The vast inequalities are really quite staggering, and I'd like to think that people won't stand for them. But I don't hold my breath, Jordan's on the front page somewhere.
The huge bonuses and huge cut to charity go against one of the things I was often told in favour of right-ist solutions: that letting people have their own money means they will give more to charity. Now this is a one off case, but it's pretty fucking disgusting none the less
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jan/20/reality-bites-coalition-government-promises
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Sunday, 7 November 2010
FTSE 100 executive pay rises 55%, survey says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11649789
An interesting couple of days. Board room pay is up over 50%, there are rumours (denied) about a big company managing to wiggle out of a tax bill that would cover the recent cuts to the welfare bill.
Same old Tories
On Vodaphone:
The assessment related to so-called Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) liabilities, which applies to firms that are controlled by UK residents but which pay tax on their earnings abroad at a lower rate.
However, an article in the Private Eye estimated the taxpayers' bill for the CFC liabilities and other arrangements "was likely to be at least £6bn" in lost tax.
According to the magazine, a former official familiar with the case described it as an "unbelievable cave-in" by HMRC.
"There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6bn. That number is an urban myth."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Vodafone-Shop-Protest-Over-Unpaid-6bn-Tax-Bill-Oxford-Street-Store-Closed-By-Protesters/Article/201010415777604?lpos=Business_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15777604_Vodafone_Shop_Protest_Over_Unpaid_%3F6bn_Tax_Bill%3A_Oxford_Street_Store_Closed_By_Protesters
An interesting couple of days. Board room pay is up over 50%, there are rumours (denied) about a big company managing to wiggle out of a tax bill that would cover the recent cuts to the welfare bill.
Same old Tories
On Vodaphone:
The assessment related to so-called Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) liabilities, which applies to firms that are controlled by UK residents but which pay tax on their earnings abroad at a lower rate.
However, an article in the Private Eye estimated the taxpayers' bill for the CFC liabilities and other arrangements "was likely to be at least £6bn" in lost tax.
According to the magazine, a former official familiar with the case described it as an "unbelievable cave-in" by HMRC.
"There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6bn. That number is an urban myth."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Vodafone-Shop-Protest-Over-Unpaid-6bn-Tax-Bill-Oxford-Street-Store-Closed-By-Protesters/Article/201010415777604?lpos=Business_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15777604_Vodafone_Shop_Protest_Over_Unpaid_%3F6bn_Tax_Bill%3A_Oxford_Street_Store_Closed_By_Protesters
football inequality
If we think English football is unequal, at least it's not Spain
"Spain's financial inequality, routed in separate TV deals where the third biggest earning club earns less than the team that finishes bottom of the Premier League and where Barcelona and Madrid take home €125m compared to €12m at Racing has been analysed here before. Details are now emerging of the proposed new deal. It will be collective and for the first time there will be a parachute payment to protect relegated clubs.
But inequality remains an inescapable and self-perpetuating reality. Madrid and Barcelona will keep 34%, 11% will go to Valencia and Atlético, 9% to the second division and 45% will be shared amongst the remaining sixteen clubs, at a little under 3% each"
"Spain's financial inequality, routed in separate TV deals where the third biggest earning club earns less than the team that finishes bottom of the Premier League and where Barcelona and Madrid take home €125m compared to €12m at Racing has been analysed here before. Details are now emerging of the proposed new deal. It will be collective and for the first time there will be a parachute payment to protect relegated clubs.
But inequality remains an inescapable and self-perpetuating reality. Madrid and Barcelona will keep 34%, 11% will go to Valencia and Atlético, 9% to the second division and 45% will be shared amongst the remaining sixteen clubs, at a little under 3% each"
Thursday, 11 February 2010
It may take a Tory Tea Party to make Cameron coherent | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian
Localism eh? Very interesting. Well, apart from when you suffer from a 'postcode lottery' as comment 2 points out.
That's the thing that central government brings. Everyone goes on about how wonderful localism is from afar, but then they change their tune in office. Why? Because centralism is not that bad when you're trying to deliver a service. Targets have their uses, like getting stuff done and showing it got done.
