Excuse me, but do you believe you are owed an explanation
for the private remuneration arrangements between a company and it's executive?
Are you a shareholder, and if not why do you think that information is any of your business, or that of a BBC reporter?
The only awkwardness there is the usual social faux pas of interrogating someone about how much they earn; it is the person asking the question who should be ashamed of themselves.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 16:53, Share, Reply)
anything more than double the average wage should be public
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:02, Share, Reply)
Because?
Explain why you think you deserve that information, other than a combination of nosiness and envy.
Why specifically double? Why are you requiring people richer than you to not have the privacy that you enjoy?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:12, Share, Reply)
reasons
1. Valid bragging not false claims
2. Encourage those high earners that care about it to aim even higher when they realise they could do better.
3. What have they to be afraid of?
4. Recognition that their work is valuable and valued.
5. Total transparency, remove any suggestion that they are not declaring income.
6. Above to be tied into govt openly recognising various legal means of tax avoidance rather than suggesting its going on when it suits them.
I chose double the average to try and focus on those who should be celebrated, not villified. Plenty of those who earn less should be celebrated but they're far less likely to be villified.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:12, Share, Reply)
1&2. These ideas are just daft. Rich people aren't earning their money just to place themselves on some arbitrary scoreboard.
3. Beggars, conmen, envious people with pitchforks, commercial competitors who might use the information to their advantage, etc... plenty of reasons to be concerned about others who would attempt to take that money away.
4. Why would they anyone want or need external validation of their salary?
5&6. The inland revenue already gets that information by law. Not disclosing that information is already a criminal offense.
Why should anyone be vilified if they're not actually doing anything wrong? What's this guy supposedly done to earn your vilification?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:54, Share, Reply)
my vilification? what vilification on my part?
I thought you were objecting to how he was being treated just because he'd been given £75m for his hard work.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:13, Share, Reply)
I'm objecting to a guy being vilified
for refusing to answer a question that is no one else's business.
You appear to be one of the people who thinks it's your business. Maybe you're not vilifying him.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:24, Share, Reply)
but it isn't no one else's business, as you pointed out it would be the business of shareholders
by extension it would then also be the business of pension funds and those that they represent i.e. members of the public. So to make reasoned decisions based on the actions of a company why shouldn't a public broadcaster ask the very question that the public would? Namely, how is it justified.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:36, Share, Reply)
and pension funds *do* vote on remuneration packages
journalist is free to ask the question, but it's no big surprise the chief executive doesn't answer. Being doorstepped is *not* designed to get a sensible answer. The best outcome for journalists is when they set the dogs on you.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:40,
Share,
Reply)
If you'll look further up the thread
you'll see I've clearly made an exception for shareholders (both private individuals and managers of funds); that's already been covered. It does NOT extend to random people with pensions in those funds... they're only owed explanations from the fund managers who may ask the question on their behalf. This relationship is not transitive.
Sure, the journalist can ask the question, but it isn't reasonable to vilify the guy if he chooses not to answer it.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:49, Share, Reply)
This is a democracy, and there is no right to privacy in the UK (There is one in ECHR, which we may be backing out of)
Just as the board can award themselves huge bonuses, a journalist can ask awkward questions if he thinks it will be of interest to the public, and we can react in whatever way we choose, including vilifying the greedy fuck.
The big game hunter had a right to shoot lions, but had to bear the public's anger for his actions. If the CEO hadn't done anything appalling, then people wouldn't be interested in the clip. You might find his bonus justified, but many people don't. You are arguing against transparency and consequences for decisions, whether private decisions or public decision. I am for it.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 23:34,
Share,
Reply)
So. Much. Ignorance.
