Some bulk-buying may not be so stupid in the present situation, but some is very silly and is clearly “panic-buying”, such as the old woman of whom I read, “caught” in an Aldi store trying to buy no less than 80 cans of tomatoes! Enough for months, surely? (She was only allowed 4 cans in the end).
I saw this in the Daily Mail online:
Sainsbury’s in Hertford, at opening time. The photo shows what is happening: hordes of old people (and a few “Vicky Pollard” “chavscum” mothers) lining up to imitate a cloud of locusts. Some stores are prioritizing the elderly, but that may be a misconceived idea.
Where I live, in a generally affluent part of Hampshire, the elderly (who are the majority of the population) are the ones who are bulk-buying almost everything. The local Waitrose is stripped bare within minutes. I spoke to a lady who had been there in mid-morning and already all loo paper, pasta, pasta sauce, tuna, bread, flour and cleaning products had gone; and that happens every single day, it seems. Affluent —or at least not poor— pensioners (many in large houses, with several fridges and freezers) are stocking up for Armageddon.
I went yesterday evening to a village shop and sub-post office. The village has no other shop, just a church, a pub-restaurant and a car dealer. The little shop is a grocery outlet which also sells booze and local produce (prepared crab, smoked trout and salmon, as well as pheasant and other game; local asparagus, local honey).
On an unrelated aspect, it seems to me that small shops and little post offices like that, in villages or areas without other shops, should not have to pay business rates, council tax or even other taxes (eg on profits), for good social reasons. A place like that is more than just a food, drink and postage stamps outlet. It is a community hub.
The owner told me that affluent old people had bought all the bread that morning and did so every morning, and were probably freezing it. This is an area where people, often in sizeable houses, and with comfortable incomes, have 2, 3, or 4 large fridges and freezers.
The joke is that those are exactly the people most likely to spout the “we won the war” stuff, about Britain being a “nation” (which it scarcely is now), “all pulling together”. They all vote Conservative and would deny that they are featherbedded in various ways.
It is not that I dislike the elderly, as such. After all, at 63 I am well on the way myself, and anyone under 40 is likely to regard me as quite “old” (though few who meet me realize that I am that old). However, it seems to me that there is a dual process going on:
an increasingly aged and ageing population; but also
a creeping infantilization, which affects all ages.
Enemies of the people
I have just invented and instituted a new tradition on my blog pages, namely the “enemies of the people” section, to consist of tweets exposing enemies of Britain and Europe generally in the enemies’ own tweets.
I have decided to launch my new section by featuring two-in-one: a Jewish woman called “Dr Miranda Kaufmann”, as well as an apparently similarly inimical organization called “Octopus Publishing” (which may not be all bad; judgment reserved):
— Dr. Miranda Kaufmann (@MirandaKaufmann) March 19, 2020
“Infection” is the buzzword of the day. The fields of academia and publishing in the UK are both infected and infested; both need a purge.
One law for the rich…
BREAKING: Gatwick Airport is axing 200 jobs, stopping night flights and bosses have agreed to take a 20% pay cut as a result of the #coronavirus outbreak.
So “bosses” (whatever that means— in Sun-speak, it can just mean a middle-manager) are taking a pay cut, but the “workers” are being “axed”…
Have these people never heard of 1789, 1848, 1917, 1933 etc?
“Justice”?
Pakistani woman and four others attacked a schoolgirl (was she English? Probably), punching her, ripping out hair, then later intimidating her on Facebook. Found guilty on overwhelming evidence but still denying her guilt. Result? Non-custodial sentence. Quelle surprise. Sentencing judge ludicrously says that “the offence was so serious that he could have sent Mahmood to prison, but decided to spare [her]” because the w** woman is mother of four children and is carer for her mother. And (unsaid) the British people pay for all six of the bastards…and probably others in the family/clan…
“We have, of course, been here before, 10 years ago when the banks were bailed out with few conditions being attached to the money that flowed their way. As a result, they were able to use a chunk of it to keep their top tier employees in the style to which they had become accustomed while branch staff were losing their jobs.” [The Independent]
Guy Fawkes and Iain Dunce Duncan Smith
We still celebrate the end of the Fawkes plot by burning an effigy on a bonfire, the effigy being, even after over 400 years, called “the Guy”. What about Dunce Duncan Smith? Ideas on a postcard…
What are the Jews up to?
“Israel’s secretive Mossad intelligence agency launched a covert international operation this week to fly in up to 100,000 coronavirus testing kits…The local broadcaster Channel 12, which first reported the operation, said Mossad had intended to bring in about 4 million kits from several countries. About 530 cases have been confirmed in Israel, which has taken stringent measures to contain the spread, including shutting down all schools, cafes and malls. On Wednesday evening, it barred all tourists and visitors from entering the country.” [The Guardian]
same with every other corner shop around london. hand sanitizer, for a 75ml bottle, she said “£9.99” and toilet rolls for 9 rolls “£7.99” they’re all a joke 😡
I don't know, just asking. Is there much choice in London now?
— Mark Weightman 🇬🇧🇨🇾 #NoTyranny (@MarkWeightman) March 19, 2020
It’s happening in Portsmouth. They’ve even put an extra £4 on cigarettes. People need to stop using these shops, even when this crisis is over. Show them who’s boss. It’s us, the customers.
Though I examine particularly closely any claims made by a Jew, the information is interesting. There may be something in it.
It will be recalled that South Africa was said, in the 1980s, to be working on biological weapons which would only affect black Africans. South Africa was also far advanced in an atomic weapons programme, in collaboration with the Israelis working out of their nuclear centre at Dimona, in the Negev Desert of southern Israel.
It would not be beyond the realm of the possible were the Israelis to have collaborated with South Africa on biological warfare as well.
Now we see claims by the Israelis themselves that
Israeli scientists were working on a vaccine for Coronavirus even before the Wuhan outbreak; they attribute the co-incidence to “luck”.
On the wider point, it may be that this outbreak is in the nature of an experiment, and that at some later point a virus equally or more infectious but far more deadly will be released, with the aim of reducing the Earth’s population to 10% or 20% of what it presently is.
[note: the above paragraph is speculation only and should not be taken to be my settled view].
Rishi Sunak and the UK economic stimulus package
The bailout of the banks a decade ago was disastrous, inter alia because banks are merely a useful parasite upon the real economy. The bailout impoverished many individuals via the so-called “austerity” programme. It also gave preference to the banks over businesses in the real economy.
This latest “bailout for business” is also misconceived, because it supports businesses as such but not the most important basis for business, individual consumers.
What Sunak should do (but will not, because it —superficially— is in opposition to Conservative Party attitudes) is to establish a Basic Income for all citizens (citizens, not any migrant-invader straight off the boat (rubber boat).
That would boost and secure the retail sector and other sectors, and would enable people to pay rent etc.
I was at the nearest supermarket (Waitrose) at 1930 yesterday, half an hour before closing time. More shoppers than usual at that time, though not crowded. The main doors wide open to promote fresh air inflow (and virus outflow?). More staff than usual at that hour. The shelves looked as if an invading horde had looted the store. Whole shelves completely picked bare: no loo paper, pasta, pasta sauce, shower gel or bread (instead of the usual hundreds of loaves of about 30 different kinds, only one pack of “ancient grains” muffins left (I bought that) and two specialist Jewish loaves (from Cohen’s Bakery).
So it seems that the bulk-buying and/or panic-buying continues. I can only assume that people are buying bread to freeze it, anticipating…what? Civil war? Disordered chaos? One would normally scoff, but I have a lingering feeling that those panicking, preparing or “prepping” may not be so silly after all…
Half-truths
Try isolating in one room of a hostel, B&B or Women’s Refuge.
Even in a flat it’s different- can’t just pop out in the garden for some Vitamin D & air.
Everything hits the least wealthy/most vulnerable worse & of course, it’s usually Capitalism that made them vulnerable https://t.co/1FDY6UdO77
“Dr” Louise Raw (and another) making true points about poor housing and social conditions, while shoving in a silly point about “capitalism”. Has she never heard of, for example, Soviet housing conditions? Or maybe she calls that “State capitalism”, in the Trotskyist way? I do not know.
I wonder whether the people will come out onto the streets. Not now, though. However, down the line, it has to be a real possibility if large numbers of renters are evicted at the same time; and if people lose their jobs and are cast into the pit created by Iain Dunce Duncan Smith, the Jew “lord” Freud, Esther McVey, David Gauke, all those evil swine. I rule out nothing for later this year, for 2021, for 2022.
Maybe that is why the “emergency legislation” being nodded through Parliament this week will contain enhanced so-called “anti-terror” powers for police, MI5 etc…
Tweets seen today
Say that about this. We need to close schools. They ate always open to those students who need to be looked after during school hours. pic.twitter.com/yunqdQryce
German POWs(yes they were still here!) from Ely’s 2 POW camps worked side by side with the British Army, reinforcing defences and rescuing people from rooves!
As I have blogged several times, Twitter is such a waste of time that I have even considered the possibility that it is being promoted precisely so that discontented people can imagine that they are engaging in socio-political activism by spending their days just tweeting. At any rate, that is what actually does happen. There are huge numbers of people on Twitter. Most are not political. Those that are think that they make a difference by being on Twitter. I doubt it.
I had 3,000 followers on Twitter when expelled, but was following only about 50, mostly organizations. You see some Twitter accounts with thousands or even tens of thousands of “followers” but then you notice that those accounts are themselves following a similar number of accounts!
Twitter is an interesting and potentially useful source of news and other information, but politically is largely a waste of time.
There is also the point that Twitter now “suspends” or suspends permanently (i.e. expels) many of the most interesting tweeters. This usually happens because of organized campaigns by either Zionist Jews or “antifa” idiots. In fact, those cabals revel in their pointless “activism”, as they did when I lost my Twitter account (which was not so important to me because I had “red-pilled” re. Twitter) but to those who denounced me would have been tragic, had it happened to them!
In fact, it did happen to some of them. Some, who had trolled me for years, are now gone, having been expelled. I notice that others have actually died; yet others are declining fast from chronic medical conditions…
Basic Income (again)
Some of the System politicians are thinking along the same lines as me:
Now Ian Blackford for SNP calling for temporary universal basic income
Coronavirus : Denmark’s government told private companies that it would cover 75% of employees’ salaries, if they promised not to cut staff. Putting money directly into people's pockets is a far better policy than the random policies pursued by the UK.https://t.co/wXVO2q14Js
Some Tory MP's feel picked on for being shamed for stealing £30 a week from cancer sufferers. So here's ALL of them. pic.twitter.com/DxMor8CdXe
— Rachael Swindon #WeAreCollective (@Rachael_Swindon) March 13, 2016
It will be noted that among the names on the above list is that of Therese Coffey MP [Con, Suffolk Coastal], recently appointed as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The role has been held by deadheads before, idiots such as Iain Dunce Duncan Smith and Esther McVey.
So who is Therese Coffey?
Therese Coffey was born in Lancashire, to parents about whom neither Wikipedia nor her own website say anything at all. She was brought up in Liverpool, according to Wikipedia, which however says that she was at school both at St. Mary’s College, in the small North Wales town of Rhos-on-Sea, and at St. Edward’s College, Liverpool. Both were at the time private Roman Catholic schools. Coffey is a name of Irish origin.
Therese Coffey was awarded a B.A. degree by Oxford University (subject unknown), she having gone up to Somerville College; then (oddly, on the face of it) she acquired a Ph.D. in Chemistry from UCL. Therese Coffey is often referred to as “Dr” Therese Coffey.
[Update, 21 May 2020: since writing the above, I have discovered that, while Oxford’s usual Chemistry degree is a 4-year course leading to a Master’s degree (M.Chem), the University does offer other chemistry-related 3-year science degrees
[Update, 7 September 2022: Wait a minute… it now turns out that Therese Coffey was asked to leave her Oxford college because she was not up to the course academically, and/or failed her exams! See update at foot of this blog post for more]
In England (though not in some other countries, notably Germany) it has always been considered infra dig to use the title “Doctor” unless one is either a medical doctor or some sort of working academic, scientist or clergyman. Unfortunately, there has fairly recently developed in the UK a strange affectation, of people insisting on referring to themselves as “Dr” when all they have is a doctorate in something (other than whatever they do professionally or whatever). So we have “Dr” Julian Lewis MP [Con, New Forest East], who holds a doctorate (D.Phil) in Strategic Studies. Another is “Dr” Louise Raw, “antifa” type prolific on Twitter, who holds a Ph.D. and whose special subject is one particular industrial strike in 1888. Now we also have “Dr” Therese Coffey.
