Follow by Email

There was an error in this gadget
There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Capping high pay

The facts are stark: an employee working a 40 hour week, earning the minimum wage would have to work for around 226 years to receive the same remuneration as a FTSE 100 CEO does in just one year.

Bloke in the office thinks Labour will either introduce a maximum wage or a quango or body to look into it, or the publication of wages.
Haven't yet had time to look into this at length, but the lefty in me likes the idea.

10 comments:

David Duff said...

And at a stroke (to coin a phrase) all the high achievers will dpeart these shores.

Bearded Socialist said...

I'm aware of the Capital Flight arguement.
The question for me is whether the aim is to create a more equal society or to raise money. If the former then it matters not. However, being as UK PLC needs a few quid in the coffers the altogether more difficult thing is the level at which to pitch tax rates in order to make the most money from all involved.
The validity of the capital flight arguement is still up for some debate.
Even as a socialist, a cap doesn't quite sit right with me. I would prefer higher marginal income tax rates, so we are in for interesting times

Anonymous said...

"The question for me is whether the aim is to create a more equal society or to raise money"

The real question is, Do I make a profit by producing goods and services that others want, or by producing goods and services that the government wants?

I want the former, because that's a society. The latter is serfdom.

Concerning income inequality, look: If "A" builds a car that runs on a 10 year battery, and "B" builds a car that runs on coal, then why shouldn't "A" make more money?

Bearded Socialist said...

yeah, thanks Anonymous.
Try leaving a name, unless being challenged is too much to take

Anonymous said...

Is your first name "Bearded" and your last name "Socialist"?

I don't have a google account, and I don't know what the other options mean.

Bearded Socialist said...

I just mean it would be nice to have some reference to come back if disagreeing, which it sounds like I will. You could put J Smith, at least that's some form of reference rather than being anonymous.


I think I raise a legitimate question about the priorities of a (perhaps lefty) government. To then talk about one being 'society' and the other 'serfdom' I think is a bit silly, or at least an over simplification. I don't think everyone should earn the same, but i'm more worried about things like a FTSE CEO earning 225 times the minimum wage. I don't think that's a very efficient society

David Duff said...

You brush against the delicious paradox that most socialists, bearded or clean-shaven, try to avoid. It is implied in the fiscal fact that if you lower marginal rates to high earners you actually collect more money.

So the question becomes, do I tax higher to ensure that nobody earns too much and leave the impoverished to suffer because I don't have enough money in the exchequer; or do I cut marginal tax rates and let the rich get richer but I collect more cash to waste on, ooops, sorry, alleviate the plight of the poor?

Bearded Socialist said...

Rather than brushing against it, i'd prefer to tackle it head on.
I'm not convinced by the arguement, but I certainly accept that if i'm going to refute it i need much more than a gut feeling.
It's a basic New Labour arguement is that, and one brought into sharp relief by the need to raise cash to plug the big hole in the national finances.

Given your very polemic last remark Mr Duff, would you leave the poor to fend for themselves, interfere in some way but do it better, or what?
Just interested

David Duff said...

Nothing polemical about my last remark, almost all government expenditure on anything entails a huge amount of waste and high costs. The poor are merely the unlucky recipients of state-controlled 'charity'.

Bearded Socialist said...

I'd argue that it's better something than nothing.
I'm yet to be convinced by the 'public bad private good' arguement. I mean, i know of HUGE inefficiencies in the private sector, people getting paid for doing nothing because they are mates with their boss or something simular.
There may be some inefficiences in the public sector, but nothing's perfect

"collect more cash to waste on, ooops, sorry, alleviate the plight of the poor?"
Sounds pretty polemical to me. It's a worthwhile waste, if possible