Society is suffering from the greed of the few

Exactly opposite the spirit of the volunteer is that of the bosses of our big companies. They demand obscene amounts of money for their time; they divert money into their own pockets from people who are less well off than themselves; in place of the volunteer's altruism, the corporate bosses have selfishness. They use their positions of power to amass levels of wealth that are far beyond what they will ever need. Where the volunteers give, the corporate bosses take; where the former are admirable, the latter are contemptible.

Who pays the multi-million dollar salaries of the CEOs? Many of the volunteers would be small investors, many would be employees of the big companies, many would be self-funded retirees, many others would be putting a portion of their hard-earned income into superannuation funds. The CEOs are taking a cut from all these groups; effectively robbing the poor to help themselves. Some volunteers would fall into several of the above categories and would be loosing in more ways than one. Many volunteers, small investors, employees of the big corporation, and those who pay into superannuation schemes are far from wealthy; they can ill-afford being 'milked' by the bosses.

The CEOs take a significant skim off the top of the profits of the big corporations. If they took less there would be more for the employees and the investors. The superannuation funds invest a large part of the money that they have the responsibility to look after in the big companies. All those who place money in a superannuation fund, or who have retired and are living from their superannuation, are paying a portion of the bloated incomes of the big bosses. In effect, the battlers are paying the wealthy.

The average package for the 100 highest paid COEs in Australia in the 2001-2002 financial year was $2.6 million a year. Consider this: if a particular COE was to decide that he (there are very few shes) could get by on $600 000 a year and put the rest back into the company funds, that $2 million a year would be enough for a thousand investors to each get a thousand dollars more each year and a thousand employees to get a pay rise of a thousand dollars per year. Enough to make quite a difference to many volunteers, I imagine. And that's only one company.

There is ample research indicating that beyond sufficient income to provide a comfortable living, more money does not lead to more happiness. The same research confirms that, on the other hand, too little money certainly causes misery.

The gross incomes of the corporate bosses and board members don't come out of the blue; we pay them! Most ordinary Australians are paying toward the maintenance of their life-styles and the size of their bank accounts.

Ethically the grasping CEOs are no better than embezzlers or bank robbers. While they may obey the laws, they take away from many who have much less than themselve, and they do not need what they take. They take it because they can!

The share of the nation's wealth in the hands of the richest 10% increased greatly during the Howard years, just as the share of the nation's wealth in the hands of the poorest 10% decreased. The incomes of the wealthy increased steeply, those at the bottom of the heap were lucky if they kept their heads above water. The gap between rich and poor in Australia must be wider now than for a very long time. Will the Rudd government turn this around? I'd say that the early signs are not promising.

We should be more vocal in our condemnation of greed for the good of our society.

In addition to listing the remuneration packages the CEOs of some 100 to 150 of Australia's largest companies the report found that:

• Executive Remuneration levels in Australia grew over the decade 1992-2002 from 22 times average weekly earnings to 74 times average weekly earnings.
• At the same time, executive option packages, with 'long-term incentives' (share bonuses, share purchase plans and share option entitlements) for Australian CEOs increased from 6.3 per cent of total remuneration in 1987 to 35.2 per cent of total remuneration in 1998.
• The often-stated link between high executive pay and company performance does not exist. Indeed, the evidence is that as an executive's pay increases, the performance of the company deteriorates. Against three criteria: return on equity, share price change and change in earnings per share, statistical analysis shows that high excessive pay levels actually coincide with a lower bottom line.