RBS Bonuses

[b0redom]

50% of what?

His income (as it would also be taxed for NI and income tax).

Yeah, I'm sure you'll never get anyone to work for £1.2m p.a..

I'm sure you'd be able to get someone to work for £1.2m /year. Whether you'd be able to get someone as qualified is a different matter. Same reason premiership footballers can get this sort of payout.

Note that I am making no judgement whether he's worth it or not, I'm just saying this argument is invalid.

[aidanjt]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that some of the posters in this thread complaining that it's jealousy driving the opposition to these bonuses, are some of the same people who complain about the 'greedy' public sector workers and their 'unaffordable' pensions?
On one hand, these posters claim that these bonuses should be honoured because it's in the contract, and yet people who take the public sector pensions on offer are decried as having a superiority complex or an overinflated sense of self-worth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

It's wealthy self-interest. Squashing civil servant pay means more treasury cash so they can get more tax loopholes, and obviously their compensation can't be touched because they're them, and they're the most important thing in the universe. More importantly, it keeps the 'natural order of things', the proles are kept in line and they're kept on top. And there's plenty of conservative proles who've been brainwashed into believing in this nonsense without having given it any actual critical thought that this kind of policy exists only to keep them where they already are and advance the already wealthy.

[b0redom]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that some of the posters in this thread complaining that it's jealousy driving the opposition to these bonuses, are some of the same people who complain about the 'greedy' public sector workers and their 'unaffordable' pensions?
On one hand, these posters claim that these bonuses should be honoured because it's in the contract, and yet people who take the public sector pensions on offer are decried as having a superiority complex or an overinflated sense of self-worth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Absolutely not. If you have a contractually agreed benefit, be it a 100% bonus for hitting revenue targets or a solid gold plated final pension salary which, in the private sector, would have seen you having to contribute more than you pay in income tax, what you have is a legally binding contract.

What I personally object to is that as time moves on people striking over new contracts not being the same as old contracts. I personally work on a contract by contract basis. Not every contract is as lucrative as the last? Does it cheese me off? Sure. Would I strike over it? No.

If you're a new tube driver, and you can't get the same deal as an incumbent worker, perhaps you should look at something more lucrative?

[roachcoach]

If you're a new tube driver, and you can't get the same deal as an incumbent worker, perhaps you should look at something more lucrative?

HAH! That's a short list and the next 'step up' is something along the lines of air traffic controller. Or freelance pharmaceutical distribution agent.

[b0redom]

HAH! That's a short list and the next 'step up' is something along the lines of air traffic controller. Or freelance pharmaceutical distribution agent.

Seriously? You're telling me the next step up financially from being a new tube driver is an air traffic controller or drug dealer?

[aidanjt]

His income (as it would also be taxed for NI and income tax).

Oh, so we're pretending that he doesn't have creative accountants and lawyers exploiting all the loopholes to evade as much tax as possible? Fun. Well, given how much tax payers money gets pissed around banking institutions already, it is a tiny loss, really.

I'm sure you'd be able to get someone to work for £1.2m /year. Whether you'd be able to get someone as qualified is a different matter. Same reason premiership footballers can get this sort of payout.

Note that I am making no judgement whether he's worth it or not, I'm just saying this argument is invalid.

Pretty much anyone is qualified to spin around on a chair, play golf, sign orders, and attend the occasional meeting.

[roachcoach]

Seriously? You're telling me the next step up financially from being a new tube driver is an air traffic controller or drug dealer?

Pretty sure they're in the 50-70k a year range, yes.

[b0redom]

Oh, so we're pretending that he doesn't have creative accountants and lawyers exploiting all the loopholes to evade as much tax as possible? Fun. Well, given how much tax payers money gets pissed around banking institutions already, it is a tiny loss, really.

I'm sure he has a creative accountant to help him avoid tax (which is perfectly legal). It's going to be pretty hard to avoid tax as a PAYE employee though, and I would suggest that whatever loopholes he has available are likely to be available to you too (assuming you're PAYE).

Tax evasion is a far more serious allegation, and is illegal. I presume you're not accusing him of that?

Pretty much anyone is qualified to spin around on a chair, play golf, sign orders, and attend the occasional meeting.

Pretty disingenuous statement no? If that's all the qualifications you think you need, why don't you apply?

BTW, I do not, nor have I ever worked at a financial institution.

[Biscuit]

So you wouldn't complain at the tax payer footing the bill for a ~£2m salaried banker? Cool. I was pretty sure there had already been enough complaints on that front.

