Economic inequality

with this as a jump off point

and as a side kicker to the GE thread I suppose …what are some practical solutions to this massive gap?
Could it be directly regulated? How? Could a Govt. impose a direct ratio cap between median & CEO pay? Would it be effective or would companies just split & stratify into smaller companies based on wage clusters? What might be the consequences both +ve or -ve about that?

to my mind, this ratio is right at the heart of so many problems in modern capitalist society, couldn’t we have an economic policy that directly regulates it? Surely that would be more effective than the so-called progressive income tax system we currently use


Everyone who earns more than £17k to be shot.


When it gets too hot and wet we’ll do something about this

1 Like

…right up to the top of the food chain

work harder

it’s amazing that rich people are working 10 times harder than they were in the 70s isn’t it?


Currently quite a bit of debate on the old twitter after John McDonnell suggested (but didn’t pledge) that people who earn in the £70k-£80k reason could see a tax increase under a Labour government (although I haven’t seen what he actually said so go easy if I’ve misrepresented this)

Anyway the debate is whether or not someone earning £70k is “rich” or not. What does DiS reckon?:

  • £70k income - definitely rich
  • £70k income - definitely not rich
  • Depends

0 voters

We should do the Norwegian thing of publishing everyone’s pay, but also require everyone above the median company pay to write out an explanation of why they deserve to be paid more than those other suckers they work with.


see, I know this is a joke but it still has a threatening undercurrent of ‘that’s commie talk’

but if we accept that tax regulation is part of a capitalist economy then why wouldn’t we accept that regulation of economic disparity could also be a part of it without bringing evil -isms out?

Being in the 98th percentile of earners in this country definitely, definitely isn’t rich.

Suspect it was more of a direct reference to the post in the Tory thread about people not really being proper socialists if they take jobs that pay over 25K

Hilarious to see so many newspaper columnists whinging about this.

£70K places you in the top 2% of the UK and top 5% of London wages.

McDonnell’s point was also that they could end seeing an increase in taxes if tackling tax avoidance and evasion wasn’t embraced by those at the top.

1 Like

As it’s so easy for big multi-national companies/executives to move countries if their profit/income is threatened, I think the assumption is that we’d need a global consensus on this for it to work. That’s what makes it so hard, no matter how progressive any given country’s government is… Unless someone is ballsy enough to just go ahead and manages to prove that ‘brain-drains’ aren’t really… a thing?

1 Like

Heh, yeah that was my first thought when I was on there yesterday. Not only exposes journalist salaries but also how closed a shop journalism can be and how removed from the reality it purports to represent…

1 Like

well, at the root of this question is the problem of gross stratification

if you’re on minimum wage then 70k is fantasy land rich

if you’re on 70k then the chances are that you know people one or two rungs up the chain where you work who are on 3, 4 or 5 times as much as that

then there’s the footballers’ pay thing - there’s probably about 50 premier league players who earn more than 70k a week. Rooney is on 250k a week, Pogba 290k a week, Zlatan 220k a week

but then there are directors & owners of those clubs earning obscene amounts that would make the player’s wage packets seem paltry

and then there’s your Zuckerberg/Thiel/Musk/Gates club - 85 individuals owning the equivalent wealth to HALF THE WORLD’S POPULATION. Plus, in the 15 years between 2000 & 2015 the world’s billionaires increased their wealth from less than a $trillion to over $7 trillion

so ‘rich’ …does that word even mean anything anymore?

1 Like


but the point still stands

And the same people were saying that £17,000 was easy to live on the other day.

Anyway, this amused me:


That’s what I found interesting about the whole debate - we all know ‘rich’ is a relative concept, just interesting as to what it means to be rich these days.

If I was on £70k I would consider myself rich. I consider myself “considerably well off” now and I earn a fair bit under that.

but labour is being intensively farmed at a clearly unsustainable rate

battery-farm economics is fucking miserable, surely at some point you just have to go with free-range or organic otherwise your chickens just aren’t gonna lay eggs anymore

Oh sure, although my question here would be, how many people are actively against wealth redistribution? Perhaps I’m slightly naive but I’d wager the majority of people who will vote Tory in the next election would balk at the idea of executive pay being 300 times more than median employee wages.