Current Affairs The Labour Party

[roydo]

Hang on, could you explain this a bit more?

Ok.

As I read it anyrate. Basically, 10% of a company's shares (that employs 250 plus) will be given to the employees in a trust sort of arrangement. They dont own them, and cant sell them. Then each year, 10% of the dividend is shared between the employees, (circa John Lewis I guess), BUT, with a limit of £500 per employee. Anything else goes, well, guess.

In my example using Shell, that would mean in excess of £1 Billion of the ACTUAL dividend would end up on his desk. Not tax, not NI, the actual dividend, as if the Government had actually bought the shares.

Theft? You decide. But once in place, HMG will in effect get a slice of 10% of the yearly FTSE dividend income as if they part owned the companies.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ok.

As I read it anyrate. Basically, 10% of a company's shares (that employs 250 plus) will be given to the employees in a trust sort of arrangement. They dont own them, and cant sell them. Then each year, 10% of the dividend is shared between the employees, (circa John Lewis I guess), BUT, with a limit of £500 per employee. Anything else goes, well, guess.

In my example using Shell, that would mean in excess of £1 Billion of the ACTUAL dividend would end up on his desk. Not tax, not NI, the actual dividend, as if the Government had actually bought the shares.

Theft? You decide. But once in place, HMG will in effect get a slice of 10% of the yearly FTSE dividend income as if they part owned the companies.

Crumbs, that would have some repercussions you'd imagine, whether in terms of reducing the dividend or listing outside the UK? Even aside from that, the fact that he'd just take 10% of someone else's property is dodgy enough.

 

[roydo]

Crumbs, that would have some repercussions you'd imagine, whether in terms of reducing the dividend or listing outside the UK?

Quite. The idea sounds great in a soundbite, they all do, but as ever, under a bit of scrutiny, maybe not.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Quite. The idea sounds great in a soundbite, they all do, but as ever, under a bit of scrutiny, maybe not.

Presumably it would also hit anyone who already has shares too? I mean the company isn't going to be worth 10% more, so if an extra 10% of shares are to be created to give to employees, then presumably all existing shares will be worth 10% less?

 

[Number_25]

Presumably it would also hit anyone who already has shares too? I mean the company isn't going to be worth 10% more, so if an extra 10% of shares are to be created to give to employees, then presumably all existing shares will be worth 10% less?

The CEO might have to do with a smaller private jet. Shame.

 

[roydo]

Presumably it would also hit anyone who already has shares too? I mean the company isn't going to be worth 10% more, so if an extra 10% of shares are to be created to give to employees, then presumably all existing shares will be worth 10% less?

Yep.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

A lot of companies in Germany do this to make their employees feel empowered.

Would not be a miss a bit collective bargaining. Empowered work force is a proud workforce is a productive workforce. When people have a financial interest in the overall running of the company, rather than plodding along pay packet to pay packet.

 

[roydo]

The CEO might have to do with a smaller private jet. Shame.

Doesnt really effect the company mate, they are paying out the same money, just the Government will snaffle it from ordinary shareholders/employees.

Not sure thats a good precedent to set.

 

[roydo]

Would not be a miss a bit collective bargaining. Empowered work force is a proud workforce is a productive workforce. When people have a financial interest in the overall running of the company, rather than plodding along pay packet to pay packet.

It is. And tons of companies, big and small do it. This scam is very, very different though.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The CEO might have to do with a smaller private jet. Shame.

Or the pensioner with 10% less in their pension? As a freelancer, my savings are largely invested in shares for my retirement. Or in other words, doing what most politicians would recommend. Being frugal, saving for rainy days etc. yet Labour would snatch 10% from my savings just like that. Nice.

 

[peteblue]

Ok.

As I read it anyrate. Basically, 10% of a company's shares (that employs 250 plus) will be given to the employees in a trust sort of arrangement. They dont own them, and cant sell them. Then each year, 10% of the dividend is shared between the employees, (circa John Lewis I guess), BUT, with a limit of £500 per employee. Anything else goes, well, guess.

In my example using Shell, that would mean in excess of £1 Billion of the ACTUAL dividend would end up on his desk. Not tax, not NI, the actual dividend, as if the Government had actually bought the shares.

Theft? You decide. But once in place, HMG will in effect get a slice of 10% of the yearly FTSE dividend income as if they part owned the companies.

How to create a profitable small company under Labour...start with a profitable large company.......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It is. And tons of companies, big and small do it. This scam is very, very different though.

Exactly, the vast majority of tech startups pay early employees in shares, but this doesn't sound like that at all.

 

[roydo]

Exactly, the vast majority of tech startups pay early employees in shares, but this doesn't sound like that at all.

It is nothing like that at all.

If the employees received all the dividend, then fine. But they dont. The employees hand some of their income payment to the Government in effect.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It is. And tons of companies, big and small do it. This scam is very, very different though.

From what I recall mate, you worked in personal finance stuff, what was wrong with the Sharesave thing introduced in the 80s? Doesn't that provide quite a tasty incentive to own shares in your employer? Granted, it doesn't give workers board representation, but it also doesn't require the government to dip its sticky fingers in.

 

[roydo]

From what I recall mate, you worked in personal finance stuff, what was wrong with the Sharesave thing introduced in the 80s? Doesn't that provide quite a tasty incentive to own shares in your employer? Granted, it doesn't give workers board representation, but it also doesn't require the government to dip its sticky fingers in.

I did mate. And yeah, going back there have been tons of schemes to encourage employee share ownership. Key word is ownership. This isnt that in a million years. Its stealing via the back door.