Good people of the North

[Euronymous]

80%??????? Are you being serious????? Why should those that earn the most money pay for the dole and upkeep (healthcare/education et al) for those that can't be bothered?!?!??!! Ok, that might sound harsh but 80%, even on salaries of £200k+ is laughable.

It wouldn`t be 80% of the whole salary, just the salary over the £200K barrier. I`m not a communist (well, I am but that`s irrelevent)

I mean, how many people on that sort of money deserve it? I may be being simplistic but I can`t help thinking of City types and footballers when that sort of wonga comes up.

 

[Shadow Leader]

It stll sounds over the top to me - not least since how many salaries would then be fixed at £200k then the rest paid in benefits or some other way to avoid paying the tax? I'm no expert on such matters but I know there are ways and means.

Besides which, footballers can earn that a month, never mind a year - now, that is obscene, I agree.

It's not just to cap people's salaries though in all fairness, they must do something to earn it, even if the salary is excessive.

 

[Shadow Leader]

Oh - and communism don't work in any way shape or form!!!!!! (well, in theory maybe, but that's about it!)

 

[clivex]

Just because you have a few relatives who know a few people who are "workshy" is no reason to write off half of the country as obsolete.

Never said that at all..and i am refering to actual relatives.

Shads is right. Punishing tax bands have been abandoned throughout the developed world. Human cpaital is very mobile now and like it or not a thriving economy needs top talent. its no good to anyone if city traders, lawyers and accountants (who can earn obsene money..admiteddly) decamp to frankfurt or Paris

Warbler...as for the immigrants "exploiting" the workforce, what were they supposed to do when they came here? there is a minimum wage legislation anyway, but i would rather see the enterprise of the asian community than lacklustre victimhood

getting back to taxes, we all complain about taxes that adversely affect us of course, but the 3% stamp duty on modest homes in the SE is plain spite IMO.

With the 40% band, that now drags in teachers and even some nurses into what was always supposed to be a level targeted at "high earners".Ridiculous

As for communism and state planning...give me strength! Its failed and will always fail (as it is in Venezeula right now). Havent we long since moved on?

 

[Tout Seul]

Euro, on the face of it your tax proposals have a logical basis however in practice they wouldn't work.

Reasons:
i) Might kill the Golden Goose that is the City. The Financial services sector could easily move elsewhere.

ii) Those earning enough can, and often do, organise their remuneration so as to minimise tax. Many of the high earners are involved in international business and despite the efforts of HMR are still able to avoid paying tax if they wish.

iii) Demotivation; I know a large number of people that earn well over £200k ranging from financial people to builders, employees and employers. Many take personal risks and a lot of responsibilty to earn that amount. I'm pretty sure that many would opt for an easier life rather than accept receiving 20p in the pound for their efforts. Therefore many firms would not seek to grow and there would be job losses.

 

[Warbler]

Ok

A lot to absorb there....

But the above is a bit contradictory isnt it? The market does not discriminate.

A non-policy of no regional grants and subsidies is as pure and unfettered as you can get.

I see nothing contradictory in it all Clive. Of course markets discriminate, in favour of profit, that's why they exist. Does that make them right? I guess it's a question of morals. Let them get on with it to some extent, but the responsibility of government is to provide a saftey net for those who the markets decide they don't want to support. Afterall in this great democratic system you keep telling me about, is it not the people who entrust the government and therefore enfranchise them? Thatcher was a disgrace in terms of regional policy. She had none, other than to say let the market sort it out. Well in any capitalist system there is such a thing as 'market failure' and that's where we turn to our government and say, 'you're there to help us'. Unfortunately she was never able to convert statistics into people, and peoples sufferings

 

[Warbler]

Never said that at all..and i am refering to actual relatives.

Warbler...as for the immigrants "exploiting" the workforce, what were they supposed to do when they came here? there is a minimum wage legislation anyway, but i would rather see the enterprise of the asian community than lacklustre victimhood

quote]

The first part of your sentance will need clarifying please? probably in terms of context.

The second part sounds like a typical new Labour Harriet Harman type answer.

Any policy or legislation is only as good as the teeth that enforce it. I'll promise you, I've seen some horrific cases of abuse in complete contravention of minimum wage legislation, its existance on the statute, is no evidenc eof its enforcement.

I might have slagged Peter Allen off for his Olympic jolly, but he was in fairness to him, indignant when we prosecuted someone for paying 13p an hour in 2003 he went ballistic on air as the details of this were broadcast. The working conditions were as dangerous as the pay was illegal. This is the UK... yeah right... well wake up.... this is happening under your noses daily, so don't get all superior about it and suggest its a problem restricted to other countries. The hoops we had to jump through to do it though, the fine he was given, and the complete arrogance of the individuals representative at court (he couldn't be 'arsed' to turn up himself) said it all.

