I'm sorry, but I won't be joining the "entertainers are overpaid" nonsense, because that's precisely what it is, that, and lack of industry knowledge. Typical poor person's ignorant attitude.
Says the guy whose avatar clearly states how much he knows about life. But personal attacks aside it basically
is questionable if JC's salary as a presenter is appropriate in it's current amount. As has been stated above, the royalties he and Wilman receive for the creation of "new" TG and every product associated with it, most likely are
not part of this salary.
On top of that, again, as has been stated above, the idea behind this pay cut is to match BBC employee's salarys with those paid py privately-owned competitors. So, ideology aside, compared to what other top industry figures are paid, the BBC's top presenters
are overpaid. As the BBC uses taxpayer's money to pay their salaries, they are not allowed to set a standard for top staff salaries, they are only allowed to match the industry standard. This little rule means that the BBC can't use it's secure funding from taxpayer's money to snatch away the creative staff of all competitors while still being able to match (almost) any offer they may make, preventing the BBC from being drained by the private corporations. Thus, in the interest of the free market, the overpayment of JC & Co has to be stopped.
And it's not about them not recieving "fair compensation" for a life's work - a bit less than 100000 pounds a year (that's around 13.000 of your U.S. Dollars a month), healthcare and pension plan already paid for as we got a working social system in Europe is not exactely toy money. Especially with royalities for Top Gear AND side jobs (like yearly supercar DVDs, TG live appearances, etc) on top of it.
Your entry, Roadster, is a typical example of poor reader's ignorant attitude.
(Sorry if this entry is a little bit of a personal attack, but this "poor person's" angle was so bad manners i am unwilling to ignore it)
)