Now I spend too long in my job preparing for the NAO to visit at any moment, but it shows that I'm working hard (believe it or not)
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
MPs' backgrounds
"Those who make it their business to look at parliament's composition from a broad, non-partisan perspective are worried about what the 2010 intake will say about social mobility. Dr Lee Elliott Major, research director of the Sutton Trust, which campaigns to increase opportunity for non-privileged children, said: "Our big fear is that the golden generation who managed to be socially mobile in the post-war period are going to turn out to be a blip, and in terms of the domination of a lot of public life, things are now moving in the opposite direction.""
I'm from a decent background, probably lower middle class. I was lucky in that I went to a very good state school. But even I feel that politics is largely ruled by people from a class above me and they ignore me for being poor, uneducated and unorthodox.
I have no problem with where people come from: Bevan and Foot are my heros (to some extent). Bevan was from a poor mining community, Foot was born and bred in the lap of luxury and his family had Prime Ministers round for tea.
But there is a serious problem with representation in politics. If even I feel unrepresented (middle class, good school, masters degree) then what must most others feel like?
I'm from a decent background, probably lower middle class. I was lucky in that I went to a very good state school. But even I feel that politics is largely ruled by people from a class above me and they ignore me for being poor, uneducated and unorthodox.
I have no problem with where people come from: Bevan and Foot are my heros (to some extent). Bevan was from a poor mining community, Foot was born and bred in the lap of luxury and his family had Prime Ministers round for tea.
But there is a serious problem with representation in politics. If even I feel unrepresented (middle class, good school, masters degree) then what must most others feel like?
Labels:
equality,
inequality,
politics,
social mobility
Recession
"who is affected most by these trends? Confounding early predictions of a 'white collar recession', the statistics show that it is the same people who were hit by previous recessions who are most exposed this time round – the 14.3 million low-paid, low-skilled workers"
There's a surprise.
My solutions:
Keep people in work.
Support the low paid through the direct taxation system to save on admin and the costs of admin.
Government subsidised internships.
Even the smallest bit of compassion in the benefits system.
More equality of income and wealth.
Possible solutions from the article:
"As well as measures to improve responsible lending, more low-cost, out-of-court remedies, like the Debt Relief Orders are also needed to support those people in unsustainable debt or for whom repossession is the only remaining option.
Safety nets are vital, but work is nearly always the best route to maintaining economic independence for any household. This is particularly true for low earners, who are more dependent on their earned income than other groups due to their lack of savings and their lack of eligibility for many means-tested benefits. Expanding the eligibility criteria for working tax credit to include training as well as paid employment,would make it easier for people to access training while in work thereby insulating them against the risk of redundancy.
For those people who do lose their jobs, the focus must be on maintaining their proximity to the labour market and it is this measure that should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of government schemes such as the Future Jobs Fund and the Work for Your Benefit pilots. Enhancing the existing 'light touch' skills assessment that takes place at 13 weeks after someone has lost their job, and defining 'sustainable' employment as 12 months rather than 13 weeks could also make a real difference to low earners who find themselves out of work."
There's a surprise.
My solutions:
Keep people in work.
Support the low paid through the direct taxation system to save on admin and the costs of admin.
Government subsidised internships.
Even the smallest bit of compassion in the benefits system.
More equality of income and wealth.
Possible solutions from the article:
"As well as measures to improve responsible lending, more low-cost, out-of-court remedies, like the Debt Relief Orders are also needed to support those people in unsustainable debt or for whom repossession is the only remaining option.
Safety nets are vital, but work is nearly always the best route to maintaining economic independence for any household. This is particularly true for low earners, who are more dependent on their earned income than other groups due to their lack of savings and their lack of eligibility for many means-tested benefits. Expanding the eligibility criteria for working tax credit to include training as well as paid employment,would make it easier for people to access training while in work thereby insulating them against the risk of redundancy.
For those people who do lose their jobs, the focus must be on maintaining their proximity to the labour market and it is this measure that should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of government schemes such as the Future Jobs Fund and the Work for Your Benefit pilots. Enhancing the existing 'light touch' skills assessment that takes place at 13 weeks after someone has lost their job, and defining 'sustainable' employment as 12 months rather than 13 weeks could also make a real difference to low earners who find themselves out of work."
Cameron's poverty rhetoric
To some extent, Labour has failed since 97.
