Readers respond to this week’s revelations about salaries paid to the broadcaster’s staff and the gap between the amounts paid to men and women

Among the furore arising from the publication of top BBC salaries, it has been suggested that, as a result of the gender pay gap reporting regulations, all companies and organisations employing more than 250 people will face similar issues from April 2018 (Ending the silence, G2, 20 July).

Regrettably, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the regulations not require the publication of the salary of named persons, they don’t require the publication of the salary of a single human being. Nor will they require disclosure of pay by job, nor by grade, nor pay band.

In fact, they don’t require any pay information whatsoever, not even the actual difference in average pay of men and women. All that is required are two percentages for pay and two percentages for bonuses. An employee can’t even check if the employer has got their maths right. There are no real penalties and no enforcement.

What the BBC disclosure has demonstrated is that when you have true pay transparency you discover real discrimination (which may or may not be justified). The gender pay gap regulations are as transparent as mud and they will reveal nothing.

Instead of slapping themselves on the back for passing these pointless regulations, politicians should be giving women enforceable rights to pay transparency. Unfortunately, they are too afraid of what they may find.

Stefan Cross QC

Equal pay campaigner

• I wonder if you are confident that you are paying all female Guardian employees salaries equivalent to those of their male counterparts? If so, why not publish what you pay your top columnists? Then you really will have the right to claim the moral high ground, and could show the BBC how it should be done (Backlash at the BBC as male stars dominate top-pay list, 20 July). I had thought about sending a similar letter to other papers, but it would be a waste of time. The shocking reporting on the casting of a female Doctor in Doctor Who made it very clear that women are still seen as a different species by most of these journalists.

Nana Mensah

London

• We learn that some BBC presenters and journalists are embarrassed about the rest of us getting to know how much they are paid (BBC admits just a third of high earners are women, 19 July). Why would someone be “embarrassed” about their salary? You either think you’re worth it or you know you’re not. And why is it a secret? Would that be because no one’s worth that kind of money while others still need food banks – and you know it?

Instead of giving in to your greed, accept a salary you think is fair and be proud of your sense of decency. Then tell us about it. Instead of being mired in a bog of embarrassment, your reputation will float on a golden pond of virtue.

Kirsten de Keyser

London

• I am bemused that the outrage is focused on the gender gap in the BBC top-pay list story and not on the grotesque gaps between the top- and bottom-paid staff at the BBC. It’s a bit like bemoaning the fact that there aren’t more women dictators in the world. There’s a very simple answer to the gender gap: bring all the men’s top pay down to the level of the women’s top pay, halve it and then halve it again. Redistribute the savings to the people in the BBC who are paid peanuts so that they can have something approaching a half-decent salary. I can’t believe that, if BBC “stars” were replaced with women and men willing to do the job for £100,000, we’d have any shortage of watchable talent.

Mark Doel

Sheffield

• Would Chris Evans’ £2.2m salary be any more acceptable if he was a woman?

John Thorn

Radcliffe on Trent, Nottinghamshire

• As well as informing the UK public that in 2017 only a third of top earners at the BBC are women, would Tony Hall also do a breakdown on how many non-white, non-privileged persons are in the top percentage of wage earners there?

Amanda Baker

Edinburgh

• I have a confession to make. Despite reading the Guardian for over 40 years I cannot get excited over some rich people earning more than other rich people. I am a public sector worker earning less than £9 an hour who apparently is paid too much, so forgive my indifference to the story of wealthy people who are not paid enough. I am looking forward to next April when I can expect another 9p an hour. Well, almost 9p.

Hugh Gemson

Taunton, Somerset

• It seems that BBC presenters’ salaries are in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the content of the programmes presented. Is this a rule or does it indicate the paucity of public taste?

Jane Ghosh

Bristol

• Forcing these disclosures is a masterstroke by the Tories and the Daily Mail. They will do more than any other single event to undermine the BBC’s credibility and authority, just as the vandals wanted. Distracted by an orgy of envy and resentment, few will notice the cultural jewel we are losing. Trumpland, here we come.

Juliette Eyre

London

• Whenever a television presenter interviews a politician, and especially in respect of the pay of others (Editorial, 20 July), their respective salaries should appear at the bottom of the screen. Then, in the name of transparency, we will know the position from which they speak.

Canon David Jennings

Leicester Cathedral

• Please stop reporting that so-and-so earned so many hundred thousand and instead start saying they were paid so many hundred thousand.

Tessa Doe

Seend Cleeve, Wiltshire

• It is hard to challenge the salaries paid by the BBC on more or less any grounds. As John Humphrys says, “we operate in a marketplace”, and it is that which needs challenging. We live in a value-free remuneration system in which firefighters willing to put their lives at risk to save others are paid a fraction of what is paid to bankers for churning money and, essentially, gambling with other people’s cash. While we tolerate such a system, criticising any part of it is akin to seeing the mote in another’s eye while ignoring the beam in our own.

Roy Boffy

Sutton Coldfield

• To avoid the obscene inequalities of the market, just tax personal income above £150,000 at 95%. Sorted.

Chris Bocci

Bath

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters