Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - from the profits of course and it is the decisions of the executives that determine how well the company does. But then I know what you are going to say, that its the prices we pay, but then you have to take into account competition as a major factor in prices and those decision that maximise profits can also keep prices down with achieving volume and efficiency.
Alexander.
I am all in favour of encouraging employee share schemes and those employees who buy shares will have their say. Apart from that, no - its up to the shareholders.
Once again you are talking total rubbish on a lot of fronts. You do not enact retrospective criminal legislation. Any changes to the law that would create a criminal offence for 'reckless' corporate behaviour would apply to future dealings. If it is found that any bank executive broke the laws that were in force in 2008 then they should certainly be 'done' for it.
Remember - the bank behaviour, yes as I have agreed before some of that was bad in some banks, was encouraged by Gordon Brown (Mansion House speech) and enabled by his regulatory 'reforms'. So if it were to be retrospective would we see Brown up before the beak for aiding and abetting? Sadly we will not see that.
Remember what I have told you before that I have a friend who was a bank chief exec before 1997. He told me that before the Brown reforms he had to go to the bank of England with his top management team and be quizzed over every aspect of his banking operations. The Bank of England had some quite draconian powers if they did not like what they heard. All that ended as a result of what Brown enacted and he encouraged the very behaviour the BoE blocked.
RBS did make some bad calls but the worse were their buy-ups of small American banks that exposed them to the US toxic debt that arose from the Clinton reforms.
You should remember as well that the economy started to slow down in 2007 before the banking crisis and the slowdown precipitated it, not the other way around. The problem was that Brown thought he had 'banned boom and bust' and ran the economy accordingly, hence the appalling fiscal position we were in at the start of the slowdown. I should add that the economy always works in cycles of growth contraction that are as certain as night and day - it is a measure of Brown's ego that he had thought he banned it.l
Brown has a lot to answer for.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
He probably wouldn't want me to post on here, but as we are talking about "living wage", my younger brother wants to work rather than take benefits, but he is taking home just £800 a month and his rent is £600.
Out of the £200 he has left, he has to pay gas, electric, water rates, telephone, council tax and food. He has a small car he has to insure, tax and put petrol in, so how does he live ?
Is this a living wage ? He is not eligible for working tax credits, but I've no idea why not.
I'm sure he'd be better off on benefits.
Roger
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
No, you are wrong again and once again you are completely missing the point of just about everyone's view on this topic.
I will say yet again and please don't make me say it again.
I have no problem with profit;
I have no problem with bosses, manager's, etc getting higher wages or bonuses.
It is the 49% them and 3% others, that is out of balance, greedy and wrong in good times.
In these hard times, that many are suffering today, it is grossly wrong.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, you say the bonuses come from profits. I recently pointed out to you on the Forum that RBS in 2010 made a loss, but the bankers' bonuses were equal to that loss, so-by doubling the loss the bank incured into for that year.
In 2008 they also slapped on huge bonuses and golden handshakes for all the losses they made, and I mean most of Britain's banks.
What you are saying about chief executives getting golden handouts from profits is plainly false!
Furthermore, if there are profits, why should they be paid out to these banksters - or chief executives in general - and not to the company as a whole?
Again you are wrong in assuming that in 2008 these geezers did not break the law. In Treasury circkes they believe they did, and there are ministers worjing on the new corporate negligence law who offically say that there should be prison sentences for the 2008 bank collapse.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Gary, you are totally right regards the 49% salary increase of the FTSE chief executives, but don't forget that this does not include their bonuses, which can be many times higher than their top salary.
The fact that these people have been paid top salaries for their work, but then took more money - often much higher than their established wage - is not covered by any law in the British Isles.
It seems to be considered as theft by ever more people, even in Parliament. They helped themselves by taking the profits which were supposed to be dividends for the shareholders, and collectively taking billions of pounds every year even when there were no profits but losses.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Roger, I think the case of your brother is one example how working people can end up being financially worse off by working. He is a corrageous man by choosing to work even then!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
something is wrong with the system if roger's brother cannot get financial help.
they must have changed the rules recently for that to happen.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
exatly my point roger,a living wage should be around £2,400 net a month.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Brian.
That would close the gap and help the economy recover.
Some of that dosh might go on a Jolly abroad but not via a loophole, never to be seen again.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
correct working persons wages go straight back into the economy thus generating jobs for others.
i believe dave and george have signalled the death knell for the reduction of the 50p tax rate in this parliament.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Hopefully common sense will be reasserted over the 50p rate as keeping is economically idiotic though it sadly makes good politics.
GaryC - like I say what a company pays its executives is up to the owners of that company and no-one else. You and I have totally opposite attitudes towards matters, get over it.
Alexander - I have explained how bonuses work though you still ignore that. Bonuses are part of some people's remuneration and quite rightly so. Re-read what has been said by me before explaining about targets and benchmarks.
