Yes – this is precisely the bølløcks you keep coming out with.

And in which case, you were asked what pay a "real socialist" should receive in order to be allowed to comment on unfairness etc without you getting your dander up. You have not done so.



And this is more of your usual bølløcks, showing – yet again – that you don't know the first thing about hypocrisy. You claim that, at a certain financial point (never stated) it become hypocritical to comment on societal unfairness. Yet you think that an organisation should act in direct contravention of what it has as its aims – and don't understand that that would be hypocritical.



That was not the point. Sal has claimed that, at certain levels of pay, one becomes a hypocrite if one comments on unfairness in society etc. It was pointed out to him (not by me) that this logic means that no non-slave should have campaigned against slavery, but he continues to peddle it. And he has repeatedly refused to explain what level of remuneration one should be allowed if one is still allowed to comment on these matters without upsetting him.

I suspect that, when people in general comment negatively about "high earners" (and such people are hardly limited to any one political side), they're not talking about £90k (plus pension and employer's NI contributions, which is the reality of the headline figure on Crow's 'wage'), but about people getting millions – in many cases, in situations where other employees in the same company/organisation have had their pay driven down, or where they have done nothing to earn massive bonuses (see the recent case involving the Co-operative Bank).

They must be, otherwise they would have voted for a party who didn't have these things as the bedrock of their policies or "ideology".

If you really believe matters are a simplistic as that, I'm afraid that you're showing your ignorance.

Would you also consider William Wilberforce to be a hypocrite too?

After all, surely it should only be slaves who campaigned to abolish slavery, anyone else would simply be hyprocitial to do so

How so?

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.

Interesting comment from an interview with Vince Cable today in The Observer...



Can't find much to disagree with really, for the vast majority of folk a salary of one hundred thousand a year even before tax would be very difficult to spend after the first few months of reckless abandon and the realisation that jet skis and speedboats, ferraris and paying more than £30 for a course in a restaurant is just a way to burn your money and make someone else wealthy at your expense - why would you require ten times that amount every year ?

Mr Cable putting in this CV for a job in the next Lib/Lab Government?

Why does it matter what other people earn? A banker earning millions of pounds a year does not in anyway affect your life. You do not earn less just because somebody else earns more. The recent increase in Wayne Rooney's salary to £300k per week has not meant that my salary, your salary or Vince Cable's salary have seen corresponding decreases.

People need to stop being blinded by jealously and envy. I will never understand why somebody becoming enormously rich through sheer luck of winning £104 million on the Euromillions is something to celebrate whereas somebody becoming equally wealthy through hard work, entrepreneurship and talent is lambasted. This drive to the bottom, this celebration of mediocrity needs to stop. Instead of bashing the successful, people should look up to them and seek to emulate them.

I know it's late but I'm getting my shorts on and going out with the ball to try emulate Wayne Rooney. This time tomorrow I'll be a millionaire.

One day joined up thinking May arrive in your world, but it doubt if I will be around to see it.
May I suggest you look again at your first sentence and then re-read your post..
It's a big world outside your current bubble and interactivity does take place.

"entrepreneurship and talent" - I too have no problem with people earning high salaries for this sort of thing.

So, back to the bankers (which is what Vince Cable was talking about), the entrepreneurship element of what they do, its their own money they gamble with is it, they lose their own houses when they make a balls-up do they, declare themselves bankrupt and jobless when they make bad decisions ?

We won't bother with the talent part of the equation - see above.