Ofiicial RBS Bonus Thread

[Gordinho]

Like Gord, I agree with everything till the last sentence. The reason they can't get it into their heads is because its a load of bull. People hating others because they're rich is mind-numbingly stupid and I have no problems with wealth-making. I would be a hypocrite if I was, my wife and I are hardly on the bread line!

But no, if the rich are poorer, we are not all poorer, just like when the rich are richer, the money doesn't trickle down to improve the lives of the poor.

Maybe taking the bonus isn't the best thing to do morally and this is hardly the most controversial view, Sir Phillip Hampton has rejected his own bonus for reasons along those lines. But he's under no obligation to do so and if it is in his contract, then he is entitled to pick up his bonus. No qualms or arguments there. This is not a political decision, for Cameron to come in and veto the bonus, its frankly none of his business.

The same culture of envy is the same one that has brought this country to a position where it demands hand wringing apologies from leaders of every organisation, from the Beeb to political parties for events they had no control over, it's small man syndrome. An attempt to belittle someone because they cannot achieve what they have.

 

[funster]

re; the RBS bonus
personally i say pay it all in shares (linked to results per annum) and dividends (or at least the majority of) only paid once he has moved the company out of state ownership

seems like he is doing a good job though, and (unless im mistaken) it isnt his fault RBS collapsed in the first place

re; the envy growing in this country, i totally agree it is ridiculous (born from a culture of being able to have have have without actually having the ?ú since the banks liberalisation in the 80s).
there is a slight air of realism in it where people see top execs getting pay that is disproportionate to their own - but the current "you earn a decent ammount, therefore you are a money grabber" mentality is very worrying. (but said, its an attitdue that has only grown due to the action of the elite few that have shown contempt for the "front line" workers)

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Hester's "bonus" has all been "paid" in shares. I don't know the exact details, but he's been awarded stock to the value of ?ú936k at today's (well, Thursday or Friday's) rate. He doesn't have the option to exercise for three years. I am guessing, but I would imagine it's probably in the form of options. If RBS perform terribly, his stock may be underwater, in which case it'll be worthless. If he does a stunning job, he may well make a chunk of cash. That's all on the basis that it's been paid as options anyway, as opposed to a freebie dishing out of stock.

But then, such details are beyond the comprehension of the whinging classes. Saying he's been awarded ?ú936k of stock is hardly the headline grabber of "He's been paid ?ú1m - outrage".

 

[Leeds Spur]

Like Gord, I agree with everything till the last sentence. The reason they can't get it into their heads is because its a load of bull. People hating others because they're rich is mind-numbingly stupid and I have no problems with wealth-making. I would be a hypocrite if I was, my wife and I are hardly on the bread line!

But no, if the rich are poorer, we are not all poorer, just like when the rich are richer, the money doesn't trickle down to improve the lives of the poor.

Maybe taking the bonus isn't the best thing to do morally and this is hardly the most controversial view, Sir Phillip Hampton has rejected his own bonus for reasons along those lines. But he's under no obligation to do so and if it is in his contract, then he is entitled to pick up his bonus. No qualms or arguments there. This is not a political decision, for Cameron to come in and veto the bonus, its frankly none of his business.

If the rich are poorer, they pay less tax, so thats less money for the rest of society to spend. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?? That's what I mean.

The truly rich, (Not 40% tax payers on ?ú37k) can and will move their money around and avoid taxes. The rest of us mugs on PAYE have no say.

I feel the feeling in the country at the moment is self destructive, fudge the rich, even if it makes us all poorer. Given the top 10% pay the majority of taxes I stand by that statement 110%........if you disagree, do so with actual facts.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Ho do you think tax revenues went from ?ú300 to ?ú600 billion a year from 2000 to 2007??

Chavs in sink estates paying more in?? Do me a favour. I know it doesn't fit with your ill-informed world view but unfortunately for you, (Hootnow) this money was paid by the top 10% in society.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The same culture of envy is the same one that has brought this country to a position where it demands hand wringing apologies from leaders of every organisation, from the Beeb to political parties for events they had no control over, it's small man syndrome. An attempt to belittle someone because they cannot achieve what they have.