Therese Coffey was awarded her doctorate in chemistry in 1998, at the age of 28. Her own website says that she was at one time a “management accountant”. She worked for Mars, the confectionery company, and for a subsidiary of the same, at which latter she was apparently Finance Director. She also did some work for the BBC. I think that we can assume that Therese Coffey’s non-political career was far from stellar.
Therese Coffey failed to become a Conservative MEP at the EU elections of both 2004 and 2009. She was, however, selected for the Conservative candidature at Suffolk Coastal (despite having been born and brought up in the North West of England, later living in Andover, Hampshire and having no obvious connection with Suffolk or East Anglia).
The expenses claimed by Therese Coffey in her first 6 months as MP were more than double those claimed by MPs in some other nearby seats. She seems to have kept her house and flat in Hampshire, which (it has been said of at least one) are being let.
Therese Coffey was one of the 72 MPs (almost all Conservatives) who both have an income of over £10,000 p.a. from rental property and voted out a bill requiring landlords to ensure that their properties were fit for human habitation! In other words, Therese Coffey is a parasite.
Therese Coffey voted to sell off woodland and forests in public ownership to private interests (the bill was dropped after a huge public outcry).
Therese Coffey has written a position paper recommending that pensioners pay National Insurance. She is a member of the extreme Free Enterprise Group within the Conservative Party.
Therese Coffey has been in favour of both Rupert Murdoch and gambling interests in the past.
Therese Coffey has from time to time bunged her own sister some money out of Parliamentary expenses for work (presumably) done.
Therese Coffey likes a “rock band” called Muse, it seems. I had never heard of them until now. Her interest in rock music seems bizarre, looking at her photographs and thinking of what can be gleaned of her personality (not very much). She certainly looks more like Patricia Routledge’s portrayal of the retirement-age Lancastrian private eye, Hetty Wainthropp, in Hetty Wainthropp Investigates. However, Ms. Coffey’s liking for real ale (she is a member of CAMRA) is rather plausible. In fact, Ms. Coffey is only 47 years old, surprisingly, she having been born in November 1971.
I would have assumed that Therese Coffey is a lesbian, looking at this tank-like, Guinness-drinking, cigar-smoking person who likes football, but there is nothing I have found on the Internet to support such a conclusion directly; and she voted against “gay marriage” (and in that alone I support her, inasmuch as I feel that “civil partnership” provided whatever socio-legal comfort was necessary to deal with the inadequacies of the English law as it was in the previous century).
What disturbs me most about Therese Coffey is not so much what she has said, written and done, though that is bad enough, but what I have not seen from her: I have seen no intellectual curiosity that goes outside the box, for example any discussion of the need for Basic Income; neither have I seen anything else of intellectual interest from her. Admittedly, I have only been looking since her elevation to Cabinet (she was only a non-Cabinet minister earlier in 2019, and before that only one of the Conservative whips, traditionally a role for plodders…). If my view changes, I shall update this article, being by nature fair and just.
Therese Coffey may be the Cabinet minister with the lowest public profile. She is unknown to the general public. How long she will remain in Cabinet, I have no idea. If Boris-Idiot falls, “not long” is my guess. It may be thought unfair to dub someone with qualifications in both chemistry and accountancy a “deadhead”, but from the socio-political point of view I think that she well merits it. At any rate, as MP she is not going away, in that Suffolk Coastal is one of the safest Conservative seats.
Obscure Minister moans about duff advice from scientists https://t.co/VZdf6j9gzu Downing Street says she is being 'unhelpful' . I'll say she is. The recognition that scientific advice can be wrong and ministers are responsible for following it or not, is dangerous to this lot.
Just as well that she does not have the power to give DWP benefits claimants an electric shock via a dog collar…
Update, 6 October 2021
DWP Secretary Therese Coffey singing ‘I’m having the time of my life’ at Tory conference just an hour after the £20 Universal Cut came into force. pic.twitter.com/lspuFKGs4Q
I could comment, but my words would probably be regarded either as “grossly offensive” or as “incitement” to…something or other…
One thing is for sure— standing outside the Conservative Party Conference holding up placards asking for this kind of political criminal to be nicer to people just does not work…
(and what about this?)…
5.5 million families woke up £1040-a-year worse off as their universal credit was cut.
While they were sleeping, the secretary of state for work and pensions was doing karaoke. pic.twitter.com/8OSEN5lwNc
Jesus Christ! Could it get any worse? Do you call for its nurse, or just put it out of its misery?
Update, 6 September 2022
Well, whether you call it “the irony of fate”, a concatenation of unexpected events, or just madness, Therese Coffey has not only survived the fall of “Boris”-idiot, and stayed in Cabinet, but has been effectively promoted to two new positions— Secretary of State for Health, and Deputy Prime Minister.
It seems that —unknown to me until today— Therese Coffey and the —it seems strange to use the words— new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, are rather friendly. I suppose that, in that snake pit, Liz Truss would rather have a few friends around her rather than potential backstabbers who might, however, actually be competent at the jobs occupied.
The Twitterati have not been kind:
The fact that I have put Therese Coffey in charge of the NHS tells you all you need to know about my government. pic.twitter.com/2ioREL9tC5
Thérèse Coffey's reward for kicking thousands of disabled people off Universal Credit ahead of a major cost of living crisis is promotion to health secretary. Be very afraid.
Therese Coffey who hid 9 reports that apparently detailed wrong doings and cruelty in her last department is Health Secretary, Deputy PM – She is also best friends with Truss. https://t.co/XOoGOZRljv
Thérèse Coffey advised the covid unemployed to 'spend their savings', and told victims of Sunak's £20 a week universal credit cut to 'work another two hours'. She's now Britain's deputy prime minister.
Therese Coffey is an absolutely woeful politician. For her to be given such important roles is @trussliz treating them with contempt. Only been Prime Minister five minutes and already making nonsensical Johnson like appointments.
So there it is. Those who follow my blog, or read it regularly, will know or perhaps can guess what I think (inter alia, that tweeting, blogging, or complaining and protesting, will not rid our country of incompetent, corrupt, or evil politicians). Let’s leave it there…
Update, 7 September 2002
Wait a minute… it now turns out that Therese Coffey was asked to leave her Oxford college because either she was not up to the course academically, and/or failed her exams.
