Defining Greed

moggylover

Generali wrote: »

We've had a lot of bemoaning of 'Greedy Bankers'. From what I can tell, many or most posters use the word 'greedy' when they really mean 'highly paid'.

So what level of pay is 'immoral' or greedy per household do you think?

What should be done (if anything) to prevent people earning above that threshold?

A good friend of mine made a net profit of over [FONT=verdana, arial]£180,000,000 for the insurance company he works for and will get a bonus of about [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial]£1,000,000 or 0.55%. Is he greedy or successful?[/FONT]

I don't personally think any of the amounts you quote in the poll are that greedy:D I do, however, think that anyone who does their job and makes money for a bank and gets paid a salary that most can only dream of has had sufficient and should not then need any bonus to stimulate his ambition to support himself: after all, there are lots of people who have to stimulate that ambition on the insulting sum of £5.73 per hour;)

Nor do I think I would describe those sort of salaries as greedy if they go to people who pay their taxes without resorting to various forms of avoidance (if Joe Bloggs on £200 a week cannot - then no one else should be able to).

However, NONE of those salaries even come near to comparing with the money "earnt" by the super rich. Whenever I refer to amounts as being "obscene" there are always a whole rake of people on MSE waiting to jump to the defence of high salaries, and I always end up sitting with a rather wry grin on my face thinking something along the lines of: "hey I wasn't getting at you - you don't qualify as super-rich because if you were you would not be posting on MSE - you probably wouldn't have even heard of it":D

Your friend is probably successful: but without details of how honestly the money was made I couldn't possibly comment on his greed. That for me (like Pastures said) is the difference. Any business man who got rich by exploiting those working for him, by paying lower wages than he could have afforded, by possibly importing things made in 3rd World sweat shops, by using other unethical practices to make the money, or by the "we know we are going to crucify the Country when the sh*t hits the fan, but the bonuses are just too good to turn down at the moment" tactics employed by the trading floors in the last few years: THOSE are the greedy b*st*ards.

My objection to those in banking that have caused this collapse is not what they were paid, but that they knew the fall-out was going to be huge but carried on gambling long after they should have stopped because they were still making money for themselves. They had such an addiction to gambling and such great personal greed that they did not care one iota for all the people beneath them in the wage chain who work just as hard as them and save and scrimp to give themselves and their families a reasonable life or the risk their were putting those lives in.

But I'm sure that even if they never get another job in banking they will have enough money in off-shore accounts to keep their kids in private schools and their housemaids, mansions and fancy cars. No dole queue and going without for them or theirs: that is for lesser beings:rolleyes: the ones who produce the sweat and toil upon which they gamble to make money;)

ukjoel

Think the poll is stupid - How can you link household income with greed.

What about the GP who earns 100k because they spent 20 years working hard at school, college, university, followed by 70 hour weeks as a junior doctor before taking on a second mortgage to become a partner in a practice.

Is it greedy for him to now earn 100k (40% of which is taxed) compared to the chav single mother down the road with her free healthcare, house, benefits, etc who has an income of less than 5k but all of which is paid for out the taxes the GP pays.

These guys earn this money because they are good at what they do - not cos they are greedy. Its the same with footballers.

They all pay tax on their money and when they spend it it drifts down to the rest of us - they buy a car, they go out for meals, so whats to moan about.

Also it should be recognised that the majority of these guys picking up huge bonuses have them written into their contracts. To pull them would be the same as reducing your salary by half because its GREEDY to earn that compared to the indian bloke in the call centre.

Am sure next year bonuses will be much lower but if you want the best people they cost more money.

chewmylegoff

ukjoel wrote: »

These guys earn this money because they are good at what they do - not cos they are greedy. Its the same with footballers.

a lot of footballers clearly are extraordinarily greedy, my favourite example being ashley cole, who went nuts when told that he was 'only' going to be paid £55,000 a week.

however, whilst i think that ashley cole is a particularly horrible little man, if someone is prepared to pay him that sort of money then i don't really care about it. i don't think it really affects my life either way whether a footballer, banker, or anyone else gets paid a stupid amount of money for doing not very much. it's not as if i get the money if they don't.

dopester

chewmylegoff wrote: »

a lot of footballers clearly are extraordinarily greedy, my favourite example being ashley cole, who went nuts when told that he was 'only' going to be paid £55,000 a week.

I guess you blame Jimmy Hill for it all - and want to go back to the times footballers, playing in front of tens of thousands of supporters, got relatively very little pay despite being the most important part of the business... and could have quite bleak retirement-financial prospects, save for when a testimonial match actually really meant something good. :rolleyes:

Jimmy Hill - Wikipedia

In 1957 he became chairman of the Professional Footballers Association, and successfully campaigned to have the Football League's £20 maximum wage scrapped, which he managed to do in January 1961.

Cole.. yes.. sort of agree, because Arsenal's calculations were more on market-force valuation instead of the Russian's wealth. The money in the game.. I'd rather the lions share go to the best players in the top league, from the revenue of SKY subscribers, overseas TV rights, and near full stadiums.

We'll see if the business model holds out though. Do you give cheaper tickets when your stadium is full? Difficult for a business to make such decisions.. when your out to compete, and to compete you need to maximise revenue.

dopester

I'd put forward Andy Honby (ex-Chief Exec HBOS) who carried on working as an adviser to HBOS on £60,000 a month after his resignation last year as greedy.

With the bank run in to massive trouble, he should have done it for free, or expenses.. if the new people needed him to help locate where all the bodies were, and up to speed with HBOS current operations.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Greed is not a household income - its you attitude towards whatever it is you earn. There are plenty of greedy grasping grabbers on lower incomes out there.

Generali

storminbalder wrote: »

What a ridiculous way of defining greed. And a ridiculous and ill considered poll.

You are clearly stupid, or trying to make some half-witted point.

I was pretty clear in my original post that I don't think that greed is to do with pay levels. If you'd bothered to read it before typing you unconsidered rant then I might not PP your post.

You're just a forum bully. Pathetic and on ignore.

Dithering_Dad

I simply can't get excited about what anyone else earns, I'm too busy trying to earn a crust for my own family. If someone earns £10M+ then good luck to em, it makes no difference to me one way or the other.

mizzbiz

I can't vote because I think it's how you get the money. I think you're 'greedy' if you scam someone out of £20, but I don't think you're greedy if you legitimately earn £200k+.

As PN aptly put it, it's not the money but the heart that makes someone greedy.

vivatifosi

dopester wrote: »

I guess you blame Jimmy Hill for it all - and want to go back to the times footballers, playing in front of tens of thousands of supporters, got relatively very little pay despite being the most important part of the business... and could have quite bleak retirement-financial prospects, save for when a testimonial match actually really meant something good. :rolleyes:

My granddad was a professional footballer for a good team between the wars. My nan had to wash the kits to help out the club and his win bonus was a chicken! Don't know what his actual wage was, but I don't suppose that it was particularly high. Can't see Wayne and Colleen putting up with that somehow.