Harriet Harman on Sir Fred Goodwin

kabayiri

julieq wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't want anyone obessing about one banker (amongst many) who happened to negotiate a good severance deal anywhere near the statute book with their crayon collection. Reducing his pension, IF you can do it, which is unlikely, is about jealousy and vengeance, not government. It's a waste of time and money, and it's being cynically used as a smokescreen.

We are actually more upset by the fact that Sir Fred took his comfy leather office chair when he left....oh, and that nice new Stapler and a brand new set of highlighter pens.

(the fact the chair was a recliner merely adds to the insult!)

itsallagame_2

kabayiri wrote: »

We are actually more upset by the fact that Sir Fred took his comfy leather office chair when he left....oh, and that nice new Stapler and a brand new set of highlighter pens.

(the fact the chair was a recliner merely adds to the insult!)

Ha! Ha! funny thing is, my m8 took his chair when he left a job many years ago!
Suppose it’s a power trip

Oblivion

I've followed the arguments that say, Fred's pension is just a small diversion in the overall national financial issue, and taken alone, it is. BUT, there are plenty of other Sir Freds out there who are trousering huge pensions that they never earned by their input.

The solution is so simple ... introduce a 95% tax on any annual income over £???? ... well you name a sensible figure.

Dave.

jayok

£250,000 ..

Love_bargains_2

jayok wrote: »

£250,000 ..

How did you come up with that number? Why not £249,999 or £250,001?

julieq

95% top rate certainly worked like a charm in the 1970s. Can we have the social contract back too please?

chewmylegoff

Oblivion wrote: »

I've followed the arguments that say, Fred's pension is just a small diversion in the overall national financial issue, and taken alone, it is. BUT, there are plenty of other Sir Freds out there who are trousering huge pensions that they never earned by their input.

The solution is so simple ... introduce a 95% tax on any annual income over £???? ... well you name a sensible figure.

Dave.

i propose a 95% "life savings portfolio" tax.

jayok

Love_bargains wrote: »

How did you come up with that number? Why not £249,999 or £250,001?

What ever number you come up with, somebody is always going to ask why not the number -1 or the number +1 !!!

nrsql

Dave101t wrote: »

isnt it amazing?

we need 'new laws' to strip corrupt bankers of their ill gotten gains,
we need 'new laws' to deport known terrorists calling for death to the English, and burning the Union Jack on English ground.

if this was any other country, any other, the government would simply do it.

The recent milk scare in China where around 6 babies died and hundreds were taken ill due to the adding of toxins to bump up the nutrition of the milk in their most reputable brand, what is the milk companies owners sentence? she has been sentenced to death.

no new laws were needed, just a sensible reaction brought about by the peoples anger. surely we are angry enough to be heard by our government?

So you want to live in a country that doesn't abide by it's laws?
You would be happy to be thrown out of your house because other people think you don't deserve it?
A lot of people are angry at this governments running of the economy so presumably they should throw themselves out of office.

Government by the tabloids.

China is also happy to shoot protestors and imprison without trial and throw people out of homes to redevelop. Your criticism of the government might be dangerous in such a society - be careful what you wish for.

Oblivion

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i propose a 95% "life savings portfolio" tax.

Leave it out. It's already been taxed once when I earnt it, and much of it a second time when it earnt interest. If I pay any more tax I'll own the Treasury! :rotfl:

Dave.