profit. It cost me under £30.

 

[roydo]

I get that, but how do you quantify for someone who does their best but also has a sick child, a parent with dementia, someone who cannot 'put the company first'? As opposed to that wonderous singleton who 'goes the extra mile'?
The fairest way is to pay them properly, to rein in this overiding drive of profit and unfettered expansion and consumption and to look at the connectivity to every action within society itself.
Worth should not be measured by finance alone.

In my experience, other than in sales, who do have a direct correlation between results and pay, when a company has declared a company wide bonus it has been across the board. Either its been a % of salary, shares based on experience, (with everyone getting sommet), and once, way back, everyone was given an extra wedge of £150 at Christmas for some reason. Some anniversary iirc.