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.
Just one half of UK practices have implemented a pricing structure around auto enrolment implementation and advice - with many suffering increased costs
Deloitte's north-west Europe foray; BDO, Smith & Williamson investment paths; Shelley Stock Hutter; and Wilkins Kennedy discussed by editor Kevin Reed on our Friday Afternoon Live broadcast
Accountants should alter their perspective on auto-enrolment to maximise business opportunities, according to Eric Clapton.
Kevin Reed discusses whether new accountancy group Cogital can rival the Big Four...and its likely direction of travel