Readers letters
Actually, Andrew Goodman, I was not advocating “levelling of the playing field”, but a reduction in inequality, not quite the same thing. And I believe the “normal human response” is to relieve suffering, if it is seen. The method we use now fails to achieve its purpose and is uneconomic. “Money”, said Francis Bacon, “is like muck, no good unless it is spread”.
That is why I would like to see the stabilising engineering principle of negative feedback brought in, a scaling down of the richest, so gross inequality no longer damages our society. My suggestion is indeed a scaling up of the welfare system: and the retail trades where the money will be spent: and the factories that supply those retailers.
We need a degree of inequality, an income gradient steep enough to provide an incentive, but not a cliff face where, unlike the richest, there is no fat cushion, no safety ropes, one slip can mean disaster.
A qualified engineer of my acquaintance has for two years been unemployed, apart from a brief spell in a start-up, now collapsed. So he was “empowered” by a Job Seekers Allowance of £53 per week. His wife, who had taken part-time work as the children were becoming off-hand was effectively limited to 15 hours per week. If she worked extra hours, that JSA would be stopped. With savings all gone, a mortgage, council tax, useless windmills to subsidise, et al.
Holding some shares in a pharmaceutical, I noted that the CEO had been paid £2million, and the board had proposed £3million for the next year. He objected saying, he wanted £8million. (a few years ago).
The journalist reporting this had questioned an ex-colleague (in another company) of said CEO. “Why does he want so much?”, he asked. “Because”, said the old colleague, “he wants to hold his head high among those he mixes with”.
Having stashed away in one year enough income so that he needs never to work again, he can take huge risks for huge profits. It’s a status symbol – see Marmot.
My proposal is akin to the Maximum Wage suggestion by the New Economics Foundation, in that investors, employees, regulators and consumers would be encouraged to take an active interest in performance, rather than worrying about carpet-baggers at the top. But it has the advantage that no new legislation is necessary. Just a few top-rate bands in the Budget, that can be tweaked each year to suit the prevailing economic winds.
Lastly, I would guess that Andrew Goodman is in the managerial and executive social class. He therefore has a lesser chance of dying prematurely than those in the other UK social classes. But because of the stresses of our excessive inequality, he has a shorter life expectancy than an unskilled labourer in high tax high benefit Sweden.
Do read “Spirit Level”, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, “The Status Syndrome”, Sir Richard Marmot. They’re in the library.
Bill Hyde, Offham, Kent
Next letter: Windmills in the storm