Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Number_25]

Think he will punch you on the nose mate.

Not one red cent will be raised by him having his £2000 stolen. Nor will any of his co workers get a bean either.

I edited after you responded; you would obviously support this if the Tories proposed it?

Yes.

 

[roydo]

Yes.

Fair enough. I wouldnt.

Why would you support a low paid worker being forced to give away £2000 for no return to him, and no benefit to anyone else?

 

[Number_25]

Fair enough. I wouldnt.

Why would you support a low paid worker being forced to give away £2000 for no return to him, and no benefit to anyone else?

Ok.

 

[roydo]

Ok.

What do you mean "Ok"?

That is precisely what this policy could result in. One that you support.

 

[Number_25]

What do you mean "Ok"?

That is precisely what this policy could result in. One that you support.

You're correct about me supporting the policy.

 

[roydo]

You're correct about me supporting the policy.

We will agree to disagree then.

 

[Number_25]

We will agree to disagree then.

I guess that's the case.

 

[Number_25]

To flesh it out a bit, one of the largest failures of the left throughout Europe is its unwillingness to fight on the foundations from which it was built. The policy @roydo was talking about involves forcing all companies (with more than 250 staff) to put 10% of their equity into a fund for their workers. It'll see each employee given share dividends up to £500 a year, with any excess going into public services.

Labour's estimate is that 10.7 million people will be covered by the scheme, and will share around £4bn a year in share dividends by the end of the first Corbyn-led Labour government, with an additional £2bn being raised for the public sector. I don't happen to know just how many people are signed up to these schemes, but the following found on Wikipedia is telling:

"At the end of June 2013, it became clear Osborne's "pet project", it had been the centrepiece of his Conservative party conference speech in 2012, had flopped after it emerged that just four companies had enquired about his shares-for-rights scheme, while only two had gone the further step of asking for information about it; the chancellor had been expecting thousands of firms to actually sign up."

It may be entirely academic but to me this is a seismic shift in how the relationship between business and the state functions. Labour's reversion to the belief that shareholders shouldn't be the only benefactors to company profits, and that the rest of society, of whom pay for the infrastructure in which business needs to thrive, should also share those benefits.

If you don't agree with that point, then I don't believe that the Labour Party is the party for you - and that's fair enough. My argument is that we (as a party) have spent too long in the world of triangulation and political maneuvering that we've completely forgotten what we stand for, and in doing so have been willful participants in the ongoing deprecation of our communities.

 

[roydo]

The policy @roydo was talking about involves forcing all companies (with more than 250 staff) to put 10% of their equity into a fund for their workers. It'll see each employee given share dividends up to £500 a year, with any excess going into public services.

Thought we had agreed to disagree?

2 points.

1. Forced to put 10% of equity into a fund for workers. So current working shareholders are forced to give 10% of their shares away. For nothing. Shares they have paid for.

2. What if a company do not pay dividends? Said workers have given away 10% of THEIR shares for no benefit to anyone.

In your own time.

edit. again.

Simple question. Who do you think actually owns a company's equity?

 

[Number_25]

Thought we had agreed to disagree?

2 points.

1. Forced to put 10% of equity into a fund for workers. So current working shareholders are forced to give 10% of their shares away. For nothing. Shares they have paid for.

As I said, I don't happen to know just how many people are signed up to the schemes you were referring to earlier - however what I've found online seems to indicate that the vast majority of people don't directly hold shares within the company they work for. Labour's estimate is that over 10 million people will benefit from this policy, but if you can give me information in which points a significantly large number of "working class" people losing out from this then I'd be willing to concede that I'm wrong.

 

[roydo]

As I said, I don't happen to know just how many people are signed up to the schemes you were referring to earlier - however what I've found online seems to indicate that the vast majority of people don't directly hold shares within the company they work for. Labour's estimate is that over 10 million people will benefit from this policy, but if you can give me information in which points a significantly large number of "working class" people losing out from this then I'd be willing to concede that I'm wrong.

For the hundredth time, THEY WONT OWN JACK, its a smoke screen.

As for your google reference to Gideons poorly thought out plan, so what? There are thousands and thousands of small, employee, share holdings across the country. Sake, I had some back in the day, as did about 8000 folk in that company.

I know, or knew, lost touch years ago, of two secretaries at a company in Bristol, who were encouraged by their owners to buy shares, under a scheme at the time. They are now both millionaires.

I know another bloke, in the same company, who went balls deep. He is in the Sunday Times Rich List as a result. (He is a complete bell mind).

They are extreme examples, granted, but point is, employee share ownership has been encouraged for decades. The employees OWN them. This plan will ROB them.

 

[Number_25]

For the hundredth time, THEY WONT OWN JACK, its a smoke screen.

Not once did I say that these shares would "owned".

I know, or knew, lost touch years ago, of two secretaries at a company in Bristol, who were encouraged by their owners to buy shares, under a scheme at the time. They are now both millionaires.

Congratulations to them.

They are extreme examples, granted, but point is, employee share ownership has been encouraged for decades. The employees OWN them. This plan will ROB them.

Rob who? Labour aren't banning people from buying shares. I haven't said that.

 

[roydo]

Rob who? Labour aren't banning people from buying shares. I haven't said that.

They will force shareholders to hand over 10% of their shares to their "Trust", for no return.

Robbed.

 

[Number_25]

They will force shareholders to hand over 10% of their shares to their "Trust", for no return.

Robbed.

Not really.

I mean, if it's done properly then it can be done in similar fashion to regular tax (in that once a threshold has been met, those shares are no longer property of the shareholders).

 

[roydo]

Not really.

I mean, if it's done properly then it can be done in similar fashion to regular tax (in that once a threshold has been met, those shares are no longer property of the shareholders).

Tax, as you know, is a levy on income, gains, disposals, inheritance.

Ergo, you have no income, gains, disposals or inheritance, you pay no tax. (VAT etc aside)

This is seizure of an asset. Akin to forcing every savings account to give 10% of the balance, (note, not the taxable interest) to the Government.

Or 10% of your pension, your garden, your house.

Its theft.