Hear hear.

This is why i'm glad Clarkson didn't bow down when he said what he said about public workers.

a) It was a joke completely taken out of context
b) Even if it wasn't he can say what he fudging well wants to. This constant apologising turns my stomach.

 

[southstand1882]

I feel the feeling in the country at the moment is self destructive, fudge the rich, even if it makes us all poorer. Given the top 10% pay the majority of taxes I stand by that statement 110%........if you disagree, do so with actual facts.

I honestly think that everybody "left of centre" believe that money grows on trees

We are in the situation that we're in, because "left of centre" governments spent money we didn't have, and encouraged everybody else to do the same.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The public get the politicians they deserve.

Cameron was saying he would match the Labour spending plans back in 2007!!!! The public don't like the truth. We want to be told it's all going to be OK, like the useless clams in Westminster can solve the problems!!!!!?? LOL!!

The thing I like about this government now is they don't seem to be diverting from the task in hand, regardless of how hysterical the call becomes to spend money.

If interest rates increase by just 1% it adds ?ú1000 to the average mortgage, think about that and tell me what this government is doing isn't the least worst course of action.

 

[Gordinho]

The public get the politicians they deserve.

Explain please. I have absolutely no idea what this means. I'm simple.

Does this mean because of the politicians they voted for or the ones they didn't?

 

[Golfball]

I honestly think that everybody "left of centre" believe that money grows on trees

We are in the situation that we're in, because "left of centre" governments spent money we didn't have, and encouraged everybody else to do the same.

How many years has to pass before people can stop blaming every situation that occurs on the previous government ? Even if everything was the fault of the people in charge back then, a lot of these people wont be around if Labour get in again, so it is a pretty irrelevant to talk about the past (its like saying spurs cant win the league this season because we have always been brick in the prem... but different manager and different players makes the past irrelevant).

Plus most of europe and america are in money trouble, was that labours fault as well ? And I heard on the radio that over 75% of bankers vote tory - typical tory, mess up the banking system just for huge personal gain.

 

[Golfball]

If the rich are poorer, they pay less tax, so thats less money for the rest of society to spend. Is that too hard for you to comprehend?? That's what I mean.

The truly rich, (Not 40% tax payers on ?ú37k) can and will move their money around and avoid taxes. The rest of us mugs on PAYE have no say.

I feel the feeling in the country at the moment is self destructive, fudge the rich, even if it makes us all poorer. Given the top 10% pay the majority of taxes I stand by that statement 110%........if you disagree, do so with actual facts.

The statement I have put in bold... just so simplistic. Thats it is it ? This hypothetical situation starts with the rich being poorer and ends with there being less tax in the pot for the poor?

There are literally thousands of different scenarios to consider as to how the rich become poorer and the implications to tax. 1 for example, maybe the rich man not earning as much means 3 low paid workers go from unemployed to being employed through the savings on the rich man earning less... 3 people off of benefits and tax payers, if there were less rich it would drive the price down of a lot of stuff, which could maybe mean lower paid could afford more tax as they would be spending less on living... etc etc.. pointless argument really as it could go on forever.

And on the subject or 'rich people' - a lot got rich by the poor suddenly being loaned money to go and buy stuff they cant afford, or simply not managing money and spending what they have instead of saving. Rich people should be grateful for the poor making them rich, its one big system and everyone plays their part. Tax the rich less and the middle/poor more, and do they have the disposable income to keep making the rich man rich? Id rather be getting a lot of money and paying more tax, than not getting the money at all. Again all hypothetical and I dont really see how either side can be properly argued without in-depth analysis and stats etc.

 

[scaramanga]

The planet and the theory behind the political spectrum does not revolve around England.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to limit the spectrum to the country we're discussing.

After all, any inclusion of world politics would mean including the political ideals of the French, making any discussion void of value.

