Another one of those little proposals that doesn’t really think things through. The argument here is that we should have a maximum wage. No, not a maximum income, a maximum wage. The thinking being that there’s only so much cash floating around inside a corporate shell and if we limit how much the top dogs can gain in wages then that means there’ll be more to ship out to the oiks doing the work.
Except, well, that’s not quite how it works, is it? For we’ve the other group of interested people, the other stakeholders, the capitalists. And if the costs of running the business are artificially limited by insisting on a salary cap then the capitalists just make more profit, don’t they?
Or, as we could more simply put it, the people at the Autonomy think tank are idiots:
Caps on excessive salaries should be introduced to save whole industries and redistribute wealth as coronavirus restrictions and changing habits cause large swathes of the economy to shut down, a progressive thinktank has urged.
In a landmark report, Autonomy highlighted the fact that incomes in the UK are the ninth most unequal of the 40 most developed countries, and called for the government to ensure existing resources were better managed to create a fairer economy amid growing poverty. The Bank of England predicts that unemployment will double to 2.5 million people by the end of this year.
A majority of the public – 54% – would support plans for a government-mandated maximum wage, a poll of more than 1,000 people by Survation suggested. Nearly 70% would support wage cap limits at either £100,000, £200,000 or £300,000.
Companies could afford to raise the incomes of 9 million low- and middle-waged workers if wages were capped for the top 1% of earners, who take home more than £160,000 a year, the report says.
The full report is no better:
Alternatively, a maximum wage of £100,000 would have the power to redistribute the cash equivalent of over 1 million jobs, showing that mass-layoffs are not necessary, if the very rich earn a little less.
Actually, it’s worse, as we can see.
People tend not to get rich through their salaries. They tend to get rich by being capitalists – or, to be more accurate, those who are rich tend to have become so by being capitalists. Capitalists being the people who gain the remnant cash left over after a company has paid all its costs, salaries of the management and the stars being one of those costs. Limit salaries, there’re lower costs and higher sums going to the capitalists.
So running dog imperialist lackeys of the plutocrat capitalists that we are we’re all in favour of this.
There is the occasional problem here. There’s no one in either the Premiership nor Championship who makes this little in wages so every footballer will be playing in Europe. England rugby won’t play someone for the national team (with them being allowed I think it’s 3 “stars” who may) who doesn’t play domestically. So, the entirety of everyone who can actually make a tackle playing in France is going to make the Six Nations a bit predictable.
Oh, and just a little hinterland here. We used to have a maximum salary for soccer players, something that Jimmy Hill fought valiantly against. Remind us all, why did he win that battle?
Further, anyone in a partnership doesn’t get restricted for they share in the profits, not receive a salary. Today’s paper says the BDO partners get £600 k a year so that’s £100 k in salary and a £500k profit share then.
Oh, and anyone self-employed isn’t covered either. Adele’s £10 million per album is safe.
So, yes, a proposal from idiots who haven’t done any thinking then. Well, except for the one of the commentators:
Luke Hildyard, director at the High Pay Centre, said the maximum salary should be £200,000
Autonomy is recommending £100k. Hildyard £200k. From which the cynical would conclude that Hildyard makes more than £100k and less than £200k.