Because he's worth it?

It's not entirely clear why the taxpayer, via the BBC is paying Chris Evans millions of pounds to be an irritating moron. Because he's worth it? No, can't be that, must be some other reason.

One man's moron is another man's idol. I would rather someone banished him to a desert island somewhere on the other side of the moon - but - hey - what do I know.
None of these people are worth anything like the salaries/fees they command. But again, as in sport etc, its a 'market'. A people market. Agents negotiate the fees. The more the demand the more the fee. Personally I would make it law that everybody's salaries/fees be open to public scrutiny, for that is the only way by which the present obscene differentials that exist can ever be more fairly balanced. Is your moron worth a thousand times more than what my daughter is paid - she's a nurse, saves lives, works 12 hour shifts etc etc etc? I would maintain he's actually worth less in monetary terms! What to do -? Nothing. For anything you might try in natural law would fail from the outset - due to 'public' demand. International taxation is the only 'real' answer - and that's not going to happen either as nation will not speak to nation - only in a 'real' world disaster scenario. So meanwhile these jumped up idiots will continue to be paid obscene amounts of money regardless of the inequities and obscenities all around us.

Chris Evans was temporarily fashionable and popular for a short while, quite a number of years ago, but since then, the public tediously suffer rather than like him, and would mostly be happy to pay a small amount to make him go away.

Other overpaid BBC celebrities have similar stories, briefly popular, then, paid huge amounts for many years following, despite the public almost completely losing interest in them.

The uninformed observer, knowing nothing of 'behind the scenes' at the BBC may suspect something iffy going on; draining millions of pounds into certain bank accounts. Some dark and twisted Jimmy Saville type arrangement, perhaps involving hypnosis, voodoo curses, blackmail, or other type of coercive persuasion.

The only other explanation is that many people absolutely adore Chris Evans and the like. This is beyond belief or comprehension, or, if true, heralds widespread mental disorder. Until someone comes up with a better explanation, I'm going with the coercive persuasion theory.

As the multi-million salaries of a 'higher economic class' of people within the UK are dicussed in the media, it becomes apparent a large number of people, celebrities, footballers, executives and so on are paid in millions rather than the amounts of money 'ordinary' people are paid. Added together the multi-million salaries being paid must be a considerable cash-flow, where does it go.

Unless those in receipt are crooked - 40% goes back to the exchequer. The rest is invested or wasted depending upon the recipient. Across Europe approx 30% are in receipt of 'above average' earnings, some ludicrously so - average across all being approx £26,000 per annum. All of these will be in the 'remain' camp for a Super State, as all have done well from it. The rest, 70%, are in the main voiceless until it comes to national governments according their populace the referendum. In the rest of Europe even this seems now to be defunct unless the results are in accordance with the 30% wishes. Fortunately we here in the UK have a different outlook and hence -- Brexit and the start of the rot so to speak. All tax revenues go towards keeping the Super State in being as the 'State' has the first call on 'all' monies received (or snatched - as in Cyprus in 2014). When the 'State' has taken its lions share the rest is distributed amongst the 'workers' (or to put it less bluntly - the idiots). Differentials are all well and good as they 'pressure' the rest to better attainment and productivity. That is of course as long as they remain 'reasonable'. Reasonable is no longer the case and hasn't been since the 1960's. Governments will by necessity have to reduce iniquitous differentials as the next few decades go by as the 'populace' will require more and more financial support to counter the lack of 'work' available due to new technologies. It will probably be the only saving grace to the planet as resources grow less, population grow more and the planet itself becomes less inhabitable. So don't worry. Nothing will happen in your lifetime to redress the imbalances - unless every country becomes like Venezuela -- in which case it won't be worth living at all.

If we want to build a stable society for the future, wealth will have to be shared more equally. The public make a rod for their own back by supporting some pretty unpleasant celebrities.

That goes without saying - i.e. logical - unless of course someone somewhere decides that there are far too many humans for sustainability of the planets dwindling resources - in which event the mass removal (by design) of sufficient numbers to enable productive use of the remainder is the more likely outcome. This is likely to come about by initial selection of the weakest and undesirable followed by selection by 'grade' and so on. It's possible that this scenario will be the most favoured by the wealthiest and more capable of the species.