Thank you for saying this to the audience of this paper. The current situation is a gross injustice.

Stephen Ford, London, UK

Your proposal to increase taxes will certainly appeal to "Greedy Gordon" but it is the wrong solution.

The problem: Certain Directors of large companies are over paid. This is because 'in effect' they set their own pay and 'steal' from the shareholders who are in the main are pension funds.

The solution: Give the shareholders the absolute right to veto pay deals.

Simple.

Your solution would exacerbate the problem. Higher taxes would drive up pay and further reduce returns to pensioners.

Paul Rogers, Parker, CO

What is the point of totally free markets without governmental interference, if not more money for less people?

Is it a "good or a bad thing" that "company directors have stretched their remuneration to almost 100 times average earnings, a gap unprecedented since the rise of modern taxation"?

Who's in charge of taxation? The free marketeers or the elected leaders?
You can't have an acceptable social equilibrium without some governmental control of the markets because markets are very real and have huge social consequences. The invisible hand is an increasingly dangerous myth and disqualifies economics as a science.

When the State recedes, other forces fill in the vacuum, most of the time for the worse.

Ronnie, PARIS, FRANCE

Coincidentally I read today a complaint by Mahomed el Fayed that he had been "driven out of Britain by the Inland Revenue".
As far as I can make out they were unkind enough to rescind the convenient arrangement whereby he only paid the tax he felt like!
Good riddance!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -nopt EU

There is nothing agreeable about living in London. I am here solely because the markets are here. When financial services markets come to their senses and move to somewhere 'agreeable' I will be gone as quickly as possible.

LondonShambles, London,

No doubt bankers previous bonuses will now be repaid ...based as they were on wishful thinking.

B.Calvert, London,

This is only part of the story. Many of the richest people in Britain are, increasingly, foreigners who come to settle in Britain from all over the globe, base their families here, take British citizenship- become complete British residents in every way, which is excellent. What is not so excellent, is that by special dispensation of Mr Brown's Treasury, they are encouraged to fudge the tax laws, by maintaining the fiction that they are not domiciled in Britain, which given that they have settled here is a farce. That means that their -often vast - overseas income is totally free of UK tax unless the funds are brought into the UK (which they obviously are not). Mr Brown's view is that they will not settle in the UK if they have to pay the same taxes as everyone else, which speaks legions for the tax system for hard working people who get no such largesse from Mr Brown.

Mr Brown has his groups of favourites- if you don't belong to any of them then tough!

Doug, Glasgow,

How about making the payment of bonuses conditional on 50% of the sum having to be donated to charitable causes or used for philanthropic purposes? It would be comforting to feel that those with 2 or more homes were starting to think about and act for those with no home for example.

Mike Matthews, Brockenhurst,

While fairness of taxation is certainly important, the article has nothing to do with it.

While levels of executive remuneration are certainly excessive, I do not understand what is the issue with the taxation any of those mentioned in the article. They are either British (and thus by default domiciled in Britain) or American (and thus taxed - at US rates - on their worldwide income regardless of domicile), and do not benefit for their income from absurd tax subsidies such as the ones on venture capital trusts (though they may do when thay reinvest said income).

The other point - regading fairness of relative incomes - will probably be taken care the way these things always have: through a massive recession causing the fall to earth of many demigods, untold suffering to the vast majority and the reinforcement of the position of very few. To believe that mankind can learn to adjust its ways on such a scale is folly.

