Why do you "have a real problem" isn't this a matter a for the shareholders?

Sorry Dally this is the daftest thing that I've read in a long time.



I agree with wire-quin let the high earners get on with it with the wrencat proviso that the taxation system is administered fairly.



I suppose in the real world that would be over dependent upon the honesty of the tax payer, the gumption of the exchequer to collect correctly and fairly and the sensibility of the government and policy makers to redistribute that wealth for the greater good.



All of these 'real world' issues wouldn't be solved by having a maximum wage limit, the high earners would either be dis incentivised once they had reached their target, or more likely move to a freer market or spend time searching for and exploiting loopholes denying the exchequer of funds

What is working harder? Should labourers be the best paid workers in the country?



Should we also not be considering responsibility, competence........ or is it all about the 'graft'

This is entirely true, and the sole reason that the NLW has been scaled upwards; to take people out of tax credits and thus, reduce the benefit bill. This is of course ignoring the fact that the single biggest element of the benefit system is pensions - but you can't touch those, because pensioners vote Tory.







That however is nonsense; unless your only measure of 'hard work' is sweat and graft, which is clearly not the case. The harsh reality is that not many people have the skills, qualities and mindset to be a CEO - whereas many many more people are able to do the £7 an hour kind of job you're referring to - so the market values those rarer qualities accordingly. I'm uncomfortable about interfering with that.

That was written with my shareholders hat on.

Why? If a minimum wage is in order (a distortion of market forces), why is a maximum daft? Your logic defies logic.

So a director of a plc would work less hard and produce less for £1 million per year than £6 million? Really? If so, he / she is the wrong man for the job. There is simply no need to pay these managers so much if there was say £1 million on offer rather than say £6 million there would be just as many would be takers for the job.

The rate is what a company is willing to pay, its uncontrollable. The minimum wage of course can be set. If we limit the high earners potential they will move on which cant be good for business. Not to dissimilar to the Premier football league which it could be argued gets the best players because its willing to buy them.

Unlike the Premier League FTSE 100 companies still have a disproportionate number of British directors and so the top talent argument doesn't hold water. These people would still do the jobs for less pay of that there is no question. If they were any good and wanted more money they'd have gone to the USA years ago.

Why would any company pay over the odds for senior staff??

Excellent!!



At the next AGM whilst you have your shareholders hat on, stick your shareholder hand up and vote against 'your' CEO's remuneration package if you don't think that you are getting value for money that's fine by me. What isn't fine is a government committee, cross party social think tank, or are you calling for a referendum/public vote, to decide how much I or anyone else can get paid

Institutional investors have started doing so as they finally grasped the point I have being making for years.