I’m hearing a lot – through online seminars – about achieving what we’re worth financially and becoming wealthy. I know those people are genuine in wanting their listeners and clients to share in their wealth, and that they see wealth as more than money: it’s an all round wellness, including spiritual.

I won’t name people or I will feel I am attacking them, and I don’t wish to do that. But I am referring to a large group of American speakers and authors who offer assistance who have a common thread of the law of attraction.  

one lady whose work I have much enjoyed spoke of her “healthy 6 figure salary”. There is a paradox in that phrase for me.

The same group talk of under earning because we do not value ourselves to believe we can charge what we are worth. This is particularly true of self employed people, they say. Put your fees up. Negotiate a raise and benefits if you are working for someone else.

This is what the client sees:

Someone who over prices themselves; not one who has great self esteem but is closer to megalomaniac delusions. I knew of a therapist who charged double what the standard rate was and claimed he was worth it. It turned me away from him. He set such a high precedent for himself that I doubt he could match what my expectation would be of someone who charged that much.

I find myself feeling very socialist here. Many people’s jobs, which they maybe happy in, will never be six figures. Is there really enough money in the world for all of us to have that kind of salary?

Not all of us can or want to run or own business, which seems to be where much of there grow rich advocates suggest the money is, especially in financial or internet companies. I am a firm believer in supporting high street trade and having the possibility of direct personal contact. Other businesses suffer when too much is available online – just a trip to DVD shops this week showed that even the big chains are reducing their stock drastically  – I fear that the internet has far more to do with that than the supposed recession.

We need a society with cleaners, bank clerks, admin assistants, retailers, teachers, nurses… to name a few of the many roles. These jobs do not earn hundreds of thousands; even high end ones like lawyers and doctors do not earn millions. In fact, neither does our Prime Minister.

Some jobs don’t have pay negotiation in them. You’re in a pay band and you can’t say – ‘I’m worth more’. You have to be at a certain level and in a certain kind of firm to be able to get extra benefits and pay rises. There is also the issue of equality – if I get more money and extra perks – what about my colleagues on my pay grade? Aren’t they worth more too? How will they feel when they find out that I’ve got something that they haven’t? And what of those in unethical employment such as sweatshops, who will lose their jobs if they query the pay but are fearful of how they will support themselves – and others – without it?

Earning less makes you prioritise, and find out what you really care about. It makes you appreciate. There is a pleasure in looking forward to a treat which you cannot yet have. How can life be fulfilling if you get anything you want immediately, and do not know the concept of deferred gratification? Having less makes you choose what is important to you.

I’m not sure that earning caps or the 1960s super tax that the Beatles sang of are the answer. But it does seems to me that some have too much and do not share it. Perhaps it is the sharing that is the important part. If the government taxes you, then you do not choose how much you give away or for what. But less tax means that richer people can decide how they give their money for the benefit of others. Perhaps the rule should be that higher earners chose higher tax or demonstrate that your wealth is going to the benefit of others in another way. Perhaps an individual could invest in better transport or subsidise housing. I admire those in the arts who set up companies so that others may be discovered and nurtured, like June Forsyte in Galsworthy’s Forsyte saga with her artists’ gallery.

I often hear objectors to something expensive speak of how hospitals could have benefited. Why is it that hospitals are the first thing that comes to their mind? As someone who doesn’t use or support the conventional health system they are not the first use of money of my lips. I resent that assumption that only starving children and hospitals are valued uses of money, and that buildings and arts are not. Yet there are basic needs and right which many in this world do not have – and I have the suspicion that the wealth is there to pay for all the needs that exist but it isn’t being used in this way.

I hear what I think are contradictory messages from some abundance teachers. They say that our world could be sorted if we chose to live differently, and have actually named poverty and hunger as something that we have the resources to change. But on the other hand they say: believe you can earn what you are worth, think rich, think bigger… This is what keeps others in debt, lack, and for some, in absolutely dire conditions. Perhaps focussing on those right at the bottom and assisting them finding their financial feet in a holistic and sustainable way – which in some cases will be large parts of a country – is what is needed most.

And for those assistors to drop their fee – they may believe they’re worth it – but aren’t those who need their help. They have enough – those seeking financial advice do not. To say to someone is debt or who cannot meet basic needs – you’ll need to pay for my help sounds ironic of not immoral.