Nothing over a million dollars

Those who are paid more for moving money around are unaware of the widespread effect of their examples. They help to rot the fabric of soceity, from those who have the potential power to enrich themselves, such as politicians, to the working-class gamblers who lose their pay for the sake of a million-dollar hope. Even in Australian universities, which are struggling financially, because a professorship means a higher income, there are far too many professors.

Most people are blinded by acceptance of the status quo. They look at those who criticise high incomes, and cry politics of envy. Some cry “good on those at the top, if they can take what they can”. But once we position ourselves in the future and look back to today, we will be amazed at what at present is accepted. Where is Jonathan Swift? The answer is that our business pages are written by Gulliver himself.

The argument for paying directors more than a million dollars a year and a hundred times more than their workers is that they deserve it for the good job they do, that very few others are equipped to do.

This argument has been demolished in the fall of their reputation.

The argument that people at the top of a business dealing in billions of dollars deserve more than a million dollars in pay is a fallacy. They work no harder, achieve no more than thousands of other men and women do. Rulers of nations are paid less - unless they run a kleptocracy.

Banks and utilities have a nature and function to serve the people which are qualitatively different from all other companies. That function should be first in their priorities, by law, with profits for shareholders and directors secondary and modified accordingly. William D Cohan, the American commentator of “On Wall street and main street” remarks on “all reward, no risk”.

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why Wall Street bankers, traders and executives get paid so much money year after year for doing jobs that rarely require them to innovate, enlighten or put their own capital at risk, and have the nasty habit of periodically sinking our economy.

Since the big banks have the function of borrowing abroad in order to lend at home, there may even be a way for domestic businesses to borrow straight from abroad and bypass banks.

The argument that those at the top of firms must be paid special incentives to give their best and keep them from flitting implies that they are venal, without any nobler motives such as the satisfaction of building up a good business, the service of the public, the use of one’s talents, the respect of others, the enjoyment of good work company, and the welfare of employees.

What do they do with their pay for themselves? Investing in property is one antisocial way, because it raises property prices and keeps out others who cannot afford it. Investments in art raises the prices for national galleries. Some fraction of income is spent on signs of status such as tagged handbags. They can join the jetset as outstanding consumers of the planet. The proportion of their income spent on philanthropy turns out to be a fraction compared with the proportionate giving by the poor, or middle classes.

Whatever way you look at it, the salaries and bonuses of the super-rich are not a good argument for the democracy we try to peddle abroad, or for the finger-wagging at African kleptocrats.

Come now, imagine you are able to nobly reject an income of more than a million dollars. How will you spent the million dollars you have left? We should set out a supposed budget for these rich people. It could help bring their view of money closer to the real world.

And that would be a good thing, when they are pondering how to foreclose on farmers and people who have lost their jobs.