Quote: Sal Paradise "More Minty diatribe!!
It is hypocritical to spout equality, fairness and wealth spread from a lofty position - the fact you cannot see that says much about your own thought processes and possibly your own cosy position? In a socialist system the level of remuneration should be in context to all those have an input into generating that wealth. You cannot put a figure on it because no two circumstances are identical - I know that urinates on your bonfire but that's life.
Take Richard Rogers - in his practice there is multiple between the lowest earner and the highest of ten times so if the top man wants to pay himself more he has to raise the salaries of the lowest earner. That seems like a sensible socialist compromise? The fact that he introduced after he had made his millions is a point to note.'"
So, another little rant to cover up the fact that you cannot answer the question but still keep spouting the same drivel.
Then you come up with an example of a pay system that you apparently approve of _ although I'm not aware that it's a 'socialist' one. But perhaps you can now show that in Bob Crow's case, his salary was
more than 10 times the salary of anyone else who was/is an employee of the RMT.
Allowing for the figure of £143,000 (which is false, since that includes the NI paid by his employer, the RMT), but sticking with it anyway, that means that you'll be able to find those RMT employees who earn less than £14,300 a year.
I await your data.
In my case, I am freelance and am doing quite decently, thank you for asking, but were I to be employing anyone, then using the equation you cite, I'd have to ensure none of them were on less than about £3,500 a year.
So can we now put to bed this farcical nonsense about people 'being too well off to dare empathise with those doing worse', for which you can only now even produce a vague idea of what that means, but without anything to suggest that those that you whinge about with this drivel do not abide by.