No i wouldnt be cool with it, i will never be cool with it, i will never be cool with any of the crap that happens behind closed doors in banks, however, If the value of the tax payer money invested into RBS (which has since been halved) significantly increased according to realistic and fair goals then perhaps a payrise or sorts would be appropriate. A raise of ~80% is hardly proportionate.

Seriously? You're telling me the next step up financially from being a new tube driver is an air traffic controller or drug dealer?

In some cases it would be a step down. The london underground workers take home a ludicous amount of money and have a ludicrous amount of holiday... not to mention being able to take many public bank holidays as time in lue.
They recently turned down a bonus for working over the olympics of £500 because it wasnt enough. The level of greed compared to the level of skill required bares no relation in their line of work.

I'm sure he has a creative accountant to help him avoid tax (which is perfectly legal). It's going to be pretty hard to avoid tax as a PAYE employee though, and I would suggest that whatever loopholes he has available are likely to be available to you too (assuming you're PAYE).

Tax evasion is a far more serious allegation, and is illegal. I presume you're not accusing him of that?

It would be available to us if we could afford the expertise to understand how it would be achieved. Just because its legal, does not make it morally fair or at all beneficial to struggling economy.

Pretty disingenuous statement no? If that's all the qualifications you think you need, why don't you apply?

BTW, I do not, nor have I ever worked at a financial institution.

Certainly is an disingenous statement in that its hyperbole, im sure he has worked his way up the ladder and into relevant social circles, however i would hazard a guess that its not something you can get into unless you have the right connections in one form or another from birth. Purely my own opinion as i have no experience in the financial institution either.

[opel80uk]

@opel80uk: That hypocrisy cuts both ways. I don't see the union leaders crying that it’s in his contract either.

And I don’t see union leaders posting on this forum. Surely most people here should aspire to a higher level of consistency than that of a self-serving union leader (or politician for that matter) paid x amount of money to say whatever his members (or voters) want to hear?

What I personally object to is that as time moves on people striking over new contracts not being the same as old contracts. I personally work on a contract by contract basis. Not every contract is as lucrative as the last? Does it cheese me off? Sure. Would I strike over it? No.

But that’s not what the vast majority of people were striking over. It was about changes being made to their current contracts, specifically pension details.

Aidanjt – I disagree with a lot of things you say, but you’ve hit the nail on the head this time.

[b0redom]

But that’s not what the vast majority of people were striking over. It was about changes being made to their current contracts, specifically pension details.

...and wanting hundreds of pounds bonuses for working days they're already contracted to do in the case of the RMT. That being said, I have no problem with people keeping what they've contractually been signed up to, but then that cuts both ways head of RBS or minimum wage earner.

[Biscuit]

...and wanting hundreds of pounds bonuses for working days they're already contracted to do in the case of the RMT. That being said, I have no problem with people keeping what they've contractually been signed up to, but then that cuts both ways head of RBS or minimum wage earner.

He could have taken the money still, there was no actual government block, there was no broken contract. He declined it due to media and public pressure.

As i said before, he must have known the level of scrutiny that would be involved when he took the job so there should be no sympathy.

[b0redom]

So you wouldn't complain at the tax payer footing the bill for a ~£2m salaried banker? Cool. I was pretty sure there had already been enough complaints on that front.

Are we (the tax payers) footing this bill? I realise that the UK Government own a big chunk of equity, and it could be argued that without the cash injection it would have gone under. RBS appear to be running at a healthy profit again though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15588208

..so presumably it's being funded by the bank rather than us tax payers, who are in effect shareholders.

[Biscuit]

..so presumably it's being funded by the bank rather than us tax payers, who are in effect shareholders.

And as shareholders i think we have the right to speak up if we think the operation of said bank has not been good enough to warrant a £1m bonus.

Hell even if we weren't shareholders i would say we have that right.

[kalniel]

Are we (the tax payers) footing this bill?

Well yes, you have the 'once-removed' effect of a company, but effectively yes, we are.

[b0redom]

He could have taken the money still, there was no actual government block, there was no broken contract. He declined it due to media and public pressure.

Yes. True.

As i said before, he must have known the level of scrutiny that would be involved when he took the job so there should be no sympathy.

I bet the way it was spun was, "Come and work for RBS and if you're successful at turning the bank around we'll give you a generous chunk of stock as a bonus. The harder you work, the more that'll be worth."

It could be argued that as he has significantly less invested in the bank now, he's not being as highly motivated to get big numbers next time.[/quote]