Market and Economics

Corbyn in La La Land: a national maximum wage cannot be determined by need

We have another trailer for the emerging ideology of Corbynomics. Jeremy Corbyn has said there should be a law to establish a maximum wage, because it is “the fairer thing to do”. He didn’t say what the figure ought to be, but he did harp on about iniquitous income disparity and the need for a more egalitarian society. “I would like there to be some kind of high earnings cap, quite honestly,” he said.

It’s good to speak honestly.

So, in all honesty, the idea has its ethical and moral attractions. A 100% tax rate on earning over a certain limit (for that is what it amounts to) would inhibit corporate greed, preventing CEOs being paid £millions in bonuses on top of their basic salary of £5million. There’s a degree of economic logic: once you have a minimum wage, why not a maximum one? If both are fixed by the state, the government then possesses another lever of control to ensure greater social justice. And when the wage ceiling is capped, it isn’t so easy to love Mammon, which is the root of all evil. If the most you can ever earn is £1million, you won’t waste your life coveting another, and then another, and then another.

But there are drawbacks.

Honestly.

Firstly, who decides the threshold, and by what criteria? Jeremy Corbyn said a wage cap would be “somewhat higher” than his salary (of c£138,000). That’s handy. He made the point that the salaries some footballers receive are “simply ridiculous”. “Why would someone need to earn more than £50m a year?” he asked.

Indeed. but why would someone need to earn more than £20m, or £10m, or £5m?

What need one?

O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.

As Shakespeare observes, the question of need is a delicate basis for assessing rights of possession: even the poorest have things they don’t need. The necessity of need is an inescapable variable: the sick need more than the healthy; the jobbing teacher in Kensington needs more than the executive headteacher in Hull. Should a cleaner in Belgravia earn more than a bank manager in Bolsover? Why does the bank manager need to earn more than his cost of living? Why should anyone be permitted surplus? Is there anything wrong in earning £50million if you’re saving, giving, doing and living?

Jeremy Corbyn obviously thinks so. Perhaps he’ll think again when he proposes an actual figure for this national maximum wage and football fans all over the country find out which of their heroes will apply for immediate international transfer. Why would someone need to earn £260,000 a week (£13.5m a year), as Wayne Rooney apparently does? What on earth does he do with it all? Is it anyone’s business but his (and Coleen’s)? Manchester United obviously believe he’s worth it, and their fans obviously think he’s worth it. So when Jeremy Corbyn intervenes to cap it at a Wycombe Wanderers level of salary, Rooney will doubtless swiftly jet off to a world elsewhere, along with all of those who believe they’re worth more than Corbyn’s wage cap. You can’t buck the market, as The Lady once said. If Real Madrid pays Cristiano Ronaldo £365,000 a week (£19m a year), why would Rooney not naturally seek parity with Ronaldo if he believes it to be his true worth and someone is prepared to pay it?

It is an undeniable lesson of economic history that super-taxes never work. They inhibit growth, disincentivise innovation, deter investment, hinder development and encourage elaborate offshore schemes of avoidance. High taxes obstruct entrepreneurs, frustrate shareholders and cause brain drains. Unemployment rises, inflation soars, and the poorest are hit hardest. Taxing at 100% is just a manifestation of the politics of envy; it is the economics of la la land. Capitalism may not be all virtuous, and the free market is by no means perfect. But if a man be not free to earn without government obstruction, why would he ever bother to do more than the minimum required? And why would he ever bother to give freely from his abundance for the benefit of society if the state has stolen the lion’s share in the name of fairness, equality and justice?

  • len

    Love the Image of Corbyn, a picture can say a 1,000 words. Made my day!.

    • David

      Corbyn exists to make us laugh, so expect more.

  • Dominic Stockford

    “why would someone need to earn more than £20m, or £10m, or £5m?”

    …or £137,000…

    • len

      Wouldn`t mind getting £37,000 per year for coming up with crackpot ideas?

      • Anton

        £137,000 per year for ruining the Labour Party? I call that good value.

        • Dominic Stockford

          But if £137k, can he not manage on £135k? Or how about £125k? Or even £50k (which we would eventually get to if I carried on removing his pay bit by bit). That he is so arrogant as to think it should be in ‘excess’ of what HE happens to currently earn is indicative that underneath it all he is the same as all those he is criticising.

  • CliveM

    Have to admit I’m attracted to the thought of all the footballers leaving the country.

    But overall it’s a silly idea, which is likely to hit tax revenue and make the public services that he believes to be underfunded even harder to support.

    • Anton

      Rather than have all the footballers leave the country, I would be content if only they played decently for it.

      • Holger

        How can you expect footballers to play decently on the pittance they earn?

        I mean, even the most well-paid among them don’t know where next week’s Bentley is coming from. Even Rooney can’t afford to pay for all the latest gadgets AND keep his WAG in Burberry and Botox. Why do you think so many of those poor women choose the Croydon facelift?

        I say double, no triple, footballers’ salaries. Let them singlehandedly support the consumer economy. It’ll let the rest of us off the hook. Shopping is such a bore now that Trumparabian Bling is back in vogue.

        • Anton

          Sure, if you want to pay!

    • Samuel

      Dude,

      What about the WAGS? How would they cope? They’d end up doing “big brother” and” I’m a celebrity , get me out of here” (or even worse” the island” with Bear Grylls ) just to earn a living…..

      • CliveM

        I’m willing for them to make the sacrifice.

  • John

    It’s always been my ambition to live in North Korea. If I just wait around long enough I might reach my goal without even leaving North Yorkshire.

    • Anton

      There are other countries i’d give shorter odds for…

  • Anton

    Provided that taxes are paid on those wages as they should be, then bring on high wages! It is tax avoidance that is the problem.

    • carl jacobs

      Tax avoidance is not a problem. A man is under no obligation to pay more than the law demands.

      • Anton

        I agree; I should have said that there are too many loopholes.

        • carl jacobs

          But it’s also a systemic issue. Gov’ts like fixed capital because fixed capital is a resource to be mined. Capital however has become mobile and mobility makes capital a commodity to be purchased. And capital will bid up the price (in terms of lower cost in the form of lower taxes to the firm) as a result. Hence, Lichtenstein. But it really is no business of the UK how Lichtenstein sets its tax rates.

          • Anton

            I agree. But we have a situation at the moment in which many of the rich pay less tax in relative terms than the middle class, and it should not be beyond the intellect of politicians in any country to deal with that if the rich hold nonmobile assets or wish to spend their time in that country.