 

[southstand1882]

How many years has to pass before people can stop blaming every situation that occurs on the previous government ? Even if everything was the fault of the people in charge back then, a lot of these people wont be around if Labour get in again, so it is a pretty irrelevant to talk about the past (its like saying spurs cant win the league this season because we have always been brick in the prem... but different manager and different players makes the past irrelevant).

Plus most of europe and america are in money trouble, was that labours fault as well ? And I heard on the radio that over 75% of bankers vote tory - typical tory, mess up the banking system just for huge personal gain.

Golfball, let me try and make it clear. I'll do it by putting aside Labour vs Tory arguments.

Let's assume that there is only one political party. Or that they're both as bad as each other.

The reason this country (and Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain..........) are in the brick are as follows:

- During the boom cycle we decided not to pay off any debts
- During the boom cycle we instead grew the public sector by about 1,000,000 people
- During the boom cycle we decided to sell off gold, which is a defensive investment (you should sell during economic turmoil)
- Government spending is over half our GDP!!! (We have too many people on welfare or employed by the state)
- Public sector workers are given unaffordable gold-plated pension pots
- There aren't enough tax payers (Greece are superbad on this one and it looks like they'll be bankrupt next month)
- There was too much light-touch regulation for the Financial Services sector
- Too many people purchased houses they couldn't afford (see previous line) and spent wildly on credit cards and unsecured loans

All these countries (and their citizens) simply relied on CHEAP credit fuelled by government policies.

Yes, the bankers behaved like savages and got very wealthy selling people stuff they couldn't afford.

But we are a ?ú1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion) in debt because of GOVERNMENT spending. The bank bailouts is a drop in the ocean.

We are in the brick because of a huge DEFICIT. We spend far more than we earn.

Government is too blame.

Now I promised to keep this politically neutral and I will, but I'm sure you can read between the lines.

You are an intelligent poster. This isn't conspiracy theorist nonsense perpetuated by millionaire bankers. It's fact.

 

[kadzi villa]

Southstand, those are all very good and valid points. However, what's missing is any weighting applied to the causative factors. While I absolutely accept that the previous government were negligent in planning for a "rainy day" when times were good, the size and scale of the defecit and debt are the result of the collapse in the world economy. The biggest causative factor has got to be the people that created the sub prime market then wrapped it up in AAA rated investments ensuring that the whole financial system was rotten.

Look no further for your anger about bonus pay and the "rich" (obviously Hester wasn't around at the time).

Now (again taking politics out of the equation), Hester is absolutely entitled to the bonus which is contractually obliged. Contractually and ethically there should be no reason why he cant take it.....

....which applies identically to every nurse, teacher, fireman etc who have contractual and ethical grounds to expect their pay deals to be honoured. After all, in a society based on opportunity and fair reward, there isnt anyone among us that can say if they'd worked really hard at school they couldnt have been a teacher/nurse/head of RBS. You see in my opinion it isnt stretching credibility to apply the same logic in this situation that government ministers go to great lengths to expound within earshot of any worker in the "private sector"

Fot the record I work in the private sector and earn enough that demographically I probably shouldnt believe this.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Explain please. I have absolutely no idea what this means. I'm simple.

Does this mean because of the politicians they voted for or the ones they didn't?

It means we say we want honesty but punish it. In the last election there seems to be consensus that there needed to be cuts, but now they're happening people are up in arms.

Labour get a boost in the polls by opposing every cut even though now they concede they would no xactoy the same!!

So, we reward liars.

Get it??

 

[Leeds Spur]

The statement I have put in bold... just so simplistic. Thats it is it ? This hypothetical situation starts with the rich being poorer and ends with there being less tax in the pot for the poor?

There are literally thousands of different scenarios to consider as to how the rich become poorer and the implications to tax. 1 for example, maybe the rich man not earning as much means 3 low paid workers go from unemployed to being employed through the savings on the rich man earning less... 3 people off of benefits and tax payers, if there were less rich it would drive the price down of a lot of stuff, which could maybe mean lower paid could afford more tax as they would be spending less on living... etc etc.. pointless argument really as it could go on forever.

