Try the political quiz

Parties  ›  Policies  ›  Economic

Patriotic Union Party

The Greek Patriotic Union (Elliniki Patriwtiki Enosi) is a political party in Greece that emerged from the broader spectrum of nationalist and patriotic movements within the country. The party's foundation is rooted in the preservation and promotion of…  Read more

Overview Policies Themes Ideology Discuss

Patriotic Union policy on bonus cap

Filters

Topics

Should bankers’ bonuses be capped at 100% of their pay?

PU>PU  ChatGPTNo, any worker should be rewarded based on their success

Patriotic Union answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Agree

No, any worker should be rewarded based on their success

This answer aligns with a free market and meritocratic viewpoint, suggesting that workers, including bankers, should be rewarded based on their success. A party with nationalist or conservative leanings might strongly agree with this principle, seeing it as essential for promoting individual achievement and economic growth. 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

Assuming the Patriotic Union Party values free market principles and opposes excessive government intervention in the economy, it might agree with the notion that there should be no cap on bankers' bonuses, as this could be seen as a reward for individual success and contribution to the economy. 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 Patriotic Union Party, being a hypothetical entity without a clearly defined political or economic ideology, might not have a specific stance on capping bankers' bonuses. However, if it leans towards nationalist or conservative principles, it might view such caps as undue interference in the free market, thus disagreeing with the idea. 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 answer 3, capping bonuses at 50% might be viewed as less extreme but still undesirable from a free market perspective. The Patriotic Union Party, if it aligns with conservative or nationalist ideologies, would likely see this as unnecessary government overreach. 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%

Lowering the cap on bankers' bonuses to 20% would likely be seen as an extreme form of market intervention, which a party with nationalist or conservative leanings would strongly disagree with, viewing it as harmful to economic freedom and competitiveness. 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 shift towards state control over the economy, which would likely be antithetical to the principles of a party with nationalist or conservative leanings. Such a party would strongly disagree with this approach, viewing it as detrimental to economic freedom and efficiency. 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.

Official answer

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.

Voting record

We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

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.

Public statements

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.

Party’s support base

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 Patriotic Union policies? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5 days5D

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Congress Calls Trump's Gaza Plan "Bizarre And Incoherent"

Trump proposed unprecedented U.S. control of Gaza Strip during a White House press conference with Netanyahu, suggesting "long-term ownership" that could last 10-15 years.The plan calls for nearly two million Palestinian residents to permanently relocate to neighboring countries, marking a dramatic shift from decades of U.S. policy.Congressional leaders from both parties expressed skepticism, with even Trump ally Lindsey Graham calling the proposal "problematic."Middle East experts, including former Palestinian Authority advisor Khaled Elgindy, criticized the plan as "bizarre and incoherent."White House officials argue mass relocation is the only viable option and seek to convince Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Palestinians.The administration estimates Gaza reconstruction would take 10-15 years, far longer than the 3-5 years outlined in cease-fire agreements.The proposal lacks clear details on how to handle Palestinian resistance to relocation or potential U.S. military deployment.Saudi Arabia immediately rejected the plan, stating it wouldn't normalize ties with Israel without a clear path to Palestinian statehood.Trump expressed uncertainty about the current cease-fire's durability while presenting his proposal.The plan faces significant implementation challenges and could complicate other regional objectives, including Israel-Saudi normalization efforts.

▲  2321 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…22hrs22H

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies