What is it with the Archbishop of Canterbury saying stupid things? First he made some poorly judged comments about Islamic law being incorporated into the British legal system, now he's said that the Government should look into the "regulation of high salaries".
It's like he's a 1970s throwback or something. The Government has no place regulating how much someone should be paid in terms of setting upper limits of wealth. I can appreciate something like the minimum wage, and I understand it's pragmatic purpose, but earnings above that should not be set.
If you start setting limits on earning that what would that do for wealth creation? What's the point in trying to earn more money if a limit is set on how much you may earn? That's not even socialism, it's bordering on communism.
19 comments:
Whats happened to Guido Fawkes blog? The government finally got to him? I think you should find out Dizzy.
Christianity and communism are both loony anti-individual collectivist religions and they both hate human progress and aspiration and oppose fun and wealth.
Oh and by the way intervention in the bottom of the market (eg in minimum wage regs) is just as bad as at the top, if not worse. The minimum wage laws (and many other market interventions such as SSP, working time etc) are a real barrier to entry for the young and unskilled and keep the poor impoverished and on benefits.
There are two basic types of cleric. Leftie intellectual who dither about, and stalwart onward christian soldier type. Unfortunately, williams is the former.
Now the Arch bish of York is a horse of a completely different colour, as the Wizard of Oz would say, and is a man who, I believe, is rightly respected and deferred to.
Greedy bastard
He is of course now going to sell Lambeth Palace, his fine robes and the various possessions of the church.
Yes?
Rowan Williams is a typical member of the Guardian-reading classes. Nothing he says is surprising if you keep that in mind.
Rowan Williams is a prime example for what happens to people who take too many, or too few drugs in their life.
Being a relatively poor person looking up from the bottom of the barrel, its obvious to me that rich people need the existence of the poor. However, if I was suddenly catapulted up to the position of extreme wealth, I would not want to change anything, lets be fair, I can see the obvious truth the way it is, so if these other poor morons can't then hard shit.
Can we have a commission to look into people like the Archbishop telling people silly fairytales and wearing ridiculous clothing and claiming to hear god talking to them.
We all know its the spaghetti monster .
Hold on there Dizzy!
The bishop didn't say anything of the sort as far as I recall. I listened to the R4 interview, and as far as I can remember the Bish said he didn't want to get drawn into discussions of high salaries, his concern was for the poor. John Humphries then tried to coax him into making criticisms of the rich, which he largely avoided, then Humphries said something like "that doesn't sound too far from old-fashioned socialism", whereas in fact it was nothing more than bog-standard Christianity, and then Humphries finished with a comment about camels and needles (to which any good Christian would have replied that with God anything is possible).
This story was then twisted by the Mail and reported by you as though the bishop had said something that in fact he did not. To be fair, Humphries asked him whether it would be a good thing if the current situation continued "unchecked", which the bishop clearly took to refer to the regulation of credit [the bishop's subject] and Humphries tried to link to high salaries.
Listen to the interview (mostly about credit and the poor) here, and judge the bishop and the Mail here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/friday.shtml
[Interview at 8:10]
This is nothing but stirring by Radio4 and the Mail.
Dear Dizzy
Perhaps in the next few years when the C of E collapses financially and is unable to pay the salaries of these Ecclesiarchical drones (who will consequently disappear), there may yet be a revival of Real Christianity
A major problem with C of E Clergymen is that they have no effective accountability for their actions, however lazy and/or ineffectual they may be
If a Bishop or Archdeacon presides over a Diocesan Re-organization which results in the increasing failure of the Church, there are no consequences for such Ecclesiarchs
- their salaries are not reduced
- they do not lose their jobs
- they do not have to retire any earlier
- inflation-proof non-contributory pensions are not affected
If he is the Dean of a Cathedral or a Vicar and he is totally dysfunctional and does no work whatever, as the months roll by into years, he (or in these enlightened times, increasingly "she") can insist on remaining in post while on indefinite "study-leave" until his (or her) financial future is secured
It's even better than being a Deputy Prime Minister, apart from being without the Droit de Seigneur
The problem with Mr Williams and his colleagues is that they do not have to bear any responsibility for their conduct
I have the honour to remain your obedient servant etc
G Eagle
Radio 4 has that annoying habit of trying to make the news happen.
Almost everyday one of them will ask some leading, trip up question of whichever person has drawn the short straw to attend.
"Do you think povety will end minister?"
"Erm,we are all working hard.."
"Let me ask you again.Do you think povety will end minister?"
"well. I couldn't possibly say with any certainty.."
"On this program the Minister for blogging refused to confirm his government's spending on Africa have any use whatsoever."
Of course the Government has a place in regulating wages. That's what a progressive system of taxation does. Not everyone's a spastic "libertarian" [SIC] of the right-wing-blogger ilk who thinks it's all about enrichez-vous and "there's no such thing as society".
Mr Dale got it right with his "the Archbishoprick..."
Slightly o/t: You say: the Government should look into......
My local comic today states that "Parliament will look into the goungs on at Liverpool football club....".
Can somebody explain WTF it has to do with that august body? Thanks you.
"That's not even socialism, it's bordering on communism."
Is there a difference ? USSR had the word Socialist in it, not Communist.
Alan Douglas
Doesn't matter to me if Dizzy is misrepresenting or not. Let's let anyone earn whatever they can ... but adjust the tax system to have them contribute more the wealthier they are. And not the reverse.
I agree with Chris Paul here.
I've been told that John Wesley said "earn as much as you can; give as much as you can". I'd welcome confirmation of this, because I haven't been able to do so myself.
Don't stop the high earners, but make sure they pay their wack in taxes. I'd also like to see more tax incentives given to encourage the rich to contribute to charities or to support education, as is the case in the USA
Since when should we care what religious figures have to say about economics?!
Greed is also a problem, I remember a bloke once saying your paid by results and those results must show a financial reward, his wage £27 million. The top man at a bank which went belly up Northern Rock has just been paid a productivity bonus I think of £750,000.
Can you imagine a window cleaner saying you must pay me for results I cleaned an extra 200 Windows how about £27 million..
Post a Comment