Sports Direct - Mike Ashley

[Guest]

Only 1% of taxpayers earn over £150K. I can't find a figure for £200K or £250K but obviously significantly less.

 

So Rob and the others who are earning this and would rather retire than pay a high tax on it really are very selfish people.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

I'm a little confused, has someone actually dug up Joseph Stalin and let him loose on Foxes talk?

 

Try to understand the facts or return to your tennis thread young man.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

 

Try to understand the facts or return to your tennis thread young man.

No point in returning to my Tennis thread FIF, no one's representing the UK anymore as it turns out the UK Government make 1.6M if a player wins Wimbledon and they only take home 400k. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

No point in returning to my Tennis thread FIF, no one's representing the UK anymore as it turns out the UK Government make 1.6M if a player wins Wimbledon and they only take home 400k. 

 

Btw it was US President Dwight Eisenhower who had a 90+% rate of tax - not Stalin.

[Manwell Pablo]

9 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Btw it was US President Dwight Eisenhower who had a 90+% rate of tax - not Stalin.

 

Eisenhower was a basic salary tax after deductions, on a considerable amount of money next to no one would earn. Where as yours is completely different, plenty of people earn over 200k and you seem to be indicating other taxes such as corporate and capital gains would also fall victim to the 90% bracket, forgive me if I am wrong. If so, I'd say it's much more in keeping with Communist ideologies than anything else you could compare it to. 

 

Oh dear, seems I do know a bit about it. 

[TiffToff88]

As a former employee of his (I worked at the Thurmaston Branch of Sports World 10 years ago) i can confirm that (back then at least) the treatment of the staff was atrocious. But to be fair, i cant attribute that directly to Mike Ashley though, our manager at the time was a total dick.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Eisenhower was a basic salary tax after deductions, on a considerable amount of money next to no one would earn. Where as yours is completely different, plenty of people earn over 200k and you seem to be indicating other taxes such as corporate and capital gains would also fall victim to the 90% bracket, forgive me if I am wrong. 

 

Oh dear, seems I do know a bit about it. 

Less than 1% earn over 200k - that's not plenty. And if there isn't enough it's pretty pointless anyway. Maybe I should lower the amount when I'm PM. Of course the rich will only find ways to avoid paying it anyway so it's just an ideology and not practical. I haven't even brought up my thoughts on corporate or capital gains tax, nor my ideas regarding inheritance tax for the third generation . Bernie Sanders is a 90% supporter in the US, if they can consider it we can. As it is only good economies have a decent high tax rate - like the scandinavians, and benelux countries.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

As a former employee of his (I worked at the Thurmaston Branch of Sports World 10 years ago) i can confirm that (back then at least) the treatment of the staff was atrocious. But to be fair, i cant attribute that directly to Mike Ashley though, our manager at the time was a total dick.

Ah yes. Back to the real topic here. Sorry for the sidebar.

 

Perhaps we can begin a new title of "Rogue Employers" to go with the sky favourite of "Rogue Landlords". He's defintely one of them.

 

Seems Sir BHS can be put in that list too - capitalism finds a way.

[Manwell Pablo]

2 minutes ago, FIF said:

Less than 1% earn over 200k - that's not plenty. And if there isn't enough it's pretty pointless anyway. Maybe I should lower the amount when I'm PM. Of course the rich will only find ways to avoid paying it anyway so it's just an ideology and not practical. I haven't even brought up my thoughts on corporate or capital gains tax, nor my ideas regarding inheritance tax for the third generation . Bernie Sanders is a 90% supporter in the US, if they can consider it we can. As it is only good economies have a decent high tax rate - like the scandinavians, and benelux countries.

Hey, I'm all for taxing the rich.

 

I just think 90% to put it in layman's terms, it utterly taking the piss.

 

Scandinavians are at about 60% top bracket, that is a little more reasonable. 

[ScouseFox]

sports direct dont even sell good gear 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Hey, I'm all for taxing the rich.

 

I just think 90% to put it in layman's terms, it utterly taking the piss.

 

Scandinavians are at about 60% top bracket, that is a little more reasonable. 

the percentage simply depends on the amount we're talking about. I'll go with 60 or 75 at a lower earnings figure but would still love a 90% somewhere.

 

Anyway Theresa is all for putting it to the fat cats and helping the working man apparently so she'll probably be contacting me for ideas within the week.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, ScouseFox said:

sports direct dont even sell good gear 

It aint meant to be good mate, it's supposed to keep the inhabitants of places like Rochdale and Mansfield in affordable clothing. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ScouseFox said:

sports direct dont even sell good gear 

 

They sell reasonable value for money.

 

It may be shit but it's cheap.

[Bellend Sebastian]

For those that don't know what this is all about, being as I don't think anyone's actually put it in the thread yet:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36465404

 

The allegation was that Sports Direct employees were effectively being paid less than minimum wage, being subject to compulsory security checks before being allowed to leave, AFTER they'd finished the shifts that they were being paid for.  In addition, it was suggested that the harshness of the disciplinary system at Sports Direct was a Health and Safety issue as people were turning up to work despite being in no fit state to, which led to incidents such as the infamous giving birth in the toilet, or the 75 ambulance call outs at one warehouse in 2 years.