My party has not made this country more equal by all measures. That should be Labour's bread and butter, even if it suffered the howling moans of the right-wing press and their hatred for the poor.
But this little piece picks apart Cameron's criticisms, and his solutions.
Criticisms - over the top, based more on words than facts.
Solutions - no big government i.e. none.
What cures poverty and makes people more equal? Redistribution.
When Cameron comes out as a proper Robing Hood, maybe i'll believe him. In the mean time, he's as shallow and empty as usual.
My party has not made this country more equal by all measures. That should be Labour's bread and butter, even if it suffered the howling moans of the right-wing press and their hatred for the poor.
But this little piece picks apart Cameron's criticisms, and his solutions.
Criticisms - over the top, based more on words than facts.
Solutions - no big government i.e. none.
What cures poverty and makes people more equal? Redistribution.
When Cameron comes out as a proper Robing Hood, maybe i'll believe him. In the mean time, he's as shallow and empty as usual.
Labels:
conservatives,
david Cameron,
equality,
inequality,
politics
Cameron's poverty nonsense
"Yesterday Kate Green, chair of of the Campaign to End Child Poverty, said:
“We welcome the fact that Conservatives are taking seriously the scandal of four million children in poverty in the fourth richest country in the world. But their proposals miss the point that without real income redistribution to close the inequality gap we will never reach that goal.”"
income redistribution, sounds like a job for BIG GOVERNMENT!
“We welcome the fact that Conservatives are taking seriously the scandal of four million children in poverty in the fourth richest country in the world. But their proposals miss the point that without real income redistribution to close the inequality gap we will never reach that goal.”"
income redistribution, sounds like a job for BIG GOVERNMENT!
Labels:
conservatives,
david Cameron,
equality,
inequality,
politics
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
The Prescotts and the North South divide
I got watching this at half time in the football, which i was going to post about, and stayed with it.
On the subject of the division(s) - markets failed, government has failed, but the government is doing a hell of a lot more than the market. At the end of the day it comes down to jobs, and if the market won't create them then the government better.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. This is a reason i'm Labour. Even New Labour have put the most emphasis on jobs and full employment, which is something that's as old labour as anything.
On that subject, the lack of manual jobs came up. the lack of apprenticeships came up, no surprise. Another thing was the amount of money, £12-15k, that is cost to train as a plumber. The government should be shoving this money down people's throats.
I'm glad that by the end they looked at some of the poorer places down south. from my experience, essex has some places that you can compare to up north, docks and simular where jobs have gone and all ain't as rosy as on some of the very comfortable areas.
MY cure is big government, lots of money sorting out the mess of market economics(as usual)
On the subject of the division(s) - markets failed, government has failed, but the government is doing a hell of a lot more than the market. At the end of the day it comes down to jobs, and if the market won't create them then the government better.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. This is a reason i'm Labour. Even New Labour have put the most emphasis on jobs and full employment, which is something that's as old labour as anything.
On that subject, the lack of manual jobs came up. the lack of apprenticeships came up, no surprise. Another thing was the amount of money, £12-15k, that is cost to train as a plumber. The government should be shoving this money down people's throats.
I'm glad that by the end they looked at some of the poorer places down south. from my experience, essex has some places that you can compare to up north, docks and simular where jobs have gone and all ain't as rosy as on some of the very comfortable areas.
MY cure is big government, lots of money sorting out the mess of market economics(as usual)
Broken Britain
The Sun are doing their bit on 'Broken Britain'.
"THE SUN'S focus on our fractured society today looks at an area where almost half the locals are jobless and where feral kids roam the streets"
I'd like to propose some easy answers, but easy doesn't tend to mean right.
While I have some qualified support for their analysis, The Sun coming out as champions of the poor rings very hollow.
And their promotion of Iain Duncan Smith is silly: "Tory poverty guru Iain Duncan Smith, 55, believes family breakdown is at the heart of Britain's troubles." His solution, well, not given. He's not quoted as having said anything.
So HOW exactly are we going to get families to stay together, bring up nice, lovely, well intigrated children? Less Big Government? Bollocks to that.
Not demonising people, not being afraid to put money into poor people where it's needed, better front line services, personal responsibility. Some will argue 'responsibility' and Big Government don't go together, i disagree. The others are Big Government solutions. It's a lack of government, not too much, which has failed these people.
