Comments for en-gb 30 Mon 22 Dec 2014 23:43:39 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at justfloating (11) - pmL - Please go and read the history books, your system does not work either. I was in Shanghai, years ago, when there was only 20 non-Chinese. The inequality and fat cats existed then. You just had to be in the right group (party member) to be part of the hidden economy of perks etc. The differential was huge.What we need is to actually enhance the money making opportunities and schemes and reduce pay. There should be very high taxes on pay over 800,000, say an extra corporation tax rate. Including bonuses handshakes etc.But then all the companies would go abroad. Whoops! I certainly did, when they got rid of my tax advantage for risk.So we need to add back in a REAL risk system. One that rewards massively. We have it, is the share trading system. Why not remove the tax from share sales completely? Make it the only way to make hideous amounts of money. But only if the time between share acquisition and selling/trading is larger than 5 years. We expect our political leaders to be judged only after 5 years in power so why not make sure company leaders are judged only after the same interval.So in banks where the share price changes little (normally) the gains reaped would be small and only after 5 years of growth. So we would encourage steady bankers controlling them.However, it would encourage more companies to be created as this is where the greatest share gains can be made. This is where real risk and reward occurs.Even big banks would use the system. They could create a new product by creating a new company to manage it. The managers would be paid a small salary and the rest in shares. If successful then the bank could vote to buy back the company at the end.This would work for private companies as well. If I was to build a 2 share company to the point I can sell it to a big corporation, having invested every profit back into the company, (and paying corporation tax on it) then the sale of the shares should be tax free. (as long as it was over 5 years)Dividends on the shares would still be taxed. This would be avoid the creation of none development companies. That have no risk and are just money channelling organizations.The solution is to enhance the rewards for risk NOT reduce the differential. But the current growth of performance related pay should be stopped. It is too short term and defeats the real meaning of a share system. It is a way to get your cut before the real investors/taxes see anything. Same as commodity dealers taking money out of a system. They are both abuses of power positions. Tue 11 Nov 2008 12:00:33 GMT+1 David_McNickle Sid 7, Applesolutely. Tue 11 Nov 2008 10:20:48 GMT+1 U11204129 Two bites of the cherry whilst all the first generation old lags are at their private Facebook site trying to see how to make the blog seem exclusively theirs again!:The argument against borrowing money is that it would be a burden to future generations.Of course if the borrowing is internal we owe ourselves. Which is no worry at all. Especially if we become an equal society via redistribution. Then, we don't owe the rich anything. We just owe ourselves, as I say. Just as we owe ourselves the note issue (we have promised to pay the bearers on demand). The problem is that we instead will be silly enough to pay the rich whom we borrowed from, back. Where did they get in the first place, after all?If we borrow externally, we do so from countries reluctant to lend to us, who think, rightly. we've no business living at their expense.The solution then, is to tax the rich, and if necessary (and it will be, to create directly government spending resources and to put such controls on the banks (and on imports) that the money we create does not become inflationary (We stop it becoming high powered)The market system has failed, people, lets face(book) it.Time to legislate for a properly planned society. Tue 11 Nov 2008 01:27:01 GMT+1 U11204129 Oh, boy, just when you thought it was safe, 'cos even Bush recognised you have to take finance firms into public ownership..........the Tories start talking about 'revenue neutral tax cuts'........something we haven't heard about since Thatcher - Reagan days............If you want the poor to work harder or those on benefit to work at all, pay them a princely salary. NO!!! say the Tories. They're just work shy that's all.......But the rich, ah, that's different. Give them a tax cut and they'll work so much harder (get off the golf course, come back from the Seychelles a day early) - so much harder that you'll get as much tax revenue as before - and the rich will have worked harder so output will have gone up.So, really the rich AT THE MOMENT, are not only overpaid, they're not even working as hard as they should be.Personally I think 80 percent of rich 'work' is about