QUOTE from comments, made 7 years ago:
All the memories of Canadian public school are coming back to haunt me. The making up of facts (most people don't in fact work for a large corporation), the simplistic theorizing, the egalitarian fundamentalism, the disregard for economic reality (there are costs involved in these social welfare programs), and naturally, the disregard for history. In what fantastic delusion are the 1970s the decade of prosperity?
How are high unemployment rates and high inflation rates demonstrative of success? The lesson of the 70s was that Keynesian economics are far too short-sighted, and will bankrupt you in the long run.
If you had taken the time to look at the story from an economic point of view, you'd see that the late 1980s through the 1990s was an enormously productive and prosperous period for people throughout the world--hundreds of millions of people in China for the first time were lifted out of poverty thanks to free-market economic reforms, the ludicrously unnecessary burden of communism was lifted off East Europe, and neo-liberalism flourished in the West. An uncommonly long era of peace, vast improvements in the standard of living worldwide, advances in civil freedom--hardly a record that can be written off by a man doing a cheap stunt involving water balloons, no matter how satisfying it may be to his indulgent leftism. END QUOTE
Seems to sum it up in the simplest terms.
i am far more concerned about the lowest paid at the BBC who receive about £16 pa .The unions want that increased to 20k which seems reasonable to me considering the fact there would be no Mr Linekar or whomever without them.If they feel compelled to go on strike then so be it .If the Government would follow my tax proposals then some of that could go to improve those low wages.
I note that Laura Keunsberg a reporter I find rather irritating but accept she does her job very well, gets paid between 200-249k pa.I kind of think that would be the right salary for most of those people and as she is far more professional and does a proper job than the Linekar/ Shearars of this world, it seems to me that my tax proposals would go some way to redressing the balance.Assuming none use complex tax avoidance measures ,take home pay would be as follows
Laura Keunsberg 134179
Alan Shearer 239180
Linekar 512180
As the consummate professional LK can still feel somewhat aggrieved that two ex football players who talk rubbish once a week for nine months of the year, are still remunerated far more than she is , but it does look better for sure
Hah!
Jeremy Corbyn will cap Gary Linekers pay!
Maybe the luvvies will change their tune once they realise the true colours of Comrade Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn would cap salaries of highest earning BBC stars
Doubt it. It's not fashionable for a wealthy celeb to be anti left wing.
They'll probably just relocate or retire lol.
Best way would be for the private sector (and BBC etc) to sort itself out re the upper echelons of pay.Beat Corbyn at his own game.
maybe the luvvies might but it would be music to the ears of many ordinary Labour voters
i accept it's opinion but i do wholeheartedly agree with it.No one is going to convince the those salaries are merited or the recipientsdeliver worth
I would have to completely disagree with this proposal.
How anyone can think it is fair for the government to take 80% of what you earn is beyond me.
The problem here is people's earnings not representing what they are worth.
It is possible for someone to be worth a salary of £2m a year if that persons individual impact on a company generates more than that in revenue, and no-one else can be hired for less who could make the same impact. If the result of an 80% tax rate results in lower actual revenue, as I think is likely, then it would be a bad idea.
The issue here is, lets take Gary Linekar for instance. If they replaced him with a new presenter on £200,000 per year would it make any difference? Would fewer people watch match of the day? Would the BBC's revenue fall?
The answers to those is no, so why pay someone £1.8 million for doing the same job
The BBC have the unique position of not having to make a profit, or satisfy shareholders. They can take risks on new talent without fear of ratings drops affecting their revenue. If these starts would be paid more in the private sector then let them go, replace them with new talent. Finding new talent and giving new people a chance is what the BBC should stand for, not paying huge salaries to existing stars who would be on TV in the private sector if they didn't.
When Jonathan Ross moved from the BBC to ITV, it meant we still got to watch him for free but we didn't have to pay his salary, how is that a bad thing?
Anyone proposing a taxation rate of 80% is only motivated by envy and spite, not a genuine desire to raise revenue.
It's the old "I've decided it's not fair that you earn that much, so I want to confiscate it"
The BBC should just publish what each position pays and ask for applicants when a vacancy comes up.
They should not be negotiating with talent except for the few shows where they have a global customer base like Top Gear where having the right presenter can make a huge difference to revenue. Those shows are generally handled by BBC worldwide anyway.
If they advertised a newsreader position at £200,000 they would get huge numbers of applicants, some of whom would be great at the job. There is simply no NEED for the BBC to be paying these salaries.
When someone says things like "If the Government were to follow my tax proposals" and "it seems to me that my tax proposals would go some way to redressing the balance" it makes me wonder whether they think they've actually tabled this for discussion in the House.Or they really are Jeremy 
Well we will know soon enough. If its Jeremy he will be rowing back on these proposals tomorrow...