          • carl jacobs

            The only way to achieve that outcome is to simplify the tax code. Complex tax policy is what allows clever accountants the ability to find ways to hide money from taxation. But tax policy is one of the most powerful levers that legislators possess to achieve the policy goals they desire. They won’t give it up.

          • Anton

            Agreed re simplification. What policy goals of theirs have you in mind?

          • carl jacobs

            The most obvious in the US is mortgage deductibility in order to encourage home ownership.

          • Anton

            Interesting; the way Lee Kuan Yew communist-proofed Singapore when Malay(si)a was experiencing insurgency was to encourage home ownership.

          • Old Nick

            Which distorted the English housing market until MIRAS was finally abolished.

          • Anton

            Not as much as council housing!

          • Old Nick

            At least council housing had some redeeming social value by providing people with somewhere to live.

          • Anton

            The government could simply have lifted any barriers to housebuilding preventing the private sector from meeting the demand. What we got instead was

            1. A 2-tier system which was grossly unfair to many people;
            2. Sink estates with low expectations; and
            3. Concrete high-rise dwellings which were inhuman and consequently dehumanised people.

          • Old Nick

            And what we have been getting ever since Prescott is swathes of the best farming land in southern England covered in concrete.

          • Anton

            …which is an unrelated mistake. I am talking about the postwar disaster of council housing. Today the houses should go on brownfield sites. Or should not be built at all, in order to force wealth-creators to where there is less demand in the north.

          • Old Nick

            Sorry, I agree that the despoliation of southern England is a red herring here. It is just that I am surrounded by it !

          • bluedog

            Was it really a disaster at the time, or has it become a disaster since? I’d suggest the latter. Post-war Britain had great swathes of terraces demolished by the Luftwaffe in the dockland and industrial cities. All sorts of innovative solutions, such as the ugly pre-fabs, at least provided some shelter for the demobilised troops and their families. Hard to argue with the merits of that. The sink estates have followed a catastrophic immigration programme.

          • Anton

            But the sink estates are largely white. I’m not disputing that housing was needed after WW2; I’m disputing that it was necessary for the government to get into the housing market. Given the demand, the private sector would have built dwellings without the three catastrophic consequences I specified,

          • Old Nick

            Except that Lichtenstein could not survive if England (and other more populous lands) were not providing it with valuable goods and services.

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      No, tax avoidance is your civic duty. You will spend the money better than the government will do.

      Tax evasion is a different matter.

      • Anton

        What I meant is that there are too many loopholes.

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          No, a legal method of reducing your tax liability is not a ‘loophole’. After all if people were not meant to use these methods then they should not have been put in place in the first case.

          • Anton

            To repeat what I’ve said to Carl, we have a situation at the moment in which many of the rich pay less tax in relative terms than the middle class, which I regard as unacceptable, and it should not be beyond the intellect of politicians in any country to deal with that if the rich hold nonmobile assets or wish to spend their time in that country.

      • William Lewis

        Quite right. Tax avoidance is prudence.

  • Dreadnaught

    Why would someone need to earn £260,000 a week (£13.5m a year)

    Peanuts!

    Corbyn should be asking why some would want to pay such dizzy wages. What is their motivation?
    The answer in the case of Rooney et al is because the like of a football club in Communist China is prepared to pay one player Argentinan Carlos Taves, £37.5 million a year or over £720,000 a week.
    But as we all know, to the bill payer its value for money.
    Read it and weep peasants (and Corbyn).

    http://financefootball.com/2017/01/06/top-20-highest-paid-football-players-in-china-2017/

  • David

    As a Ukip member anxious to gain votes from the Labour Party, Mr Corbyn’s suggestion delights me !
    Indeed I am totally in favour of as many career politicians in the moribund legacy parties remaining mentally trapped in the fourth form – excellent Mr Corbyn, do keep it up !
    Furthermore may I congratulate you on your dancing style. I particularly like that far away expression, presumably a Marxist – Obsessive expression ?
    First class comrade Corbyn !

    • jsampson45

      I wouldn’t cheer too soon. This idea, I suspect, is a vote winner if nothing else.

      • David

        A few ideologues might fall for it, but not many I suspect.

  • Anton

    Strictly Come Taxing…

  • PessimisticPurple

    Interesting that the thought of rich people having a brake put on them seems to animate our host.

    • carl jacobs

      Because, you know, only greed could explain someone writing such an article. Here’s a thought. If you live in the UK, you are rich – in any objective sense if the word. So why don’t we cap your living standard and export the residual national wealth to poorer countries in the third world? Why should you live better than they?

      We need a level standard of living world wide. So let’s establish … I don’t know … How about Bujumbura as the international standard? Is that a socially just marker?

    • William Lewis

      Did you read the last paragraph?

  • Samuel

    Dudes, or should one say fraternal comrades of the socialist brotherhood(? )Welcome to the democratic people’s socialist republic of Britain.

    This is socialism and as we know socialists are jealous of any one who is rich or done good in life. So they thieve what isn’t theirs, when in government, via massive taxation and distribute it to their client base i.e. poor / working-class people, albeit not directly but on what they consider poor people want , hence the poor and working-class remain in poverty. They don’t bother to actually spend time or work with poor or working class people. They just snear . Not unlike the government paying ludicrous items courtesy of the British taxpayer in international aid.

    The socialist cannot allow poor people to better themselves , because they need a permanent pool of people to be constantly downtrodden and considered victims, in order to win any votes and to make themselves feel better (as most socialists are like Corbyn, i.e. middle-class champagne socialists) .

    • David

      Correct !

    • Anton

      The guy has just today added that he doesn’t think immigration is too high… what a superb job he is doing of making Labour unelectable!

  • James Bolivar DiGriz

    I say this earlier today in another part of the forest.

    Someone linked to this

    which I neatly sums up the idiocy of Corbyn’s policy.

    Someone else said

    According to Treasury figures:

    The top:
    1% of earners contribute 12.5% of tax revenue
    10% of earners contribute 34.2% of tax revenue
    25% of earners contribute 53.7% of tax revenue

    these equate to pre-tax annual earnings of:
    £159,000
    £50,600
    £33,900
    respectively

    So Corbyn’s earnings cap actually means:

    Higher tax for everyone else
    or
    Public service cuts for everyone else
    or
    More government borrowing, more tax squandered on debt interest payments, an
    even bigger debt passed on to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, and the prospect of another IMF bailout for the UK

    However there were many, many people supporting the idea of a cap of £100,000 to £150,000, provided it only applied in the public sector (including the BBC and all charities / NGOs that take public money).

