Breaking news on BBC - Fred Goodwin refuses reduced pension

Masomnia

treliac wrote: »

He was the captain of the ship. He got paid for that responsibility and should take responsibility for its failure. It's what happens (or should be) when you accept the post and the salary that goes with it.

That's just tough. It was his choice. He should now do the decent thing. But not much chance of that. Decency is out of fashion. And if a staggeringly inept government cannot force his hand, the door is left open for all the others on the bandwagon.

I agree he should do the decent thing, especially given the amounts involved. But I don't think the government should have the right to take it from him. He took the responsibilty by losing his job, and not taking the bonus. The pension pot was built up over however many years, and the government shouldn't be able to take it, it's a dangerous precedent.

Masomnia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No.

But this is not any ordinary pension. This was gestures to get him out.

It's also not about winning votes, or getting revenge. It is about OUR money, and rewarding failire on massive scale, with taxpayers money.

Of COURSE Alistair Darling is going to say "please give it back Mr Sir", as he has been caught out yet again. This was probably supposed to be a quiet exit to make the government look as if they were doing something with "our voice" they keep telling us we have as we own the majority of the shares.

Edit: This man is also 50. This is no ordinary pension entitlement that he has built up.

Some people are too rich and earn too much money, it's something we have to get over if we want free-market capitalism. It's no less scandalous how much footballers get paid.

I don't think a pension counts as a 'reward' for work. Plenty of people are pants at their jobs and draw pensions at the end.

If anything the government are making this story more prominent to minimize the fact the tax payer is going to have to cough up another few billion to cover RBS' losses and perhaps even more in this new insurance scheme.

Degenerate

Masomnia wrote: »

The pension pot was built up over however many years, and the government shouldn't be able to take it, it's a dangerous precedent.

It's a final salary pension, it bears no relationship to what he paid in.

zedyy

Time to emmigrate, last one switch the light off.

treliac

Masomnia wrote: »

I agree he should do the decent thing, especially given the amounts involved. But I don't think the government should have the right to take it from him. He took the responsibilty by losing his job, and not taking the bonus. The pension pot was built up over however many years, and the government shouldn't be able to take it, it's a dangerous precedent.

We're all entitled to our opinions, of course.

There's no money in the pot though. We're propping the company up - it's not in our contract to give him all this money.

Just how many years did he work anyhow. Most people of his age have another 15 to go!

IMO this is such an exceptional case that normal rules don't apply. It doesn't have implications to those of us in 'normal' life. I'd like to see the company, along with his pension pot, go bust.

Perhaps some real lessons would be learnt.

treliac

zedyy wrote: »

Time to emmigrate, last one switch the light off.

Who'd want us, and why should they?

casper_uk

Hang on a minute, have i got this straight? The government new about and organised his pension deal in November and ok'd it as they wanted Fred out and wanted to get the bail out plan moving, so how can they now ask for it back when they agreed to it????

Talk about a day for bad news, 24 Billion loss, 19 billion extra tax payers cash injected into RBS, 350 Billion tax payers insurance, Browns fault for the light touch regulation that got us into this mess.....

Have i missed anything out? just how is this government still in power? What are we on now i have lost count, the 4th bail out?

Masomnia

treliac wrote: »

We're all entitled to our opinions, of course.

I'm glad we agree on something

There's no money in the pot though. We're propping the company up - it's not in our contract to give him all this money.

So what about everyone else that works for RBS? Should they recieve no pension for years of service? And those who already daw their pensions? Should they have them stopped?

IMO this is such an exceptional case that normal rules don't apply. It doesn't have implications to those of us in 'normal' life. I'd like to see the company, along with his pension pot, go bust.

There's no point in making rules if they don't apply. If the government bends the rules for him, why not their political opponents?

Graham_Devon

Masomnia wrote: »

Some people are too rich and earn too much money, it's something we have to get over if we want free-market capitalism. It's no less scandalous how much footballers get paid.

I don't think a pension counts as a 'reward' for work. Plenty of people are pants at their jobs and draw pensions at the end.

If anything the government are making this story more prominent to minimize the fact the tax payer is going to have to cough up another few billion to cover RBS' losses and perhaps even more in this new insurance scheme.

This isn't aimed as a jibe, but honestly, I don't think you are looking at the full picture here. I'll say again, this is no normal pension, which you keep relating it too.

It's been explained a fair few times, so I don't think I need to explain it again.

This is also, NOT free market capitalism. How can it be, when the taxpayers money is going in to prop it up?

No ones here discussing the head of HSBC's pension, as they havent messed up and used our money to pay their pensions. No ones here saying its terrible the boss's of Tesco have huge pensions, because again, they havent asked us to prop them up after bringing the country to its knees then going to sun themselves.

Graham_Devon

casper_uk wrote: »

Hang on a minute, have i got this straight? The government new about and organised his pension deal in November and ok'd it as they wanted Fred out and wanted to get the bail out plan moving, so how can they now ask for it back when they agreed to it????

Talk about a day for bad news, 24 Billion loss, 19 billion extra tax payers cash injected into RBS, 350 Billion tax payers insurance, Browns fault for the light touch regulation that got us into this mess.....

Have i missed anything out? just how is this government still in power? What are we on now i have lost count, the 4th bail out?

Yer, they have now admitted they lied about sending prisoners for torture, and actually, did.

Best to get it all out when this stories taking the limelight I guess!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7912656.stm

After all the "no, not us Guv" it's not really any surprise is it. I reckon the best thing to do now is listen to what they say, regard it as lies, and then take the opposite as the truth.