Is anyone here getting any help from NAS ?

The Imp of the Perverse said:

The Imp of the Perverse

All of what you say is fine zone tripper but £140,000 compensation IS an issue at this time. What the last few years has shown is that there is no direct correlation between business acumen and competence. The NAS chief executive isn't getting all that money because of who he is but what the NAS charity is offering. The proof will be in the result...not at the end of his tenure but when his actions are no longer effective in any way. 

The NAS CEO does not have to accept that money. He could make a gesture and our country could begin, in the smallest of ways, to get to grips with over-extended salaries. The old argument used to be that 'luxury' amounts of wealth don't matter because these people will use that money to employ lots of people. You might call that Downton Abbey economics. I, personally, disagree with that idea. All it does is produce a servant class. Plus accountants. Plus lawyers. Plus interior decorators. And so on. Nothing happens in isolation.

I was recently reading that in Denmark, being a lawyer is not that well-paid and that huge discrepancies in wealth are nowhere near what we have. So if you are OK with a top tier of people commanding resources that no ordinary person could possibily have use for then that is your choice. It is precisely this that I think has gone wrong with this county. And it's getting worse.

[This debate reminds me of my student days, in my late teens, when I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party for a (thankfully) short time.  I am now 36 and have matured since then!]

Denmark is a much smaller country and not comparable with the UK economically.    

Secondly, some people who live in poorer countries have emigrated to the UK, precisely because they can earn higher wages in the UK for doing a skilled profession; not everyone who is poorly paid or low-waged wishes to remain so!  

When you are born into poverty, you can either bemoan those who have more than you (despite the fact that many of them have worked hard at University and in the workplace, in order to earn the money they earn) and spend your entire life quoting Karl Marx, or you can get as good an education as possible, work hard, and maybe one day earn a very good living yourself.  

Some self-made millioniares, like Lord Alan Michael Sugar were born into working class families, living in council houses, but worked their fingers to the bone for many years to earn their wealth.  Not everyone who is rich came from a rich background; a lot of people who are rich came from poor families.  

I believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes into the Government coffers.  However, £130,000 per year is a small drop in the ocean compared to what a premiership footballer can earn PER WEEK, or what a banker may earn in bonuses, etc.  Indeed, when you deduct PAYE, NI and pension contributions, household bills, travel to and from work / commuting, etc, I reckon the Chief Executive's disposable income is not £130,000!  

I am earning £19,000 per year before PAYE, NI and pension contributions.  However, I can assure you I would LOVE to be earning £130,000 per year.  Some of us born into poverty or working class families do not want to spend the rest of our lives poor and are determined to work hard to better ourselves and earn a decent living. 

Membership to the NAS is entirely voluntary; members who disagree with what the Chief Executive is can simply not renew their membership or join the board of trustees.  

The Imp of the Perverse said:

The Imp of the Perverse

All of what you say is fine zone tripper but £140,000 compensation IS an issue at this time. What the last few years has shown is that there is no direct correlation between business acumen and competence. The NAS chief executive isn't getting all that money because of who he is but what the NAS charity is offering. The proof will be in the result...not at the end of his tenure but when his actions are no longer effective in any way. 

The NAS CEO does not have to accept that money. He could make a gesture and our country could begin, in the smallest of ways, to get to grips with over-extended salaries. The old argument used to be that 'luxury' amounts of wealth don't matter because these people will use that money to employ lots of people. You might call that Downton Abbey economics. I, personally, disagree with that idea. All it does is produce a servant class. Plus accountants. Plus lawyers. Plus interior decorators. And so on. Nothing happens in isolation.

I was recently reading that in Denmark, being a lawyer is not that well-paid and that huge discrepancies in wealth are nowhere near what we have. So if you are OK with a top tier of people commanding resources that no ordinary person could possibily have use for then that is your choice. It is precisely this that I think has gone wrong with this county. And it's getting worse.

[This debate reminds me of my student days, in my late teens, when I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party for a (thankfully) short time.  I am now 36 and have matured since then!]

Denmark is a much smaller country and not comparable with the UK economically.    

Secondly, some people who live in poorer countries have emigrated to the UK, precisely because they can earn higher wages in the UK for doing a skilled profession; not everyone who is poorly paid or low-waged wishes to remain so!  

When you are born into poverty, you can either bemoan those who have more than you (despite the fact that many of them have worked hard at University and in the workplace, in order to earn the money they earn) and spend your entire life quoting Karl Marx, or you can get as good an education as possible, work hard, and maybe one day earn a very good living yourself.  

Some self-made millioniares, like Lord Alan Michael Sugar were born into working class families, living in council houses, but worked their fingers to the bone for many years to earn their wealth.  Not everyone who is rich came from a rich background; a lot of people who are rich came from poor families.  

I believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes into the Government coffers.  However, £130,000 per year is a small drop in the ocean compared to what a premiership footballer can earn PER WEEK, or what a banker may earn in bonuses, etc.  Indeed, when you deduct PAYE, NI and pension contributions, household bills, travel to and from work / commuting, etc, I reckon the Chief Executive's disposable income is not £130,000!  

I am earning £19,000 per year before PAYE, NI and pension contributions.  However, I can assure you I would LOVE to be earning £130,000 per year.  Some of us born into poverty or working class families do not want to spend the rest of our lives poor and are determined to work hard to better ourselves and earn a decent living. 

Membership to the NAS is entirely voluntary; members who disagree with what the Chief Executive is can simply not renew their membership or join the board of trustees.