    • David

      Yes that’s right.
      But Socialism, and its Little Sister Liberalism, is not interested in facts or reasoned argument. Socialism follows unbending Marxist dogma, whilst contemporary Liberalism uses a mixture of Socialism and what “feels” good. Justice, facts, evidence and reasoned argument are strangers to both these creeds.

  • Sybaseguru

    There are related arguments he could have made that would have gained a lot of ground. One is to do with linking Directors salaries to company average pay. The people who work in a company are stakeholders – particularly if your skills are not transferable – and should be rewarded for creating a successful company. A second argument is to do with large salaries and bonuses being paid to people who destroy their organisation. Both of these proposals would gain a lot more traction.

  • And Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t need to earn £138,000 a year either, that’s far too much for what he does he can live on much less.
    Who is he to decide the criteria? There these left wing idiots go again stifling enterprise and incentive and destroying the economy.

    • Dreadnaught

      I do think that no one employed permanently in the Public Sector should be earning more than the Prime Minister’s salary, but they are. How to get around this should be possible as no one is indispensible or in this particular sector, genuinely held accountable for failure.

      • Holger

        If you limit public sector pay there will be a flight of talent to the private sector and you’ll end up with a civil service staffed by mediocre jobsworths.

        Some say it already is, but limiting pay can only make things worse.

        • Dreadnaught

          I doubt they would test the private sector where in the main its easier to be sacked for crap performance.

          • Sarky

            The public sector managers don’t get sacked, they get moved on . In the meantime us poor workers haven’t had a pay rise in nearly 6 years and most of us have had our wages cut.

          • Dreadnaught

            Move on and come back the next day as Consultants in the same job for even more pay and a bulging golden goodbye in the bank.

          • Sarky

            Yep. Sadly.

          • CliveM

            I have to say in my experience of the private sector, once you get to a certain level you become bomb proof. Even for the worst incompetence, you are rarely sacked, just encouraged to move on with a golden handshake. Whereupon the (often pretty junior) former director, phones his buddies and gets quickly re-employed elsewhere. It’s all who you know and networking.

          • I’d agree with you here.

          • Dreadnaught

            Not in my experience; but then my position did not give me access to Board level Blue Chip environs.

        • Anton

          I don’t mind what they’re paid to do the job, I mind how many of them there are and I mind their inflation-proofed pensions and earlier retirement age. If I had my way I’d force a lot of councils into bankruptcy so that the contracts containing those perks cease to be binding.

          • Holger

            I may be wrong but I believe there’s never been a public bankruptcy in the UK. Councils whose finances would, if they were private companies, lead to bankruptcy proceedings are always bailed out by central government.

            Contracts signed by the state can be renegotiated, but they can’t be torn up because the entities that signed them never cease to exist. Even if a council is amalgamated with another, legal responsibility for contracts signed by the defunct body remains with its successor.

            Public pressure might force civil servants with overly generous retirement packages to forfeit certain advantages, but there’s no automatic mechanism to make this happen. A stubborn person who doesn’t care what the public thinks could just dig his heels in and ride out the disapproval, keeping all his perks and allowances.

            Look at the example of Fred Goodwin. Public pressure to axe his enormous pension resulted in it being reduced a little, but only because he voluntarily agreed to the reduction. He still receives hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. Civil service contracts are even more ironclad.

          • Anton

            Contracts signed by the state can be renegotiated, but they can’t be torn up because the entities that signed them never cease to exist. Even if a council is amalgamated with another, legal responsibility for contracts signed by the defunct body remains with its successor.

            The entities that signed them do cease to exist if they go bankrupt. A successor is under no legal obligation to honour them. If you are going to cite examples form the private sector, there are counter-examples, such as Maxwell.

          • Holger

            Bankruptcy laws apply only to private individuals and partnerships. Insolvency laws apply only to registered companies. A council is none of these things. It cannot be declared legally bankrupt or insolvent because as an agency of the state, its debt is underwritten by the state. It can only be dissolved by government intervention. I think an act of Parliament may even be necessary, but I may be wrong about that.

            Of course a council may find itself in a state of effective cessation of payments if doesn’t have any money to pay its bills. But in such cases there is no legal mechanism for winding it up. Its debt is part of the National Debt. The government may take action against council members for misappropriation or incompetent management of public funds, but the council itself will continue to exist as a legal entity until such time as it’s abolished or amalgamated into another body. When this happens, its debt load becomes the responsibility of the new body or of the government itself.

            So if you’re hoping your local council will just quietly disappear under the weight of its accumulated debt, you’re in for a long wait. Even a national default doesn’t dissolve a council. It’s there to stay until the government chooses otherwise. In practice this means that when it runs out of money, emergency funding Is provided by the government and then repaid out of increased local taxes. If this is not politically expedient, the government may quietly write off the debt. But either way, you’ll end up footing the bill, either via council or income tax.

            That’s how local government works, whether you like it or not. No need to ask you if you do…

          • Anton

            I deplore inflation-linked public pensions and the earlier retiring age. You might perhaps know more about the law as it presently stands but I am willing to advocate whatever legal dirty tricks it takes to get them off the books.

          • Holger

            Liable we are and liable we remain for the vast debt accrued by our government on our behalf. Nobody has a magic wand that can make it disappear. Dirty accounting tricks have been tried before. That’s what led to the subprime crisis. You want to go down that path again? I doubt many will want to follow you.

          • Anton

            Fiat currency and fractional reserve banking have much to answer for and we might agree about the causes of the subprime crisis, but these are different issues.

            Paper money always collapses in an inflationary death spiral, and I want this nonsense of inflation-linked State pensions dealt with before an increasingly impossible proportion of the economy goes toward paying the pensions of retired civil servants.

          • Holger

            You want, do you?

            Well that settles things! Mrs May is just going to have to jump to it, isn’t she?

            Or perhaps not. Perhaps she’ll just carry on regardless of your disapproval of her policies. I know it’s unthinkable that what you want doesn’t determine every decision she makes, but unfortunately that’s how representative democracy works.

            If you really can’t bear the fact that what you want isn’t immediately translated into government policy, why not stand for Parliament yourself? Found a party, field candidates in a sufficient number of electorates to obtain a majority, win, form a government and then do what you want to your heart’s content.

