Martin Sorrell : how can such high wages be awarded ?

[Maxilian]

What the fuck do you even do with 43 million pounds every year?

Become even richer and make sure your family stays rich for a couple of generations

[Deleted]

Prety sure he founded and owns most of the company. So really don't see what the problem is. Especially as most of the value is in stocks

But if someone dedicates their life to building a company from the ground up, creates 162,000 jobs, makes one of the largest advertising firms in the world, makes London one of the best hubs of the world for ad agencies he should have a capped salary of £140K (7x lowest salary)!

Yes, I'm sure many people will dedicate their lives to establishing successful businesses if you restrict their pay that much...

[Stormdash]

Become even richer and make sure your family stays rich for a couple of generations

Security and prosperity for your family that could last generations is one of the highest achievements a person can make in their mortal life. Yet to a lot of people it's... an awful crime, something that should be punished, work that should be dismantled between each generation.

[Deleted]

Become even richer and make sure your family stays rich for a couple of generations

He isn't being paid £43million.

He is being paid £1.35million and is receiving stock in his company (which he founded and is now the CEO of) worth £40m (which he isnt' allowed to sell).

[Maxilian]

Employees are a big part of the success of the company, they should have their word to say for such amazing income (does that guy need money for his wife and tens of thousands pounds when he lives in one of his flats ?).

As for a maximum salary, it could be something like 20 times the average salary of the company ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA No, that's not how it works... i mean... he's the CEO and a Founder of the company, the workers are important but still... they are working for that man, imagine just how silly it sounds to have one of your workers come to you saying that you shouldn't get so much money (i mean... is not like he's paying them less than what he should)

- - - Updated - - -

Security and prosperity for your family that could last generations is one of the highest achievements a person can make in their mortal life. Yet to a lot of people it's... an awful crime, something that should be punished, work that should be dismantled between each generation.

That's quite silly but yeah i know there are some people that think like that (mainly because they are not the one giving away the money)

Well... have in mind that normally most family riches / power are lost in the third generation (NORMALLY, there are many type of people in the world)

[Daerio]

i mean... is not like he's paying them less than what he should

Do you base this on anything other than the opinion that minimum wage workers get what they deserve?

[Maxilian]

Do you base this on anything other than the opinion that minimum wage workers get what they deserve?

What?

No, that was not what i was talking about, i mean... that the owner (by what the laws of the country state) is not paying them less than what he is obligated to, that's all i'm saying

[Daelak]

Security and prosperity for your family that could last generations is one of the highest achievements a person can make in their mortal life. Yet to a lot of people it's... an awful crime, something that should be punished, work that should be dismantled between each generation.

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.

Thomas Jefferson

[araine]

They don't do anything with it usually, nor do they receive 43 million. It's just stock in the company they work for which just sits there, most aren't even allowed to sell that stock, it's just "in their name".

It's like me saying to you "here have £10M", it's in a bank account which can only be accessed from the moon, but it's yours.

except with that money you can use it as a security to open up cash that you can use as you will. same with those stocks if you arent allowed to sell it etc you can still use it as security for actions that will free up the cash to use as you see fit. so this just in their name is not really true since you can go to the bank and borrow against it

[Maxilian]

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.

Thomas Jefferson

These, as nice as it sounds, is not really something we can "get rid of", if you want to get rid of these, get rid of the right of property.

Also... is not going to be forever, it... sooner or later, fall from one three to end up as another one

[Deleted]

Do you base this on anything other than the opinion that minimum wage workers get what they deserve?

I'd suspect there are very few people working for WPP Holdings on minimum wage or anything close to it. This isn't some industry or retail organisation with an "unskilled worker" level, it's a massive international holding company for the world's largest advertising agencies.

[Daelak]

These, as nice as it sounds, is not really something we can "get rid of", if you want to get rid of these, get rid of the right of property.

Also... is not going to be forever, it... sooner or later, fall from one three to end up as another one

He's talking about not having an inheritance tax would make the US end up identical to the aristocracy they just spilled blood for their independence from. Wealthy people not having to distribute a portion of their wealth when they die not to the state creates an aristocracy.

[Maxilian]

He's talking about not having an inheritance tax would make the US end up identical to the aristocracy they just spilled blood for their independence from. Wealthy people not having to distribute a portion of their wealth when they die not to the state creates an aristocracy.

But they do (not when they die, but when their wealth is given away to others)... so... what's the problem here?

[XDurionX]

It´s not his merit, that his company is worth that much and generating that much income. He´s standing on the shoulders of his employees.

[Stormdash]

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.

Thomas Jefferson

This is already adequately dealt with by the Rule against Perpetuities, because Jefferson's purpose was first and foremost with the alienability of real property, not personal property or wealth. If I invent the World's Most Important Widget and become a bajillionaire, I absolutely should be able to shuffle off this mortal coil knowing that my family or assigns and their descendents can reap the rewards of that work for as long as they are able to take care of it.

[Daerio]

What?

No, that was not what i was talking about, i mean... that the owner (by what the laws of the country state) is not paying them less than what he is obligated to, that's all i'm saying

You're missing the point. This "obligation" in our wonderful capitalistic society isn't what it should be, which is why we have CEO's making 1000x more than some of their employees.

Any goal of an economic system should be a "fair" distribution of wealth which fosters innovation and efficiency. If a fry cook has an amazing idea or invention, but can never capitalize on it because he has no capital and lives paycheck to paycheck, our society ultimately suffers. If MOST people suffer from poor social mobility, (as they do here in the US) innovation and progress suffers. Free market capitalism at the cost of all else is a failure, both in ideal and in practice.

Topic in question is a small part of that.

[Daelak]

But they do (not when they die, but when their wealth is given away to others)... so... what's the problem here?

Stormdash is advocating for no inheritance tax, a position that British Crown loyalists in the 18th century held.

[Deleted]

Stormdash is advocating for no inheritance tax, a position that British Crown loyalists in the 18th century held.

Inheritance tax only gets paid by upper-middle income families anyway. The genuinely rich have so many loopholes they can utilise that they pay next to nothing towards it.

[crazygamer420]

yup, it's a brilliant way of balancing salaries of a highly profitable company. if the comany is doing so well it can afford to pay the CEO Xmillion a year, it can afford to pay it's lowest staff more than £8 an hour.


tbh, it should be law.

No, just no. If I want to pay my janitor $7.25/hr to clean the bathrooms then I will, I would never pay more than minimum wage to somebody for a job that a trained monkey/robot could do.

[Stormdash]

Stormdash is advocating for no inheritance tax, a position that British Crown loyalists in the 18th century held.

And in the 18th century, inheritance taxes were not going to be inherently double taxation, either, because it predates countless forms of taxation currently in use, not least of which being the income tax. Today, inheritance tax is 100% double dipping in all contexts. Pure usury.