There is huge disparity of wealth in Ireland so why should those on the average wage heed the high-earning elite? asks Vincent Browne
TOTAL WEALTH in Ireland is about €1,000 billion. This works out at about €312,500 per adult (3.2 million adults). But the 20 richest people own wealth of €28.2 billion (according to The Sunday Times rich list), that is €1,500,000,000 each. That is almost 5,000 times the average wealth in society.
The richest 100 have about €48 billion, which is about half a billion each (€480,000,000), which is 150 times more than the average.
According to the Bank of Ireland, there are more than 33,000 millionaires in the country and, with a bit of luck, we might find out who they all are from the data with which the bank has been so careless in the last year.
What possible justification is there for such massive disparities in wealth in Ireland? A disparity made all the greater when it is appreciated that of the 20 richest people, only half of them at most pay taxes here - ie contribute to public wealth - whereas almost everyone else does. And half of this 20 seek to exercise considerable clout - and several of them do exercise clout - in this society to which they refuse to contribute in terms of the minimal income tax or capital gains tax they might have to pay.
Then there are the millionaire income "earners" ("earners" in quotation marks because I do not believe anybody truly earns such massive salaries and this is not intended as a disparagement of the people concerned). Owen Killian of IAWS got €10.15 million in 2007. Gene Murtagh of Kingspan earned €9.3 million. Eamon Rothwell, the head of the company that outraged people over the miserable wages being paid to contract labourers, got €7.03 million. Kelly Martin of Elan got €6.87 million. Brian Goggin of the Bank of Ireland, the bank that took over six months to tell 30,000 of its customers that it had lost personal data concerning them, got €6.75 million. David Drumm of Anglo-Irish Bank got €5.59 million. Willie McAteer, also of Anglo-Irish Bank, got €6.4 million. Gary McCann of Smurfit Kappa got €6.16 million. (These figures are taken from the Sunday Independent of April 20th.)
All this has relevance in the context of the pay negotiations that are about to take place. Brian Cowen, the taoiseach-elect, Turlough O'Sullivan of Ibec, the employers' body, and other worthies have been telling the mass of wage earners that they need to moderate their income demands because of the loss of competitiveness in Ireland and because of the downturn in the economy.
Brian Cowen will earn in excess of €300,000 in 2008, so too will Turlough O'Sullivan, so what justification have they for demanding that those who are paid a fraction of their earnings moderate their pay claims? The average income in Ireland last year was €34,000, according to Brian Cowen in answer to a written question earlier this year.
Surely the fair resolution of our competitiveness problem and the necessity for wage moderation is that those on massive incomes, certainly anybody over €300,000, should offer to take a pay cut to, say, €300,000 as an example to society?
What would be so bad if Owen Killian, Gene Murtagh, Eamon Rothewll, Kelly Martin, Brian Goggin, Willie McAteer and Gary McCann were to earn €300,000 instead of several million in 2008? No, that in itself would not make a significant dent in the national page package but it would help persuade others paid fractions less to go easy.
I know nothing about Owen Killian, wouldn't know him from Eve, or about IAWS but I suspect he gets a great deal of satisfaction from the job he does, aside from the income he earns. More than likely it is an interesting job and a powerful position. Is it likely he would abandon this job if he were asked to take a pay cut of 80 per cent, down to a salary of a mere €2.03 million? or indeed a salary cut of 90 per cent, down to just over €1 million?
If Brian Cowen were told he could not have a salary in excess of €300,000 as taoiseach and instead would have to do with a salary of, say, €90,000, isn't it certain it would make no difference at all to him in terms of his job satisfaction and his willingness to keep the job?
Maybe Owen Killian would be attracted away to America or somewhere, where he would earn the kind of salary he has earned here, but if that is so, isn't it likely there would be several others eager to have his job and not too fussy about the salary and not too far behind him in managerial flair?
Just think of a society where every one was paid the same wage. Is it likely that many of us would do anything different from what we do at present? Isn't it likely we would do more socially useful work than we do now? Isn't it likely that if we were all paid the same, very few of us would care about fine houses and large mortgages, about fine restaurants and fine wines, about umpteen foreign holidays That our expectations and delights would be of a more modest nature but no less delightful? And for those who are concerned about being Christian, would it not be more Christian too?