            In the meantime, deal with not getting what you want. That’s what we all have to do, although I understand that as someone special whose word governments must obey, you don’t believe that such constraints should apply to you. For the time being however, they do. So deal with it. You’ll be a much happier man if you do.

          • Anton

            You’re quite right; dealing with these things makes one happier. What makes you think I haven’t or can’t? I’m well aware that I’m not PM; I just grieve for my country.

            You remind me of someone else…

          • Holger

            You remind me of someone else…

            Not you too…

            Oh well, whatever.

            What bothers me about comments like your earlier one is the way they totally ignore that governments don’t just happen. They’re elected.

            Whether you agree with them or not, they’re acting with the only generally recognised legitimacy that a government can act: a democratic mandate.

            Your individual “I want” pales into insignificance beside the wants of the majority. If you want your wants to dictate government policy, you need to persuade a majority of voters to share them.

          • Anton

            I’m starting here.

          • 1642again

            Depends entirely whether such arm of the State is backed by State Guarantee. Many aren’t and can go bankrupt. The reason they don’t is because:

            1. the UK government has the longest record of honouring state debt and doesn’t want to jeopardise its unique credit history and therefore ensures that it is not tarnished by the failure of State bodies not backed by guarantee.
            2. No government in normal times wants the PR disaster of watching state services liquidated by private debt owners.

            Of course in effect any Sovereign government can simply pass a law to abrogate any requirement to honour state debt or state issued guarantee. It’s been done with surprising frequency in history.

          • Holger

            Local councils are organs of the state and as such their liabilities fall within the overall liability of the state.

            Depending on how pension funds and national health services are set up, they may or may not form part of the state’s liability. My understanding is that both the UK NHS and state pension deficits are indeed state liabilities. This means they are backed by the full faith and credit of the British state and as such, benefit from comparitively low interest rates. If the government attempted to offload them onto privately backed entities, the terms of the loans would have to be renegotiated. Interest rates would soar and the cost of servicing national debt would skyrocket.

            There are only two ways to erase national debt: repay it in full, or default. If you can’t do either, you have to keep on servicing it at the rate you can afford while attempting to limit its increase by capping or reducing government spending. Realistically that’s your only choice.

          • 1642again

            I’m not in disagreement with you, but there are a number of quasi-state agencies which are not guaranteed by the government. Likewise pension funds e.g. teachers, local authority workers. etc.
            As a sovereign state the UK can theoretically do what it likes with State liabilities, pay what interest rate it likes, reschedule repayments etc. Another thing people have neglected is that over a third of the national debt is held by the Bank of England. This can be cancelled at any time. The government has already cancelled the interest it is supposed to pay on the BoE held debt.

          • Holger

            The BoE is not obliged to follow government orders unless ratified by Parliament within 28 days. This means that any attempt to interfere with the Bank’s independence would be subject to a month of intense public debate. Only a government with a rock solid majority commanding full public support would be able to push it through.

            While they were trying to do so, investors would have a month to react.

            Can you imagine the carnage? It’s the kind of total meltdown scenario that would make 2008 and 1929 look like minor blips in comparison. It’s so unlikely that a government would attempt anything so foolhardy that we can say it’s functionally impossible.

            So no, the government can’t do what it likes. It can’t order the BoE to cancel UK sovereign debt. Not without plunging the country into a crisis of unprecedented proportions. And politicians try not to do that. It severely compromises their chances of re-election.

        • It is already, let what talent they have go and learn a few lessons from the private sector. Civil servants are only paper pushers.

      • chefofsinners

        Nurses and doctors are indispensable. And they are a lot more use than the prime minister.

        • Dreadnaught

          Plenty of shirkers amongst them too in my experience.

          • chefofsinners

            Spend a Saturday night in A&E sometime.

    • Old Nick

      There are Miss Abbott’s children’s school fees to pay.

  • David

    Although no socialist when I see how the ratios of Director’s pay to worker’s pay have changed over the decades it seems to me that there are changes, now long underway, which are undesirable. But what to do about it, if anything ?

    Whilst not claiming any expertise in this field, it seems to me that the gap between the boardroom and the shop floor is increasing because of globalism. International firms recruit top management globally, and this has the effect of ratcheting up rewards, ever upwards, to and beyond that country which pays more, and there’s always one higher than you, so up we all go again ! Whereas the “workers” are recruited from a far smaller geographical pool, and therefore the market is only comparing over that limited local area, so adjustments in payment level, will be muted.
    Within international firms we have a microcosm of what is happening to nations, with the upper echelons increasingly becoming divorced, distant culturally from the nations of which they are, ostensibly, citizens. This gulf between the governed, the leaders, the top echelons, and the led, the lower tiers is, whether in government or industry, an extremely undesirable, dangerous even, development.
    Although Brexit and the Trump election were fought out on many fronts, they were for considerable parts, a reflection of this growing non-understanding, this developing yawning financial gulf between the different layers in societies’ cake. Whilst being attracted to free trade, it is increasingly clear that Globalism has many serious disadvantages. But a simplistic Socialist knee jerk reaction will probably do more harm than good.

    • All it would take is for directors to link all pay levels to company performance.

      • len

        Some bankers would be down to the local job centre.

        • 1642again

          The people who should be down the job centre are the politicians and regulators who ripped up the regulations put in place after the 1930’s to prevent more banking crashes. Bankers played to the rules as they were set. I’m not defending them and many are greedy repulsive individuals, but most are normal people trying to make a good living for their families.

          • Anton

            Fiat currency is the original sin of the financial system.

          • 1642again

            I wouldn’t disagree. They opened Pandora’s box and don’t know how to shut again.

          • Anton

            Don’t worry, it crashes every so often…

          • 1642again

            I was a merchant banker. I know, believe me.

          • Anton

            The history of the financial system was how I made sense of it. Fiat always eventually crashes as they print more and more of it.

          • 1642again

            Yep, like bankrupt Roman emperors recalling the coinage and reissuing with a lower silver content at the same face value. It ends in hyper inflation and bankruptcy.

          • Anton

            Yes, the pound once actually meant a pound weight of silver, in Anglo-Saxon times. Now a pound weight of silver costs more than 200 ‘pounds’…

          • David

            Exactly !
            And which group foisted that scam on us ?

          • Anton

            It’s an idea that occurs to all rulers, to replace the people’s choice of exchange medium (precious metals) by coins with base metals mixed in and demand that they be legal tender of equal value to undebased coins.

      • Maalaistollo

        Or abolish limited liability. The point of a limited liability company is that if the business succeeds, the shareholders/directors collect the profits. If it fails, the creditors bear the loss. It has quite reasonably been described as legalised fraud. If the sundry banksters and company directors who are, because of limited liability, seen to profit while others bear the losses resulting from their errors, were instead personally liable for the debts, business might be conducted with more circumspection.

        • 1642again

          Something which would kill off every capital intensive business and risky blue-sky investment project overnight.

        • David

          Simply not practical. That would destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.

        • William Lewis

          Being able to distribute risk is as fundamental to efficient market action as being able to distribute capital. Limited liability is not fraud. It is the responsibility of the creditors to manage their counterparty risk, or they should not be in that business.

          BTW limited liability does not apply to the “banksters” or the company directors but to the owners.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Icelandic banks appeared to be doing amazingly well before the 2008 crash. I imagine that their directors were rewarded accordingly. In Britain after the crash bankers said they needed sky high salaries to attract the people needed to sort out the mess. It was a win-win situation for the bankers.

        • David

          In Iceland they imprisoned their guilty bankers !

          • Royinsouthwest

            That would have been a popular policy here and would have encouraged more sensible behaviour. However it is a bit late now.

        • chefofsinners

          Judas was a banker. It looked like a win-win for him. For a while.

      • David

        Yup, that’s fair, as it maintains the risk/effort/ success/ reward relationship.

        • CliveM

          Hmmm. My experience of Directors is thay rarely stay for more the 3 to 4 years in post and are very good at boosting short term results. What is needed is encouragement of long term thinking and results.

          • David

            Wholeheartedly agree. But to switch to a longer term approach, we need to change how we think, and changing culture is itself, a long term project.

          • CliveM

            True, but simply incentivising results reinforces the current culture. British industry tends to be particularly obsessed with the short term.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The bottom line problem is the way that ‘poverty’ is now defined. It *used* to be a specific sum, below which you clearly didn’t have enough to live. It is now defined by looking at the pay differential between top earners and bottom earners. So bottom earners could be earning three or four times what they *need*, but still be regarded as living in poverty – I believe that is currently the case. After all, how can people on £40k pa seriously require government assistance to survive? (Tax credits).

      • Sarky

        £40k isn’t alot for a family.

      • David

        Couldn’t agree more.
        By defining “poverty” with a moving indicator they ensure that they will always be able to bang their little lefty drum – it’s a job creation scheme for the researchers and politicos.

      • Samuel

        Dude,

        Maybe affordability is a better metric. For example ,the average salary in Richmond Park is circa £58,000(1).

        In terms of house prices :

        “Last year most property sales in Richmond Upon Thames involved flats which sold for on average £504,424. Terraced properties sold for an average price of £846,923, while semi-detached properties fetched £1,077,089.”(2)

        So even on the average to buy just a flat that’s 9 times of salary.The traditional metric of house affordability was 3.5 x salary. So you can see that whilst £58,000 or even £40,000 may be a fortune in a much poorer area of the UK, in Richmond upon Thames it is peanuts.

        1)http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/11479856.High_earners_hot_footing_it_to_Richmond_Park_and_Twickenham/?ref=gprec

        2) http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-Richmond-Upon-Thames.html

        • Dominic Stockford

          So people who want to live in Richmond should get government help to do so? I think not. There is a vicious circle which affects everything, especially housing – the more people earn the more prices go up. But there is no need for those on 40k to get benefits.

          • Samuel

            No. I’m suggesting that riches and poverty are relative matters. £40,000 is a lot in Hansworth Birmingham. In Richmond , London it is nothing.

            In respect of taxpayer subsidies , which incidentally I can agree there is a valid debate to do so for some public officials, are you prepared for your church to pay council tax on the place of worship?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Were we a residence, which we are not, then we would pay it. If they change the law then we’ll pay something, or forgo the privileges due to those who pay council tax – currently we get nothing from the council anyway, they don’t even empty our bin, despite lengthy discussions on the matter. Similarly, were we a business we would be prepared to pay business rates. Some churches are effectively business in the way the rent out property and the like, but do not pay anything – I believe that if they are effectively running a small business then they should.

            We have always been prepared to exist without government subsidy in the form of the charity tax rebates on donations, as has the charity I chair – the ability to preach the Gospel of Christ is more important than money.

          • chefofsinners

            This is woefully true. Over the last 25 years mothers have gone out to work in order to afford better houses. The result is that average houses now cost 6x the average salary when they used to cost 3x the average salary. Mothers now have to work to afford a home, and children are brought up by strangers in government subsidised ‘childcare’.

          • Old Nick

            They also get divorced and force husbands to go and live in grotty flats.

          • Hi

            There’s no possibility this is also to do with supply and demand, a growing population on a smallish island , the Byzantine building laws, buy to let landlords- who snap up what there is of cheaper housing – & in London foreign property speculators , which keeps prices up then?

          • CliveM

            Yep all these things and also the rise of the singleton.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The system worked fine until recently, and the expansion of divorce along with the growth of radical feminism. Added to the open borders we now have the result is disaster for those who actually live in the UK (and that does include immigrants – I’ve walked the back streets of Hounslow and seen the garages they live in).

      • chefofsinners

        And yet, this is what Jesus meant when He said “the poor you have with you always.”

    • Royinsouthwest

      When the British government rescued most of our banks following the 2008 financial crisis they should have dealt with excessive remuneration then. As a condition of the rescue operation the government should have demanded an end to bonuses because then had encouraged excessive risk taking and should also have demanded that top salaries be slashed. It is fine to pay for top “talent” but if the talent bankers have is for losing billions then that is not a talent that the public should be paying for.

      • David

        Yes agreed, and also they have failed to separate the risk taking part of banks form the High Street bits that most of us rely upon. Why is government so ineffective – useless MPs ?

        • Anton

          If you shop around for interest rates, you are trading income against risk. What you want is a vault. And what you want to store in it is not fiat currency.

          • David

            Yes but fiat currency was imposed on us. So preservation of any wealth, outside that banking system, must rely on precious metals or maybe, arguably, property. There are few choices.

    • 1642again

      The way to deal with it is public ridicule and transparency. Also giving the voting rights not to the very highly paid managers who run them but to their beneficiaries who are private individuals.