The last I knew he re-registered another company, and just absorbed the fine as an overhead. Without telling you how, we had to start the process all over again, which is lengthy and covert, and in truth costs a degree of money. No thanks of course (apart from those affected) just more moaning from rate payers if their bills go up.

It's a question of morality. Now I don't expect you to condone such practices but I turn the question back round, what are incoming populations supposed to do? work under these conditions? a great triumph for capitalism I'd suggest. And I should say, there are plenty others we weren't able to pursue, even though we had enough evidence to have a good go. Yes politics and democracy and equally get in the waay of justice.

 

[Honest Tom]

its no good to anyone if city traders, lawyers and accountants (who can earn obsene money..admiteddly) decamp to frankfurt or Paris

Does the present banking crisis not illustrate how useless many of these vastly overpaid people are anyway.

The only reason high tax bands don't work is because there's always somewhere THEY can feck off to. If the EU becomes a federal Europe becomes a federal world then tax bands up to 99% would be entirely logical. What's more, they wouldn't even have any great affect on anyone. If they had been in place for the last 50 years the order of wealth would be pretty much the same. Bill Gates would still be the richest man in the world albeit with several zeros knocked off his account balance (a fact that wouldn't affect him in the least).

 

[Warbler]

I tempted to give you a small hypothetical challenge here Clive (or anyone for that matter). Assuming you have shed loads of squillions, how would you set about restructuring the regions of the uK and regenerating the cities etc. Actually that's quite a big challenge, but just keep it bullet points by way of out of the box thinking, and we'll see if the TH think tank can come up with a manifesto that's better than the Policy exchanges.

Suffice to say I've got some of my own ideas which I'll fire up later. Unfortunately, it's not really that skilled a job where detailed knowledge is needed, as it's largely an exercise in accurately diagnosing a problems and then having the vision and imagination to resolve things whilst having the foresight to see what negative impacts you could make.

 

[clivex]

Thatcher was a disgrace in terms of regional policy. She had none, other than to say let the market sort it out.

Really? So how did Nissan and Toyota come to the UK then? the success of those plants is far more lasting and beneficial than disgraces such as Ravenscraig


Using Harriet Harman as an example was about as far off the mark as it gets. Shes recently pushed for useless and unenforcable legislation promoting discimination in the workplace.

But thats neither here nor there...

Why can you only see enterprise in terms of "exploitation"? Yes there will be abuses as there is in any walk of life but does that mean that the whole capitalist system should be dismissed? Do we ban cars because some go over the speed limit? Ask any first or second generation immigrants whether they regret coming to the UK (and how many return)? I reckon you wont find too many complaining....

As for regional aid, whos money is that? Whilst one region gets money thrown at it (often in a clueless manner by goverment agencies) another has to pay. It is the taxpayers money.

And it is abused...

You like cricket dont you?

Well "regional aid" was used to secure Cardiffs place on the Ashes roster. At the expense of already developed stadiums with a track record. THe WDA were allowed to put money towards the Glamorgan bid whereas regional English councils were barred from supporting their local counties. That is OUR taxpayers money and again, goverment meddling has produced a unfair and iniquitous result (the MCC hardly helped either)

Why has my tax money gone towards a bid for a cricket match in a region which is prospering ?

I am not against some regional aid on a limited scale (and preferably restricted to infrastructure) but as with the above minor case and the laughable history of Ravenscraig and other 70's projects, it is usually hugely wasteful and frankly a complete waste of time bucking long term market trends

 

[clivex]

If the EU becomes a federal Europe becomes a federal world then tax bands up to 99% would be entirely logical. What's more, they wouldn't even have any great affect on anyone

Is this serious?

 

[simmo]

Are the higher prices/costs etc in the south east not somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy?

It costs me more so I have to charge more, my staff keep complaining that they can't buy that 1 bedroom shathole in shatholecity so I have to pay them more, so it costs me more so I have to charge more, so the people who buy my stuff can't afford that 1 bedroom shathole in shatholecity so they have to get paid more, so the people who I buy from have to charge more, so it costs me more......

 

[clivex]

No Simmo

If the demands on wages (for one bedroom flats) became untenable for the employer, then they would relocate to another part of the country. That would be the market at work (and it has happened)

London is a huge magnet for worldwide talent. Probably ahead of any other city. That is the real reason. What you are describing is an economic bubble. But the differentials have been entrenched for far too long (decades) for that to be the case.

 

[simmo]

But the demands on the employer do not become untenable simply because people continue to pay the inflated prices that result.