There is a right to privacy in English law, it has been much in the news of late. Perhaps news of so called super injunctions passed you by. Maybe you have never heard of the Family Courts, or have any idea how they operate. Perhaps you've never read a news story concerning crime where the victim, and in some cases the perpetrator, have their identity withheld. There are many other ways in which we have privacy rights that haven't grabbed headlines. The ECHR was specifically incorporated into English law by the HRA. That was the explicitly stated primary purpose of the act.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 22 Oct 2018, 8:32,
Share,
Reply)
dealing with your diatribes backwards, yes I know UK incorporated the EHCR provisions, my phrase "which we may be backing out of" obviously implies that we're still in it, if you're capable or parsing English I guess.
The EHCR is a requirement of EU membership, so my warning that we may be backing out of the HRA after brexit has some justification, and well as high profile opponents to it including the Murdoch's papers because of immigrant using it to prevent family seperations. The superinjunction derive their power from the ECHR. The landmark case which created superinjunctions PJS v News Group Newspapers was rejected then won on appeal with specific reference to the EHCR obligations. There is no British legislation that enshrines a right to privacy in the matter we were talking about as evillegion suggested there was, and other countries have, though there are some ancillary rights around property and family law. If we pull out of the ECHR as we may well do, we will go back to having nothing. And recent legislation like the snoopers charter suggests the government has little interest in developing new privacy protections. People think getting out of Europe will give us more freedoms, when it's often been the only thing protecting them
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 23 Oct 2018, 6:28,
Share,
Reply)
Go and read the 1998 Human Rights Act. We are not "backing out" of it. It's an English law. Then go and get yourself a LLB. You have no idea what you're talking about.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 24 Oct 2018, 8:32,
Share,
Reply)
That is pretty extreme, public positions maybe.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:55,
Share,
Reply)
Most public positions are disclosed.
want to know how much the head of the Met is paid - google it.
Want to know how much the head of the civil service is paid - ditto.
want to know how much the director of any listed company is paid - ditto.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:40,
Share,
Reply)
Indirectly, the case could be made.
Structural inequality is matter of public concern inasmuch as that it is a considering when assessing how just a society is. It's quite arguable that this kind of bonus is both a symptom of, and a contributor to, structural inequality, and that it's unjust in its own right.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:29,
Share,
Reply)
Unjust?
Are you saying you should have some right to decide how much one person you've never met is allowed to give to another person you've never met due to some work that the second did for the first? Bear in mind that this guy will have paid more tax on that bonus than most people will pay in their entire lives.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 17:35, Share, Reply)
How altruistic of him
Get his knighthood in the post immediately
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:28, Share, Reply)
There doesn't appear to be any question of a knighthood at all...
...so I'm not sure what silly point you're trying to make by mentioning it.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:33, Share, Reply)
I am saying that.
When there is such wealth inequality.
Above a certain amount of money, your private wages become a public issue.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:30,
Share,
Reply)
There certainly is such a thing as wealth inequality...
But the second part does not follow. What "certain" amount of money, and why?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:37, Share, Reply)
There’s nothing wrong with inequality
Poverty is bad m’kay. But you have no more interest in his bonus than the next prurient neighbour does in what you get up to in the bedroom.
The myth that you’d be earning twice as much if someone else was earning half as much is piffle And nonsense on stilts.
People aren’t in poverty because of big bonuses for chief execs. The only thing that annoys me more than the lazy assumption that inequality is a general bad is talk of ‘child poverty’ it’s parent poverty.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:37,
Share,
Reply)
I'm not sure how you draw that inference,
since I said nothing about who gets to decide who gets paid what, or how much. There might be a case to be made for someone to make that decision, and that someone might even be me (gasp!) or you (gasp!); but there'd need to be a lot more argument to make the case, and I've not got that argument to hand. I don't know whether such an argument'd work, either, be that in principle or in practice.
My claim stopped short of that: it's that there is (again, arguably) a matter of public concern here. That said, I might push it a bit further and suggest there may be legitimate grounds for public criticism on the basis that pay like that is indicative of and contributory to systematic injustice. What normative heft that criticism would have is a further question.
