Breaking news on BBC - Fred Goodwin refuses reduced pension

Fulham_Mark

I'm not sure that cancelling people's pensions is a good thing at all. Next it will be fair game to can the pensions of the average staff at these banks who have done nothing wrong. Most bank employees earn very little and are now lambs to the slaughter for political parties jostling to be tougher on banks than the others

At the top perhaps pensions are being used as an alternative to take-home pay. So the chairman appears to be earning less. Some simple legislation would prevent this.

Not sure of the type of scheme he was in but pensions and bonus payments aren't taxed as highly as normal take-home pay. A pension should be your saving scheme not a secret way to earn pay.

Let's not forget that in the old days, the chairman of the bank would never really have earned the position and would have just risen though the ranks based on a gentleman's network and a pre-defined career path.
The market is opened up but it's become like the premier league with people paying super sums hoping to get the best talent.

Football clubs of course will not be next to collapse .... not like they have all been silly with their spending and debt

treliac

Masomnia wrote: »

I'm glad we agree on something
Don't we usually then?

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?
It's sad, but no less sad for them than everyone else losing their employment and all the associated benefits. He/they'd have to do what others in the same position do.

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?

If we were talking normal circumstances, yes. But this is uncharted territory, warranting a unique response.

JP45

Judging by the comments in the media, it seems to me highly unlikely that the government will be able to force Goodwin to forfeit some or all of his pension.

But surely, as an earlier post suggested, the government could at the very least take back his knighthood. And whilst they're at it, strip Lords Archer and Black of their peerages.

I think its high time that bonuses and honours should be awarded on the basis that they will be forfeited if the recipients are subsequently found to be undeserving of the award.

mustrum_ridcully

Masomnia wrote: »

I don't think the government should be able to confiscate pensions just to win votes by getting revenge.

People forget about the "law" of unforeseen consequences.

Knowing Labour they'd draft a law, to much cheering from the mob, but they'll make it so broad that it would allow them to raid anyones pension under "certain circumstances". Any voices of protest warning us would be drowned out by the crowd.

As despicable a scumbag as Fred Goodwin might be and as much I'd love to see him not get the money I personally would be very worried if Labour started making new laws to deal with this...

Degenerate

Masomnia wrote: »

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?

Ok, I'm going to make one last attempt to explain why this is different:

Scenario 1: Company is going bankrupt, director leaves but as he goes he transfers millions of pound that creditors have prior claim on into his bank account.
Result = Director banged up for Fraud.

Scenario 2: As above, but he puts the money into his pension instead.
Result=According to you, he should be allowed to get away with it, because the pension is sacrosant.

casper_uk

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

People forget about the "law" of unforeseen consequences.

Knowing Labour they'd draft a law, to much cheering from the mob, but they'll make it so broad that it would allow them to raid anyones pension under "certain circumstances". Any voices of protest warning us would be drowned out by the crowd.

As despicable a scumbag as Fred Goodwin might be and as much I'd love to see him not get the money I personally would be very worried if Labour started making new laws to deal with this...

Haven't labour already raided all the pensions?

tirano

Pay him in pennies !

mrposhman

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?

exactly, this is the GOLD medal of hypocrisy from brown and darling. I wonder if they get bonuses or pay rises this year? Has this been released yet?

mrposhman

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

People forget about the "law" of unforeseen consequences.

Knowing Labour they'd draft a law, to much cheering from the mob, but they'll make it so broad that it would allow them to raid anyones pension under "certain circumstances". Any voices of protest warning us would be drowned out by the crowd.

As despicable a scumbag as Fred Goodwin might be and as much I'd love to see him not get the money I personally would be very worried if Labour started making new laws to deal with this...

as would I.

There is already too much payer being taken from the public and being provided to the government without an ability to wage into our pensions. What would they do if there was a deficit in pension funds in the future? Just cancel it out and say tough?? No additional top-up payments etc.

mrposhman

Degenerate wrote: »

Ok, I'm going to make one last attempt to explain why this is different:

Scenario 1: Company is going bankrupt, director leaves but as he goes he transfers millions of pound that creditors have prior claim on into his bank account.
Result = Director banged up for Fraud.

Scenario 2: As above, but he puts the money into his pension instead.
Result=According to you, he should be allowed to get away with it, because the pension is sacrosant.

did he just do it or was it a deal with the government to leave his job?

If he just did it and tried to hide it then your point stands. If it was a deal then surely its severance pay, just that its taken in the form of a pension rather than pay.