      My last full time job was Chief Exec and Chairman of a large retail group. I was careful to maintain the 20x salary to basic employee salary multiple and didn’t take a pay rise in 4 years while we were letting people go. My upside was all on the equity exit kicker.

      Also, don’t conflate global capitalism and free enterprise. They are not the same thing just as evolution and natural selection by random mutation are not identical.

      • David

        Yes no problem with any of that.

      • Samuel

        Even better is to issue a class of shares to the workers. Thereby they have a vested interest and motivation in long-term productivity and profitability.

        • 1642again

          Not always an option to do that.

      • chefofsinners

        It’s an old question, but can anyone identify a beneficial random mutation?
        And don’t say sickle cell anaemia unless you’ve suffered from it.

        • 1642again

          The one organism that humanity has studied for longest is salmonella I believe (> 30000 generations, longer than the postulated for the evolution of Hom Sap) which has shown no significant change sufficient to turn if into another species. If anything it’s junked some of its DNA complexity. Of course that’s not conclusive but the natural selection hypothesis as an explanation for one species becoming another has huge flaws.

          • Dreadnaught

            Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos directed his thinking on mutation in the manner in which their beaks differed from island to island allowing them to exploit resouces.
            Close to home the Crossbill feeds on pine cones whose seeds are accessible only with such a mutated beak.
            But mutation at cellular or bacterial level in humans is going on all the time thenl we wonder why the antibiotics are not working anymore.

          • 1642again

            Some biologists draw a distinction between micro-evolution (change within a species reacting to changes in local conditions) and macro-evolution (changes into another species). The former is indisputable and has been observed, the latter problematic and hasn’t been. Interestingly the humming birds beaks have been observed to grow and then shrink again as conditions change.

            My view is that given the current state of knowledge natural selection by random mutation is one engine of evolution but not the only one. Plenty of atheists don’t believe in macro-evolution by random selection and even Dawkins has conceded that there’s not enough time in the time line for random mutation to explain the higher order animals we see to today, but postulated that somehow life was pre-programmed like a rigged fruit machine. Something which raises profound questions in itself.

          • Dreadnaught

            Well yes of course – all scientific knowledge is based on what is consensual agreement on the known facts at a point in time; until that is something new is discovered, tested and repeated and then added to the compendium of knowledge.
            If the Bible had instead of the creation story, ‘the evolution story’, Christianity would be claiming that God created the spark of evolution on Earth that brought us and everything to the present day. But the men who wrote or contributed their knowledge based on a mere 6000 years were not aware of a geological timescale, plate tectonics or that evolution over fixed creation was an available option. Maybe their conclusion would have been different but the origin of the ‘hand of God’ in creating the process of random evolution held to be the truth, the same as is attached to the creation myth.

          • IanCad

            Dred,

            Rather long, but this article from a non-religious standpoint may be of interest to you:

            https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/fred-reed/darwin-unhinged/

          • 1642again

            Very interesting thank you. I was aware of the work of Michael Behe as well.

    • bluedog

      What is so remarkable about Trump is his success in persuading the Deplorables that he is one of them. A quick look at the ranks of billionaires in his cabinet, including three alumni of Goldman Sachs, shows he isn’t and it’s business as usual in the US government. Any US voter who believes the swamp is going to be drained is going to be very disappointed.

      • David

        All would be political leaders have to convince the voters that he or she is one of them, and understands them. There’s bound to be an element of, let us call it, creating an “in group” feeling. If in reality there is at least some measure of empathy at work, then that’s a much as we can expect. Personally I wish Trump well. Certainly there’s nothing wholesome or honest about the Clintons.

      • chefofsinners

        It is more likely that the drain will be swamped.

        • bluedog

          Indeed, you should probably consider a career change. How about a business called White House Plumbers? On the subject of which, will history repeat itself so that we hear a speech something like this:

          ‘In all the decisions I have made in my business career, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Kuchnergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future….

          I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations. From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Kuchnergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require.

          I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Spence will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.’

          • Dominic Stockford

            And then we’ll have a sound Christian and a defender of life in the US presidency.

          • bluedog

            Fingers crossed.

  • Holger

    Whether or not Corbyn’s demand for a national minimum wage makes economic sense, it is likely to appeal to the part of the electorate that traditionally supports a redistributive socialist agenda.

    In any case, we’re living in an era of personality politics dominated not by policy but by like or dislike of politcians. It doesn’t really matter who stands against Teresa May. What matters is her popularity on the day of the election. Hollande won in France not because he was popular, but because Sarkozy was unpopular. The same is true of Trump’s victory over Clinton.

    If May’s handling of Brexit makes her sufficiently unpopular, Labour could put up a donkey against her and the donkey will win. Corbyn could be prime minister yet.

    • William Lewis

      Since the referendum people seem far more engaged with the issues than the personalities behind them. Brexit has enlivened the debate remarkably.

    • Royinsouthwest

      We have got a national minimum wage. The article is about Corbyn’s proposal for a national maximum wage. As Cranmer points out the proposal has obvious flaws. Corbyn probably thinks it will appeal to those traditional Labour voters who have abandoned the party in droves because it had already abandoned them. Perhaps he does not think they are bright enough to see the drawbacks to the plan.

      There was a period, when Labour was in power obviously, when the top rate of tax was 83%. For the very highest earners there was a15 percent super-tax to be paid on top of that, boosting the top rate to 98%. That is what inspired the Beatles song “Taxman” and led to them becoming tax exiles.

      How the Beatles Dealt With a 98% Income Tax (That’s right 98%)
      http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/03/how-the-beatles-dealt-with-a-98-income-tax-thats-right-98/

      In effect we had a maximum wage then and it harmed instead of benefiting the country. Even if Corbyn’s proposal was not damaging it would still be unjust. It is one thing for the government to decide how much civil servants and other employees should earn but why should they be able to set limits for other people?

      • Holger

        Of course, typo fixed.

    • chefofsinners

      Anyone handling Brexit is going to be popular, because 52% of the electorate want Brexit. All she has to do is deliver.

      • Holger

        The Brexit referendum result was a snapshot of public opinion at one particular moment.

        Public opinion can and does change.

        As Brexit plays out, support for it will wax and wane. As will Mrs May’s popularity depending on how the process affects the economy.