As for the paying tax part: I'm not an employment or a tax lawyer, but I am under the impression one of the reasons for assigning bonuses rather than salaries is that there are tax advantages for the recipient. So on that basis, he's possibly paying less tax than he might be.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:42,
Share,
Reply)
Fair enough, I somewhat misinterpreted the point you were making.
I will agree there is some public concern... but that's already handled by the inland revenue who know the information and they apply taxes accordingly, as it should be. If there is inequality the correct procedure is for the government to identify it and legislate accordingly so that people are taxed appropriately; the wrong procedure is for members of the public to arbitrarily decide they don't like a guy so he needs to hand over loads of money.
In terms of personal income, bonuses are taxed exactly the same way as any other earnings. However I believe there is some small leeway in terms of when bonuses are awarded, meaning they can potentially be timed to reduce liabilities in one tax period in exchange for increasing them in a different one.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:20, Share, Reply)
I think the private sector is not exempt from answering questions justifying a salary
Particularly as it does involve the general public who live in the homes that his company build. If I was getting a huge bonus at a large company the first thing that would come to mind is why am I worth this. So why couldn't he answer the question when it was posed? Had he never thought he should justify it? As the public face he should be better than that. Also, if I was the journalist's boss I would expect him to ask the question - if I hadn't actually told him to in the first place.
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:23,
Share,
Reply)
Actually, yes the private sector IS exempt from answering those questions.
There is nothing in law that compels anyone to answer such a question from a journalist. Also, he has no reason to justify it. The onus is on the nosy fuckers to justify why it's any of their business... any not one has done that yet.
By the way, do you ask people you've only just met how much they earn? No of course you don't because it's really fucking rude.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:33, Share, Reply)
It shouldn't be rude, though.
Asking what someone does for a living is an indirect way of asking the same thing and, if you freelance, you often have to justify your prices by breaking the work down.
It's a boring question, anyway. Always ask what they do for a hobby if you want the measure of a person.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:05,
Share,
Reply)
Yeah, but if you're freelancing for someone,
you're actually doing work for the person asking and it would be a bit difficult to earn anything without some level of discussion about money.
But that reporter (and people on b3ta) are not asking this guy to do work for them.
"It shouldn't be rude." Yeah but it *is* considered rude by most people.
And there are good reasons why. One of them is the same reason why lottery winners often remain anonymous, to avoid a constant stream of beggars. Or to avoid con men from identifying you as a target. Or to avoid the situation where groups of envious cunts whip themselves into a frenzy online about how evil you are.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:13, Share, Reply)
It can be rude asking how much someone earns...
But he isn't at a party talking to someone he has just met, he is a journalist and it is his job. He does not have to justify the question to someone he is interviewing.
Also, they are not exempt because of the LACK of a law to exempt them.
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:27,
Share,
Reply)
I didn't require the journalist to justify his question.
I'm pointing out that this guy has no duty to answer it, needs no justification for his lack of answer, and is being treated quite unfairly for a guy who appears to have done nothing wrong apart from earning more money than some people would like him to earn.
In your last sentence are you saying that things aren't against a law if the law doesn't exist?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:32, Share, Reply)
No
Are you saying that if something isn't written into law it is automatically protected?
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Mon 22 Oct 2018, 15:28,
Share,
Reply)
No not at all...
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
My position is that the guy has not apparently committed any crime, has not mismanaged the company he works for, and has been remunerated according to the contract he has with that company upon which the shareholders will have signed off. He doesn't appear to be going around being an utter bastard to people. He doesn't appear to have done anything wrong that anyone can point at.
The only thing he has done is earn more money than some other people would like, and refuse to answer a question about that. According to some people that's despicable, with no clear explanation of why (the closest anyone came to an explanation involved some waffle about A-level sociology).
In terms of the law, he is protected in the sense that he is not obliged to answer any of those journalists questions, just as the journalist is protected in being allowed to ask them. He can not be prosecuted or sued for not answering them. This isn't really a question of law, other than the fact he has not apparently broken it.
