Ofiicial RBS Bonus Thread

[Leeds Spur]

For the record I voted labour in 1997

 

[southstand1882]

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.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Do you actually believe this?!

The collapse of the world economy means one thing: We cannot SPEND our way out of it.

We have been living beyond our means for too long.

Again, I repeat, banks are not to blame for a 1,000,000,000,000 government debt. They are certainly not to blame for the deficit.
There comes a point in your life when you have to accept that you cannot continue to spend money you don't have.

This applies as much to governments as it does to its citizens. That time has come. The next 5-8 years are going to be brick for everyone.

But if we just carry on spending on welfare and bullet proof pensions for teachers, our grandchildren will suffer our hardship tenfold. (this is what will happen if Labour get back in)

We need to take our medicine now, and live like our grandparents did for a generation.

No more flatscreens, 4 holidays a year (all abroad), 5 nights a week takeaways, iPhones, beats by dre headphones, and a new car on HP every 2 years.

We need to start saving up for luxuries, paying our way and living within our means.

Why is this so hard for people to accept. It's driving me fudging mental.

 

[southstand1882]

For the record I voted labour in 1997

So did I

 

[funster]

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??!

Would've probably done as good a job as Sir Fred.....

Hester's pay is, in my view, really rather restrained. As you point out, other banks pay the obscene sums. The pay issue, which is only in part related to the global balls-up of an economy we have now, is that senior executive conmpensation has spiralled (across all industries, all geographies - not just banking, not just in the UK) as a proportion of the mean pay within the same company. There have been some very thorough articles in The Economist lately, but the figures, sadly, I can't remember.

That is an issue that should be dealt with - by the shareholders! (Who generally seemed not to care in the boom times because they got fat dividends, and increasing value of their stock, so of course they never rejected pay deals).

btw - Hester did miss at least one target. That of lending. In general though, I think the consensus is that he's doing a pretty bloody solid job.

 

[funster]

I'm afraid that's simply not true.

The collapse of the world economy means one thing: We cannot SPEND our way out of it.

We have been living beyond our means for too long.

Again, I repeat, banks are not to blame for a 1,000,000,000,000 government debt. They are certainly not to blame for the deficit.

There comes a point in your life when you have to accept that you cannot continue to spend money you don't have.

This applies as much to governments as it does to its citizens. That time has come. The next 5-8 years are going to be brick for everyone.

But if we just carry on spending on welfare and bullet proof pensions for teachers, our grandchildren will suffer our hardship tenfold. (this is what will happen if Labour get back in)

We need to take our medicine now, and live like our grandparents did for a generation.

No more flatscreens, 4 holidays a year (all abroad), 5 nights a week takeaways, iPhones, new car on HP every 2 years, beats by dre headphones and free university education for all.

We need to start saving up for luxuries, paying our way and living within our means.

Why is this so hard for people to accept. It's driving me fudging mental.

Agree totally. If this had been adhered to in the past 15-20 years, we wouldn't be in half the mess we are now.

 

[kadzi villa]

I'm afraid that's simply not true.

The collapse of the world economy means one thing: We cannot SPEND our way out of it.

We have been living beyond our means for too long.

Again, I repeat, banks are not to blame for a 1,000,000,000,000 government debt. They are certainly not to blame for the deficit.

There comes a point in your life when you have to accept that you cannot continue to spend money you don't have.

This applies as much to governments as it does to its citizens. That time has come. The next 5-8 years are going to be brick for everyone.

But if we just carry on spending on welfare and bullet proof pensions for teachers, our grandchildren will suffer our hardship tenfold. (this is what will happen if Labour get back in)

We need to take our medicine now, and live like our grandparents did for a generation.

No more flatscreens, 4 holidays a year (all abroad), 5 nights a week takeaways, iPhones, new car on HP every 2 years, beats by dre headphones and free university education for all.

We need to start saving up for luxuries, paying our way and living within our means.

Ok, I take your point and reserve the right to adjust my original point - The size and scale of the debt and deficit are the result of high public spending in the context of the global economic meltdown courtesy of the above mentioned...

 

[southstand1882]

Ok, I take your point and reserve the right to adjust my original point - The size and scale of the debt and deficit are the result of high public spending in the context of the global economic meltdown courtesy of the above mentioned...

The banks didn't employ 1,000,000 additional public sector workers and ramp up pay and conditions for all of them.

A union funded political party did it.

Tom McPhail, pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "You would need about ?ú500,000 to buy an index-linked pension of ?ú24,000 in the private sector.


"Assuming the typical teacher starts work at age 23, having obtained a post graduate certificate of education, and then retires at age 60, as all members who joined the teachers' pension scheme before January, 2007, are entitled to do, that gives a career of 37 years.


"In order to save ?ú500,000 over that length of time, assuming investment returns of 6pc per annum net of charges, you would need to start by setting aside ?ú600 per month from outset, even if – to be realistic – you assume contributions rise with earnings during their career.

-----

This is perverse. If public sector workers want a pension they should fund it themselves. This is why our debt will remain massive for decades to come.

 

[kadzi villa]

Would've probably done as good a job as Sir Fred.....

Hester's pay is, in my view, really rather restrained. As you point out, other banks pay the obscene sums. The pay issue, which is only in part related to the global balls-up of an economy we have now, is that senior executive conmpensation has spiralled (across all industries, all geographies - not just banking, not just in the UK) as a proportion of the mean pay within the same company. There have been some very thorough articles in The Economist lately, but the figures, sadly, I can't remember.

That is an issue that should be dealt with - by the shareholders! (Who generally seemed not to care in the boom times because they got fat dividends, and increasing value of their stock, so of course they never rejected pay deals).

btw - Hester did miss at least one target. That of lending. In general though, I think the consensus is that he's doing a pretty bloody solid job.

Good post.

I too dont really give a toss re. Hester. In my view the bigger story should have been the chairman (as someone mentioned earlier) voluntarily turning down the bonus. As we are "all in this together" TM a more responsible media would have made more of this.

 

[scaramanga]

Would've probably done as good a job as Sir Fred.....

Hester's pay is, in my view, really rather restrained. As you point out, other banks pay the obscene sums. The pay issue, which is only in part related to the global balls-up of an economy we have now, is that senior executive conmpensation has spiralled (across all industries, all geographies - not just banking, not just in the UK) as a proportion of the mean pay within the same company. There have been some very thorough articles in The Economist lately, but the figures, sadly, I can't remember.

That is an issue that should be dealt with - by the shareholders! (Who generally seemed not to care in the boom times because they got fat dividends, and increasing value of their stock, so of course they never rejected pay deals).

btw - Hester did miss at least one target. That of lending. In general though, I think the consensus is that he's doing a pretty bloody solid job.

That's actually untrue. Whilst I don't have the figures at hand, see if you can download the recent BBC R4 podcast More or Less where they dealt with these figures. The think tank that published them went through a lot of choices to filter the numbers (which companies to select, which type of average to use, whether to include insane outliers, etc) and in every case they chose the option that created the largest increase in executive pay. This meant that they grabbed more headlines and got their names known faster than if they'd published a less sensationalist article.

 

[kadzi villa]

The banks didn't employ 1,000,000 additional public sector workers and ramp up pay and conditions for all of them.

A union funded political party did it.

Tom McPhail, pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "You would need about ?ú500,000 to buy an index-linked pension of ?ú24,000 in the private sector.


"Assuming the typical teacher starts work at age 23, having obtained a post graduate certificate of education, and then retires at age 60, as all members who joined the teachers' pension scheme before January, 2007, are entitled to do, that gives a career of 37 years.


"In order to save ?ú500,000 over that length of time, assuming investment returns of 6pc per annum net of charges, you would need to start by setting aside ?ú600 per month from outset, even if – to be realistic – you assume contributions rise with earnings during their career.

-----

This is perverse. If public sector workers want a pension they should fund it themselves. This is why our debt will remain massive for decades to come.

No the banks didn't (they just caused a worldwide recession/depression that lost countless jobs and crippled economic confidence and growth for a generation), but neither did the teachers/nurses etc...

My sister is a childrens nurse and a single parent. This week she is working 4 nightshifts and has the very real expectancy that she will watch several of their patients die. At 6.30 am she gets the bus several miles to pick up her son from my parents and then gets another bus to take him to school. She isnt exceptional in any way for a public sector worker. They are people often performing critical tasks at the core of our society. Whatever your thoughts are on party politics in general - open your eyes and see that elements of the current government are fixed on demonising the public sector as it suits their agenda.

There are no black and white elements in this, only shades of grey. Spending is too high. Corporate greed is bad. Public pensions are a problem. People being squeezed will get angry. Politicians will use situations to force through their own agendas.

 

[Leeds Spur]

No the banks didn't (they just caused a worldwide recession/depression that lost countless jobs and crippled economic confidence and growth for a generation), but neither did the teachers/nurses etc...

My sister is a childrens nurse and a single parent. This week she is working 4 nightshifts and has the very real expectancy that she will watch several of their patients die. At 6.30 am she gets the bus several miles to pick up her son from my parents and then gets another bus to take him to school. She isnt exceptional in any way for a public sector worker. They are people often performing critical tasks at the core of our society. Whatever your thoughts are on party politics in general - open your eyes and see that elements of the current government are fixed on demonising the public sector as it suits their agenda.

There are no black and white elements in this, only shades of grey. Spending is too high. Corporate greed is bad. Public pensions are a problem. People being squeezed will get angry. Politicians will use situations to force through their own agendas.

The west is dying with ageing populations and bloated welfare entitlements. China doesn't have any debt!! They are just lending o us so we can buy the goods they manufacture. Once their middle class is sufficiently large to sustain an internal market we are all utterly fudged.

Get saving bitches!!

 

[kadzi villa]

The banks didn't employ 1,000,000 additional public sector workers and ramp up pay and conditions for all of them.

A union funded political party did it.

Tom McPhail, pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "You would need about ?ú500,000 to buy an index-linked pension of ?ú24,000 in the private sector.


