Bbcsalaries

William Loneskie quite rightly reveals some indignation over the “outrageous salaries” paid to some BBC staff (Letters, 21 July)

Unfortunately we have little or no comparable figures for the private and commercial worlds of television and radio presenters, though perhaps it isn’t unreasonable to assume from what has been said or alluded to that they pay even “more outrageous sums”.

Presumably this explains why BBC bosses repeat the mantra of paying its “stars” the “market rate” or risk losing them to private or commercial organisations.

How far, however, is the concept of market forces determining “star” pay a useful ideology, as one vital element of a free market is missing – ease of entry?

How open to competition are the jobs of those being paid astronomical wages by the BBC and similar organisations in the commercial and private sector?

From the viewpoint of ethical economics, or what is often called “applied ethics”, there is one way to begin seeking a different rewards system based on the justice of reducing inequalities.

Higher tax bands aren’t the answer, but in order to create much-needed greater equality of incomes across society recourse must be made to a method called surtax, which was used after the Second World War and not abolished until 1973.

Say, for the sake of argument, the Prime Minister’s salary of around £150,000 is considered “fair” for the job but open for discussion.

All personal incomes then ought to be capped at £150,000 and incomes above this level subject to what was called surtax.

So, how much should this tax be, as it is on top of the “ordinary income taxes” paid, and it only kicks in at £150,000?

Perhaps to achieve greater incomes equality and begin to tackle the worst of our social problems, a draconian level should be set for a deeply radical redistribution of income.

ELLIS THORPE Old Chapel Walk, Inverurie