When all else fails, the state should be there to look after it's own.
"THE SUN'S focus on our fractured society today looks at an area where almost half the locals are jobless and where feral kids roam the streets"
I'd like to propose some easy answers, but easy doesn't tend to mean right.
While I have some qualified support for their analysis, The Sun coming out as champions of the poor rings very hollow.
And their promotion of Iain Duncan Smith is silly: "Tory poverty guru Iain Duncan Smith, 55, believes family breakdown is at the heart of Britain's troubles." His solution, well, not given. He's not quoted as having said anything.
So HOW exactly are we going to get families to stay together, bring up nice, lovely, well intigrated children? Less Big Government? Bollocks to that.
Not demonising people, not being afraid to put money into poor people where it's needed, better front line services, personal responsibility. Some will argue 'responsibility' and Big Government don't go together, i disagree. The others are Big Government solutions. It's a lack of government, not too much, which has failed these people.
When all else fails, the state should be there to look after it's own.
Labels:
broken britain,
inequality,
politics,
poverty,
society,
tories
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Cameron's attack on Labour on poverty
In his speech Cameron claimed Labour had made Britain more unequal, but "Institute for Fiscal Studies, stating that "direct tax and benefit changes made by the previous Conservative governments acted to increase income inequality, whereas those made by since 1997-98 have benefited the poor by more than the rich". "
I know who i believe more.
He might be trying to be too many things to too many people. maybe
I know who i believe more.
He might be trying to be too many things to too many people. maybe
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Capping high pay
The facts are stark: an employee working a 40 hour week, earning the minimum wage would have to work for around 226 years to receive the same remuneration as a FTSE 100 CEO does in just one year.
Bloke in the office thinks Labour will either introduce a maximum wage or a quango or body to look into it, or the publication of wages.
Haven't yet had time to look into this at length, but the lefty in me likes the idea.
Bloke in the office thinks Labour will either introduce a maximum wage or a quango or body to look into it, or the publication of wages.
Haven't yet had time to look into this at length, but the lefty in me likes the idea.
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Working in a supermaket
I know I shouldn't, but I was reading something in the Daily Mail.
I've worked in a supermarket, part time. It was horrible. The staff were treated like crap, we weren't allowed to talk during the shift other than to help customers. All I was doing was staking shelves.
I'm lucky that I didn't have to stay there long, and I wouldn't want to go back. I've had other simular jobs, working in what i called the 'arse end of the service industry' and others have agreed with that assessment.
What struck me about the article was how horrible and rude most people are, how people expect things to be landed on their plates, not only from the people mentioned in the article but the comments section too.
I've worked in a supermarket, part time. It was horrible. The staff were treated like crap, we weren't allowed to talk during the shift other than to help customers. All I was doing was staking shelves.
I'm lucky that I didn't have to stay there long, and I wouldn't want to go back. I've had other simular jobs, working in what i called the 'arse end of the service industry' and others have agreed with that assessment.
What struck me about the article was how horrible and rude most people are, how people expect things to be landed on their plates, not only from the people mentioned in the article but the comments section too.
Labels:
consumerism,
culture,
Daily Mail,
equality,
ethics,
inequality,
media,
pay,
shopping
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Benefit claimants
Claimants are still seen as 'scroungers', the public are happy for people to be very rich, people still believe in 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor, "Despite negative perceptions of poorer people, however, there was strong underlying support for a progressive tax system. The research identified a public appetite for "more radical action on pay and taxation at the top of the spectrum"."
"most people on middle incomes complained that the system was less generous to them than other groups."
interesting, mixed results. It seems there is some appitite for greater distribution, too much belief in scroungers, still a belief in meritocracy, and a desire for everyone ELSE to pay more tax.
We're an odd lot.
I'm not sure these findings actually tell us anything really
"most people on middle incomes complained that the system was less generous to them than other groups."
interesting, mixed results. It seems there is some appitite for greater distribution, too much belief in scroungers, still a belief in meritocracy, and a desire for everyone ELSE to pay more tax.
We're an odd lot.
I'm not sure these findings actually tell us anything really
Labels:
benefits,
consumerism,
culture,
inequality,
pay,
politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)