Would you take the money?

[steveo]

The Treasury has said that banker Sir Fred Goodwin's refusal to give up his £693,000-a-year pension is "unfortunate and unacceptable".

Fred wants to keep it, and as it forms part of his package why shouldnt he?

If the Government are unhappy, they should be going after the people who agreed Freds deal in the first place.

If it were you, and you were entitled, would you take the money?

 

[Mad Cyril]

Why shouldn't he take the money?

The RBS directors were stupid enough award him such a large pension - blame them.

People need to put aside their feelings of anger and envy and realise that retrospectively penalising people will not change anything.

 

[Einstein]

If it were you, and you were entitled, would you take the money?

Absolutely.

No question about it and I refuse to believe anyone on this board would realistically turn down that kind of money each year to retire at 50.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

Isnt it that his retirement at 50 meant that his pension pot actually increased when he left in Oct 2008. While it is an obscene amount of money, if he is entitled to some/most of that money then fair enough. If it has been boosted as a result of being retired last year then that part is most definitely wrong given the circumstances in which he was being retired.

And lets be honest, we all know he didnt "retire"....he took that rather than being sacked.

 

[Hotman]

Absolutely, he probably contributed to it (either directly or by way of reduced remuneration as it was a benefit), and he is entitled to it. I struggle to see how anyone can justify that he should hand it back (unless he has acted fraudulently and for example lied about a final salary on a final salary pension - doubtful).

 

[Einstein]

Isnt it that his retirement at 50 meant that his pension pot actually increased when he left in Oct 2008. While it is an obscene amount of money, if he is entitled to some/most of that money then fair enough. If it has been boosted as a result of being retired last year then that part is most definitely wrong given the circumstances in which he was being retired.

And lets be honest, we all know he didnt "retire"....he took that rather than being sacked.

It depends which way you look at it. He has already made a series of "gestures" within his contract as well. He gave up a number of contractual entitlements including 15 months salary he was due on leaving. Based on salary & bonuses that is at least five years + of his pension amount he is getting anyway.

Personally, I hope he stands his ground. I find it ridiculous that some of these MP's, Brown & Darling in particular, are effectively trying to blame Sir Fred. It was just as much their responsibility to ensure our economy did not get into this 'scandal' in the first place. However, they are the ones that failed. Brown spent a number of years as Chancellor and failed to deliver any regulation around the sector. He is just as much to blame as Sir Fred.

If I was Sir Fred, then I'd only agree on the basis that Brown & Darling also give up every entitlement that they hold as well. Including salary, pensions, cars, houses etc too.

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

I think it's about time they started focusing on the day to day running of the business, not paying a pension that was contracted.

 

[osymandus]

Actually i like the idea of him being used as a precedent , and returning the money on the grounds he dosnt need it !
Theres a social and practical responisiblty here , i would not accept that money becuase im aware of what i need to live, and not screw over the rest of the community.

 

[Pubey]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...wn-refuses-to-hand-back-pension-200902271606/

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

It depends which way you look at it. He has already made a series of "gestures" within his contract as well. He gave up a number of contractual entitlements including 15 months salary he was due on leaving. Based on salary & bonuses that is at least five years + of his pension amount he is getting anyway.

Personally, I hope he stands his ground. I find it ridiculous that some of these MP's, Brown & Darling in particular, are effectively trying to blame Sir Fred. It was just as much their responsibility to ensure our economy did not get into this 'scandal' in the first place. However, they are the ones that failed. Brown spent a number of years as Chancellor and failed to deliver any regulation around the sector. He is just as much to blame as Sir Fred.

If I was Sir Fred, then I'd only agree on the basis that Brown & Darling also give up every entitlement that they hold as well. Including salary, pensions, cars, houses etc too.

if the whole thing was about the state of the banks/financial situation in general then yes. But people had said about ABN Amro...

Wrong price
Wrong time

As people then believed that in order to chase the ever growing greed, that the price paid was way too much. Even before the credit crunch appeared in ernest.

The other issue of the money is about rewarding failure as has been banded about many times. If I had made such a purchase which cost the bank that much i would get sacked. I cant see that I would be rewarded for it by taking early retirement and as an extra thanks I would get an increased pension pot. He was handsomely rewarded for the good work he did, but sorry if you make that sort of blunder why should you walk away with an increased pension?

