View Full Version : Bonuses
John Little
23-Jan-12, 20:38
I would be very very interested indeed to see any of the apologists who usually back up the right of bankers to their bonuses to defend this;
I just received this;
Dear friends across the UK,
http://avaaz_images.s3.amazonaws.com/1995_RBS_3_200x100.png (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rbs_bonuses_a/?cl=1526461689&v=12165)
In days incompetent RBS bosses will try to pay themselves astronomical bonuses, but George Osborne heads up the public body that will negotiate this deal. Let's shame him into stopping the great fat cat rip-off bydelivering a deafening 100,000-strong petition to the RBS execs and the Chancellor. Act now and spread the word!
In days incompetent Royal Bank of Scotland bosses want to pay themselves astronomical bonuses from our taxes! But we can stop these fat cats swallowing more cream.
Despite losing the bank £750 million in the last six months, RBS executives arespending a fortune lobbying the government and now want to get another £500m in bonuses! It’s a scandal at a time when cuts are biting all of us. But George Osborne heads up the body that will negotiate the deal. If we raise a massive public stink, the Chancellor could be shamed into rejecting RBS’s outrageous claim.
We don’t have long to stop this offensive corporate greed -- RBS executives meet on Wednesday. Let's deliver a deafening 100,000 strong petition to Osborne to force a drastic cap on RBS bonuses and ban the use of our money to lobby the government.Click here to stop the great fat-cat rip-off, and then share this with everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rbs_bonuses_a/?vl (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rbs_bonuses_a/?cl=1526461689&v=12165)
RBS’s crash in 2008 shook the global economy, and the British taxpayer had to step in with £45bn to buy most of the bank. Since then RBS’s management have sold off the best bits of the bank, sacked around 20,000 people, and refused to boost lending to embattled businesses. The share price has plummeted, and British taxpayers are currently £23bn out of pocket.
Shockingly, RBS’s arrogant executives still want to award themselves “performance” bonuses. It’s incredible, but the chief executive wants a repeat of the £6.8m he took in 2011, and the head of the investment banking division wants to cash in share options for over £5m.
Yesterday Cameron made vague promises about tackling unfair rewards, yet claims his hands are tied on RBS. The truth is that over 80% of the bank is owned by the British taxpayer through a company whose board reports straight to Chancellor Osborne. Let’s remind him that he is accountable to us, not the greedy gamblers at RBS. Sign now and share this with everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rbs_bonuses_a/?vl (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rbs_bonuses_a/?cl=1526461689&v=12165)
Fat cats and corporate raiders have pillaged our economy, and we are paying with our jobs and services while executive pay continues to skyrocket. But our campaign against the Murdochs shows that, when we stick together and stay strong, we can stop even the seemingly untouchable. Let’s stop the RBS bonuses and turn the tide of corporate greed..
With hope and determination,
You can't say that about our lionised unregulated banking class, those hard working, wealth generating, job creating entrepreneurs who are in no way greedy or selfish (!)
John Little
24-Jan-12, 09:50
You are right.
If I did I'd just be jealous.
Or Anti-Capitalist.
Or a loony lefty.
Or a loonyToo bliddy right!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16697082
"Cairn Energy has withdrawn a proposal to grant £3.5m of special payments to its chairman, Sir Bill Gammell."
John Little
24-Jan-12, 13:50
£2.5 million.
Bonus.
For doing his job.
For which he is, presumably, well paid.
Much better paid than you or I.
Or most people.
To me the principle is a simple one. You do a job, you get paid for it.
I do not think he should get £2.5 million on top. It should not be necessary. There would be many who would do his job for the pay if this pernicious system did not exist.
John Little
24-Jan-12, 13:55
To come back to the OP, Chris Mullins has just said on telly, that Stephen Hester of RBS who earns £1.5 million a year is to get £1.6 in bonus.
Nice work if you can get it.
the banks and bankers are just one giant ponzi scheme, nationalise them all i say, 50% of all tory donations come from banker types finance types etc,, lets see what wavy dave and georgey oz come up with to placate us, and still keep their chums onboard.
the banks and bankers are just one giant ponzi scheme, nationalise them all i say, 50% of all tory donations come from banker types finance types etc,, lets see what wavy dave and georgey oz come up with to placate us, and still keep their chums onboard.
I'm not a fan of the Conservative party, but businesses hedge their bets and contribute to practically every political party.
im not a fan of political partys fullstop,, candidates are hand picked ,not by the people but by a board of politicos with their own agenda, very democratic. lol
It is disgusting and immoral. I dont care if people think Im a loony lefty or anti capitalist or jealous this is appalling. 1.5 million in salary and more than that in bonuses - for what??? where are his objectives and teh evidence to show that he achieved the flipping things - see all the civil servants, nurses, teachers and so on and so on who have annual appraisals and dont get a payrise if they dont get a good enough report..... Disgusting and shame on him for taking it and on Osborne who says he hands are tied... pffffft
It is disgusting and immoral. I dont care if people think Im a loony lefty or anti capitalist or jealous this is appalling. 1.5 million in salary and more than that in bonuses - for what??? where are his objectives and teh evidence to show that he achieved the flipping things - see all the civil servants, nurses, teachers and so on and so on who have annual appraisals and dont get a payrise if they dont get a good enough report..... Disgusting and shame on him for taking it and on Osborne who says he hands are tied... pffffft
I like how it's only considered class warfare or jealousy when you go after the obscenely wealthy, but not the other way around.
