Neil Harding wonders about my erstwhile membership of the Labour party given my remarks yesterday. Actually, on one count he is entirely right, what we earn and what we deserve to earn are not necessarily the same thing. My point, however, is that it is not up to government to dictate what we deserve – not least when MPs award themselves inflation busting pay awards that make pigs snuffling at the trough appear dignified critters when a direct comparison is drawn between the two. No, what people earn is entirely up to those who choose to buy their labour. Don’t like it? Well, take your labour elsewhere. If an employer wants the best people for the job, their remuneration package will reflect that. If they want to award a six figure sum to their CEO, well, it’s their money and a CEO can lose that coveted position at the drop of a Dow Jones or FTSE point, so the six figure salary and share options reflect the level of risk involved. It has bugger all to do with the state. There is no moral right by which the state may decide what we should earn and amend it accordingly. That is the behaviour of the totalitarian state.
Still, back to the point about my politics. There was a time during the Thatcher years when I was horrified by high rollers earning millions while others trotted down to the dole office. Not least because there were times when it was me doing the trotting and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. That’s why I took low paid temporary jobs and eventually managed to obtain employment in the rail industry at a salary and level that reflected my skills and intellect. History is currently repeating itself, but rather than go through the soul destroying experience of dealing with the state and its new start scheme (or whatever tacky euphemism the dole office goes by these days), I went directly into the temporary thing. It is low paid and I don’t much like it, but I am driven by the need to earn a decent salary again and the determination to get something that reflects my skill set. Do I envy those high rollers? Damn right I do. Do I begrudge them their earnings? Of course not; it gives me an aiming point. Squeezing the rich until their eyes pop out does not work. History repeatedly tells us that the socialist utopia is a pipe dream that is unsustainable. Yet still we hear socialists whining about high earners, complaining that they should be taxed more. Tax havens don’t happen by accident and more taxes will merely fuel more tax havens. Those who complain about the evils of capitalism conveniently ignore human nature as we are all capitalists at heart, but still Keynes’ mantra beats in the hearts of those who follow the socialist creed.
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
J M Keynes
Well, if that’s so, why do wealthy men become philanthropists? Maybe they are not so wicked after all.
I am a reasonable man. I am intelligent enough to recognise the point when my opinions are directly contradicted by the facts. Sometime during the nineties my opinions collided violently with the evidence presented by the world about me. I look at Britain and where it was in 1979 compared with today, following the necessary economic changes of the nineteen eighties. I also look at France as it prepares to undergo the same painful transition and am appalled at the restrictive working practices that hold back growth and with it, entrepreneurism and the employment opportunities that stem from those prepared to risk all to start business empires.
What does a reasonable man do when facts and opinions collide? I could have continued to delude myself and ignored the facts. Or, to stick with Keynes for a moment, I could have revised my opinion so that it aligned itself with the facts.
I chose the latter, what would you do?
“No, what people earn is entirely up to those who choose to buy their labour. Don’t like it? Well, take your labour elsewhere.”
I am sure you realise that people haven’t necessarily got that choice.
It is ok for those who had parents who had the know-how or riches to get their children the best education but if you weren’t so lucky it is a damn sight harder.
Whether you like it or not – it is governments that make things fairer NOT ‘the market’ (whatever that is). Markets soon distort and they are controlled by such nice people as Rupert Murdoch etc who will exploit monopolies where they can.
Yes, a few mega-rich have consciences and become philantropists but this does not come anywhere near the loss of government social spending if taxes are reduced.
The point about markets is not that they make wicked men good, but that they make their wickedness irrelavant because they have to do what other people want if they are to pursuade them to give them what they want.
Of course I am aware of that. Squeezing the rich until they take their taxes out of the country won’t solve that one.
My father was a carpenter and joiner, I went to a comprehensive. I’m an ordinary person with an ordinary background. I had no head start and no special treatment.
As I pointed out; and overwhelming evidence tells us; the mega rich will simply opt out completely if the state tries to grab an unreasonable share of their wealth. Better to have some tax from these people that is equitable than none at all.
That’s the problem with socialism; it’s greedy, learns nothing from history, and understands bugger all about human nature.
I’m not sure I’d agree totally with your position on this. My concern is the widening gap between rich and poor in this country. It’s also true that many of the wealthy can find (often legal) ways to avoid paying taxes – an option not usually available to those less well off. This is seen by many as an injustice.
The resentment felt by the poor towards the rich has been/is a fundamental part of human nature. Jealousy is inbuilt, although many of us try to curb its worst excesses.
The difference now is that wealth is far more ostentatious than before, so the squalor of riches is paraded and rubbed under the noses of the have-nots. Little wonder then that there is such anger in society.
You’re right in that a truly Socialist State is a virtual impossibility, but ‘noblesse oblige’, and I feel it is a decent and moral obligation not to flaunt one’s power or wealth. Perhaps that’s the difference between old money and new money.
The moral duty of the rich is not to make ever increasing piles of cash, but to use (some of) their influence to better things for their fellow man. I would argue that they have the resource, they should therefore apply it. Otherwise they are no better than pigs in troughs.
Chuck, I agree entirely. My position is that the state should have no place here.
Well, this particular State, maybe…
But I do also resent State interference (so often called ‘support’ or ‘assistance’ or ‘help’ by these NuLab Newspeakers). The proscribing of society and human activity of the last ten years has effectively destroyed any incentives and private initiative. If the State is to provide everything then what is there for the wealthy to do – short of adding to the cash pile, or ‘adopting’ children of various hues from around the world, or other similar and totally vacuous gestures?
I was brought up (yes, a long time ago now) to admire and respect the finer aspects of human endeavour and intellect. Now it seems that honour, courage, integrity, wit, honesty and so on are mere adjuncts to ‘Lifestyle’ – whatever that may mean. The abandonment of any moral position will reap a dreadful harvest.
Sorry to sound preachy. Must be time for my mid-morning medication. Afterwards I get to have a soothing massage to straighten out my Chakra (whatever that is). Then we all get to do the chanting, followed by thalassotherapy. Yes it’s going to be a fun-packed, busy day…
Yes, I agree.
The difference now is that wealth is far more ostentatious than before, so the squalor of riches is paraded and rubbed under the noses of the have-nots. Little wonder then that there is such anger in society.
Really? Then why this?