What do they spend it on?

I would be quite happy to receive £300,000 pa pension as long as the rest of you were just behind me - how does £295,000 sound?

I will forgo my £10 Christmas bonus.

So they should they get paid enough to work 24/7 in some instances.

Managing people isn't rocket science, but some people are much better than others, with dramatic effects on productivity in both directions.

Yes, there are too many chiefs in many organisations (it has been said that there are more admirals than ships in the Royal Navy), but promotions and pay differentials are popular and efficient incentives.

A maximum 100% differential between the top and the bottom seems reasonable as a guide, but I'm not sure I'd like to see it in legislation: once you start where do you stop, and an industry would grow based on advising the unscrupulous how to get round it. And nowadays Chiefs often work longer hours than Indians.

In some organisations there is, at the moment, a shortage of 'indians' - blamed on the difficult financial climate, yet they still have plenty of chiefs.
In many cases a reduction in chiefs and an increase in indians would be a great help.

maybe grump the chiefs should earn no more than a given % of those they manage. Say 50% or even 100% Not sure anyone is worth more than that as a manager - it isn't exactly rocket science managing people is it?

"A £300,000 salary equals ten normal jobs, never mind the bonus. That's how that sort of money should be shared out, not just giving to charity."

Not sure what you have in mind, Durhamjen. Do you mean that one job earning 300k should be split between ten people earning 30k each? So instead of having too many Chiefs for the Indians we'd have armies of Indians and no Chiefs?

I sometimes wonder if some top earners regret their life choices.
One of the troubles with life is, that we dont get to repeat it. We only get the one chance at making best choices for ourselves and those around us.
I think most of us would like at least a second chance.

kitty I thought you meant your Son in Law and wasn't going to say that that was one of the reasons my DD's marriage was in trouble.She started referring to herself as a single mother and also a single married woman.

I am with you gracesgran but I do wonder how some people live with themselves who have more money than they can spend in a lifetime. It seems to be almost an illness when they accumulate so much money and such a sterile thing to do.

If you get on the tube or bus very early in the morning you will find lots of people making their way to work. They are often doing jobs like office cleaning for which they earn a pittance, which means they have to do more than one job to make ends meet.

Those that earn vast amounts of money and work long hours can, if they wish, put aside money to pay off a mortgage early and can eventually apply for a less demanding job. Those on low wages don't have such choices.

I agree soontobe. It hasn't brought my sister in law a lot of happiness and she is permanently stressed.

I would agree that most people with high wages, are making sacrifices in other areas of their lives. Sacrifices that I would not want to make.

My Sil earns an awful lot of money but goes to work at 6 am and often is not home till 10 pm.

I heard on the radio yesterday that globally just 85 people hold half the world's wealth. Just how that was worked out I don't know but if true it does seem just a tad unequal.

I think partly I am not sure, because once salaries get very high, it is difficult to imagine what people do to justify them.
And job descriptions get so vague, so again, how can ordinary people decide whether what people do, justifies their wages.

It does raise an interesting question about whether salaries should have an upper limit.
I am never quite sure about that.

A £300,000 salary equals ten normal jobs, never mind the bonus. That's how that sort of money should be shared out, not just giving to charity.

Well said Gracesgran

I don't mind how much people have as long as everyone else is not so far behind. It is the gap, not the amount that is the problem.

Precisely, Eleothan! I would love to be able to give more than we do and can.

We might help our families and give to charity - but what do the people who get this money actually do with it? They insist that they should have it and deserve it, but I cannot think that they do so for altruistic reasons; so we are left with the original question - what do they spend it on?......yachts, properties all round the world, designer gear.....and then what?

It revolts me to be honest when people are starving.

Being poverty stricken doesn't usually make life particularly happy either - at least if you have money you can choose to give it away.

I think that was uncalled-for rosesarered - no need to impugn my (very good) taste

They say money is not important, but it sure rates up there with oxygen!!

Oh to have the chance to find out suzied!