Presumably these people have contracts. I doubt they suddenly made up the need for a mega bonus. All complaints should be submited when the contract is offered, not now, when it is delivering expectations. :lol:
I don't know specifics, but the way these things usually work is " we really want you for this post and would like to pay you £3m, its a bit dodgy politically at the moment so how about £1.5m salary and the balance in an annual bonus provided you meet expectations?"
Oh...and you'll be needing a Knighthood?
John Little
24-Jan-12, 19:03
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/23/stephen-hester-payout-bad-for-taxpayer?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2 Frss+(Comment+is+free)
A comment under that item:
"I can't wait for Wednesday when Ed brings the PM to task for allowing the government to sign such a ridiculous contact that gives him a salary as £1.22m. Plus the benefits and pensions and the shares awarded as part of the company's incentive scheme. Last year Hester was awarded a total of £5.85m.
Should be a blood bath"
I shall watch that with interest..
A comment under that item:"I can't wait for Wednesday when Ed brings the PM to task for allowing the government to sign such a ridiculous contact that gives him a salary as £1.22m. Plus the benefits and pensions and the shares awarded as part of the company's incentive scheme. Last year Hester was awarded a total of £5.85m. Should be a blood bath"I shall watch that with interest..
of course we could be baying for the blood of the family who 'won' £40m for doing blugger all! But no, we say congrats on your phernominal strategy of buying a lottory ticket.
Why don't we say congrats on landing a fantastic job!:roll:
John Little
24-Jan-12, 20:11
This thread is not about people who win lotteries.
It's about the likes of a man who 'earns' £160,273, 973 a day.
Or £6,678' per hour.
And the system and the mentality that supports it and finds it acceptable.
This thread is not about people who win lotteries.
It's about the likes of a man who 'earns' £160,273, 973 a day.
Or £6,678' per hour.
And the system and the mentality that supports it and finds it acceptable.
How else do you get rich? If you earn that money it will take you 10 years to match the lottory win. Sounds like hard work to me. And your sums are wrong! :lol:
John Little
24-Jan-12, 20:21
How else do you get rich? If you earn that money it will take you 10 years to match the lottory win. Sounds like hard work to me. And your sums are wrong! :lol:
I have not shown my working out. I divided his daily salary by 24...
I like how it's only considered class warfare or jealousy when you go after the obscenely wealthy, but not the other way around.
The very phrase obscenely wealthy reports your stance on the class war. Personaly, I don't think wealth is obscene, but poverty is.
John Little
24-Jan-12, 20:27
So for every minute he exists he receives £111.30.
3 minutes taking a dump; £333.90.
Bath - say 15 minutes- £1669.52.
Sleeping - 8 hours- £53,840, 50pence
And so on...
Acceptable face of Capitalism?
John Little
24-Jan-12, 20:28
The very phrase obscenely wealthy reports your stance on the class war. Personaly, I don't think wealth is obscene, but poverty is.
And you see no link?
secrets in symmetry
24-Jan-12, 20:46
This thread is not about people who win lotteries.
It's about the likes of a man who 'earns' £160,273, 973 a day.
Or £6,678' per hour.
And the system and the mentality that supports it and finds it acceptable.
So for every minute he exists he receives £111.30.
3 minutes taking a dump; £333.90.
Bath - say 15 minutes- £1669.52.
Sleeping - 8 hours- £53,840, 50pence
And so on...
Acceptable face of Capitalism?John, your figures are all a factor of 10 too big.
He only gets £33.39 for that dump. The poor man....
John Little
24-Jan-12, 20:54
Ah yes - my bad. That's why I do not teach Maths. And why I should take more care reading the calculator on this machine.
Still, I divided by 24.
If you divide by 8 hours or even 12 a day then it looks rather different.
Whatever the figures, that a man in charge of a state owned bank should be trousering that much of your and my tax money strikes me as obscene.
If RBS made a substantial loss last year then his bonus comes from one place.
And it ain't the Lottery!
secrets in symmetry
24-Jan-12, 21:08
It's the scientist's gut feeling for the relative size of numbers that told me your figures were wrong. :cool:
I hope you weren't using the Office for Mac 2008 version of Excel lol!
Ah yes - my bad. That's why I do not teach Maths. And why I should take more care reading the calculator on this machine.
Still, I divided by 24.
If you divide by 8 hours or even 12 a day then it looks rather different.
Whatever the figures, that a man in charge of a state owned bank should be trousering that much of your and my tax money strikes me as obscene.
If RBS made a substantial loss last year then his bonus comes from one place.
And it ain't the Lottery!
Well, I'm not going to defend RBS, I think they should have failed if only to wipe the smug grin of Eck's face. However, people at the helm of large corporations that employ thousands of people, earn lots of money. That is the way it should be. Read some Bios and see what they have acheived to take up their current position if you don't think they work hard, and smart.
And you see no link?
Actually, no. If you earn min wage, or average wage, it doesn't matter how much anyone else earns, you still get min wage or average wage.