So how did she get even a BA degree from Somerville? Or is that a total fabrication, like Iain Dunce Duncan Smith’s notoriously fake CV? Other MPs also have faked or partly-faked CVs.
To my mind, Therese Coffey warrants further and deeper investigation. She may be, or may have been, involved in other fakery, fabrication and/or fraud.
Still, it seems now, more than ever, that she fully deserves the title “deadhead“.
Well, there they are— the stupid and ignorant “ho”, Liz Truss, already living on borrowed time as (and merely posing as) Prime Minister, and equally-ridiculous “Secretary of State for Health”, Therese Coffey.
The completely decadent and broken (and Jew-Zionist dominated) British political system, 2022, in a single photograph.
Free school meals extension -Not interested Obesity campaign -Not interested Tobacco control plan -Not interested Benefit uprating -‘No definitive statement can be made about uprating’#BBCR4today
R4 today. Therese Coffey absolutely hopeless. Sounds patronising, out of touch and somehow unpleasant. Horrible listening to her. What an absolutely detestable Government we have …. I believe they are Tories.
— #gotyourbackNHS. #BrexitbrokeBrittain (@lynwis) October 11, 2022
One wonders about the psychology of Therese Coffey, looking at her, and looking at the state of her. A fat and ugly woman, prematurely aged, who gets drunk, spills beer over herself, and smokes cigars while doing it. “Multiple frustrations” would be my armchair psychologist diagnosis.
What does it say about our system of “democracy”, and our system of MP and ministerial selection, that a ghastly and quite possibly evil woman of that sort can become, by a series of “chance” events, a Deputy Prime Minister?
The same goes, of course, for the stupid and ignorant “ho” presently posing as Prime Minister.
Just watched a snippet of Kay Burley interviewing Therese Coffey. It gets more disgraceful every time you see it. Coffey could not give two shits. What a criminal state of affairs having a thing like that as Deputy Prime Minister. No wonder she pretends to be unaware. Horrendous!
Interesting, but not surprising. My assessment of the bitch, from 2019, implied as much.
‘It’s news to me,’ Deputy Prime Minister Therese Coffey says, when asked about UK financial market instability on Sky News this morning. Surely that’s not the line.. https://t.co/j7nx2rrw9R
Had one not seen what has been going on in the governance of Britain since at least 2010, one would perhaps be surprised that someone as totally inadequate, dim, and also amoral as Therese Coffey could ever climb higher than the backbenches.
How will the government pay for the £60 billion black hole?
Therese Coffey says she can't get into "hypotheticals" but growing the economy is essential and the Chancellors will share his plan at the end of the month.
— Simon Gosden. Esq. #fbpe 3.5% 🇪🇺🐟🇬🇧🏴☠️🦠💙 (@g_gosden) October 11, 2022
Look at the bitch! Look at her friend and boss, “ho” Truss, too. They are both embarrassments to this country, as are woolly-head Kwarteng and half-caste thicko James Cleverly.
Update, 23 October 2022
Cuts, closures, DIY dentistry: welcome to the NHS in Thérèse Coffey’s seat https://t.co/8zZwXYOO80
Indian money-juggler Rishi Sunak may now have taken over as bad-joke “Prime Minister”, but Therese Coffey has survived in Cabinet, unbelievably, and still sits there, stupid, incompetent, but immovable…
I’m sorry, but if you’ve been put forward to do the morning media rounds, it’s literally your job to know the fucking details!! Typically useless, arrogant Coffey dodging difficult questions with lazy, well worn responses. https://t.co/FhUgifRC2W
I have blogged previously about the need for Basic Income (see Notes, below).
One important point is that the nexus connecting work and pay is loosening in the more developed countries. Already, computers, automation and modern business streamlining have led to the situation whereby, apart from actual unemployment, there is huge underemployment. In the UK, we see, in big picture terms, that the poorer half of the workforce is still being paid less in real terms (the latest statistics suggest about 7% less) than was paid in 2007 for equivalent work.
Now, there is a headlong rush into greater automation and, crucially, to Artificial Intelligence [AI].
Working Tax Credits as Government Subsidy to Poor-Paying Employers
Even before the financial upheaval of 2007-2008, it is clear that the “market”, as “hidden hand” mechanism, delivering adequate pay for required work, was not working properly or as old-thinking economic theory suggested that it should. Employers were unwilling or in some cases unable to offer pay high enough for employees to subsist on, let alone live decently on.
The answer of the Blair-Brown governments was to offer employees “working tax credits”, i.e. a form of “welfare”/”social security” for those in employment, the purpose of which was (and at time of writing still is) to top-up inadequate pay to a determined level. A more limited measure, Family Credit, claimable only by families, was in operation from 1986-1999.
The most obvious drawback of Working Tax Credit [WTC], i.e. that it in effect subsidizes poor and poor-paying employers out of general taxation, was either not foreseen by self-styled financial genius Gordon Brown, or was ignored by him and/or Tony Blair. Adding insult to injury was and is the fact that some of the worst-paying employing companies are also those most adept at avoiding tax liability: transnational enterprises such as Amazon in particular.
In other words, an employee is forced (by circumstances) to work for pay which is not enough for that employee to live on, even at a very basic level. That pay is then topped-up to a minimum subsistence level by Working Tax Credit, which is paid for not directly by the exploitative employer but by government, and so by general taxation. Low-paid employees pay little or no income tax now, but still pay so-called National Insurance, which is today just another or extra income tax in all but name. Put simply, the low-paid worker is paying out for his or her own Working Tax Credit, at least to some extent.
The poor-paying employer has no incentive to pay decently, because the government will stump up enough to keep the employee in place.
Real-terms pay now, for very many people, is inferior to what was paid in the 1980s and 1970s. Conditions of employment are also worse in reality (though that aspect is not part of this blog post).
At present, 5 million people in the UK receive WTC, while another 2 million are entitled to receive it but, for whatever reason, do not apply for it.
Other Government Top-Ups to Pay
In addition to basic Working Tax Credit, people in low-paying jobs and who have children can get extra money via WTC , as can disabled workers.
Persons who are disabled or unwell (including employed persons) can receive Disability Living Allowance, which is not means-tested.
Persons who have children are also entitled to Child Benefit, regardless of capital or income (up to £50,000-£60,000, tapering).
Persons of the age(s) specified can receive State Pension regardless of whether they work or not; moreover, whether or not they have ever worked.
