Liz Truss - the first 100 days....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Rusty Nails

Country Member
I don't need to ask Craig, or, "ask a friend", I never said it was.

You still haven't explained why having cap is a good idea if, in your words "a cap isn't going to stop them.".

It is quite possible to be against "excess", without being in favour of a cap, on one section of the workforce.

I have, quite clearly, said, several times, "why not have measures would discourage 'excess'".

It is a cap on bonuses, not salary. Bonuses are paid to reward good/exceptional performance (as mentioned that comes with potential for higher risk taking to achieve that performance). At least the company can theoretically get increased profits from extra effort but does not have to pay extra for unexceptional performance. Companies are not going to guarantee to pay staff huge salaries that are possibly double or more their normal basic on the chance that people will still put the extra effort in without the bonus incentive.
A cap is not perfect but it has some effect and it is wrong to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can be as pedantic as you like over @Adam4868's wording of "not going to stop them", but it does make it much more difficult to get round excessive bonuses, and does have an effect.

If it was not having an effect on reducing bonuses why would the Tories feel the need to get rid of it to help their friends in the financial sector, and face the possible bad publicity at this time of increasing cost of living?
 
Last edited:

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
It is a cap on bonuses, not salary. Bonuses are paid to reward good/exceptional performance (as mentioned that comes with potential for higher risk taking to achieve that performance). At least the company can theoretically get increased profits from extra effort but does not have to pay extra for unexceptional performance. Companies are not going to guarantee to pay staff huge salaries that are possibly double or more their normal basic on the chance that people will still put the extra effort in without the bonus incentive.
A cap is not perfect but it has some effect and it is wrong to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can be as pedantic as you like over @Adam4868's wording of "not going to stop them", but it does make it much more difficult to get round excessive bonuses, and does have an effect.

If it was not having an effect on reducing bonuses why would the Tories feel the need to get rid of it to help their friends in the financial sector, and face the possible bad publicity at this time of increasing cost of living?

Why indeed?, but, the main push of this thread is that Truss is a plank, so, maybe the usual rules of logic don't apply.
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
I am assuming you meant your post above, rather than mine, but, to be on the safe side, I have re-read both.

What now?
Read what I wrote again maybe...what is difficult in this for you ?
A cap won't stop them paying there workers huge wages and maybe other perks...but the caps as I've said before are to stop reckless behaviour or inviting them to take risks for reward.
In the current climate do you think it's necessary?
 
Well, not Quite, really, the main push of this thread is that Truss is a plank, so, maybe the usual rules of logic don't apply.

The rule of always following the money does apply. She hasn't chosen to do this without being told how vitally important it is by interested parties that have less than tenuous connections to banking.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Read what I wrote again maybe...what is difficult in this for you ?
A cap won't stop them paying there workers huge wages and maybe other perks...but the caps as I've said before are to stop reckless behaviour or inviting them to take risks for reward.
In the current climate do you think it's necessary?

I have not said it would, indeed, I suggested something was needed to curb such excess, for ALL (eg footballers, TV presenters spring immediately to mind, in addition, perhaps to Bankers (not those in my local branch, possibly))

Again, you are saying the caps are to stop reckless behaviour, but, you previously said they don't do that, because the Employers will get around them.

I refer you back to may previous post for the third bolded item.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Again, you are saying the caps are to stop reckless behaviour, but, you previously said they don't do that, because the Employers will get around them.

I refer you back to may previous post for the third bolded item.

And I refer you to my post #272.
 
D

Deleted member 49

Guest
I have not said it would, indeed, I suggested something was needed to curb such excess, for ALL (eg footballers, TV presenters spring immediately to mind, in addition, perhaps to Bankers (not those in my local branch, possibly))
Was it you that used the term whattaboutery ?
Again, you are saying the caps are to stop reckless behaviour, but, you previously said they don't do that, because the Employers will get around them.
Except I didn't actually say that did I...or is this another silly game.I said...
"Let's be honest if the Banks choose to reward their workers a cap isn't going to stop them."
I explained allready that if they want to pay huge wages there's nothing can be done...which is different from bonuses to take risks.
 

Rusty Nails

Country Member
A cap on bonuses is a little bit like limits on car speeds.

They will not stop speeding but they will drastically reduce both the amount of it and the risks arising from excessive speed.
 
Top Bottom