I think he has earned every penny...........brains like Hesters are in short supply. And which tradesman on this forum would settle for less than he/she quoted and agreed with the client??
RBS Bonus
- Thread starter Blasphemous
- Start date
That's the key. Not intending to get all daily mail on ya ass, but Stephen Hester's recruitment deal was sorted by the previous labour government.
I'm bemused by the various labour cries of "can't believe you're letting him away with it!" when the original contract was written by Mr. G. Brown, (ex of) 10 Downing Street
In the last 24 hours, Stephem Hester has announced that he will waive the bonus. OOOOKKKKKK so he's a better man than I (despite the rather odd hunting get-up) but I would have had a whole host of reasons why I (sorry, he) deserved the bonus.
But we are denied that argument, because he has declined the bonus.
Back to point#1; Mr.Hester is working on a contract, with benefits, drawn up by the previous government.
He who casts the first stone, etc...
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 269
- Country
Now, these guys surely aren't silly/greedy enough to be 'killing the golden goose' are they? Perhaps the conclusion is that things are not as bad as peddled.
Had HMG not bailed out the banks - defaulted on 'promise to pay' - where would we be now? Not AAA for sure.
-0-
Another take on it is that we want RBS to become a successful bank so the government can sell it's share back to the private industry, otherwise the bail out money is never recovered.
That means running it like a business, and banks as a business pay bonuses to attract the talent.
Also he's bonus was to be paid in shares, not collectable until 2014 (ensuring he would have to keep the business going well to keep the value of his bonus).
That means running it like a business, and banks as a business pay bonuses to attract the talent.
Also he's bonus was to be paid in shares, not collectable until 2014 (ensuring he would have to keep the business going well to keep the value of his bonus).
You might want to brush up on your history and look up all the tax dodging that happened back then, the beetles included (they gave away money to avoid paying tax).
People argue whether a 50% tax causes people to leave, and it is debatable, butthe laffer curve exists, and 90% would lose us more than it would gain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
People argue whether a 50% tax causes people to leave, and it is debatable, butthe laffer curve exists, and 90% would lose us more than it would gain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Without realising it Joe-90 puts forward a well supported taxation doctrine. The essense of which is the realisation that the lower the tax the less people seek to reduce the amount they pay. The net result is that by reducing the rate you get a bigger overall take.
Similar threads
