Your debate (for and against, opinion, page 12, 24 May) does not really present the argument for greater equality of reward.
How can the differentials we see between those who receive millions a year and those on, say, less than £10,000 be justified by any idea of fairness?
It is argued that high pay does not adversely affect the rest of the population. This is not true; anyone claiming a higher share of resources is automatically reducing the share of others. Apart from the moral issue of fairness, unequal societies also produce more violence and crime. I have no great hope that any likely government would legislate to reverse even the increase in inequality we have seen over the last 20 years.
Perhaps instead of justifying their own greed by invocation of ‘the market’, those in a position to command huge rewards should limit these to a much more reasonable amount. What about a policy that would limit the range in a company so that the highest paid received no more than ten times the lowest?
Martin Wright, Wigan.
Andrew Tyrie airs views on the Finance Bill, 'Making Tax Policy Better' report, and Brexit
In our latest managing partner Q&A looking towards 2017, CVR Global's Richard Toone talks about recruitment, and the potential threat of competition from the legal sector, as key issues for the firm in the coming year
Deloitte to avoid tendering for government contracts over the next six months, to appease Theresa May following consultant's report that painted a less-than-flattering picture of Brexit plans
In our first Q&A looking towards 2017, Menzies senior partner Julie Adams flags up increasing digitisation, aligned with more hands-on consultative services, as the key mix for her practice