John Little
24-Jan-12, 22:51
Actually, no. If you earn min wage, or average wage, it doesn't matter how much anyone else earns, you still get min wage or average wage.
I was thinking more of this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16608394
I was thinking more of this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16608394
So how does cutting the pay of the people we rely on to turn this around help?
John Little
24-Jan-12, 23:02
I don't rely on parasites.
If you want to concentrate the wealth of a nation into fewer hands then there is less in the pot to pay people to do jobs that need doing.
Can you really not see that pouring tax payers' money into this man's pocket puts people out of work?
£5 million plus in his wallet last year.
How many nurses would £5 million employ?
And this is just one man.
The bonus season is just beginning. Watch the headlines in the next few weeks for the real funny money.
I have no problem with people at the helm of high performing successful private enterprises getting a SHEDLOAD of money as long as they pay the taxes they are required to pay. Good luck to those people who win massive lottery prizes... I still hope for one of those for me. I dont object to bonuses being paid for a job well done but .... RBS had to be bailed out with taxpayers money, it failed miserably and as yet has not repaid that money nor is it being hailed as a superbly managed turn around. If this guy had performed miracles and paid back the taxpayers money and put the bank in profit and achieved a high degree of staff satisfaction then there might be a case for a massive bonus but as it stands just now there is not and bonuses should not be paid until such a time as RBS can stand on its own two feet.
Of course to much wealth is obscene,, every tyrant ,,despot, general, emperor , king ,queen, were nothing without great wealth, you cannot control the masses without great wealth, or try to wipe them out for that matter,
yee want to check your history dude,could mugabi wipe out his own people as a poor man, could hitler try to wipe out the jews without great wealth, I could go on for ever,
too much wealth in the wrong hands corrupts, and how much monies does one need, the gap between rich and poor is worse now than in dickens novels in victorian days, and all in the last 10-15 years , tory blair and them new labour idjiots want to be locked up
and not just for war crimes,:)
The very phrase obscenely wealthy reports your stance on the class war. Personaly, I don't think wealth is obscene, but poverty is.
Your stance is obvious also, the greatest thing the obscenely wealthy have done is to convince average people to support them and their policies. Most likely because they all think they'll be just as rich some day. Point of face: I was actually trying to differentiate between a wealthy person and an obscenely wealthy person.
There has to be a certain ratio other inequalities enter in.
Your stance is obvious also, the greatest thing the obscenely wealthy have done is to convince average people to support them and their policies. Most likely because they all think they'll be just as rich some day. Point of face: I was actually trying to differentiate between a wealthy person and an obscenely wealthy person.
There has to be a certain ratio other inequalities enter in.
Well I can't help my background. I was brought up and worked all my life in an environment of winners and losers.
And whether you were one or the other was down to you.
Well I can't help my background. I was brought up and worked all my life in an environment of winners and losers.
And whether you were one or the other was down to you.
I used to be a lot more right wing in my late teens until about age 22. I bought right into the whole "it's all about how good you are, how hard you work, the achievements you make and the effort you put in" stuff however I've been beaten down since then and come to realise that this just isn't the case. In theory that's how the system should work, but what it should actually say is "it's all about who you're friends or drinking buddies with, who you network with, what family your born into, how much you can lie and BS, how lucky you are". Perhaps this was less so in earlier generations, but both I, my friends and extended peer group have experienced it like this.
EDIT: If the first statement was actually how it worked - for everyone not just me - then I'd probably swing a bit more back to the right.
David Banks
26-Jan-12, 11:56
In my view, avaaz.org are a good bunch and act on behalf of many good causes.
I suggest you give them a look.
'Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Stephen Hester is to receive a bonus of almost £1m. RBS announced on Thursday that Mr Hester is to get £963,000 in shares based on the bank's closing share price on Wednesday 25 January 2012. The bank said the bonus was for "substantial progress in making RBS safer, rebuilding performance in many businesses and improving customer service and support".
RBS is 83% owned by the taxpayer. '
So what the hell does this mean:
'Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said ministers were "constrained" by contractual arrangements agreed by the last government at the time of Mr Hester's appointment regarding his bonus.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16751691
'Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) boss Stephen Hester is to receive a bonus of almost £1m. RBS announced on Thursday that Mr Hester is to get £963,000 in shares based on the bank's closing share price on Wednesday 25 January 2012. The bank said the bonus was for "substantial progress in making RBS safer, rebuilding performance in many businesses and improving customer service and support".
RBS is 83% owned by the taxpayer. '
So what the hell does this mean:
'Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said ministers were "constrained" by contractual arrangements agreed by the last government at the time of Mr Hester's appointment regarding his bonus.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16751691
And in the good old days the bonus would be cash not shares.
So he's made £45k in a day. Quality! :confused
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16772525
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16772525)
Well, the Chairman has refused his bonus what about Hester?
Buy yourself a tent and do something about it - if not shut up moaning!
John Little
29-Jan-12, 20:43
http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad118/johnlittle21/Chris-Riddell-29012012-002.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16783571
Well, well!
Some backroom ministerial pressure maybe?
Yep. Wait for the announcement he has found a better, less contentious, politically sensitive job.
