OK for one, but not for the other

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To start this thread, I have to say I disagree with housing payments for people earning this much money as a matter of principla. I don't see why, having earnt so much, they can't pay for their own house like the rest of us do.

Really? You aren't able to, in any way, comprehend why this happens?

It's hardly rocket science Graham: When they accept a job they will consider the cost of moving, living, tax regime etc and will negotiate and accept a package based on those criteria. Would it make you feel any better if instead of a housing allowance they just got paid the money as their wage instead? Which would mean it would likely increase the amount they get in pension and bonus payments as well.

If you think they aren't the right person for the job, or you think they would have taken the job for a less generous package then you'd have a point (not that I necessarily agree) but atm you're just whining about people getting paid well.

John1993_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay for the housing you want, you don't take the job. Fact. That's how it works for the rest of us.... you know the salary, you balance that against the cost of living close by/where you want ... and you choose.

So when I was offered a job in the US with a house included, I should have walked away on principle, or should just have offered to pay the cost back even though it was part of the package?

Do yo uhave the same rule with, for example, company cars?