Reply to: Google boss doesn't know what his salary is

[LondonManc]

A quick search on US disclosure rules proves that you are quite correct However, I still maintain that it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was just used as a stick to beat the Google guy with. HMG have gone to great lengths to make Joe Public think that tax is a question of morality and that wealth is something to be ashamed of - tax is a question of law (and HMG are not very good at writing tax law) and, without wealth generators, the country would be stuffed. Just MHO which you are quite at liberty to disagree with but the 'it's not fair' brigade really get on my pip

Correct. Head of giant successful company in PRIVATE sector in earning lots of money shocker.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Maybe Google is different - but I thought all annual accounts state directors remuneration?

So if it is public knowledge just answer the question. Or you look like a tosser.

A quick search on US disclosure rules proves that you are quite correct However, I still maintain that it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and was just used as a stick to beat the Google guy with. HMG have gone to great lengths to make Joe Public think that tax is a question of morality and that wealth is something to be ashamed of - tax is a question of law (and HMG are not very good at writing tax law) and, without wealth generators, the country would be stuffed. Just MHO which you are quite at liberty to disagree with but the 'it's not fair' brigade really get on my pip

[SueEllen]

I think it was a case of 'wouldn't' rather than 'couldn't' and his hesitancy was probably attributable to him trying to think of a way to say '**** off and mind your own damn business' politely

The guy needs more media training.

[PurpleGorilla]

I think it was a case of 'wouldn't' rather than 'couldn't' and his hesitancy was probably attributable to him trying to think of a way to say '**** off and mind your own damn business' politely

Maybe Google is different - but I thought all annual accounts state directors remuneration?

So if it is public knowledge just answer the question. Or you look like a tosser.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But if you can't answer a common knowledge question of how much you get paid - you come across as a Marie Antoinette.

I think it was a case of 'wouldn't' rather than 'couldn't' and his hesitancy was probably attributable to him trying to think of a way to say '**** off and mind your own damn business' politely

[LondonManc]

But if you can't answer a common knowledge question of how much you get paid - you come across as a Marie Antoinette.

I think she struggled with taxation mainly. Apparently it went right over her head.

[PurpleGorilla]

That may be the case but if I invest in something I want a return. The government demands a return under the tax structures for doing nothing whereas the investor puts their money at risk in the corporation in question.

Under extreme situations, there might be a case for the government to step in and dictate that jobs come before shareholders because the country cannot afford so many people on the dole but that would have to be an extreme situation and would affect all employers. We could actually have nearly 100% employment if shareholders didn't come first.

But if you can't answer a common knowledge question of how much you get paid - you come across as a Marie Antoinette.

[darmstadt]

Under extreme situations, there might be a case for the government to step in and dictate that jobs come before shareholders because the country cannot afford so many people on the dole but that would have to be an extreme situation and would affect all employers. We could actually have nearly 100% employment if shareholders didn't come first.

Theoretically you could, its called Socialism where everyone is employed by, and is thus a shareholder in the state

[LondonManc]

IMHO, that is a big part of the problem with modern capitalism.

That may be the case but if I invest in something I want a return. The government demands a return under the tax structures for doing nothing whereas the investor puts their money at risk in the corporation in question.

Under extreme situations, there might be a case for the government to step in and dictate that jobs come before shareholders because the country cannot afford so many people on the dole but that would have to be an extreme situation and would affect all employers. We could actually have nearly 100% employment if shareholders didn't come first.

[PurpleGorilla]

Government debt of £1.56 trillion or 81.58% of GDP - under normal business rules HMG Ltd would have been struck off as Directors long ago

Good point. Touché!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Government debt of £1.56 trillion or 81.58% of GDP - under normal business rules HMG Ltd would have been struck off as Directors long ago

[PurpleGorilla]

Google boss doesn't know what his salary is

What do you think qualifies Government to interfere in business? Career politicians (which we seem to have quite a few of at the moment) surely can have little useful input

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

IMHO, that is a big part of the problem with modern capitalism.

What do you think qualifies Government to interfere in business? Career politicians (which we seem to have quite a few of at the moment) surely can have little useful input

[PurpleGorilla]

Sorry but businesses should be accountable to their shareholders and not to Government unless they break the law

IMHO, that is a big part of the problem with modern capitalism.

[Bluenose]

I thought there was about 300 years of coal left?

I would dig that out now for power stations. While we build loads of fracking infrastructure. And nuclear plants.

At current usage rates I think we have approx 60 years of coal reserves (proven) in the UK.

I would imagine that if we went looking there would be alot more than that although, the cost to extract could be crippling.

I would sooner keep what coal reserves remain for use in times of war and famine.