Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Capping private wealth would be an admission of defeat - Really?

Tom Harris writes:

Capping private wealth would be an admission of defeat | And another thing...:
"This proposal has “securing our core vote” written all over it. Except it wouldn’t, because once you’ve addressed the understandable anger at certain individuals’ exorbitant salaries, pensions and bonuses, you’re left with the principle that a Labour government is setting a ceiling on individuals’ wealth. And that’s not what governments should be doing, because once you’ve established that principle, once you’ve raised a few cheers by ostentatiously depriving some bankers of their bonuses, where do you go next? What do you do when the media get round to identifying the next figures of public hatred? Target them too? How far down the scale do you go? After all, multi-millionaires may not be able to justify their bonuses to the general public, but neither can civil servants earning six figures or MPs earning five justify their incomes to some of those living off benefits."

The working class (or even nowadays the “underclass”as the elite call them) has never really been good at class warfare. Indeed many working class people don’t really think in class terms.

But that insouciance stops once you get to the middle class, and even more the upper middle class (i.e. those with private schools, Oxbridge, daddies who “know someone who can help you”.)

It’s that middle class that wages a ceaseless class warfare to keep its own privilege.

These super high salaries were in no way deserved. They were the salaries of people who had found a way to commit moral fraud and/or engage in asset-stripping.

Tom needs to rethink this.


Bearded Socialist said...

Labour has been scared of it's own shadow for far too long. This is another example I guess. Even though it's not Mandy saying it, it has that New Labour ring to it.
I think something should be done, but then I would. I'm interested to hear more about this High Pay Commission and salary caps but haven't yet found the time

Quietzapple said...

This proposed Commission is an irrelevance.

This is not:


Am I the only interested person who missed Lord Laidlaw's admission last Feb?

"An announcement was made from Monaco about a tax exile peer who has stopped bankrolling the Tories to “spare David Cameron embarrassment.”

"Lord Laidlaw of Rothiemay has lent or donated around £5 million to the party, even though he is based in Monaco to avoid paying tax in Britain. Now the 66-year-old peer — caught taking part in an orgy with prostitutes last year — has decided to end his financial backing “until he has sorted out his tax issues.”

"The multi-millionaire tycoon has been rebuked by the watchdog Lords Appointments Commission for failing to keep his promise when he was ennobled in 2004 to register as a UK resident. Faced with an estimated tax bill of £50 million, he chose to suspend his membership of the Lords in 2007."

from http://enemiesofthepeople.wordpress.com/?s=Lord+Laidlaw)

It ain't what you got it's what you do with it, and that's what gets results . . .