David, Wallingford,

Simon Jenkins' article is a classic leftover of what was wrong with Britain in the 1960's. He fails to understand that salaries to senior employees are paid by shareholders who have a natural right to sack underachieving top management. The reality is that a good CEO can create enormous wealth for both shareholders, staff as well as the taxman. The threat of a brain drain is very real as anybody in the United States who meets a veritable cortege of CEO's, scientists and professors who escaped the appalling state of the UK under Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan can witness. Far from being penalised, mobile staff should be give a tax break for staying in the grim overpopulated and overpriced (more recently flooded)island I had the good fortune to flee. The US taxman is now the proud recipient of my considerable tax payment,. Poor Britain to have Simon Jenkins and his ilk still remonstrating about the bankrupt but ostensibly fairer past.

happyemigrant, Telluride, Colorado

Why do CEOs and directors recognize they need economic stability to plan, invest and generally finance future business but do not apply the same principles to the economic stability of their employees? Employees are not rewarded if and when they are removed by downsizing or delayering programmes or if they fail to perform and achieve what was required of them so why continue to reward directors, with huge salaries, share options, pension contributions and ‘golden goodbyes’ for having failed to perform? Why, when senior management insists on the implementation of performance-related pay schemes for employees, are those same schemes not introduced for Chairmen, Chief Executives and directors? Indeed, if, as many senior managers say, companies are managed to provide the best return for shareholders then why not tie bonuses for senior managers to the overall performance of the company and its share price over a longer period of time and not just 6 or 12 months? Greed starts at the top.

Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England

Why do I have to pay tax up to 50 percent of my salary (income tax plus national insurance) when people earning 100 times what I do and more contribute less to the public good due to loopholes and privileged rules ?

I would welcome the tax rates of the 1970s, provided the thresholds were chosen sensibly with respect to median earnings.

A.B. Right, Newcastle,

"The other force is political. The widening of the pay gap, which has not occurred in continental Europe,"

Really? The Gini coefficient is up right around the world. Income inequality is increasing everywhere. Given a global phenomenon, might there not be a global cause?

Tim Worstall, Messines, Portugal

Tax breaks for a privileged few are wrong. So is the system that lets members of The City take home bonus packets of 28 million - three new hospitals, two new schools, rejuvenation of The North......

Jane Fleming, Whittlesey, CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Interesting article. If we look at the Labour governments' performance, they have totally failed their natural constituents. Looking at wage inflation as an example - those most disadvantaged in our society now have to compete with even more disadvantaged immigrants for employment. In times gone by, the natural consequence in a lack of supply of labour would be an increase in wages - now with an "infinite" supply of immigrants for relatively low paid jobs there are no such pressures - who does this really benefit - certainly not the average worker !!! Nice one Labour.

disenchanted, northwest, uk

I 100% agree. If these massive bonuses are for performance then the trickle down should start at source and a bonus should be paid to each individual employee in the firm.They inturn would put more money directly into the UK service trades, retailers which in turn would boost manufacturing.
That bonus for the employee should be taxed at the same rate as the boss's bonus.Why the goverment pays these ludicrous consultancy fees is beyond me, anyone with an ounce of sense can see that for years they haven't been getting their / our moneys worth.Put the money into schools and teach children the basics instead of wasting it.

Gerry, Glasgow, UK

Politicians will act democratically before firms hire honest accountants - which conjunction is in consequence fast becoming an oxymoron.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Hurrah for Mr Jenkins. The narge numbers of immigrants entering the UK have helped to keep ordinary working pwoplw's pay down -perhaps we should import lots of foreign would-be high earners and do the same to these fat cats!

kay, leeds,

A flat tax is the only solution.

R Mason, London, UK

the australian government has recently legislated to strip even MORE collective bargaining power from workers. things are going in the wrong direction in this part of the world.

Tony Edwards, Sydney, Australia

Democracy is now no force at all. Voting Conservative just brings the architects of the problem back to power. Voting LibDem just splits the opposition vote and maintains the status quo - unjust wars and all.

Leroy, Ilford, uk

In the interests of full transparency, perhaps Simon Jenkins could reveal how much he earns and what multiple that is of the average income.