How many businesses have their head office in the London area, simply because it is expected of them?

Proportionately speaking, the additional profit that they garner from having that facility does not add up.

Take the company that I work for as an example. 90% of it's business is conducted throughout the rest of the country and largely speaking, obtained from a base in London. It is obtained not because it is based in London, but because the estimators are based in London.

If they had their head office elsewhere, how much of that 90% would they have failed to obtain? Just about none I'd say. They could still maintain an office in London on a smaller scale to ensure that the 10% was still procured, but their costs would be proportionately lower due to having a cheaper head office elsewhere in the country.

Simply put, they are there, along with thousands of others, not because it makes financial sense, but because it is fashionable.

You said earlier that the greatest percentage of "intellectual capital" was based in the south east. I believe that the BBC have proven that the general level of intellect in the south-east is no higher than elsewhere, therefore, this "intellectual capital" must have moved there from other parts of the country.

Why did it move there? Because companies/company directors follow fashion, not good business sense, so they had to. Not because they actually wanted to in the vast majority of cases. (They move back out just as soon as they can)

Obviously I would agree that there are certain businesses which this wouldn't work for, but there are any number of thousands of jobs which could work just as well, financially speaking, from other parts of the country. The folk from the south east could then start to re-populate the north and prices would equalise to an extent as supply outstrips demand for once.

The differences that have been "entrenched for decades" you speak of are not due to an economic bubble, they are due to decades of dedicated followers of fashion, each sucking up each others arseholes in a vain attempt to promote themselves as captains of industry, when in actual fact they are captains of nothing more than inbred fuckwitism.

No doubt, however, the victimhood style bleatings from the unwashed masses of the south-east would prompt the government to fire in thousands of pounds worth of subsidies to ensure that the status quo was maintained should these captains of inbred fuckwitism finally have a fresh idea.

 

[clivex]

Simply put, they are there, along with thousands of others, not because it makes financial sense, but because it is fashionable

You think that hard nosed corporations locate their head offices on the basis of "fashion"?

Not a chance

What is a factor is that the top quality staff will be more likely to want to live and work in certain parts of the country as opposed to others. And like it or not, that means London and the south east rather than Stoke on trent say

I believe that the BBC have proven that the general level of intellect in the south-east is no higher than elsewhere

Dragging them kicking and screaming to Manchester? Not a universally popular move as we all know. Hardly an example of a business though are they?

As for intellectual capital, if you are recruiting for typical head office jobs (finance, legal, HR and so on) then you will have a much wider pool to choose from in London and the SE. Especially in certain industries (media a good example). Where the market is doesnt matter

but there are any number of thousands of jobs which could work just as well, financially speaking, from other parts of the country

Companies are well aware of this and have (too much sometimes) gone for the cheapest option. Thats why there are call centres in India

The rest of you post is too chippy to respond to

 

[clivex]

But the demands on the employer do not become untenable simply because people continue to pay the inflated prices that result.

This is economically illiterate

Every company is always looking to minimise costs (especially head office costs).

Again, if they believe that the demand on the wages is too high from the local workforce and the same quality staffing can be recruited elsewhere, then they will move

They dont just simply respond to every demand and lump the costs on to the clients, because clients can look elsewhere.

Which is precisely what happened with our unlamented and incompetent british industry of the seventies

 

[simmo]

All of your repetition brings us back to the cyclical nature of the beast.

Top quality staff want to work in the south-east because that's where the jobs are (they don't necessarily want to live there - it's full of people from the south-east for a start!).
Companies want to work in the south-east because that's where the top quality staff are.

As for your point about "hard-nosed corporations" and fashion. You are deluding yourself if you think that they don't. Either that or you've swallowed the hype.

All of which willfully misses the point that the top quality staff wouldn't be concentrated in the south east if companies weren't simply following fashion. Aside from anything else, by it's very nature, "top quality staff" are only required in a tiny percentage of positions. What justifies the rest of them and the associated inflated costs? Why not just rent a tiny little office and cram it to the rafters with "top-quality" people, keeping the rest of your business in an area with sensible costs?

The same point is also missed by what appears to be an unflagging devotion to the abilities of our business leaders (or perhaps you can't comprehend what "top quality" actually is). If your business does not need to be based in London, yet you continue to base your business there, passing on the costs to consumers who continue to pay them, probably because everyone else is also based in London so that they can continue with their bum-licking activities, then it's not I who is economically illiterate.

The rest of the post was no more chippy than the vile nonsense you've been perpetrating.......

 

[simmo]

Just a couple of examples that spring to mind.

JP Morgan. A business where having "top quality" people is an absolute necessity. One which you would expect to have a great deal of business savvy. Head Office and main operation - London. IT department (an IT department where mistakes could run into billions in cost terms) - Glasgow. Presumably they found enough "top-quality" IT people in the north.

Hutchison 3G. A prime example of a business that has absolutely no requirement to have it's head office in the south-east. There is little or no necessity for "top-quality" staff, as good will suffice. No one is doing work that requires anything remotely like "top-quality" abilities. Head Office - Maidenhead (staffed largely by incompetents, they couldn't even find "good" in that part of the south-east). Call Centre - Glasgow & India. Cost cutting required - cut the Glasgow call centre and move it to India (except the sales part). Error - no problem with cutting the call centre other than the general difficulties I have with every Indian call centre. The error lies in not relocating the excessively expensive services provided in Maidenhead.

One would presume, given the general brilliance of the people of the south-east, that they could find incompetents of similar ability much more easily in other parts of this country or the sub-continent. In fact, now that I think about it, they must have had to try really hard to locate sufficient incompetents to fill the office with in the first place.

 

[clivex]

"top quality staff" are only required in a tiny percentage of positions

Since when?

Why not just rent a tiny little office and cram it to the rafters with "top-quality" people, keeping the rest of your business in an area with sensible costs?

Thats what happens. Most London head offices are relatively small anyway.

If your business does not need to be based in London, yet you continue to base your business there, passing on the costs to consumers who continue to pay them,

Again...

And what if they compete with a company that provides the same service and doesnt have to pass on the costs?

As for your examples...so what?

IT is very transferrable (because interpersonal skills are barely required) anyway.

I will give you one example of a top media buying company that refused point blank (under enormous group pressure) top move from its offices in the centre of Soho to

...west kensington

why? Because the people it attracted to work there wanted to work in Soho. These were top buyers and planners. You might call it "fashion"" but if that is what your potential and current staff demand, then it is a factor you cannot ignore

they got their way too...

They (rightly) believed that the extra cost of an attractive location was a price worth paying to keep/attract top staff

 

[simmo]

Since when?

This is the sort of remark which makes me believe that you don't fully understand the definition between "top quality" and merely "very good".

As for your examples...so what?

IT is very transferrable (because interpersonal skills are barely required) anyway.

So why do thousands of companies like 3 continue to pay exorbitant wages to staff in the south-east when they could do it at a fraction of the cost elsewhere, if not because their management is, far from being "top quality", actually intellectually bereft DFOF?

I will give you one example of a top media buying company that refused point blank (under enormous group pressure) top move from its offices in the centre of Soho to

...west kensington

Assuming they were unable to obtain staff of the required quality elsewhere then I would agree that it was an astute decision. Although that brings us back to the first point and the lack of understanding of what constitutes a "top quality" member of staff.


PS I don't work in IT so that one missed by several miles.

 

[clivex]

So why do thousands of companies like 3 continue to pay exorbitant wages to staff in the south-east when they could do it at a fraction of the cost elsewhere

Again

Because the labour pool for the typical head office functions is much larger than elsewhere. And most companies will happily pay a few k more for someone of real ability selected from a wider pool than be saddled with the least useless numpty out of a small pool

There are examples (i can name a big media group that moved to Peterborough) of companies relocating out of London and finding it impossible to find experienced quality staff for any number of specialist roles (this media group returned within two years). And not all those roles are necessarrily high paid high flying jobs

Assuming they were unable to obtain staff of the required quality elsewhere

Thats not entirely the point i was making

I was illustrating that some jobs are extremely "location sensitive"

 

[simmo]

There are examples (i can name a big media group that moved to Peterborough) of companies relocating out of London and finding it impossible to find experienced quality staff for any number of specialist roles (this media group returned within two years). And not all those roles are necessarrily high paid high flying jobs

Undoubtedly. But that does not negate the point that there are many more companies who could make such a move successfully.

Thats not entirely the point i was making

I was illustrating that some jobs are extremely "location sensitive"

Agreed. See above.

 

[clivex]

Two other reasons they dont...

Heathrow (loath or hate the place..it has connections)

Eurostar

The more globalised business is the more important international connections are

 

[simmo]

So to summarise. There are relatively few businesses (compared to the number who are based there) that actually need to be based in the south-east for the variety of reasons you have mentioned.

Why do the rest stay there if not because they are bum licking DFOF's?

 

[clivex]

There are relatively few businesses (compared to the number who are based there) that actually need to be based in the south-east for the variety of reasons you have mentioned.

Where did i say that?

I couldnt answer for each and every business. They will have their own reasons. And will be answerable to shareholders if it is clear that they are unnecessarily maintaining extravagent head offices in costly areas of the country