I thought it was because large private company directors paid themselves a bumper bonus in 2009 to avoid the 50% tax rate. Paying £100k extra to a director in 2009 cost the company £166k compared to £200k in 2010.
As a company owner, you can similarly delay earnings past the next election when the 50% tax rate will probably have been removed. With company tax rates falling over the next few years it also makes sense to defer company income into future tax years and bring expenses forward. As a result I'd expect public companies (with their short term focus) to be receiving income early from private companies and paying them later on shifting the tax burden from private company owners to public company owners.
Full disclosure. From the banks point of view my earnings increased by about 60% this year. As viewed by this survey by 2010 earnings will be anywhere between 19% lower to 23% higher. This is because the bank include unrealised gains (i.e. my fraction of the profit left in the company) whereas this survey includes only money extracted from the company.
I also wasn't surveyed by the IOD.
The FTSE 100 pay has been inflated by a sustained rise in share prices over the last year, base pay rose by 3.6% although they did grant themselves a shedload of bonuses (possibly due to the share price rise).
I suspect that's probably the worst article by Peston I've read :-(
It's the granting of bonuses that is where the problem (possibly) lies. If they're granting themselves large bonuses while holding normal pay steady then there's a problem...
There's a tiny percentage paid, yeah, but it would take an awful lot for them to even notice a boycott.
The person most boycotters would hurt most would be the small businessman who owns the local restaurant, who's had jack-all to do with this.
Given that the Ohio state attorney's office has already said pretty clearly that "this is against the law and we're just figuring out which state department will do the prosecuting" a boycott doesn't seem worth it to me.
I'm glad that on the very occasional occasion that I'm wandering past McDonalds late at night and have a sudden craving for McNuggets I will be able to indulge.
Dammit. Now I have said craving, and I'm at work, and nowhere near any McDonalds at all!
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 12:13 pm (UTC)As a company owner, you can similarly delay earnings past the next election when the 50% tax rate will probably have been removed. With company tax rates falling over the next few years it also makes sense to defer company income into future tax years and bring expenses forward. As a result I'd expect public companies (with their short term focus) to be receiving income early from private companies and paying them later on shifting the tax burden from private company owners to public company owners.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 12:23 pm (UTC)I also wasn't surveyed by the IOD.
The FTSE 100 pay has been inflated by a sustained rise in share prices over the last year, base pay rose by 3.6% although they did grant themselves a shedload of bonuses (possibly due to the share price rise).
I suspect that's probably the worst article by Peston I've read :-(
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:11 pm (UTC)The person most boycotters would hurt most would be the small businessman who owns the local restaurant, who's had jack-all to do with this.
Given that the Ohio state attorney's office has already said pretty clearly that "this is against the law and we're just figuring out which state department will do the prosecuting" a boycott doesn't seem worth it to me.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:14 pm (UTC)Dammit. Now I have said craving, and I'm at work, and nowhere near any McDonalds at all!
no subject
Date: 2010-11-01 04:50 pm (UTC)