A very interesting poll. I notice that an equal number of respondents think that there should be no change or that NPPL instructors should be allowed to earn money, and only a very small proportion think that no renumeration should be allowed.
It is also noticeable how few can be bothered to vote!
What is also interesting is that the responses from instructors seem to be concerned not with the effects that the rating might have on the standard of training offered to the student, but the effect on the instructors ability to hour build and move onto the airlines as quickly as possible.
I would suggest that the best thing would be a return to the old system of PPL instuctors and not being able to sit the ATPL writtens until you had obtained 700 hours. As I recall from my formative years in the right hand seat of a C152 the students learnt just as much (as has been mentioned the study of climatology is not required to teach VFR cross-country planning), and it used to mean that most instructors stayed for at least two years whilst working through CPL writtens, CPL flight tests and eventually the IR.
Historically, introduction of the BCPL, frozen ATPL and 250 hour modular CPL route has made no difference to the standards of instruction, and little difference to instructors salaries, at least not at the club with which I have been associated for the last 20 years.
If you really want to encourage career instructors the answer is to say that hours obtained instructing shouldn't count towards the issue of a CPL or ATPL. This would result in only those interested in instructing starting the course, with eventually less low houred pilots prepared to instruct for nothing thus forcing clubs to increase salaries. At the same time the lack of self-improvers would force airlines to offer more sponsorships, to the advantage of those airline wannabes who have no interest in teaching.
This is only an opinion - hopefully it may stimulate some discussion!