Standard tactic, this guy is the sacrifical lamb this time around. The other banks will award bonuses this year and next year they'll try the same thing again see how much outrage it generates. All the while nothing changes, no reforms etc.
A step in the right direction?
"Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin has lost his knighthood."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16821650
A step in the right direction?
"Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin has lost his knighthood."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16821650
I wonder what bonus was paid to him in 2008 when the bank collapsed? If they get a £million for doing nothing spectacular, then I reckon he could have got around £5million for taking it to the brink of collapse.
Old Boy's Club comes to mind......Well done Queen Lizzie for taking his gong off him but I am afraid it's him who is laughing all the way to the bank.....(with our money)!!!!
C3........................:eek:[disgust]
John Little
31-Jan-12, 18:59
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/30/stephen-hester-rbs-pay-deals
May I ask somebody better educated in these matters than I to explain to me precisely what these leeches think a salary is paid for?
And then to tell me where this money comes from?
A step in the right direction?
"Former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Sir Fred Goodwin has lost his knighthood."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16821650
I wouldn't care about a knighthood if I had a pile of cash. Exactly what were his 'services to banking' supposed to be. I wish they'd state specific examples when awarding these things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/30/stephen-hester-rbs-pay-deals
May I ask somebody better educated in these matters than I to explain to me precisely what these leeches think a salary is paid for?
And then to tell me where this money comes from?
They seem to think you get a salary regardless then on top of that a bonus for doing your job.
Blinking heck, they sure update these Wiki entries quick.
[Frederick Anderson Goodwin CA FCIBS (born 17 August 1958) formerly Sir Frederick Goodwin,]
He did quite well for a lad from Paisley - for a time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin
Really? Still?
If you're at the top of your profession, arrived at by starting at the bottom and spending a lifetime getting there, you get the top pay.
And if the profession of banking pays more than most why are you surprised?
What do you want to do?
How about if we talked about another example, say Head Teacher. What's the range of salary, between £50 and £100K?
Lets be outraged and pay them between £5 and 10K instead. What sort of quality of person are you going to get?:roll:
How about an average salary of £5.6million?
Below are football salaries for the worlds highest paid and 21 Premier players:
1 Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid, £11.3million)
6 Emmanuel Adebayor (Manchester City, £7.4million)
8 Carlos Tevez (Manchester City, £7million)
9 John Terry (Chelsea, £6.5million)
10 Frank Lampard (Chelsea, £6.5million)
14 Steven Gerrard (Liverpool, £6.5million)
15 Daniel Alves (Barcelona, £6.1million)
16 Michael Ballack (Chelsea, £5.6million)
18 Rio Ferdinand (Manchester United, £5.6million)
19 Kolo Toure (Manchester City, £5.6million)
20 Wayne Rooney (Manchester United, £5.2million)
21 Robinho (Manchester City, £5.2million)
25 Deco (Chelsea, £5.2million)
26 Didier Drogba (Chelsea, £4.8million)
33 Ashley Cole (Chelsea, £4.8million)
34 Fernando Torres (Liverpool, £4.8million)
35 Gareth Barry (Manchester City, £4.8million)
44 Wayne Bridge (Manchester City, £4.3million)
46 Dimitar Berbatov (Manchester United £4.1million)
47 Andrei Arshavin (Arsenal, £4.1million)
48 Nicolas Anelka (Chelsea, £4.1million)
49 Ryan Giggs (Manchester United, £4.1million)
An average wage of £99,000 per hour for kicking a ball about!
It's a tough life.
I have problems with footballers making that much also but you know they weren't bailed out by the government or helped by government policies or protected in a supposed capitalist - read state-sponsored-protectionist-corporatist - system. Also footballers don't gamble with economics and the savings and security of others.
Basically what people are saying is that there okay with you being dishonest and criminal as long as your part of a respectable gang and wear a suit while doing it. Regarding that quality of person argument there are only so many jobs at the highest level. We tried over paying them before to 'keep talent' and that created the current mess. Let's call their bluff they are not going to move for many reasons it's a disingenuous argument.
More strawmen this place is increasingly resembling a field. One more step towards idiocracy I suppose.
So where and how do we draw the line?
The fact is, at the moment we 'own' a multi million pound global business. I'd happily step in and run it for ....oooohh.. £50k. Straight. (I'd probably run it into the ground mind)
So to protect 'our' investment we need someone capable & experienced in the industry, to do that we are going to have to face up to the remuneration expectations. Bob Diamond is apparently in line for £10M in bonus, so we're not getting that bad a deal.
Personally, I would have let it go to the wall. That would have been the best message to the industry.
Don't believe the claptrap about no money in the cash machines, and job losses. Another company would have come along and mopped up, saved us £45B and it would have sharpened the vvankers up!
So where and how do we draw the line?
The fact is, at the moment we 'own' a multi million pound global business. I'd happily step in and run it for ....oooohh.. £50k. Straight. (I'd probably run it into the ground mind)
So to protect 'our' investment we need someone capable & experienced in the industry, to do that we are going to have to face up to the remuneration expectations. Bob Diamond is apparently in line for £10M in bonus, so we're not getting that bad a deal.
Personally, I would have let it go to the wall. That would have been the best message to the industry.
Don't believe the claptrap about no money in the cash machines, and job losses. Another company would have come along and mopped up, saved us £45B and it would have sharpened the vvankers up!
I suppose a good start would be straight salary as a reward, no bonuses. If that means a higher base salary in some instances then so be it but I'd want all perks considered as a result of that. One problem with bonuses in the financial sector is that it encouraged a mentality of short term gains but long term losses and instability.
CEOs in companies that size are largely removed from the day-to-day stuff all they can really do is propose new initiatives and polices and perhaps a bit of negotiation.
You mentioned 90k a day for footballers for kicking a ball. All a lot of financial works do is that same as any other office worker or make gambles above a certain level it's just standard management stuff - yes it's gambling they ignore a lot of the other stuff when considering transactions and investments - okay they need specialist knowledge but so do a lot of jobs, managing a health board, managing an IT company, managing a biotech company etc.
It's a question of balance, some positions need a bonus to encourage productivity / profit etc. Just look at the entire sales profession, there is a bonus / commission system and generally it works.
I think a cap on bonuses so it can only be a % of salary, and where a bonus is in place for productivity / incentives (i.e. not a sales position) then a bonus system must be in place for all employees. (there is an obvious loophole here but there will be a way of closing it I'm sure)
We need to encourage growth & profits to encourage companies to invest in the UK (and/or Indy') Scotland. Many people forget that money is mobile, and investors want results. If the conditions are not good enough in the UK then they 'move' their HQ's elsewhere. (by move I mean the financial tax accountable office, not necessarily the entire business)
If the 'Very Big Corporation of America Inc' sets up it's European HQ we want it in Wick, OK, somewhere in the UK / Scotland. But if the tax / employee system is more rewarding in Luxembourg then they go there and UKPLC looses £tens / hundreds of millions in tax revenue. (Bear in mind, out of Hester's potential £950k bonus the tax income would have been over £400k)
Let's call their bluff they are not going to move for many reasons it's a disingenuous argument. You'd be surprised. The sector I work in has been decimated by a UK tax change seeing £Billions of trade go elsewhere.
Don't forget, whilst we are lambasting Goodwin / Hester et al. There should have been a regulatory system in place from various Govt's to protect certain areas of finance. And there were plenty of other business areas taking advantage of the 'boom'.
And very few of us were complaining while we 'lived on the tick', got cheap goods, cars, mortgages and made a few bob in the housing market.
There were many, many cogs to the wheel that started this recession, so to focus on one special case bank (special because it's public money paying his bonus allegedly) is diverting from the real causes.
If Hester had been paid £2M there would be less noise about it, call £1m of it bonus and we're all going nuts.
I didn't know what was happening but in 2004 I knew something would, 'things' were not 'stacking' up, the 'Math' was wrong!
Colleagues saw it too, again we didn't know exactly what but we saw a crash coming. Now if a luddite like me could see it, I'm pretty damn sure Gov't advisers around the world could see it. So why didn't they act with closer regulation?
The bonuses themselves were / are a distraction.
A 'bonus' by a different name:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16854187
Just picking through some of the news today.
Harry Redknapp is in dock for tax evasion, in his defence he said: "I've paid over £8m income tax. Why are we bothering over £10,000 or whatever I'm said to have saved in tax?"
This in relation to a sum of £189,000.
And Government appointed Mr Lester 'avoids' about £40,000 in tax on £182,000 salary.
OK, so not multi million pound salaries but call Mr Redknapp's money a bonus and let's throw the book at him.
Just picking through some of the news today.
Harry Redknapp is in dock for tax evasion, in his defence he said: "I've paid over £8m income tax. Why are we bothering over £10,000 or whatever I'm said to have saved in tax?"
This in relation to a sum of £189,000.
And Government appointed Mr Lester 'avoids' about £40,000 in tax on £182,000 salary.
OK, so not multi million pound salaries but call Mr Redknapp's money a bonus and let's throw the book at him.
To provide an extreme example that's like him saying I only killed 1 person everyone else killed 100. It doesn't matter you still broke the law, you don't justify bad behaviour by pointing to worse behaviour, assuming the claims are true.
To provide an extreme example that's like him saying I only killed 1 person everyone else killed 100. It doesn't matter you still broke the law, you don't justify bad behaviour by pointing to worse behaviour, assuming the claims are true.I'm not justifying what Redknapp has or hasn't done, there are two general points. The fact that HMRC & the Govt will allow, and effectively promote, tax avoidance on 'large' salaries whilst effectively withdrawing a 'bonus' which would have been fully taxable. And that 'bonus' draws mass hysteria but cheating the revenue, all be it legally, is just fine.
I'm not justifying what Redknapp has or hasn't done, there are two general points. The fact that HMRC & the Govt will allow, and effectively promote, tax avoidance on 'large' salaries whilst effectively withdrawing a 'bonus' which would have been fully taxable. And that 'bonus' draws mass hysteria but cheating the revenue, all be it legally, is just fine.
I agree somewhat, I have other issues with bonuses though I'd like to see the tax avoidance and evasion targeted first.
The fact that the HMRC & Govt' used a loophole of avoidance for their employees (on top pay scales) which HMRC have been supposedly closing for many years I find more obscene than the bonus issue.
In the 'closing' of these loopholes the first and the majority of people affected were lower paid workers.
This system of payment is, in practicality, only open to higher earners thus widening the inequality gap for many many people and I would guess 'cheats' the revenue of many millions, if not tens of millions per year. At least Hester's bonus would have had a full tax hit.
Kind of reviving this a bit but I found these studies today that seem to indicate that it has been shown by scientists numerous times that for non-mechanical tasks, bonuses do nothing to improve performance and it has been shown by sociologists that a high degree of inequality leads to a bad society. Guess we have an anti-intellectual approach to policy making rather than an anti-business like George Osborne seems to claim (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16937804):
The bonus pay paradox (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028072.200-the-bonus-pay-paradox.html)[/URL]
The bonus myth: How paying for results can backfire (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028071.300-the-bonus-myth-how-paying-for-results-can-backfire.html?full=true)
Here (http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/the-psychology-of-the-bonus.1876)
[URL="http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/04/do-big-money-bonuses-really-increase.php"]Here again with a different study (http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/04/do-big-money-bonuses-really-increase.php)
Regarding the claims made by George Osborne it's almost unbelievable how they are trying to push this argument that the criticism of bonus culture at the banks brought us to the critical economic pass we are now at, with slumping growth and huge debts is somehow anti-business! I am struggling to find a parallel without invoking Godwin.
George Osborne is a wristwatch. I always think of Beaker from the Muppets whenever I see the clown, he has this permanent look of shock on his face as if he's just woken up to the fact he's chancellor and realised he is waaaaaaaaaaay out of his depth.
I wouldn't be paying any attention to what drivel he spews out.
Kind of reviving this a bit but I found these studies today that seem to indicate that it has been shown by scientists numerous times that for non-mechanical tasks, bonuses do nothing to improve performance and it has been shown by sociologists that a high degree of inequality leads to a bad society. Guess we have an anti-intellectual approach to policy making rather than an anti-business like George Osborne seems to claim (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16937804):
The bonus pay paradox (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028072.200-the-bonus-pay-paradox.html)
The bonus myth: How paying for results can backfire (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028071.300-the-bonus-myth-how-paying-for-results-can-backfire.html?full=true)
Here (http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/the-psychology-of-the-bonus.1876)
Here again with a different study (http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/04/do-big-money-bonuses-really-increase.php)
The first two linky's want me to pay to see 'em. So me no ready unless it's free!
Second two are just repeats but I find this interesting: "they recruited local people whose standard of living was low: 26% had no formal education"
Chalk and cheese springs to mind.
I am not trying to say that huge bonuses that we're seeing in the banking sector is acceptable but we do need to reward and offer incentives in certain ways and means in different business areas.
This can be way of profit share too!
Bonuses can come in different ways and can be measured in different ways. Obviously we cannot be giving the Polis a bonus for each arrest they make, we cannot give Doctors bonuses just on the number of patients they 'see'.
In some work environments a small weekly bonus just for turning up everyday on time pays dividends to the company in productivity and the employees get a bonus for just turning up. Win win.
One of the studies was to offer a months salary to an poorly educated individual to solve a puzzle. Very flawed indeed.
John Little
11-Feb-12, 14:28
I note that members of the UK Parliament are to have their pay frozen at £ 65,738 for the coming year.
Comparing their pittance with a banker's wage and bonus it is easy to see why the country is going to the dogs, for by the logic that only astronomical emoluments can attract the finest brains I have to assume that third class minds are considered good enough to run the country.
I mean £65, 738 for doing a hard grafting job- and no bonus- it's peanuts ain't it?
Would you get out of bed for that sort of money?
If I had my way they would be on C£27k, basic / minimum expenses and no second home allowance.
Would they get out of bed for that sort of money?
John Little
11-Feb-12, 14:57
Bet that Hester bloke wouldn't...
Bet that Hester bloke wouldn't...
He would if there was nothing paying any higher and he had mouths to feed and a roof to keep over his head!!!
C3................[disgust][disgust]
If I had my way they would be on C£27k, basic / minimum expenses and no second home allowance.
Would they get out of bed for that sort of money?
I've always been a fan of what are essentially MP halls of residence. Something like student halls built close to parliament or other government buildings, they can all stay there when they're in London. It also has the advantage of allowing them to work at night if they choose to as they're all in the same building or buildings.
Anyone seeking public office should do it for the betterment or others not for crass monetary gains. Being an MP/MSP/MEP/councillor should be your only job also. Not sitting on boards etc.
secrets in symmetry
11-Feb-12, 17:11
I've always been a fan of what are essentially MP halls of residence. Something like student halls built close to parliament or other government buildings, they can all stay there when they're in London. It also has the advantage of allowing them to work at night if they choose to as they're all in the same building or buildings.
Anyone seeking public office should do it for the betterment or others not for crass monetary gains. Being an MP/MSP/MEP/councillor should be your only job also. Not sitting on boards etc.Lol! They will love you for that suggestion! Very few successful people would take a job in which they had to live in "something like student halls" for many months of the year. Would you? You're a young loon who has (presumably) lived in student halls, and perhaps even enjoyed the experience. But would you go back and do it again? Do you think you would want to do it again in 10 years? Or in 20 or 30 years when you have a family?
Seriously though, provision of a number of small apartments/suites near Westminster might attract some MPs, although I suspect most wouldn't appreciate being herded with their fellow MPs into a domestic situation of the sort you propose.
secrets in symmetry
11-Feb-12, 17:31
I note that members of the UK Parliament are to have their pay frozen at £ 65,738 for the coming year.
Comparing their pittance with a banker's wage and bonus it is easy to see why the country is going to the dogs, for by the logic that only astronomical emoluments can attract the finest brains I have to assume that third class minds are considered good enough to run the country.
I mean £65, 738 for doing a hard grafting job- and no bonus- it's peanuts ain't it?
Would you get out of bed for that sort of money?I was talking to a young loon in a bar last night. He and his friend have just finished their PhDs in science (I won't be more precise because this is personal information.) His friend is being interviewed for jobs in the finance industry. These jobs have starting salaries between £50K and £65K.
Lol! They will love you for that suggestion! Very few successful people would take a job in which they had to live in "something like student halls" for many months of the year. Would you? You're a young loon who has (presumably) lived in student halls, and perhaps even enjoyed the experience. But would you go back and do it again? Do you think you would want to do it again in 10 years? Or in 20 or 30 years when you have a family?
Seriously though, provision of a number of small apartments/suites near Westminster might attract some MPs, although I suspect most wouldn't appreciate being herded with their fellow MPs into a domestic situation of the sort you propose.
The idea is not so strange. Many service married quarters could have been utilised to house MPs. There was a variety of houses and flats, gated and ungated, that could have been refurbished and upgraded instead of being sold off. The MPs could have been accommodated at three or four locations across the city for a fraction of the cost. Each site could even have retained a Mess to form a private members club.
Something like student halls built close to parliament or other government buildingsThey do, Dolphin Square. Bit rough mind, I could't see myself staying there! ;)
Lol! They will love you for that suggestion! Very few successful people would take a job in which they had to live in "something like student halls" for many months of the year. Would you? You're a young loon who has (presumably) lived in student halls, and perhaps even enjoyed the experience. But would you go back and do it again? Do you think you would want to do it again in 10 years? Or in 20 or 30 years when you have a family?
Seriously though, provision of a number of small apartments/suites near Westminster might attract some MPs, although I suspect most wouldn't appreciate being herded with their fellow MPs into a domestic situation of the sort you propose.
My first year (2005) halls were pretty well kitted out and cost quite a bit they were better than other flats I had. I'm not saying it has to be student halls they could go for an apartment complex setup if they wanted. The point to reduce the cost and expense fiddling and for people not to get subsidised second houses.
I was talking to a young loon in a bar last night. He and his friend have just finished their PhDs in science (I won't be more precise because this is personal information.) His friend is being interviewed for jobs in the finance industry. These jobs have starting salaries between £50K and £65K.
I'm head hunted/contacted by recruiters quite a lot (about 3 times a week) myself actually and I just have a 1st class honours. The lowest I've been offered by the finance industry was 45k in addition to a signing bonus and that was for rather menial IT helpdesk stuff.
Why are sums of money described as "obscene?"
secrets in symmetry
11-Feb-12, 18:06
The idea is not so strange. Many service married quarters could have been utilised to house MPs. There was a variety of houses and flats, gated and ungated, that could have been refurbished and upgraded instead of being sold off. The MPs could have been accommodated at three or four locations across the city for a fraction of the cost. Each site could even have retained a Mess to form a private members club.Thanks for the info. I actually suggested a similar thing in my previous post, but I didn't know if such places existed, so I deleted it.
My first year (2005) halls were pretty well kitted out and cost quite a bit they were better than other flats I had. I'm not saying it has to be student halls they could go for an apartment complex setup if they wanted. The point to reduce the cost and expense fiddling and for people not to get subsidised second houses.Yes, it would have to be an apartment complex of a somewhat higher standard than most student accommodation - although some student apartment complexes I've stayed in at conferences are pretty nice.
I'm head hunted/contacted by recruiters quite a lot (about 3 times a week) myself actually and I just have a 1st class honours. The lowest I've been offered by the finance industry was 45k in addition to a signing bonus and that was for rather menial IT helpdesk stuff.That's the first time I've heard someone say they "just have a 1st class honours". If you've got it, flaunt it lol!
I've just received an "alumni card" through the post from one of my alma maters - it seems to be a sort of degree certificate on a credit card lol!
I would say the salaries you've been offered are commensurate with those I mentioned. You must be about the same age as the other guy, perhaps a year or two older. He has a PhD, but you have several years' experience - and from the technical knowledge you've displayed on this forum, I reckon you're most probably pretty damned good at your job. :cool:
The guy I was speaking to last night is being interviewed for programming jobs with large software companies at starting salaries between £30K and £50K, with the expectation of circa £60K in a couple of years.
The MPs could have been accommodated at three or four locations across the city for a fraction of the cost."The Dolphin Square estate in Westminster — originally owned by the council — had for many years provided low-cost accommodation for dozens of MPs. However, after the estate was bought by a private company, all tenants were offered a lump sum in exchange for either moving out, or paying a higher rent.
Many MPs accepted the windfalls and stayed in the flats while the taxpayer picked up their higher rental bills."
secrets in symmetry
11-Feb-12, 18:49
"The Dolphin Square estate in Westminster — originally owned by the council — had for many years provided low-cost accommodation for dozens of MPs. However, after the estate was bought by a private company, all tenants were offered a lump sum in exchange for either moving out, or paying a higher rent.
Many MPs accepted the windfalls and stayed in the flats while the taxpayer picked up their higher rental bills."Isn't that a surprise lol!
I don't think £400 a week for a one bedroom flat is what RecQuery had in mind - although I suspect that's not excessive for that part of London.
Sort of relevant I suppose - bankers arrested in HMRC tax probe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17003230)
John Little
14-Feb-12, 14:59
Interesting question in the paper this weekend - what does Stephen Hester actually do in his office?
I mean - it's a good point is it not?
When the door closes, he sits down at his desk- and what does he actually do?
Interesting question in the paper this weekend - what does Stephen Hester actually do in his office?
I mean - it's a good point is it not?
When the door closes, he sits down at his desk- and what does he actually do?
I'd imagine very little, I don't want to go into specifics as it may trigger my anti-business-artifice (I don't normally call it artifice) rant.
An interesting figure I came across was that 95% of banking executives receive bonuses, they can't all be performing well.
When the door closes, he sits down at his desk- and what does he actually do?
Probably logs into the.org and uses several sockpuppet accounts to have rows with himself whilst randomly picking names out of the Racing Post on which to 'invest' our millions.
John Little
14-Feb-12, 20:00
Probably logs into the.org and uses several sockpuppet accounts to have rows with himself whilst randomly picking names out of the Racing Post on which to 'invest' our millions.
LOL! That would not surprise me at all! [lol]
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned. I haven't got time to read through all the pages.
Regarding bankers bonuses. The amounts being paid to these people is obscene, and that includes their basic salaries. But I find the outrage directed at them to be seriously hypocritical at times. I know many people who are 'up in arms' over bankers bonuses, yet those same people, who are big Football fans, seem to have no problem with their favourite players being paid an equally obscene amount of money. On the news earlier tonight, it was mentioned that Carlos Teves is paid £200,000 a week. Where is the nations uproar over that? [disgust]
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned. I haven't got time to read through all the pages.
Regarding bankers bonuses. The amounts being paid to these people is obscene, and that includes their basic salaries. But I find the outrage directed at them to be seriously hypocritical at times. I know many people who are 'up in arms' over bankers bonuses, yet those same people, who are big Football fans, seem to have no problem with their favourite players being paid an equally obscene amount of money. On the news earlier tonight, it was mentioned that Carlos Teves is paid £200,000 a week. Where is the nations uproar over that? [disgust]
And the top club owing poss £75million in tax that no one seems to want to explain.
And the top club owing poss £75million in tax that no one seems to want to explain.I think if you take a quick look at most of the major clubs they too have massive debts to pay off against some pretty high payrolls. Another house of cards that could fall: £2.5 billion of debt and an annual wage bill of £1.4B.
(an average salary of £6M per player)
John Little
14-Feb-12, 23:08
Like Rangers?
And the top club owing poss £75million in tax that no one seems to want to explain.
I'm not a football fan and I'm just as annoyed at the obscene amounts they get paid probably more annoyed really, but the government never helped them or created advantageous policies for their benefit. I think it's more than that they own also when you factor in other stuff. As I understand it the tax bill relates to a loophole that HMRC closed and then back dated the change. Lots of football clubs took advantage of this loophole.
John Little
15-Feb-12, 09:56
I have never 'got' football and am not a fan. Their fees are ridiculous too and I would not defend them.
However it is possible to see market forces at work where someone can do amazing things with a ball that very few other people could- such a person in a team could fill a stadium and increase profits enormously. They hock their skills round and get paid astronomical amounts of cash - because they can.
And the ordinary fan pays large amounts of money for tickets - so it's a bit like taxing people to support the banks.
But there the analogy ends.
There are hundreds of thousands of pen pushers, desk jockeys, accountants, middle managers, executives, barrow boys who could do what Stephen Twinkletoes Hester does at his desk every day.
I see no reason to use tax payers money to pay him over a million pounds in salary every year, let alone a further million and a half.
It is unacceptable in its iniquity and it is the failure of our politicians that they have not acted against it.
Strangely relevant:
http://pecuniarities.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/calvineconomics.jpg
http://pecuniarities.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/calvineconomics.jpg
EDIT: Found this Interesting also, despite the incendiary title it's a decent alternative to the current banking system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFhlERFKRAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFhlERFKRAQ
John Little
15-Feb-12, 10:55
Good movie - sums it up well I think.
Claw back time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17094182
John Little
10-Mar-12, 19:50
I note that Bob Diamond, Head of Barclays got £17 million last year.
238 of its staff received £1.2 million each. Lemme see now - that's over £250 million,.
Lloyds and RBS have handed out £ 820,000 each to 386 people £316, 520,000. (both taxpayer owned)
I think I prefer the unashamed attitude of Robert Mugabe.
At least you know a crook is ripping you off and people protest.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.