Letters to daily Mirror : one printed
At a time when Labour has been pledged to a minimum wage of £10 per hour (£20,800 per year), it is unfathomable why there are people on vastly superior salaries seeking to grub even more.
It’s not just in football with Sam Allardyce trying to grab another £400k on top of his £3 million a year.
It’s banker’s with their obscene bonuses, CEO’s raiding pension funds, Politicians claiming unwarranted expenses.
The whole of the supertax strata is seemingly corrupt at a level, which I was brought up to believe as only existing among lesser nations.
I don’t know whether to feel sad, ashamed, or just bloody angry at those claiming to be our superiors and deserving of our respect and deference
#At a time when Labour has pledged a minimum wage of £10 per hour,
it is unfathomable why there are people on vastly superior salaries
seeking to take even more.
It is not just in football with Sam Allardyce trying to grab another
£400,000 on top of his £3million a year, it’s investment bankers with
their obscene bonuses, chief executives being rewarded for failure and
our politicians claiming unwarranted expenses in Parliament.
I don’t know whether to feel sad, ashamed, or just downright angry.
Your editorial, in the Sunday Mirror, says that Mr Corbyn should accept that replacing Britain’s Trident nuclear system is official Labour policy.
I’m sure he has done, which is why it wasn’t tabled to be discussed at conference.
However the suggestion that he should do so with a smile on his face, shows a complete lack of awareness of why he is so popular with new members.
Voter’s see him as straightforward and a welcome change from the dissembling of most senior politicians of all parties.
The moment he swaps principle’s for false bonhomie is the moment he becomes just another untrusted politician.
If you steal something and are caught, you are punished and lose all rights to what you have stolen.
In the case of rape, where a child results, I can not see any valid reason why that same principle should not apply.
Of course Russell Melford should be denied all parental rights to access to the young girl born as a result of his crime.
But, just as a criminal should also be made to compensate his victim, a rapist should be made to pay maintenance, when practicable, for the rearing of any subsequent children.
You can’t reject a Society’s rules and then expect to benefit from them.
In your article about George Osborne’s family firm not paying any tax, I was puzzled by the statement that the highest paid director had “earned” £639,000, despite the Company having made a £377,000 loss.
Obviously if the highest paid director had only “earned” £262,000, the Company would have not made any loss.
How can our politicians preside over a tax regime which allows a business’s profit margin be so blatantly eroded before the taxman even gets a look-in?
It seems obvious to me that that £639,000 was not “earned” and the solution to this sanctioned criminality, must be some form of cap on salaries and dividends, in relation to turnover.
Once Company tax has been assessed and paid, director’s can then dish out the remaining profit as bonuses and dividends, as they wish.
There is no way that zero-hour workers, should be subsidising these leeches, via a corrupt tax regime.