Limited Elements of Basic Income Already Embedded in the Existing System
State Pension, paid whatever the individual’s capital or income, and whether or not the individual is working (employed or self-employed) or not and (if you include Pension Guarantee Credit), payable regardless of how much the pensioner has paid in via National Insurance;
Child Benefit, paid regardless of income (under £50,000 p.a.);
Disability Living Allowance (and its successor, “Personal Independence Payment” or PIP), paid regardless of capital or income to qualifying persons (and this is not the place in which to examine why politicians and Department of Work and Pensions [DWP] civil servants often choose vulgar names for State benefits and programmes: cf. “Jobseeker’s Allowance” etc).
Advantages of Basic Income
Simplicity. A Basic Income would mean that most of the existing DWP structure could be dispensed with: the vast edifice of “Jobcentres” (office buildings), filled with DWP staff engaged in adminstration, and the snooping upon, monitoring, “assessing” of claimants etc. The absurdity of it is that many claimants are only getting about £75 a week anyway. The present Kafka-esque set-up really should be and can be junked. Probably 90% of the present 85,000 DWP employees can be made redundant. The financial savings from that, decommissioning of buildings, running costs etc would be in the tens of billions annually; the untold billions paid by the State to useless and dishonest private contractors, such as ATOS and Capita, would also be saved;
Security of Citizens. It has been shown in overseas pilot studies (eg recently in Finland) that having a Basic Income, even if small, gives people a sense of security only available until now to those with an inherited private income. Yes, some people will decide to loaf all day, maybe even drink all day, but others will do paid work, start small businesses, improve their cultural level, volunteer locally or far away etc. The idle and/or useless are like that under the present system anyway and are costing the State money even now, both directly and indirectly (eg via the costs of policing, NHS, prisons etc);
Doubts Often Expressed about Basic Income
“People will not want to work if they get money for nothing”: well, most wealthy inheritors of capital, most of those living off trust incomes etc do seem to want to work in some way, or to set up businesses, or at least to write, paint, or other similar activity. Don’t disparage writing or other artistic activity. After all, Harry Potter, which snowballed into a huge industry employing, altogether, many thousands and even tens of thousands, came out of the mind of one lady, a single mother on State benefits; J.K. Rowling herself has said that, under the punitive present benefits regime, she would have been messed around so much that it would have been impossible for her to sit in cafes with her baby writing Harry Potter. True, some people will simply loaf. They do that under the present system. Don’t think that there are no costs to the State and society now (even if actual benefits are cut off): police costs, court and legal costs, NHS costs, too;
“The cost to the taxpayer”: the cost of Basic Income would be little more than the present “welfare” (social security) system, once you take into account the huge savings on DWP and HMRC bureaucracy, savings by not using useless/dishonest outsourcing organizations, the economic benefit of people spending more, stimulating the economy, setting up new small businesses;
“People getting Basic Income money that they do not even need”: firstly, what people “need” is, beyond the basic level, something subjective. Apart from that, there is no problem with clawing back monies paid to those above a certain income. All that need happen is that a maximum level of income (all income) for recipients be set. All persons above that income level to be taxed or super-taxed to the same level as Basic Income received. The level might be a total (including Basic Income) of £30,000, assuming Basic Income of perhaps £15,000 per year. In that case, the person would be taxed the £15,000, leaving £15,000. Yes, there would be apparent unfairness at lower income levels, whereby it might be questioned why work, when you could simply receive the (in the example given) £15,000 and not work. However, even then the recipient does gain, via extra security in case of job loss or illness; alternatively, the threshold could be set higher, say at £50,000 p.a.
Variations on the Basic Income Theme
Instead of money alone, Basic Income could include benefits paid to certain persons, such as free housing for persons receiving less than a certain income. The danger here is in the complexity and cost, as under the existing system, as well as monies wasted going to landlords charging excessive rents. It may be that the way forward is to add to the existing (in the UK) more or less “free” (at point of use) health service, free education at primary and secondary level etc. Examples:
free public transport, whether local or regional;
free car insurance;
free domestic utilities;
free NHS or similar;
free education.
Basic Income as Necessity
It is clear that, in the UK, relatively few people at present are purely living off what they can earn by work or by investments and/or trust income. 7 million are eligible for Working Tax Credits, millions more are children, retired people, disabled and not working, unemployed etc. For many, working for pay does not cover the basic necessities of life, let alone provide a decent human existence. The State already recognizes these facts.
The explosion in artificial intelligence and robotics will turn the screw. For example, there are at present356,300 taxi drivers and private hire drivers in the UK. The technology already exists to replace them. It is unlikely that more than a small percentage will still be doing such work in, say, 2030. That’s just one group affected. Groups as diverse as farmers, lawyers, surgeons, pilots, security guards will all be made, as groups, largely redundant.
Basic Income is not just the right thing, but the necessary thing.
The necessity for Basic Income is spreading, but not yet to enough people. Many still think that it is “expensive” (probably the same people who believe that the answer to a recession is to “cut spending”…). There is, however, dissent…
Today I happened to see the Daily Mirror report (link below, at foot of post) about a 9-year-old girl who telephoned a charity begging for help, even offering to work, in order to save her family. This was not in some ragged part of the former Soviet Union, not in Latin America, not (to be rhetorical) in the Britain of the workhouse and Ebenezer Scrooge, but that of Britain in 2018.
The Conservative Party seems to be relying on effluxion of time to disguise what it (and to a lesser extent, Blair-Brown Labour) has done in the past 20 years and especially since 2010 when the Con Coalition took power. However, the fact is that millions of people have been degraded, insulted, even killed or forced to suicide by the hugely expensive and ill-conceived “welfare” “reforms” of Iain Dunce Duncan Smith. He and those guilty with him, have not as yet faced popular justice. Perhaps some form of justice will in the end catch up with him, and Esther McVey and Danny Alexander, and David Gauke, and the Jew “lord” Freud etc.
Then we have Brexit, which I (for social national revolutionary reasons) favour. The present government has proven itself incompetent in respect of that, too.
Armed forces: scarcely functioning, thousands of experienced officers and other ranks made redundant, so that, now that few want to join what was the TA (now, The Reserves), the government is forced to open Army recruitment widely to those from Commonwealth countries who may never even have visited the UK.
NHS: plainly in managed decline.
Immigration: scarcely slowing.