(, Mon 22 Oct 2018, 20:49, Share, Reply)
He doesn't have to answer the question
He isn't covered by a law that states that he doesn't have to answer the question though. So he is not exempt from answering it as you put it. That's what I am saying.
Other than that, as I said before, the journalist can ask what he wants. The assumption that everyone is a nosy, envious twat because we believe these corporations should be transparent, accountable and answerable is a bit much.
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Tue 23 Oct 2018, 0:47,
Share,
Reply)
That's an igoratio elenchi.
TCS was - I think - fairly clearly making a moral claim, so to respond by pointing out that there's no legal obligation is to argue against a point that wasn't being made.
The rest of the post is simply chaff.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:48,
Share,
Reply)
He stated that
"the private sector is not exempt from answering questions justifying a salary", which when taken literally is not clearly making a moral claim.
But my response to it was both a legal and moral position. The moral counter claim is that "the onus is on the nosy fuckers to justify why it's any of their business" and not the other way around. My position simply happens to be backed up by the law.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:03, Share, Reply)
There is an argument
for the proposal that they should simply not be allowed to do so. Public display of the remuneration and forcing them to validate it is part of that process.
When money is pulled from the collective pot and most of it is given to just a very few individuals, everyone who is not part of that group suffers.
As such, it is the business of everybody when select individuals are given such a huge share of the financial collective pot.
Currently, you can fit the people who own half the world's wealth onto a large bus, and that bus is getting smaller and smaller.
When people are starving and unable to simply live because of a lack of money, anyone defending that situation should be ashamed, not the people trying to stop it.
(
My Name was saying these words inside your head on, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:27,
Share,
Reply)
People are starving due to a lack of food.
Giving them that guy's shares in Persimmon isn't gonna feed all of them.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:45, Share, Reply)
what collective pot is that exactly?
IN this case, it's shareholders' funds. The owners of the company get to vote on directors' remuneration every year.
This is a large bonus - I can't be arsed to check but normally big bonuses are whole wodge of LTIP share options have vested and thanks to the share price appreciation, they're worth a lot.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:38,
Share,
Reply)
the remuneration was public
you can browse their accounts online on the website.
(
$$ ✅, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:32,
Share,
Reply)
Right...
That still has no bearing on whether a guy has a duty to discuss it in front of television cameras.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:37, Share, Reply)
I agree with where you're coming from, but I think you've got it wrong on this one.
It's a publicly listed company so he does have a duty to answer for it publicly. Obviously to any shareholders directly but also to anyone who has paid into a pension fund that is a shareholder. It's clearly excessive, when the builders Carillion collapsed it cost the taxpayer £150 million, and many of their directors were being paid stupid money, not as stupid as this. But the idea that anyone on double the average wage should be publicly named is utterly batshit. Still, it would be interesting to see how many penpushers at the NHS and BBC are milking it.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:35,
Share,
Reply)
He might have a duty to discuss it in shareholder meetings.
I don't think that extends to "to anyone at any time".
I also don't think that extends to anyone who paid into a pension fund that is a shareholder, but only to the managers of those funds.
Carillion is a different case entirely, since they were horrifically mismanaged for years whilst simultaneously being paid such large sums, and the result was the tax payer eventually had to foot the bill. I believe that Persimmon has thrived under this guy's effective leadership.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:52, Share, Reply)
There's no 'might have a duty', he is absolutely accountable to the shareholders, and can expect to have to justify his renumeration. That's a pretty basic fact, this is not an opinion, it's something that happens, a lot.
Again, it's a publicly listed company. Maybe if he whispered his explanation to the pension fund managers and they sent a written précis in an envelope marked "top secret" to the people paying into the pension fund?
It's always a different case right up until it isn't. I don't know much about Persimmon, but I do know a ridiculous renumeration package when I see one. It would be big for a global player, they aren't even the biggest building firm in the U.K.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:47,
Share,
Reply)
The "might" in my sentence was a nod
to the fact you're correct he does have that duty. A pattern of speech. As in... "he might have A, but he doesn't have B".