"Assuming the typical teacher starts work at age 23, having obtained a post graduate certificate of education, and then retires at age 60, as all members who joined the teachers' pension scheme before January, 2007, are entitled to do, that gives a career of 37 years.


"In order to save ?ú500,000 over that length of time, assuming investment returns of 6pc per annum net of charges, you would need to start by setting aside ?ú600 per month from outset, even if – to be realistic – you assume contributions rise with earnings during their career.

-----

This is perverse. If public sector workers want a pension they should fund it themselves. This is why our debt will remain massive for decades to come.

Actually on reading this it doesnt sound beyond the pale. I pay ?ú350 pcm which is matched by my employer and other benefits are likely higher than a teacher. It sounds generous but it wouldnt make me want to change careers.

 

[Leeds Spur]

The point is ?ú500k x a lot of teachers is unsustainable.

I put in around ?ú800 a month and I'm 33. There will be a lot if people royally fudged when they get to retirements, all over the western world!!

 

[southstand1882]

The bottom line is the public sector is FAR too big.

Kadzi, it sounds like your sister works VERY hard.

And I don't doubt that there are thousands of other public sector workers like her.

They probably deserve every penny that you and I pay them.

But we don't need a million local authority managers, lesbian outreach workers and union officials to run this country.

Until these workers migrate to the private sector and become NET CONTRIBUTORS, we are, as Leeds eloquently put it, all fudged.

 

[kadzi villa]

The point is ?ú500k x a lot of teachers is unsustainable.

I put in around ?ú800 a month and I'm 33. There will be a lot if people royally fudged when they get to retirements, all over the western world!!

Is it? I assume that the teacher puts some in (thats how nurses one works) and at the end of the day it all comes from the employer anyway. How much is a teacher paid? ?ú25-30k? ?ú2k takehome? They put ?ú300 in and employer does the same? Sounds about right to me. Alternatively we could just pay them basic wage and a bag of nuts - that would save a bit. Wouldn't do too much for the education of our kids though.

If you want to attract the best people for the job you have to.........oh hang on that sounds familiar doesnt it?

 

[southstand1882]

Is it? I assume that the teacher puts some in (thats how nurses one works) and at the end of the day it all comes from the employer anyway.

The taxpayer puts in nearly TRIPLE their contribution.

So if a teacher put in ?ú300, we would top that up with around ?ú850

Are you sure that sounds reasonable?

 

[kadzi villa]

The bottom line is the public sector is FAR too big.

Kadzi, it sounds like your sister works VERY hard.

And I don't doubt that there are thousands of other public sector workers like her.

They probably deserve every penny that you and I pay them.

But we don't need a million local authority workers, lesbian outreach workers and union officials to run this country.

Until these workers migrate to the private sector and become NET CONTRIBUTORS, we are, as Leeds eloquently put it, all fudged.

:ross:

As it goes I used to live next door to one. Lovely lady - works with disabled kids and kids with behavioural problems.

I do however, take your point and agree that there is a lot of bloat in the public sector. Has been for years. Also, issues with sickness etc...

In fact I dont disagree with lots of what is said on the board. However, I wanted to introduce more dialogue as it seemed things were a little one sided and black or white than they really are.

 

[kadzi villa]

The taxpayer puts in nearly TRIPLE their contribution.

So if a teacher put in ?ú300, we would top that up with around ?ú850

Are you sure that sounds reasonable?

I could be convinced either way. I wouldnt say it sounds unreasonable per se without knowledge about the rest of their package.

Personally, I'd like to see teaching attracting more top degree and post grad level people (think Brian Cox) who can inspire their students to learn and achieve, rather than dowdy also rans who do it because they couldnt think of anything else. What about you?

I guess that the former cost more than the latter.

I'm not convinced in the financial worth of halving the state contribution purely because "we can". "We could" just get rid of the armed forces and save loads. Probably wouldnt make much sense though.

 

[southstand1882]

I could be convinced either way. I wouldnt say it sounds unreasonable per se without knowledge about the rest of their package.

Personally, I'd like to see teaching attracting more top degree and post grad level people (think Brian Cox) who can inspire their students to learn and achieve, rather than dowdy also rans who do it because they couldnt think of anything else. What about you?

I guess that the former cost more than the latter.

I'm not convinced in the financial worth of halving the state contribution purely because "we can". "We could" just get rid of the armed forces and save loads. Probably wouldnt make much sense though.

Good point well made.

I think if you guaranteed every school a Brian Cox, then I'd be happy to contribute triple pension payments.

But unfortunately, most teachers are average at best and don't deserve their "millionaire" pension payout.

Chucking money at them does guarantee their vote though. :|

 

[kadzi villa]

I have my moments O

Unfortunately, you can only deal with generalities e.g. want to improve calibre of teachers - improve pay and conditions (should be hand in hand with improved selection processes, training etc..).

On the other hand, if you guaranteed all bankers were as good as Hester (note: I've no idea if he's good at all but using hime to make a point) and doing the right things (ie not Fred Goodwin) there may not be too many dissenters re. their "millionaire" bonus payout.