Housing: far too expensive and, in the private rented sector, the hunting ground of buy-to-let parasites.
A future for the young: where is it?
Wherever one looks, the present government has failed miserably, along with its predecessors of the past 8 years. Labour looks scarcely better, true, and has even decided to keep the pathetic Universal Credit scheme if elected, but in a general election, an incompetent government is still at a disadvantage vis a vis an incompetent Opposition.
Labour is no longer unelectable
It was said for years that “Labour is unelectable” under Corbyn, a strange statement in view of the fact that Brown and Miliband also both failed to make it electable. The idea seems to be that Labour has to appeal to the middle of the road floating voters to be electable, and that Corbyn does not appeal to that voter. I do not think that the misnamed “Conservatives” can rely on that. Many of the Corbyn-Labour policies do have Middle England appeal: strict rail regulation or even renationalization, strict controls on utility company bills, making large transnational enterprises pay decent tax. These and other policies speak to those forgotten Middle England voters. Labour has not quite thrown the poor under a bus, but its focus is certainly now on winning over the vital marginal seats. It has recently supported Phillip Hammond’s tax plans on the basis that Labour plans to hit the wealthiest 5% (in income terms) and not, say, the most affluent 10%, 20% or 50%.
The Conservatives have demonized the poor, especially but not only the non-working poor. The Con Party is now more than ever the party only of the wealthy few, the buy to let parasites, the Jews too (95% of whom have deserted Labour since Corbyn took over), the wealthy London foreign cosmopolitans of various types etc.
As to the traditional Conservative Party Middle England vote, that is ebbing away. The reasons are clear: the “middle classes”, at least at the lower end, are sinking, and the Government is letting them drown. A cartoon from a few years ago made the point.
On the above facts, it is more than likely that the Conservatives will not be the largest party after the next General Election. The Conservative vote shrinks with every passing month. There is a sense that, as with the 1990s Conservatives, the present Theresa May government has outstayed its welcome so that almost everyone is saying “GO!”.
The poorest 10% will mostly vote Labour anyway. The wealthiest 5% (and probably 15%) will mostly vote Conservative whatever. The bulk of workers in the middle are the battlefield, and one which Labour looks increasingly likely to win.
I have been interested for several, indeed many, years in the socio-political effects of the AI/robot/computer revolution, which effects started to be felt as long ago as the 1960s, accelerated in the 1980s, but which still mushroom, and may be considered to be still in the youthful stage of development.
I happened to see an online article which was about 25 types of human work likely to be largely replaced by robots. Some were unsurprising, such as Data Entry Clerks and Bookkeepers, others less so (as a former barrister, I noticed “Lawyers” with interest!). I did not expect to see “Farmers” on the list, though in fact much agricultural work has already moved from human and animal labour to robotic or at least automated: sophisticated machines now already sow, harvest and process agricultural produce. Some of the most delicate tasks can still not be effectively automated without loss of quality, but that will probably change. The picking of grapes is done today as it has been since the dawn of recorded history– by hand. The best tea is also still picked by hand, though experiments have been made with automation: the Soviet tea industry tried it back in the 1970s (“on Georgia’s sun-dappled hills”, as Lermontov had it).
Looking ahead, one can see that many more jobs will be automated. Even now, that is leaving many either with no jobs, or with “McJobs”, minimum-wage bottom-of-barrel jobs. Increasingly, there will be discontent as those who have either no job or a job which does not cover even basic necessities become more numerous. At present, in the UK, those who have existed on poor pay have had that pay topped up via “tax credits” etc (and/or, now, the cretinous “Universal Credit” pipedream of Iain Dunce Duncan Smith), administered by a shambolic and punitive bureaucratic regime. That can and will be taken over by a Basic Income, paid without reference to whether the individual is trying to find work or better work.
The essence of the plan in respect of AI etc is that automation creates economic surplus. That surplus, at present, is today then distributed mostly to shareholders and higher executives, by means of dividends, pay and capital gains (eg via share options). That surplus or benefit should be shared out with the employees of the enterprise and with the people in general, via the mediation of the State. Not forgetting the need for an economic enterprise to have reserve funding for R&D etc.
Basic Income will give to all citizens at least a measure of the financial and life security currently enjoyed by only the wealthy, the “trustafarians” etc. It will enable those who want more than the basic minimum to work for that extra money, those who want to volunteer or do charitable work to do so and yet still subsist, those who want to think or write to create. As for those who only want to loaf, they do that under any system (including the present one) and at least Basic Income makes society quiescent.
The cost of Basic Income is high, but the cost of administering and paying out the present “welfare” system is hugely high too! Admin, snooping, interrogating, complex payment structures etc.
Taken to absurdity, one could envisage a society entirely dystopian, where no human workers are needed at all. The machines (etc) then produce goods and services which cannot be bought and paid for, because the humans have no work and therefore no pay and therefore no disposable income.
In such a scenario, either goods and services have to be given away free of charge to the humans unable to pay for them, or the humans need to be given money-value for which they have not directly worked. Basic Income.
The present society is already exhibiting a trend to work which pays little or nothing and a connected trend to an amelioration of the effects of that first trend (via State welfare, pensions, tax credits etc).
In the end, Basic Income is essential, because the robotics/AI revolution is loosening the nexus between work and pay.
We should be aiming at a society which contains the good from the present (and, therefore, past) while being oriented toward the future. Humanity is a work in progress. Society is a work in progress.
The basic template for a future society, even in the short-term, can be found in the Threefold Social Order concept:
This is not some castle in the air. Many of the concepts within the overall concept of the Threefold Social Order are already part of UK society to a greater or lesser extent: religious freedom, freedom of thought, equal treatment under the law, the separation of the economic, political/legal and spiritual spheres or realms. Even since, say, 1989 (when old-style socialism died), there has come about a greater acceptance that, for example, the State should not monopolize education, that the State should not directly run business enterprises etc. There have been retrograde aspects too, though: increasing actual slavery, a huge increase in quasi-slavery or economic serfdom (including “welfare-to work” schemes, as well as diminution of employee rights and workplace conditions), the “National Curriculum” in State-run schools etc.
Necessary Changes and Structure
First of all, the migration invasion must be halted and a plan developed to remove as many non-Europeans as possible from the UK and Europe. There can be no decent future for UK citizens unless at least most are of British/European origin and culture. As Milton Friedman said, also, “You can have open borders or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both.” The Labour Corbynists have not all, by any means, awoken to this truth.
