the politics of the envious
We are told by Brendan Barber, the head of the Trades Union Congress, that the 'Soar-away Super-rich' are becoming 'cut off from the rest' of us, and simmering resentment is caused by continuous low pay rises in the Public Sector. In plain English, what he is calling for is a massive tax burden to be placed on those who are talented or lucky enough to be earning super money, and that this tax revenue be then spread amongst all his low-paid 'Public Sector' workers, (most of whom, strangely enough, are union members) But Mr. Barber isn't being entirely truthful with either his statements, his union members or his mathematics.
The super-sized pay-packets of the few are untouchable, primarily because of arrangements made with the Treasury. The philosophy being that if these people bring their talents and entrepeneurial skills to Britain, the work and jobs which result more than balances the miniscule taxes which these people pay. As you might know, any British person is taxed not only on his U.K. earnings, but also on any income which he or she drives from sources overseas, and most people who come to live in the U.K. do likewise; that's the rules! If you don't like it, go somewhere else! But a few are given these tax breaks on the basis that if they come, we'll get the extra tax from those they employ, and if they don't come here, they'll go elsewhere! It's not very pretty, but, hey, who said everything in Britain was fair or nice?
Anyway, back to our Mr. Barber, the champion of the poorly-paid. If the Chancellor had a brainstorm, and slapped a windfall tax, and worked out a way to give all the Union members a hike in pay with the proceeds, they'd end up with about thirty-five pence each. Very shortly afterwards, our uber-rich foreign friends would pack their sleeping bags and depart for friendlier climates, and the jobs would disappear as well!
Just as a final thought, anyone know what Brendan Barber makes each year? Anyone heard of his plea to be paid less so his staff can get a little more? You'd have to be the owner of a really good pair of ears to hear that little gem!
Mike Cunningham
12 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (12)
Mike why have you focused on one aspect of the BBC report? The super rich paying their fare share is a legitimate concern, we all pay the tax man, why should they not pay 'a fair share'?
Don't you think the rest of the report is worth a mention, ie public sector pay? Theres a good article about it in the DM.
Politically correct non jobs cost tax payer £600,000 per year
the pay gap between between the rich and the rest is widening. it is not just the few foriegners tax breaks that account for that. and its not just the public sector. the private and corporate wage gap is also widening, with impressive bonuses for senior management and somewhere around inflation (if you are lucky) for the rest of us.
in the states the pay gap is at its widest since 1929.
Well I certainly don't agree with a higher tax band apply to the super rich, but I can't see anything wrong with them paying the same rate as the rest of us.
It's hard to stomach tax dodgers such as bono lecturing governemnts on the need to write of 3rd world debts, while moving their offices to the Netherlands to avoid the tax man.
Personally i find it galling that those closest to the ear of governments and politicians (big business and the super rich) dont contribute their fair share.
the cynical of this planet would see a connection there.
and mike its not envy. its resentment that we dont get rewarded for the work we do that contributes to the growth of the company. while the bosses get massive payouts whether they do a good job or not. i told my manager that it was the best of capitalism for those at the top and the worst of socialism for the bottom
I take Typhoo's point about the prevalence of politically correct non-jobs in the public sector many of who earn far more than basic grade nurses, teachers, policemen, teachers, firefighters etc,. The work undertaken by this latter group is of far more importance than that undertaken by the former. Society needs to rethink its priorities.
Daytrippr and Peter T: What a load of socialist/communist bull.
I spend my sweat equity and direct my talents and intelligence to wealth accumulation and you think it's fair to then take it and give it away to someone of the government's choosing?
Fair share? Is this fair? This is moral? It's theft.
And it doesn't work. Yes, capitalism is not a perfect system, and yes, you have to have a system that protects against monopolies but there is nothing like buckets of money to motivate and inspire.
And the beauty of capitalism is that those individuals motivated and inspired to work and think, and produce, are obliged, if they want to be paid, to direct their efforts towards something wanted by someone else.
It's win - win. The consumer wins. The producer wins.
Whereas, central managed economies - socialist, communist economies - direct the attentions towards the desires of the politician. Producing things people do not want, or need. The producer is not paid commensurately for his efforts and therefore production is inefficient
manner.
With socialism the consumer loses and the producer loses.
"I take Typhoo's point about the prevalence of politically correct non-jobs in the public sector many of who earn far more than basic grade nurses, teachers, policemen, teachers, firefighters etc,. The work undertaken by this latter group is of far more importance than that undertaken by the former. Society needs to rethink its priorities."
Pattys Repsonse : "Daytrippr and Peter T: What a load of socialist/communist bull. "
??? What's so communist about what Peter T just said. Did you even bother to read it?
I spend my sweat equity and direct my talents and intelligence to wealth accumulation and you think it's fair to then take it and give it away to someone of the government's choosing?
where did i say i was against your freedom to accumulate wealth? i just think the super rich and the corporations should pay their way in society. there was one multi-billionaire recently admitted he pays less personal tax than his PA. Im sorry but that is not right and is leading to resentment.
Fair share? Is this fair? This is moral? It's theft.
no. a fair system would have everyone contributing proportionally to their earnings.
It's win - win. The consumer wins. The producer wins.
not always. the constant need for growth leads to inferior goods. such as poisonous toys from china.
Whereas, central managed economies - socialist, communist economies - direct the attentions towards the desires of the politician. Producing things people do not want, or need. The producer is not paid commensurately for his efforts and therefore production is inefficient
manner.
im not advocating a centralised economy. never have. but you will have to go a long way to convince me that unbridaled capitalism wont eventually lead to a different type of centralised economy. private banks and corporations already have too much influence in public policy in the US and UK. you want to see the future of capitalism, look at china.
Patty,
I have never been a socialist or a communist therefore I cannot support someone who does a politically correct non job over someone whose daily toil is beneficial to society in general. Even if they were not employed in the Public Services we would still need nurses, teachers, police, firefighters etc. There are, however, many outreach workers, facilitators, interferers and so on that we could do without. Come to think of it, there are many Public Services that we could do without also.
Peter T: Yes, I'm afraid I "jumped the shark" calling you a communist. I was reacting to your comment about "society rethinking its priorities"
which sounds alot like central planning to me - I'm afraid I took you too literally.
Daytripper: "but you will have to go a long way to convince me that unbridaled capitalism wont eventually lead to a different type of centralised economy. private banks and corporations already have too much influence in public policy in the US and UK. you want to see the future of capitalism, look at china."
China is your example of a free market??? And "unbridaled capitalism" leads to a centralized economy? I have no idea how you reach this conclusion.
Read Milton Friedman "Free to Choose" or Hayek "Road to Serfdom" then we talk...
I have no idea how you reach this conclusion.
when big business and the banks have undue influence upon the state the effect is much the same.
btw friedman et al wrote the blue print for chinas economy. it wasnt the chinese.
Daytripper: re: your 12:56 - Friedman wrote the blueprint for the Chinese? You really do need to read Friedman, then. Because this statement is like saying Marcel Marceau gave good speeches. It's nonsense. Mao -- adapting Marx -- wrote their failed blueprint.
as to "big business and banks having undue influence on the state?"
Poor little "state!" Bad, bad bankers and business!! Little, bitty state not like business? Waaah! What is the "state,: anyway, in your opinion?
The "people?" That anonymous group of somethings evoked by every politician and charlatan seeking power since the French Revolution?
Your ideas are straight out of old fashion Marxist diatribe and reflect the history of old Europe and revolution against royalty and land owners of the past, and in case you didn't notice -- Marxism failed.