        As nobody knows what the long term effects are going to be, Mrs May finds herself in the position of the blind leading the blind. She may be lucky and blunder her way to safety. But there’s no guarantee of that.

        Today’s popular politician is tomorrow’s scapegoat. If you don’t believe me, just ask Mr Blair. If I were Mrs May, I’d be quaking in my kitten heels right about now. The way ahead is full of invisible dangers and pitfalls and she’s being urged to go faster by a group of foolhardy passengers who’ll be the first to lynch her if there’s the slightest bump in the road.

        In those circumstances all Mr Corbyn has to do is hang on and his turn will come.

  • preacher

    If Corbyn ever becomes P.M not be famous for his success, but notorious for his destruction of the U.K.
    As the cold wind blows through our Cities, chilling the ragged populace, on the way back to their grey concrete hovels, stepping over those unfortunates who once were captains of industry. the smoking fires of the shanty towns in the empty stadiums will bear mute testimony to his policies & the boats bearing U.K citizens attempting to cross to the United Republic of Europe will bravely paddle harder, clutching their wide eyed emaciated children ( All the other immigrants fled home years before ).
    A shadowy figure will be dancing in Parliament Square. What can one say ? except at least Nero had a fiddle to play as Rome burned !.
    Remember this when the next General election is due.( Not that I expect him still to be in any form of leadership then ! )

    • chefofsinners

      Yes, we should always try to step over the unfortunates. It is the compassionate and Christian thing to do.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Mrs. Clinton stepped over the Deplorables…

        • chefofsinners

          Sir George Young once described the homeless as ‘the people you step on when you’re coming out of the opera’.
          When challenged he apologised and said he had meant to say ‘people you step over when you’re coming out of the opera.’
          We owe a lasting debt to great men such as this, who have carried the torch of compassion for all humanity.

      • Martin

        CoS

        Like when a woman collapsed in front of me on the concourse at Euston.

        • Dreadnaught

          Well rail fares are always more than you expect.

  • chefofsinners

    I try not to love Mammon. But that Tabernacle Choir’s singing is amazing and they’ve got that huge pipe organ.

  • Royinsouthwest

    As Cranmer points out the proposal has obvious flaws. Corbyn probably thinks it will appeal to those traditional Labour voters who have abandoned the party in droves because it had already abandoned them. Perhaps he does not think they are bright enough to see the drawbacks to the plan.

    There was a period, when Labour was in power obviously, when the top rate of tax was 83%. For the very highest earners there was a15 percent super-tax to be paid on top of that, boosting the top rate to 98%. That is what inspired the Beatles song “Taxman” and led to them becoming tax exiles.

    How the Beatles Dealt With a 98% Income Tax (That’s right 98%)

    http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/03/how-the-beatles-dealt-with-a-98-income-tax-thats-right-98/

    In effect we had a maximum wage then and it harmed instead of benefiting the country. Even if Corbyn’s proposal was not damaging it would still be unjust. It is one thing for the government to decide how much civil servants and other employees should earn but why should they be able to set limits for other people?

    • Anton
      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Ah Sweden…the Land of Lost Sanity

        • David

          Sweden the Emerging Caliphate of the North !

    • Martin

      Roy

      At least it got the Beatles out, there’s one or two others I’d like to see depart.

  • Dreadnaught

    Kim Jong Korbyn is already rowing back on capping pay – now says bosses shouldn’t be paid more than 20 times the average workers rate.

    • David

      He’s returned to the land of possible.

      • Dreadnaught

        Let him start with the NHS fat-cats and Local Councils.

  • chefofsinners

    The only useful thing most bosses do is to get paid a lot, thus incentivising the workers with the hope of one day being the boss.

  • Redrose82

    Forget it. He will have U turned on this policy by lunch time tomorrow, if not sooner.

    • Anton

      Well predicted!

  • David

    Corbyn gives us a problem. It is just too easy to lampoon him !

  • Mike Stallard

    Mr Corbyn is in totally the wrong job. He ought to be a prof at the University of Whittlesea or perhaps Heckmondwyke. Failing that, he could work for the Guardian perhaps…

    • Anton

      He was memorably described in one media outlet when he became party leader as “looking like a 1970s geography teacher”.

      • David

        I protest !
        That’s discrimination against Geographers !
        Hmm – if it wasn’t for us, you’d all get lost !

        • Anton

          You’re outed David, but please note that I didn’t write it!

          • David

            Yup ! Outed and proud of it.
            First degree in Geography, as a science !

    • bluedog

      Corbyn is well to the left of The Grauniad.

  • not a machine

    I listend to the speech and just thought what was that all about ,I sort of expected something that had some insight into the problems they created , but that didn’t occur .I mean its like some sort of version of the TV engineers test card .left a bit right a bit …..mmmmm don’t know left a bit more , bit more no uh still not right lets have a cup of tea , tax the rich and make more civil servant control jobs. As for free movement I wondered if his speech writer had crossed malthus out many times , why cannot anyone place a figure , I mean isn’t 60% food self sufficient a good enough reason to stop chaos ,let alone food price stability.
    on other news what an interesting person Clare Hollingsworth was ,when on scene as tanks rolled , she was on phone ,person at other end said that was impossible , “so I held the phone out of the window so he could hear them” , you don’t get moments like that , although that may be a good thing.

    well I will cease my rant n rave and sign off ,I have a lot of recycling to do for a while ,but have had one of those delightful moments of “oh I get it” whilst in a book which quotes St Anslem of Canterbury “nor do I seek to understand that I may believe ,but I believe in order that I may understand”-“for he who does not believe ,does not experience, and he who does not experience , does not understand” .

  • chefofsinners

    There is already a maximum wage. I don’t know what it is, but it’s out there somewhere.

    • Old Nick

      You remind me of the early Christian author Lactantius who said that back in the Golden Age when people though fallen still worshipped the Most High God and Jupiter (a bad king of c. 1500 BC) had not invented paganism there was, as the Latin poets claimed plenty on earth. This could be attributed not to some sort of supernatural wonder but to the simple fact that the rich allowed the poor to take from their barns, because they all worshipped the Creator. It was because everything went pear-shaped after paganism arrived that God had sent his Son to get people back on the rails. Lactantius actually says (Institutes V, 5-7) that it simply did not matter that some were rich and some were poor, because the rich shared it around. Reminds me of that Jonathan Ruffer chap at Bishop Auckland.

      • chefofsinners

        This should be the golden age. We need more Christians like Jonathan, even if they are only faithful in small things.