Most of the bright sparks on this forum would drive the economy right into the ground even quicker than Brown managed it... absolutely no idea at all about the impact of what you are saying. Trying, you say, to help people all you would achieve is increase the levels of real poverty and help no-one, you would just satisfy your egalitarian desires with an equality of financial misery.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But Barry, Surely even you must admit that essential values of fairness and restraint might have been jettisoned in some of the most excessive cases?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
A few points/observations etc.
a) Howard - pension funds particularly those run by the large insurance companies have over the last few years taken a very active role in corporate governance and have not been afraid to use their holdings to block pay, change directors etc. - after all they must vote in the best interests of their policyholders and ensure the best return for them. In fact a number of them (including my employer) have been at the forefront of pushing improvements in corporate governance and taking a very activist role.
b) Peter is absolutely right that in far too many cases the principle of fairness has been tossed way by boards of directors who demonstrate incredible arrogance when restraining their staff's wages but not their own or even worse the hubris of awarding themselves pay rises when their company loses money
c) Barry - of course it us up to shareholders but far too many shareholders vote (or do not vote at all) with the current board of directors as there are too many vested interests to do otherwise or they are only interested in their dividend.
d) Alexander - state control of maximum pay levels through some form of legislation is doomed to cripple the economy and drive the real talents away just as much as most other forms of over intervention by the state has done historically. The way to achieve what you seem to desire is through societal pressure, moral pressure and shareholders taking their responsibilities seriously. The only thing I would consider doing is limiting the number of remuneration committees non-exec directors could sit on so as to diminish the power of the "old school tie" syndrome and would do this through some form of voluntary corporate governance code rather than legislation.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Ross, the economy already has been crippled, to no small extent by those who cashed in on it in the company boardrooms. It's like saying the Titanic could have sunk if it hadn't been abandoned after its fate was obvious.
As for the real talents of whom you speak who would be driven away if the top salary were not enough for them, without themselves being able to add to it many times over, let them go,as long as they don't dare to attempt taking the economies finances with them.
Barry in the past suggested they would do just this, just transfer everything abroad, leaving us with nothing.
It goes to show what mentality they would be made of if they contemplated it. Not that I'm suggesting they have thought it over, probably more scare-mongering on Barry's part.
But my guess is, if they did try it, they'd have police with handcuffs awaiting them and sending them back to Britain, together with the economy's finances - in the form of shares and bonds and other paper paraphanalia - stocked away in their briefcase.
People are human all over the world, and no society is essentially evil. Here in the West, the people used to be disgusted when dictators transferredd their wealth to western banks (Philipines, Zaire ...) and only the banksters themselves eagerly accepted the stolen wealth.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - look what has happened in the real world and find out how the economy actually works. There are many examples of dictators trying to restrict people's freedoms and steel their wealth as you are suggesting.
Peter - yes there have been excesses but that does not justify irresponsible state action that would be detrimental to the economy and to businesses.
Ross - I agree to the larger extent with what you are saying and you are certainly right about insurance companies - the same is true of many investment companies too.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Barry- if the excesses are not curbed voluntarily then the coalition will be forced into a corner politically from which it can only escape by taking such action.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ah so your point is that action needs to be taken for political reasons, despite the potential for economic damage. Like the 50p rate. I find that really quite sad that when you are in a financial hole politics has to result in further damage to the economy. That will not stop me from arguing for what is right economically though.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, the bankers and chief execs have put the Government with their back to the wall.
As I pointed out to you recently, one year ago the Government said they were unable to stop the bankers giving themselves absurd bonuses, for all that they considered it wrong.
It's clear for all to see that the scandal is getting worse, as these individuals then just slapped on a 49% wage increase to their own salaries in 2011, and still keep grabbing bonuses.
If the Government didn't step in now to stop it, they'd lose face and credibility, it would probably be the start of civil unrest and revolution.
Please wake up Barry and realise that the Government will not listen to your counsels, they know they must be strong, show a strong arm, put these rascals in their place, and in so doing be cheered on by the masses.
In Treasury circles they're not just talking of putting an end to the scandalous devices of the banksters, but opening up the prison doors to them for things they did leading up to 2008.
We want to see a strong arm of the Government prevail on this matter, with tough action and tough limits as to what an employed person can earn.
These employed boardroom people often pay and bonus themselves with shares not just cash, and in so doing take over the shares of the company, and increasingly become the private owners of the companies they were employed by.
Their bonuses are usualy fist-fulls of company shares. This is theft in broad daylight. It will be their ruin, and prison should be the adapt answer, with confiscation of what they have stolen.
These same people have put the Government shoulders to the wall, and now Parliament must strike back, and hard!
Just a quickie: however much we love money, sometimes "economically right" does not make it the right thing to do.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Nonsense Alexander.
Bern - you are right at least up to a point, except at a time when the economy is struggling as it is now you have a different ball game. Jobs and livelihoods are at stake and people will suffer just to pander to a very base popular emotion. The hard headed argument against that emotional response is a difficult one to make but it still should be made.