Special-interest groups, notably the Jewish Zionists, must not be allowed disproportionate influence or power. That applies to politics (eg Westminster seats), the Press and other mainstream media, professions, the ownership of business enterprises.
All citizens should receive a “Basic Income”. Robotics and computerization are advancing to the point where perhaps a third of the jobs in the UK might go. The choice will either be Basic Income or Iain Dunce Duncan Smith-style DWP snooping, bullying and serfdom, i.e. forced “make work” projects run by carpetbagging companies, validating payment of what is now often called “welfare” (social security).
The State will not run business enterprises, in general. However, it may be that the security of the State and of society requires the State to run or at least tightly to regulate some enterprises: railways, water supply, electricity supply. Having said that, technology may lessen those cases, as in individual electrical power generation via solar, wind, hydro.
Private business should not run what are, properly, State functions: prisons, the armed forces, social security provision overall.
There must be freedom of expression on political, social, historical matters.
The State can organize or fund some things without actually owning or, on ground level, running them: a UK-wide wildlife grid (possibly composed of land owned largely by non-State owners) is one example.
There is a necessity for improvement in several everyday areas: housing must be built or rebuilt to give everyone a decent home and garden space. No-one should own several and certainly not dozens or hundreds of dwelling-homes. There must be a minimum per-person amount of space within every new house or flat, a higher level than usually found at present.
Local transport should be free of charge.
Higher education should regain its credibility: standards must be improved. Grants can be given to the best students, but others may have to do without and perhaps not go to university. The corollary is that a university degree should not be necessary for most, perhaps all, occupations. Other means of selection can be worked out.
There should be huge expansion of branch rail lines using light, ultralight, narrow-gauge etc trains, mostly operated by robots.
A grid of new wide canals should be dug, for leisure, environmental and business use (freight and passengers).
The airship or Zeppelin can now come into its own as a UK-wide passenger-carrying form of transport. The tops of some high office buildings in cities such as London can become passenger hubs (while commuting exists as a lifestyle).
A New Society Needs New People
The aim must be to create a new people for the future. People create society; society creates people. It is symbiotic. This can be a “virtuous circle”: a highly-educated, highly-cultured people, which in turn will result in society being improved over time and so again. This is something worth struggling and fighting for.
At various times in history, there was either no social welfare system at all, or one which depended on spontaneous or systemized charity: individual alms-giving in the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other traditions; more organized supply of food, shelter or money as in the ancient Roman dole, Renaissance attempts at poor relief and the cheerless “workhouses” of 19thC England (which in fact continued in places in some form or another until the Second World War and the emergence of the postwar Welfare State).
It is a matter for historical debate whether organized “welfare” in Europe started with the mediaeval Roman Catholic church or in the 19thC with Bismarck, who set up in Prussia and then in the unified Germany a system not unlike those which emerged later in other European countries (eg in the UK under Lloyd George) and further afield: for example, Uruguay had one of the most generous “welfare” (social security) systems in the world until it collapsed in the 1970s under the weight of its expense.
However, the Roman Catholic and other religious and other non-State providers of “welfare” rarely give out money. They supply, variously, food, shelter, often educational and medical help.
The more modern “welfare” systems, eg in the UK, were based on the idea of social insurance: during a working lifetime, you paid in; in periods of unemployment, disability, sickness, old age, you were paid out. In the UK, this has become largely notional. Some tax is still designated as “National Insurance” payment but of course is just an extra type of income tax, fed straight into central funds and not in any way ringfenced.
Some anecdotal evidence
Like many people of my age (b. 1956) in the UK, I had to request State assistance occasionally in the past. This is or was far more common than generally supposed. The writer J.K. Rowling, now supposedly worth £100 million, has described how only the more generous –compared to today– social security of the 1990s enabled her to sit in cafes (partly to keep warm) with her baby, and to write the stories that not much later became Harry Potter. More egregiously, the vampire of Britain’s social security system, Iain Duncan Smith, has admitted that he claimed social security after having left the Army (ignominiously, having only achieved the rank of lieutenant after six years). In fact, Smith, or as he prefers to be known, Duncan Smith (the Duncan not being part of his original surname), claimed social security under false pretences, making him a hypocrite as well as what Australians apparently call a “dole blodger” and (as seen in the scandal of his fake CV and Parliamentary expenses) a fraud.
Certainly, there are those who abuse the social security system. In the past, that was far more common, because the almost Stasi level of control and surveillance that now exists for claimants in Britain had not then been put into place. The system was itself less punitive, less quick to demand impossible levels of enthusiasm for what is now and vulgarly called “jobseeking”.
I knew one woman, a citizen of the Soviet Union, who, having run away from her husband in New Zealand, came to the UK and claimed social security (including disability benefits). How could this happen? Well, her ex-husband, though resident in New Zealand, had a British passport (was British citizen) and had the right to reside in the UK. That meant that his estranged wife could do likewise, even though she had no other connection with the UK and had never even landed there! In fact, that woman never had a job (beyond odd occasional part-time jobs teaching Russian conversation at evening classes). She was supplied with monies for being slightly disabled (kidneys), monies for not having a job, monies for having two children of school age. She was also supplied with free housing. I encountered that person in 1981. She was, I heard, still collecting from the “British taxpayer” in 1996 and is almost certainly still collecting (now State Pension too!) in 2017…All monies legally-obtained, without fraud of any kind.
Another case. A young man (in the mid-1990s), from a very affluent family, who, nonetheless, was “unemployed” and so received whatever unemployment benefit was called then, as well as Housing Benefit for the large flat he occupied in Marylebone, London. In fact, the flat was owned (under cloak of a private company) by the young man’s mother (who lived in Surrey), while the young man had his own freelance work as both a designer and a male model. In this case, there certainly was some kind of dishonesty, both on the part of the young man and his mother. I doubt that they could do the same today, but I last heard of them over 20 years ago, so do not know.
The above two examples seem to show abuse of a system, but here is another case from the 1990s; less obvious, less easy to judge: a single mother of a school-age child, she about 40-y-o, with no relevant educational qualifications. This lady had a small, indeed micro, informal business, making coffee and selling home-made sandwiches to the ladies having their hair done at a large London hairdressing salon. A “Trotter’s Traders” enterprise (“no income tax, no VAT” etc…). About £200 profit on a good week, but more usually less. Not enough to live on, even then, paying Central London rent. That lady was getting State benefits as a single mother; she was getting Housing Benefit too. Now it could be said that she was “defrauding” the State, but her earned income was not enough to live on without State help. Had she given up her private work, the State would have saved nothing, the economy generally would have suffered from her not earning and spending, she and her son would have suffered considerably.