defending the positions of the rich.........partly by producing ideas like 'Tax the rich less and we'll all be better off' in return for lucrative academic careers in state funded (by you and me) universities.In fact, tax cuts would reduce revenue and the poor would suffer through worse schools. hospitals etc.Let's increase taxes on the very rich instead and increase the wages or benefits of the very poor.The air would smell fresher, cleaner somehow, in this corrupt society. Tue 11 Nov 2008 00:48:12 GMT+1 Electric Dragon Perhaps if government agencies were forced to make their data available to the public domain, they wouldn't need "competitions" and "development funding" - people would just use the data however they saw fit. Innovation would arise naturally. the USA, as a matter of law, all works published by the federal government are in the public domain. There is therefore no restriction on what can be done with the data. Tue 11 Nov 2008 00:33:32 GMT+1 Chrispyspidercatcher I was half-listening to the chap you interviewed about the apparent difficulty of getting concise information from government departments - such as the catchment area for a particular school - and the competition to come up with a new challenge. And I thought I heard him say that a lot of data had already been submitted to government websites - a "tetrabyte" if I heard correctly.I suspect he meant "terabyte." Tera is the prefix for 10 to the power 12 - a million million - whereas "tetra" is a prefix meaning just FOUR. A very small byte indeed. More of a nibble, in fact . . Mon 10 Nov 2008 23:40:06 GMT+1 Sid D McN - is that why you dismiss her as a tart? Mon 10 Nov 2008 22:49:41 GMT+1 Kazzi =D Who exactly does Gordon Brown wish to inflict his “New World Order” upon? I do not recall any referendum consulting the UK population asking whether we wish this. Mr Brown appears to be peddling a Utopia when he is painfully aware the situation is the complete opposite! Furthermore, he knows that the global financial crisis is due, in the main, to the governmental manipulation through central bank control and the fraudulent nature of financial markets over here. He has the temerity to then behave like a naughty school child saying ‘it’s not my fault, it’s them nasty Americans wot dunnit Sir!’ He had 10 years as Chancellor spouting the end of boom and bust and as PM has ‘led’ us into a situation where a great many of the normal, hardworking population have lost thousands and thousands in one way or another! How does he expect us to trust him to get us out of it? The only thing I trust him to do is encourage more usury.Given the opportunity, I would demand the government provide the general populace more say on the shaping of OUR country and how we would like to see it run. Currently we have a government that justifies its every bureaucratic, invasive, unpopular move (which is usually to our detriment and by stealth) on the fact that the people elected them! I feel democratically cheated as I feel the country is being led by the nose by a Prime Minister that was never elected! Mon 10 Nov 2008 21:36:57 GMT+1 JBentham I enjoyed the lecture from Abbot Jamieson about how we should all learn the value of temperance, moderation and community from the example of Christian monasticism. Trouble with radio is you supply your own pictures, and I could not get the recent images of monks brawling in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre out of my head. They seemed to be ‘delighting in the virtue’ of knocking each other senseless! Mon 10 Nov 2008 19:35:53 GMT+1 Piper There are implications(?) here, that would make me feel somewhat uncomfortable in a "Glass" box... Mon 10 Nov 2008 19:08:36 GMT+1 U11204129 Tax cuts?Then borrow?You mean we should pay the rich to usetheir money instead of taxing it?Since governemt spending is on schools, hospitals etc unless you reduce the defence budget (war gelt) I don't think a single penny should come off govt spending.If anyone above the AVERAGE (mean, not median) income starts paying less tax, it's a crying crime.Soak the rich? There shouldn't be any. Who is it thinks themselves worth more than the average, who has the audacity to pay anyone less than the average.The old argument was that taxing the rich would drive them abroad, so that we'd lose the benefit of all those.... derivative traders, slush (hedge) fund managers and other financial crooks.I wish.Hey, PM please do sayHow many Arficans died of malnutrion or of a treatable disease, in areas not at war, today. There you are DmcN. It rhymes about a world with insufficient reason.Is iPM full of plugs for PM? Mon 10 Nov 2008 17:48:19 GMT+1 David_McNickle Northern Rock fails, rock falls in back garden of woman. Is there no end to this? Mon 10 Nov 2008 17:31:57 GMT+1 David_McNickle I read Joan Bakewell in The Indy and she doesn't look old to me. Mon 10 Nov 2008 17:29:45 GMT+1