OK, I'm having this 'spirited' discussion at another place, and I wonder what ppl here think about it.

I find the concept of one man being paid a 100 times (or more) as much as another for the same hours worked to be unjust. I know that one person might be better educated and/or more skilled than another, so it is reasonable that he be paid more, as his work is more valued by society. I also have nothing against people making a lorry load of money and enjoying it, so there is nothing personal involved. I am just talking about the concept of how much different people are valued by society.

As far as I can make out, most value is based on perception.

Let me use my fave uncle as an example. He is a Queen's Council and a very clever barrister who works three days a week for himself, and the other two days a week he gives pro bono. His fees are not by the hour but effectively average 500 pounds ($US1,000) per hour. If he were to charge all his time five days a week, he would very likely earn a million pounds a year ($US 2,000,000). As it is, he earns slightly more than half that, and he pays about 40% of his income in tax.

He is a man in his mid thirties, who is in good health, who is unmarried, and who does not have mortgages to pay. So he does not need all that money. He has three houses, drives an expensive car, and has a collection of vintage cars. He dresses well and eats well, and frequently travels overseas. He lives a comfortable lifestyle, and to be fair to him, is extremely generous as far as charity is concerned. But he does not need all that money.

I realise that if he, and people in a similar income bracket, did not pay the US equivalent of $400,000 a year in tax, the treasury would be poorer and there would be insufficient funds for things like universal health care, age pensions, education, etc. So there are benefits from having highly capable and highly recompensed people in society.

But irrespective of how clever he is, and how responsible he has been to become a Queen's Council, is his time worth 100 times that of someone who works on the factory floor? Society perceives it to be more valuable to that extent, but is it intrinsically so?. So things such as progressive taxation balance the books to a small degree, as it could be argued that he benefits society more than the man who screws in tail lights on the assembly line.

And to be fair to my uncle, he is a very nice man, (and great fun) and I don't begrudge him a penny, but on the conceptual level, I have doubts whether it is just that he is paid so much money, when an equally hard working factory worker is paid so little.

And as an example, my uncle is small potatoes compared to CEO's and sports stars who are paid 50 million a year (and upwards). I use him as an example because at least he works for his money.

What do the people here think about the issue of some people being paid multi-million dollars, and others barely enough to live on?

I think about earning money as being connected to how much money passes through your hands at work. Like commission, for every so much of company money you handle they pay you more.