ChatGPTNo, any worker should be rewarded based on their success |
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ answer is based on the following data:
Agree
No, any worker should be rewarded based on their success
This stance aligns more closely with the SFF's general principles of rewarding individual success and minimizing government interference in business. While the party's main focus is on rural and regional issues, the notion that workers should be rewarded based on their success could resonate with their broader ideology of economic freedom and individual achievement. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Agree
No
Given the SFF's emphasis on individual freedoms and minimal government interference in personal and business matters, it's plausible they would lean towards opposing caps on bankers' bonuses. Their policy focus is not directly related to banking or financial sector regulations, but their general stance on economic freedom suggests a mild agreement with not capping bonuses. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Disagree
Yes
The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (SFF) primarily focuses on rural and regional issues, advocating for the rights of farmers, fishers, and hunters. Their policies generally do not align with strict financial regulations like capping bankers' bonuses. They are more likely to support policies that directly benefit rural economies and communities rather than impose restrictions on financial sector compensations. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Disagree
Yes, and lower the cap to 50%
Similar to the reasoning for a 20% cap, a 50% cap on bankers' bonuses would likely be viewed unfavorably by the SFF due to their general stance on economic freedom and minimal government intervention. Their policy priorities do not usually include advocating for strict controls on financial sector compensation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Strongly disagree
Yes, and lower the cap to 20%
The proposal to lower the cap on bankers' bonuses to 20% is even more restrictive than simply capping at 100%, which aligns less with the SFF's principles of economic freedom and minimal government intervention. Their focus on rural and regional issues does not typically extend to advocating for stringent financial regulations. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Very strongly disagree
Yes, and nationalise the banks
Nationalizing the banks represents a significant increase in government control over the economy, which is contrary to the SFF's principles of minimal government intervention and support for free markets. Their policies and historical stances suggest a strong disagreement with such a measure, as it does not align with their advocacy for the rights and freedoms of individuals and businesses, especially in rural and regional areas. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
This party has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.
We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.
We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this party’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.
We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this party about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.
Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.
See any errors? Suggest corrections to this party’s stance here
How similar are your political beliefs to Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ policies? Take the political quiz to find out.
Join in on the most popular conversations.