I was thinking the other day, the current expected pay outs for lottery winners in the UK, including roll over weeks, is equal to the bonuses paid out to failing banks, the same failing banks which had been key to financial fraud on a grand scale (mis-sold payment protection insurance, there is a whole trade based on redress of this it was so widespread, companies exist only to get clients compensation for this).
Sometimes the bonuses are two or three times the expected million or thereabouts a winner can expect.
That is the bonuses, they dont need the bonuses to make ends meet, and their earnings/incomes are millions already.
Does this seem wrong or does that seem like too much inequality or ridiculously over the top pay?
I mean the argument since before the mid-eighties in every field of commerce has been downsizing, if you cant sack them you cut their pay or expenses, with the exception of board rooms and executives, I can see no real reason for the exemption.
I'm not sure that the arguments in support of the obscenely high earnings and bonuses make sense even were the banks not failing, I dont know where these people would realistically be lost to.
I dont believe they will take flight to the US (or even china) because most of those countries are going to mandate some sort of domicile status for their executives, so their earnings are, in theory at least, still part of the GDP and going to factor into the "trickle down" because they spend it on services and good in their territory.