Maybe Persimmon will turn out to be another Carillion, but then my mates 1 month old baby might turn out to be another Jimmy Savile but it probably isn't fair to treat him like that until he does.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 22:00, Share, Reply)
No, your mate is a wrong'un, and his baby is a chip off the old block. Preemptive retribution is the only way.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 22:32,
Share,
Reply)
Lol he is a wrong'un,
and I reckon it's odds on his kid will be the world's most prolific sex offender by the time he's 13, but we mustn't preempt that.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 23:20, Share, Reply)
I think the question is more
Should that money be distributed further down the chain rather than given in bulk to single person? If not, why?
If a company is making so much profit that is able to pay these kind of sums, are the workers or customers getting ripped off?
(
Fadgebadger (1 like), Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:33,
Share,
Reply)
No.... you have the question wrong.
The "if not why not" bit is backwards. The onus is on you to say "if so, why". The default should be that you're allowed stuff until it's proven you shouldn't have it not the other way around.
Can you explain why this money should be taken from this guy, and crucially why all of your money shouldn't be taken from you.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:35, Share, Reply)
It is distributed down the chain.
The top 5% earners pay 47% of total tax collected.
The bottom 50% of earners pay only 10% of all tax.
(
After you my dear Alfonse No. After you., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:06,
Share,
Reply)
you access to stats!
Great!
So what proportion did they pay as tax on their total annual earnings?
(
colmcq2, Mon 22 Oct 2018, 10:38,
Share,
Reply)
I'd like to hear from the very expensive accountants the top earners employ...
(
Fadgebadger (1 like), Mon 22 Oct 2018, 22:54,
Share,
Reply)
If there's no awkwardness why didn't he answer the question?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:36, Share, Reply)
Because it's "none of your fucking business".
My point is that the journalist was the guy who ought to have been awkward, but being a nosy scumbag looking for a story he is instead shameless in his flouting of social norms, and the other guy was clearly kinda embarrassed on his behalf.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 18:40, Share, Reply)
I didn't think the wealthy cared about social norms.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:08,
Share,
Reply)
Funny how the name Norman is both somehow mundane and threatens invasion.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:45,
Share,
Reply)
Which just shows how viciously biased you are.
It really is astonishing how much pure hatred that envy can engender in people who otherwise have stable and comfortable lives.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:14, Share, Reply)
You are making vast assumptions about me that you cannot back up.
Both in the quality and tone.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:35,
Share,
Reply)
I'm willing to bet your life is broadly pretty comfortable.
I base that on the fact that you have time to waste on b3ta. Maybe I'm wrong.
How much do you earn?
Also, are my assumptions categorically any different to your odd assertion that rich people don't care about social norms. Given the number of rich people there are, how many multiples of your assumption exist in comparison to my individual ones?
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 19:53, Share, Reply)
Just over 5k
Partially disabled, still paying mortgage, extravagantly, i rescue cats.
Paradoxically, the very people reluctant to talk about earnings often spend them on conspicuous consumption and general emblems of wealth.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:05,
Share,
Reply)
So, you own a house,
which means you're likely more comfortable than most people.
Certainly I'm guessing that you hate rich people, but I'm basing that off your statement that they don't care about social norms which is a rather mean thing to say about an entire class of people.
I'd just like to point out that, on a personal note, I very much respect anyone that rescues cats.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:10, Share, Reply)
I don't envy wealth, it is the power that it can wield that disturbs me.
Buying things doesn't excite me, wealth brings its own problems.
I don't mind people having more that me, it does not diminish me as a person.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 21 Oct 2018, 20:29,
Share,
Reply)
It disturbs me as well,
certainly there have been rich cunts who have abused their wealth and power and who deserve to be vilified, but what disturbs me more is the rather common assumption that just because someone is rich they also automatically deserve it.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:28, Share, Reply)
You should not dignify this Muppet with your comments
Wasted time and energy.
(
spazzcaptain Misses Valin @, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:36,
Share,
Reply)