And the key is increased. I am not advocating the return of it all as clearly people are entitled to that which they contributed. However, there has been plenty of news that the pension was increased when he went. Cant see how that can be right somehow.

I wouldnt give it all back but I might well feel morally obliged to not have accepted the increase.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Actually i like the idea of him being used as a precedent , and returning the money on the grounds he dosnt need it !
Theres a social and practical responisiblty here , i would not accept that money becuase im aware of what i need to live, and not screw over the rest of the community.

It is very easy to take the moral high ground when one is unlikely to be affered a £650k PA pension.

 

[steveo]

i would not accept that money becuase im aware of what i need to live, and not screw over the rest of the community.

But different people have different levels of expectancy of what they need. If this bloke takes more than you does that mean he is screwing over the rest of the community?

Im sure you earn more than some other people, so by the same token are you screwing them over?

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Actually i like the idea of him being used as a precedent , and returning the money on the grounds he dosnt need it !
Theres a social and practical responisiblty here , i would not accept that money becuase im aware of what i need to live, and not screw over the rest of the community.

Sounds like Marxism to me. The market dictates what people are paid, and then we need a safety net for those people who can't look after themselves. That's the way it should be - no bail outs for banks, no redistribution of wealth and no disincentive to work hard and better yourself.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

Sounds like Marxism to me. The market dictates what people are paid, and then we need a safety net for those people who can't look after themselves. That's the way it should be - no bail outs for banks, no redistribution of wealth and no disincentive to work hard and better yourself.

There's the problem. If events had been allowed to take their natural course under the rules of the system then it's highly likely that his company would have gone bust and that he'd be getting nothing. What has gone on in this instance clearly does not conform to those rules. He's not reaping the rewards of the continued success of a fully private venture. He's sticking two fingers up to the very taxpayer who has provided him with a reprieve without which he'd be lucky to be getting anything.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Sounds like Marxism to me. The market dictates what people are paid, and then we need a safety net for those people who can't look after themselves. That's the way it should be - no bail outs for banks, no redistribution of wealth and no disincentive to work hard and better yourself.

Trouble is one of those has happened and the rich bankers still get their massive bonuses while the your average bank worker on <£15K is going to be made redundant.

There's obviously no discentive to hold you hands up and say, "my fault" because people like Goodwin can wipe their @rses with £5 notes.

 

[osymandus]

It is very easy to take the moral high ground when one is unlikely to be affered a £650k PA pension.

Not really no , depends on how well you know yourself and your priorites in life.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

There's the problem. If events had been allowed to take their natural course under the rules of the system then it's highly likely that his company would have gone bust and that he'd be getting nothing. What has gone on in this instance clearly does not conform to those rules. He's not reaping the rewards of the continued success of a fully private venture. He's sticking two fingers up to the very taxpayer who has provided him with a reprieve without which he'd be lucky to be getting anything.

Well that's entirely the point I'm trying to make. You can't claim capitalism as a defence when state intervention has propped you up at the taxpayers' expense. The bail out was an appalling abuse of state funds, and if it had to be done, there should have been conditions preventing this sort of thing from happening. However, if I was offered the cash, I'd take it. The rights and wrongs of the situation would be of no consequence to me if it came to providing for my children's future.

 

[Nobby Snide]

I feel if it was me, I'd take the pension, as it was agreed as part of my renumeration package, however, I would donate some to charities or set some fund up.

The problem is not just with the banking system, although they are arguably feeling the biggest knock on effect and have the biggest impact on all our lives now.
Gambling on bad debt, encouraging credit, high mortgages, self perpetuating house price increases etc...but we were all suckered in and took advantage. We played the game.

The issue that angers me more, and I feel is obscene, is where bankers are still receiving performance bonuses. This cannot be allowed.
I hope they all choke on it.

Would it be a bad thing if all banks were Nationalised...The Bank of Britain..we all invest in our country....or

the banks collapsed under market forces and other new banks grew.

Investing in Premium bonds or the Post Office.

maybe its time for the barter system to return?

 

[steveo]

maybe its time for the barter system to return?

Ive got an old Robin Trower album which I will gladly swap for a copy of Dark Side of The Moon if that’s any good.

 

[Nobby Snide]

Ive got an old Robin Trower album which I will gladly swap for a copy of Dark Side of The Moon if that’s any good.

i'm sure you have..

Firstly, what makes you think I want it, and secondly, what makes you think I have ANY Pink Floyd LP's?

I kindly refuse.:p