Basic Income
For me, the answer to the above lies in Basic Income, a certain amount paid to every citizen (nb. not to everyone just off the boat, or those who have walked through the Channel Tunnel). The level at which it is set will be, inevitably, contentious. Some will end up with less than under the existing system of State benefits etc. However, it has the merit of certainty. Everyone knows that x-amount will be paid weekly or monthly; those over a certain (to be decided) income can have the Basic Income payment clawed back via the tax system. It may be that everyone should also get free local transport.
The benefits of Basic Income are several. Every citizen will have the basic wherewithal of life: food, shelter, transport etc, without being forced to jump through hoops, without being bullied or snooped upon. The State will save vast amounts on administration, salaries of penpushers, maintenance of useless and expensive buildings such as those called (another vulgarity) “jobcentres”. There will be little scope for fraud and deception, because everyone under a certain income will get the same amount. If society wants to provide the disabled, sick etc with more than the basic amount, then an assessment programme (decent, honest, not cruel, unlike the existing ones) can be put into place for that.
In the mid-20th century, especially in the 1960s, it was commonplace to see articles or features about the supposed coming “age of leisure” which would be facilitated by machines and advanced industrial techniques. Now (since the 1980s), those predictions are often laughed at, as society (eg in the UK) finds itself enmeshed in the “long hours culture”, the workaholic culture, the low pay economy. Was this inevitable?
The fact is, that the predictions of the past about a future “society of leisure” left out one crucial fact in particular: that the benefits of industrial efficiency and the emerging developments in computing, robotics etc would be taken by the owners of capital, by shareholders and others.
Since the 1970s, real pay (whether absolute or per hour) of most employees has stagnated and indeed even declined across the advanced Western world generally. At the same time, the profit accruing to capital and the remuneration of the upper strata of executives, higher managers and their professional counterparts has rocketed.
The above was true to some extent even in the Soviet Union, except that there, the developments in technology and efficiency were not spread equally across all industrial sectors and the benefits were used mainly for State power and prestige: military and naval upbuilding, space programmes and other large-scale projects such as the BAM railway.
The result (focussing on the West and particularly the UK) is that people have to work ever-longer hours for ever-lessening real pay. If public services, amenities and State benefits are taken into account, the contrast between the optimistic promises and predictions of the 1960s and 1970s on the one hand and the realities of 2016 on the other is even more stark.
There is another factor to be taken into consideration: there are three “work/leisure” faces:
work as unwelcome and/or repetitive drudgery, with little free time;
leisure as mere absence of work, for whatever reason;
creative work, balanced with stimulating leisure or free time
Adolf Hitler was referring, by implication, to the above alternative lifestyles when he noted “the Aryan ideal of creative work“, to be contrasted with (as he saw it) uncreative Jewish profit-making, as well as equally-uncreative paid drudgery [see Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 2:7]. In explaining, for example, the symbolism of the red-white-black NSDAP banner, Hitler wrote:
“And indeed a symbol it proved to be. Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us — the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.”
In our contemporary society, we see the temporary victory of uncreative work/leisure modes: on the one hand, soul-less profiteering (whether by manipulations on stock and bond markets or by buy-to-let parasitism etc); on the other hand, everyday work becoming less and less interesting for most people. Soul-less economic serfdom. Creativity and a decent work/life balance become the province of the artist, the maverick off-grid person, the creative writer. Most people are excluded.
At the same time, those without paid work and who are under pensionable age cannot even enjoy the one major benefit of being unemployed: leisure! They are harried and chased around by Department of Work and Pensions drones. In other words, in place of actual paid work, there is a ghastly and ghostly simulacrum of work consisting of the tick-box applying for (often non-existent) job vacancies or the attending of pointless “courses”, in return for which the unemployed claimant is paid a shadow version of a very low real salary: State benefits.
It is estimated that, between now and 2030 or so, developments in robotics alone will mean that 20%-30% of UK jobs will disappear, including some presently “professional” ones (eg in the medical and legal fields). The numbers of unemployed, under-employed and poorly-paid will increase. The “precariat” will include ever-more people.
The solution to all of the above is not a “society of leisure” but a “society of measure”:
strict limits on hours worked by employees, perhaps 30 hours per week;
strict enforcement of break-times within the working day;
strict demarcation between work-time and free-time (leisure time);
strict limitations or barring of employees being “on call” when at home;
payment to all citizens of “Basic Income”
more equitable distribution of the fruits of the economy.
Such a society will have time for those important things which have traditionally been part of “leisure time”: home, family, culture, rest, sleep, entertainment, sport. This must be the way to go and will cure many of the ills of the present society.
Social inequality is inevitable in any human society. All that one can hope for and, more pertinently, legislate for, is a decent and reasonable measure, so that inequality does not become excessive or grotesque.
Social inequality arises out of and is maintained by inequalities in both capital and income. Today I address only income. My contention is that the maximum post income tax income must be capped at (2016 values) £200,000 per annum. Needless to say, only a relative handful of UK citizens actually receive anything like that after tax; the average is closer to £20,000. Still, it is important that the huge incomes which a few have, be lopped off at that level or, arguably, at one even lower, for the preservation of some sense of social contract in society. That is a more worthwhile reason for this policy, rather than just the (often criticized) aim of raising more tax revenues, which might not even happen, taking things in the round.
The work of all citizens should be valued, by society, by the citizens themselves (valuing the work of others and having a modest pride in their own contribution, too). When a few award themselves or are awarded incomes in the many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds per annum, the whole fabric of society is gradually ripped to shreds.
There is another and oft-discussed policy to complement the above maximum-income cap. That second aspect is the concept that the pay of the highest employee or office-holder in an enterprise or a public service should not exceed that of the lowest-paid employee of the same body by more than a certain decided multiple. To my mind, that multiple should be 10x, that referring to post-income-tax income.
The above two policies will go far to knitting society together. There will be anomalies, special cases etc, but the important point is that the general idea will be accepted by all or almost all…and will work practically.
Ian Robert Millard 