Nice idea....not going to work.

Can't you see that the moment you restrict that access and profits you are giving out the message....look elsewhere for your next investment. You just aren't going to get the same levels of investment and hence jobs. That then has a waterfall effect..... The lists of competitors for that investment are numerous.

I like the idea of your first paragraph but I know that it doesn't work.

You may support forcing people into silence at the risk of them losing their jobs in companies for whatever 'wrong think' you list...but the moment you tell a company how much they can earn, those jobs aren't going to be there for you to impose your ideology on in the first place.

You might be in a position not to suffer from that....But I come from a council estate and I taught council estate kids and I very much disagree with opportunity being taken away because 'progressives' think fairy land can exist in the business world.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hahahhahahahahaha... yeah right. The other one has bells on. The UK and US are in the business of liberating countries from oppressive regimes....

Even if the Iraqi's had sent their representatives and allowed UN weapon inspectors back in, the US was already beating a drum about them hiding weapons of mass destruction.

And then after all that solid convincing evidence turned out to be 'a piles of very selected lies from very bias sources, that even the intelligence agencies were questioning, it was all about regime change.

Iraq was about pushing huge revenues of government capital into private industry, securing oil reserves and distributing very lucrative contracts to private firms.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

If oil were a major factor for prosecuting war in Iraq, it stands to reason the United States would be getting substantial amounts of it.

In 2013 the overwhelming percentage of American imported oil did not come from the Middle East. Canada and Latin America provide the United States with 34.7 percent of their imported oil. Africa provides another 10.3 percent. The entire Persian Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia at 8.1 percent, provides them with a total of 12.9 percent of their imported oil.

As recently as December 2012, Iraq provided the United States with approximately 14.3 million barrels of oil out of a total of about 298 million barrels imported, or 4.8 percent of their total imports. Rather pointedly for your argument, America was importing the highest amount of oil from Iraq before they went to war to oust Saddam Hussein.

If America went to war in Iraq mostly for oil, it would stand to reason that they would maintain a stranglehold on both their supply and production. Ten years after the war began, China has emerged as one of the main beneficiaries of a relatively stable Iraqi government and a country that, after two decades, is poised to become the world's third largest oil exporter. Trade between Iraq and China has doubled almost 34 times, soaring from $517 million in 2002, to $17.5 billion by the end of last year.

As for the war in Iraq in general, people can disagree about whether removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. And they can certainly question the necessity of nation-building. But it is simply revisionist history to suggest that anti-oil Democratic politicians, weren't every bit as concerned with the danger the Saddam Hussein regime posed as Republicans were. Authorizing the use of force was a bipartisan effort based on a shared if faulty interpretation of the same security intelligence.

As for oil, if getting it was one of the primary reasons the west liberated Iraq, subsequent developments have demonstrated that effort was a colossal failure.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I was surprised at JM mocking my post and I repeat as it is concise and only pointing out 1 thing which all the reports and inquiries miss.

If Sadaam had complied with UN resolutions and not ignored them all the UK would not have been legally able to go to war.

Sadaam did not have weapons of mass destruction and all that was necessary was to say that at the UN, that would have complied with the UN. resolutions.

The attorney general would have advised that there was no legal basis for war and in fact I am sure it was the govts. position.

Tony Blair is an experienced lawyer he would not go to war if UN resolutions were complied with, as a resulting war would be illegal and he would be responsible.

Why did Sadaam not comply with this simple resolution when he did not have WOMD anyway??

TB prosecuting a war when UN resolutions were complied with? I don't think so.

Ok the USA would have by-passed the UN but Blair took the matter to the UN to make the case for war water-tight.

If you don't reply or acknowledge the law there is no option but to find you guilty.

Just to clarify. I prefer and agree with these aims from an ethical standpoint. The changes from pay inequality from say the late sixties to now is dramatic. These restrictions would be the better system. I just remain to be convinced in terms of practical effectiveness in terms of business confidence and effect. I know the free market works on many levels...but that the system around it isn't about fairness.

I'm definitely less confidence in talking around this field.

I'm probably of the view of more effective tax collection....perhaps if their could be harmonizing with the EU to that aim. Though due to the EU's aggressive stance towards the city...which is a significant proportion of our tax base...I would be very careful.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Aug 2017 5.39am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

My primary concern would be that it would be an excuse for companies to pay people less at the upper end of the pay scale - Sorry Gerrard, we like you, we love what your doing, but we can't afford to pay the entire minimum wage staff more, so we can't offer you more than 300k and nor can anyone else....

Because capitalists tend to react to ideological issues, with pragmatic resolutions - look at how people reduce their tax burdens - That's the pragmatism of capitalism, its very good at exploiting loopholes.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]