Probably the 'trickling back down' bit?

The issue is the sheer illusion of the trickle down bit. Maybe 'hoover up economics' would be more accurate.

How should the model work? Share all the profits and benefits out evenly and as such remove opportunity or the will to aspire.

Sounds like a plan.
Everyone working together for the good of all.

Mind you Communism never quite worked that way, there were always those in charge, who were slightly more equal that the rest.

May appears to be taking the silver vote for granted and hoping that they wouldn't dare vote Labour and at the same time, making a direct play for UKIP and Labour votes.

Nobody has got any principles anymore.

Corbyn is a noble person with his approach but what exactly are the principals you refer to.

Corbyn comes from an exclusive/luxury upbringing and sits currently in the top 5% earners, that he seems to despise. Not easy to swallow

More sensationalist drivel.

"Corbyn wants to increase tax for high earners, that must mean he DESPISES them".

well done theresa may taking on the rich pensioners who dont need the winter allowance , no other party would dare do this as they want their votes

its all say so at the moment though, believe it when i see it.

It doesn't necessarily have to go that far. I'm not suggesting wealth re-distribution on a massive scale, but the value of workers could be appreciated a bit more among plenty of businesses. Does this country need a strong workforce or are we happy to just carry on with low skilled, low paid labourers and immigrant workers filling in where necessary?

From personal experience I've worked in companies where they will do their utmost to ensure its workers are continually trained and educated to perform their job to the best of their ability. You usually find a successful company, a happy workforce and a very low turnover of staff, everyone's a winner. On the other hand I've worked in companies where the employees are a means to an end, a commodity, and the attitude at the top is 'when he/she leaves we'll just get someone else in to do it cheaper, and if they leave we'll get someone else, and if they leave...'. You usually find a business doing well in terms of profit for the owner but hideously bad in terms of it's workforce. I worked at one design agency where there was a turnover of over 60 staff in 18 months from the bottom to upper management level. Even the receptionist and the van drivers had enough and left for god's sake! But it was all alright because the owner had 4 flash cars and went on holiday 5 times a year. Ok, he'd created the business in the first place but he'd never actually designed a thing in his life. He just used 20 grand to set a few designers on and went from there.

You keep banging on about opportunity and aspiration. Where's the opportunity and aspiration in working for a company who is taking all and giving back nothing?

I don't think anyone on here or any politician from the main parties has suggested such a thing, so why make such a hysterical statement? Are you not able to argue your case? Do people with aspirations only do it for money? Damn selfish teachers, doctors, policemen, nurses, armed forces, lecturers, administrators, social workers, care workers, civil servants....

Unfortunately that's all we get from EDS, hysterical, sensationalist remarks with very little insight or reasoning.

You've completely overlooked the fact he gave people jobs, ones which each and every employee accepted on the T&C agreed. OK not a great place to work. As long as he was Legally compliant what more exactly are you after? After gaining experience there is nothing stopping you moving up the ladder elsewhere. The days of staying at the village pit for 50 years are long gone.

It really irritates me when I hear people moaning about the manager or the business. Get to work, get your job done and get paid. If you manage to get into a company that provides private medical insurance, fresh fruit, share incentives etc then lucky for you.

Why are you bothered that he has 4 flashy cars? Just what has it to do with you. If the company had gone under and he lost his house, would you have bailed him out.... of course not. He took the gamble, he took the risk and he won. So what if he wasn't a graphic designer, I doubt the head of South west trains has been a train conductor.

Never has opportunity been greater than it is today, never.

I don't think you understand the concept of opportunity.