        • Old Nick

          Ruffer is impressive, if – to judge from magazine articles – zany. I should have said, I guess, that Lactantius thought the Golden Age would return in the final millennium – he is the first person to pair Vergil’s Fourth Eclogue with the Christian hope.

      • Anton

        The early parts of Genesis do not agree that there was a Golden Age, or if there was it was confined to two individuals, one location and a short time. Also the origin of paganism is fallen angels getting humans to worship them and is almost equally old.

        • Old Nick

          Lactantius was writing in Inst. V, 5-7 specifically of the Greco-Roman world. He was aware of the story of the fallen angels, though peculiarly places it after the Flood in Inst. II). He did not equate the Golden Age (which he thought ended c. 1500 BC) with Eden (which he placed c. 5500 BC), and he was perfectly aware of the Book of Genesis, though (unlike a good many other 3rd century Christians) he was unwilling to assign dates to any event earlier than the Exodus (e.g. in Inst. IV). He was also, of course, writing before Augustine invented the doctrine of Original Sin.

          • Anton

            Are you not applying different standards of scholarship to matters such as whether the Witan tradition came from Tacitus’ Germans and the likelihood of this tale?

          • Old Nick

            I am merely reporting Lactantius’s views. I do not for a moment think that they are literally true (any more than I believe that Paradise was somewhere eastward in Eden). What interested me was that the type of generosity he imagined, which I see somewhat replicated in J. Rutter’s activities.

          • Anton

            Many thanks for the clarification; I’d misunderstood.

          • Old Nick

            Sorry I initially wrote J. Rutter – he is no less admirable but for different reasons !

  • Hi

    Don’t forget that people don’t take home all of their salaries , but pay tax and national insurance, so could end up taking home £25K on £45K of earnings in which case you’d pay 40% on some of those earnings, that’s just direct taxation ,but there’s loads of stealth taxes , e.g. anyone noticed insurance premium tax has gone up?

    A better solution would be to raise the income tax thresholds but abolish tax credits: they are a massive subsidy by the government towards big business who can as a result keep their own wage bills low i.e. corporatism . I’d also abolish the two top rates of taxation and have a flat 20%

    • Dominic Stockford

      Umm, I think your figures are rather negative – someone on 45k takes home a lot more than 25k (£33,567, to be precise) – if they don’t then there’s something seriously wrong with their tax code.

      However, your other point regarding ‘hidden tax’ is accurate.

      We earn money on which we are taxed (at a lower rate than for many years), but…
      We buy some food from a shop, which HAS got tax issues – although there is no VAT on food there is tax on the fuel to get it/us to the shop, tax on the production machines, tax on existence of the shop (business ‘rates’), and on and on and on, almost ad infinitum.

      The death tax is the most iniquitous. We earn money, and save it during our lives, paying tax and NI on it as we go. Then we have the temerity to die and if we have been fortunate enough to save above a certain sum (or live in in area where property prices have jumped) our inheritors are then taxed once again on the money that has already been taxed (If we don’t die but become dependent on care we spend out vast sums on it, every bit of which is taxed once again).

      • Hi

        Yes I can see that. I included student loan repayments, in effect a university tax, and a generous 15% personal pension contribution . I appreciate that student loans aren’t on the radar of more mature bloggers here or even politicians (who got theirs free with grants).

      • Royinsouthwest

        People are now encouraged to save for their old age even though those who retired in recent years were led to believe by the politicians that the welfare state would provide care “from the cradle to the grave.” It is a bit late to start saving for such care when you are nearing the end of your careeer or have already retired.

        Furthermore few people, except possibly those unfortunate enough to be suffering from a terminal disease, can predict how long they will live and therefore do not know how much money they will need. If, instead of using their money while they are still fit enough to enjoy doing things they dreamt of in retirement they instead live frugally then either they end up paying most if not all the cost of their own care or, if they are lucky enough not to need care, their loved ones get hit with a hefty tax bill after their death.

      • preacher

        The two certainties in life Eh D.S ? Death & Taxes !.

      • chefofsinners

        And even with all that tax, there’s still an incomprehensible deficit. Because:
        1. the government spends too much on welfare; foreign aid; ensuring the human rights of terrorists, criminals, minorities and illegal immigrants; and generally pussyfooting around every special interest group it can imagine.
        2. baby boomers are retiring at 55 on final salary pension schemes and are going to live past 100.
        Those in work are propping up an ever larger burden.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Yes. Football crowds shout ‘whoate all the pies?’, voters should be shouting ‘where has all the money gone?’ (it is OUR money after all…)

  • IanCad

    I’m not surprised at Corbyn’s idiocy. We do after all, live under a system whereby our leaders reflect the character of the electorate. I must say most of our land is peopled by those who seem to completely lack even a lick of common sense.
    Almost wholly ignorant of history, entirely engrossed in the vilest imaginings of the entertainment industry. Unable to perform the simplest calculations in their heads, utterly devoid of independent thought, addicted to sports; minds narrowed by too much travel. Fearful, vicarious, malleable, and generally thoroughly despicable.
    We deserve the leaders we get.
    Just had a fight with wife. Feeling much better now.

    • Maalaistollo

      Hope that wasn’t her CV you just gave us!

  • TropicalAnglican

    Before popping over here and noticing (rather to my surprise) the blogpost on Jeremy Corbyn above, I had been viewing The Telegraph’s headlines, one of which was written in the manner of a Trump tweet:
    “Dopey Jeremy Corbyn thinks he can win like Donald J. Trump. So sad!”
    And, whilst Americans voted for someone who had frequently stated he would be tough on illegal immigration, Jeremy Corbyn is offering his countrymen a way loftier vision: “Make Billionaires Illegal”.

  • chefofsinners

    So, Jeremy, if companies don’t pay their chief executives 10 million a year – say it’s one million – where will that saved money go? Into the pockets of workers? No. Into the company profits and thence to some people who are already very rich. Hmm.

    • CliveM

      Actually it’ll go into transferring the head office and senior Directors abroad where they will give two fingers of scorn to the taxman.

      As is usual, it won’t be the mega rich who are impacted as they tend to have limited national loyalty anyway and certainly won’t object to being forced into spending more of their time in Monaco.

      • 1642again

        Quite correct. The naivety of some people is quite astonishing.

  • weirdvisions

    I’d like to see a cap on the salaries of political morons who think they have the right to demand who earns what.