And on the subject or 'rich people' - a lot got rich by the poor suddenly being loaned money to go and buy stuff they cant afford, or simply not managing money and spending what they have instead of saving. Rich people should be grateful for the poor making them rich, its one big system and everyone plays their part. Tax the rich less and the middle/poor more, and do they have the disposable income to keep making the rich man rich? Id rather be getting a lot of money and paying more tax, than not getting the money at all. Again all hypothetical and I dont really see how either side can be properly argued without in-depth analysis and stats etc.

I back mine up with stats, you don't. We on live in slave times!! I'm wealthy and it wasn't done off the back of the poor!!

It's 2012 mate. Not 1812!

 

[Leeds Spur]

Southstand, those are all very good and valid points. However, what's missing is any weighting applied to the causative factors. While I absolutely accept that the previous government were negligent in planning for a "rainy day" when times were good, the size and scale of the defecit and debt are the result of the collapse in the world economy. The biggest causative factor has got to be the people that created the sub prime market then wrapped it up in AAA rated investments ensuring that the whole financial system was rotten.

Look no further for your anger about bonus pay and the "rich" (obviously Hester wasn't around at the time).

Now (again taking politics out of the equation), Hester is absolutely entitled to the bonus which is contractually obliged. Contractually and ethically there should be no reason why he cant take it.....

....which applies identically to every nurse, teacher, fireman etc who have contractual and ethical grounds to expect their pay deals to be honoured. After all, in a society based on opportunity and fair reward, there isnt anyone among us that can say if they'd worked really hard at school they couldnt have been a teacher/nurse/head of RBS. You see in my opinion it isnt stretching credibility to apply the same logic in this situation that government ministers go to great lengths to expound within earshot of any worker in the "private sector"

Fot the record I work in the private sector and earn enough that demographically I probably shouldnt believe this.

Hundreds of thousands of bankers lost their jobs. 1.5 million private sector jobs have been lost, no one said the public sector had a job for life. No one guaranteed above inflation pay rises. No one said they might not have to increase their pension contributions as the demographics of the country change. The public sector need to realise that he vast majority, 90%, of the taxes, come fom outside the financial sector. So when they say 'we won't pay for their mistakes' it means fudge all as the majority of taxes are paid my the middle classes who aren't the 2000 or so traders in the city who caused this monumental fudge up.

 

[kadzi villa]

Leeds, I don't support labour and I am pleased that you are doing well and not "off the back of the poor".

However, plenty of people do (and plenty of people would) given the opportunity.

 

[kadzi villa]

Hundreds of thousands of bankers lost their jobs. 1.5 million private sector jobs have been lost, no one said the public sector had a job for life. No one guaranteed above inflation pay rises. No one said they might not have to increase their pension contributions as the demographics of the country change. The public sector need to realise that he vast majority, 90%, of the taxes, come fom outside the financial sector. So when they say 'we won't pay for their mistakes' it means fudge all as the majority of taxes are paid my the middle classes who aren't the 2000 or so traders in the city who caused this monumental fudge up.

I assume your logic therefore extends to Stephen Hester who is an employee of a majority public owned company.

 

[kadzi villa]

Effectively what I am saying is that contracts of employment (written and implied via the tenets of contract law) should either be honoured or not (you choose) - but applied equally and without discrimination.

 

[Leeds Spur]

If the government tore up Hesters contract I wouldn't give a fudge. But given the context that he seems to be achieving the targets set and the fact that w are in the hole for ?ú60 billion we need someone who can sort it out and if that means paying someone a fortune so be it.

The government isn't tearing up public sector contracts, the changes to terms are contractually possible. That didn't appear to be the case with Hesters contract. But it seems he has done us all a favour now and declined it!!

The bottom line is we are where we are, other banks pay these obscene sums and we can't get a YTS candidate to do it can we??!