ChrisR, London,

If you don't like Barclays' pay structure, sell your Barclays' shares.
Ah, you can't. They're in a pension fund that you don't control, This is the real scandal, and why executive salaries are so high.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Simon you need to also include the fact that these executives whilst creaming it in for themselves have been busy making talented British people jobless by sending their work to India. Often the British people have to train up the Indians to take their jobs from them. All this is supported by the likes of Bob Diamond, who pick up their 30 million pounds pay packet by depriving other Britons of their livelihoods and they pocket the difference.

No wonder big business don't like Christianity, they may have to look at their own vileness and lack of care for their fellow man.

Jane, London, England

The problem is that for most people, even the most valuable contributors to industry like scientists and engineers, or to society like teachers, is that it's difficult to put a figure on their value.
On the other hand, fund managers, CEO's and the like can look at how profits have changed over the past year and claim that they made the difference. To the (willingly) credulous boards and consultants, rewarding them with a few % of this seems justifiable, even if it happens to be a number in the billions.
However, when profits go down, there is no parallel move to recoup from them a few % of the billions they have lost for their company.
The whole process is truly sickening. In part because every bright student can see that if he/she wants to be really really rich, banking and finance are the most promising options. Which is a pity for the economy, since these don't actually create anything.
If only we could pay teachers and engineers and CEO's all based on their true worth ...

Denis O'Sullivan, Brussels, Belgium

I think you fail to understand that the government has already tried to tackle this.

In 2002 they passed legislation requiring the pay settlement of the CEO to be put to a vote by the shareholders, annually. On the few occasions the shareholders have bothered about it, they have been successful. eg Glaxo shareholders successfully cut the pay of Garnier.

Unfortunately most shareholders don't bother to vote down CEO pay. Not sure what the govt can do about this. They can give the shareholders the tools, but they can't force them to use them. And as CEO pay comes out of shareholder's pockets, it's up to them to act.

BP, Bournemouth, UK

As usual the ordinary man in the street finds his finances getting ever tighter, subsidising by taxes, not only the deserving poor and immigrants who are able to abuse the system but the wealthiest of the UK population who see it as their right to pay almost no direct taxes at all.
It isn't just waving a red flag to a bull, it's sitting in the bull ring with silver service, dining on rump steak.
The Government should be more concerned with the middle classes deserting the UK and taking their money with them than the fat cats doing the same. For without this middleclass base of tax payers, who will fund the state at all?

s, alicante, spain

Great argument for a flat tax. Everybody pays the same proportion of their income - no special tax breaks, no loopholes. Only problem is the envy of the left wing who feel that only confiscatory rates are appropriate for anyone isn't in a union.

Neil Kelly, Florida, USA

Thank God Death is the great leveler. How much more unjust would the World be if the rich could buy immortality.

Brian Eastwood, Petersburg, VA USA

Simon Jenkins has highlighted a disgraceful state of affairs. Can a solution be found in statutorily restructuring Limited and Public Companies?

Robert, London, UK

Brilliant, much needed article.

K Kuhlemann, London, UK

Dear Mr Jenkins,

Your articles, if sometimes calculated, are just what is needed. Your acerbic knife-thrusts strike home. But how does one effectively go against what one may call the swine? Keep writing.

Granicvs

John Hanley, Reston, Virginia USA

What is the difference between the 70s and now..?

The wealth gap is wider, not narrower. But most ordinary people are still better off. And of course people are less politicised as society as become more individualised.

It sounds like we are being told that the top people should be made to accept less, so that the rest of us will be more amenable to accepting less.

Or perhaps if the top people got less, then the rest of us may be not better off, but at least we should feel better. It is therapeutic politics.

Richard, London, UK

Interesting article. If we look at the Labour governments' performance, they have totally failed their natural constituents. Looking at wage inflation as an example - those most disadvantaged in our society now have to compete with even more disadvantaged immigrants for employment. In times gone by, the natural consequence in a lack of supply of labour would be an increase in wages - now with an "infinite" supply of immigrants for relatively low paid jobs there are no such pressures - who does this really benefit - certainly not the average worker !!! Nice one Labour.

disenchanted, northwest,