 

Ashley unsurprisingly put quite a lot of effort into not appearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee which didn't really help his cause.  I'm sure he's far from the only entrepreneur indulging in very sharp employment practice, but you don't get called on to be asked questions at one of those unless it's believed there's a strong case to answer over something a bit dodgy, just ask Philip Green (who for some reason is ignoring my invitations to come out and play on bikes today, for some reason).

 

What's the answer?  A tax on additional chins, possibly

 

[Jon the Hat]

In general to earn over £200k in salary you would need to be either taking responsibility for something pretty big; a large company, huge fund of people's pensions etc. which would take a lot more time, energy, and often away from home travel, so in my experience I don't think it is unreasonable to pay that sort of money, and to expect to take it home not leave more than half of it to the tax man.  You don't strictly need any more than that to live a very nice life of course, but then where is the motivation to move from say second level management up to being the top boss who takes the fall if it goes wrong if you don't earn any more?  Do we have to then pay double the salary so you actually get the additional 10%?  Practically it makes no sense.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

In general to earn over £200k in salary you would need to be either taking responsibility for something pretty big; a large company, huge fund of people's pensions etc. which would take a lot more time, energy, and often away from home travel, so in my experience I don't think it is unreasonable to pay that sort of money, and to expect to take it home not leave more than half of it to the tax man.  You don't strictly need any more than that to live a very nice life of course, but then where is the motivation to move from say second level management up to being the top boss who takes the fall if it goes wrong if you don't earn any more?  Do we have to then pay double the salary so you actually get the additional 10%?  Practically it makes no sense.

 

You made the point yourself.

 

After that people take the jobs not because they need the money. It's for many other motivations like wanting more control and power and influence and having people look at them in a different way and to mix with a different group of people. Of course it may be for motivations like wanting their company to do well or to create more jobs for the people or better jobs for their employees.

 

It isn't necessarily good for their family life or their family's family life or their health but they do it for other motivations, the biggest of which is not financial.

 

Of course a double salary would be fine as more is then collected in tax to be re-distributed by the government where they think money would best help the population - who knows maybe a new hospital every week 

[Manwell Pablo]

There's a difference between needing and wanting when it comes to money.

 

No matter how much you've got there are always better houses, nicer cars, more exotic holidays, earlier retirement. For nearly anyone at any end of the salary scale money is always, always a factor, just look at footballers for your prime example (another point FIF, your tax idea would pretty much end the EPL)

 

As I say I am all for increased levels of tax for the rich but unfortunately we do need people to have the motivation to be exceptional in certain fields and a 90% tax bracket would be totally detrimental to that. 

[Rob1742]

4 hours ago, FIF said:

Then someone will take your place - that's capitalism. Greedy sod! 

 

what is the problem with being taxed high on amounts above 200K a year?

Your completely wrong. You would starve the nation of the wealth and job creators as they would either move abroad or quit.

 

Also, look at the percentage of the total tax income comes from the top 1% of earners. If it wasn't for them then we would be in a catastrophic mess. Maybe it's worth looking at what they contribute in a less cynical view, rather than want to bleed more out of them.

 

Your view is completely and utterly flawed, unworkable and would put the country well and truly on its backside. 

[m4DD0gg]

Its like down town Krakow in most sports directs.

 

Eastern europeans sure love their everlast.

[Guest]

.

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

There's a difference between needing and wanting when it comes to money.

 

No matter how much you've got there are always better houses, nicer cars, more exotic holidays, earlier retirement. For nearly anyone at any end of the salary scale money is always, always a factor, just look at footballers for your prime example (another point FIF, your tax idea would pretty much end the EPL)

 

As I say I am all for increased levels of tax for the rich but unfortunately we do need people to have the motivation to be exceptional in certain fields and a 90% tax bracket would be totally detrimental to that. 

I understand your point of view.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rob1742 said:

Your completely wrong. You would starve the nation of the wealth and job creators as they would either move abroad or quit.

 

Also, look at the percentage of the total tax income comes from the top 1% of earners. If it wasn't for them then we would be in a catastrophic mess. Maybe it's worth looking at what they contribute in a less cynical view, rather than want to bleed more out of them.

 

Your view is completely and utterly flawed, unworkable and would put the country well and truly on its backside. 

Before I answer this are you the Rob who spells Merchandise " Merchendise"?

 

If you are do you expect me to believe that you own a multi-million pound company and spend your time unable to spell on here?

 

 

[SystonFox]

Is this a thread about sports direct or......?

 

got mesen two base layer shorts this weekend. Bargain.

 

the staff in their are utter plebs though no wonder morale is bad. 

[Carl the Llama]

Best place to get a cheap pair of insoles.  Like Syston says though, staff are complete twunts at all times; I spend more time standing at the checkout waiting for one of the members of staff who has walked past at least 5 times each to finally drift over and ring me up than I do agonising over which pair of cheap gel strips to stick in my work shoes.

[Rob1742]

21 hours ago, FIF said:

Before I answer this are you the Rob who spells Merchandise " Merchendise"?

 

If you are do you expect me to believe that you own a multi-million pound company and spend your time unable to spell on here?

 

 

Fantastic, so you try and put me down because my spelling isn't great. Brilliant. I love it when people think you have to be a good speller to do well in business or earn good money