Sure, I agree with the first bit. Theoretically it shouldn't affect me. But then what is the point of the policy? It is an empty gesture. Arbitrary.

And paying less for a CEO? No thank you. You get what you pay for.

And anyway, my long term exit strategy is to redistribute ownership to employees in exchange for a percentage of profits for how ever many years or up to a certain number.

It isn't about my lifestyle or numbers in a bank account. Personally, I don't need wealth. I have no interest in mansions, flash cars or private jets. I need infrastructure and resources to implement bigger ideas. So yes, an extra 200k is a big deal. But you're making an assumption that the jump will be so small.

Hypothetically, lets say my business makes 10 million in profit a year. A good chunk of that will obviously stay in the business and be reinvested. But I'll want to pull out a few million a year, initially so I can diversify my assets and be financially independent but eventually so I can invest in other peoples businesses and fund my next larger business. If I had to pay every employee 100k+, well that is a pisstake.

I'm not saying there aren't greedy people but not all wealthy people are greedy. A few are just ambitious and to achieve certain ambitions requires large quantities of wealth.

Let me be clear. The ambition isn't to acquire large amounts of wealth. The ambition is to help as many people as possible by creating useful products. Wealth is a side effect of helping lots of people and then you leverage that wealth to create even better products and help even more people.

But my point was, this is an arbitrary policy and there are many more effective strategies to reduce wealth inequality. This is ideological nonsense and it has cost Corbyn my vote. Something that I've found frustrating about Corbyn is his claims of being a firm democrat. It is why I supported him. It turns out though, democracy to Jeremy only counts when its people who agree with you.