All in this together?

[tomw2000]

crankedup said:

Notice I used the word conspicuous in my opening. With Cameron anxious about the image of the Conservatives (publicly) I would think a few Senior Members may have a few choice words whispered in their lugholes. Can't blame these people for enjoying their wealth but it irks somewhat. See what 'The Guardian' has to say.

Surely not the Guardian in 'Guardian not liking people with money spending it' shock/surprise?

I'm not convinced we ought to be surprised.

a) at people with money spending it and
b) politicians not doing what they preach

doesn't bother me. Its the way of the world.

[Parrot of Doom]

Judging by the millions of shopping mongs I saw lining up to buy the usual tat over the Christmas break, I think the newspapers are once again guilty of trying to create stories where none exist.

[CommanderJameson]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

HundredthIdiot said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

HundredthIdiot said:

off_again said:

Given that the majority of the people involved (if not all) were wealthy before being elected to power, it is not on our tax payers money, so why the hell not....

...because 50% of the electorate are of below-average intelligence.

Isn't 50% of anything below average? On average.

That's mean.

On average, people don't understand averages.

Coat.Door.>slam<

[voyds9]

There's me thinking spending will get us out of the recession. Must be wrong. Hang on everyone no more spending that will get the economy moving.

[greygoose]

Reminds me of other silly slogans that have come back to haunt the government, at least "back to basics" brought some more colourful stories for the media.

[NorthernBoy]

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

[eccles]

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

[ATG]

Don't think it's so much a moral point as simply one of PR. Politicians need to keep Joe Public on side, regardless of whether or not Joe Public are being fair, rational or t'ick as mince. God bless anyone for getting involved in politics. Personally I couldn't give a toss if CMD turns up at work in a gold plated carriage pulled by twelve eunuchs wearing tiaras. It's his cash. But Joe Public won't take the same view. Bankers on the other hand don't have to answer to the public about their pay ... some may think they should, but the reality is that they don't and for all the hot air blowing around the world about tougher regulation etc, it just looks hopelessly impractical to me to expect to see some new global regulatory framework being put in place that makes a significant difference. Yes banks will no doubt need to increase their reserves, report and manage risk more thoroughly, and that is all very sensible, but I doubt it will fundamentally change the level of their staff's remuneration. It may be bad PR for banks, but that doesn't really matter. It will blow over in a few years. Bankers' image may be permanently a-bit-more-tarnished-than-before ... but so what?

[Rocksteadyeddie]

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

[sidicks]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Isn't 50% of anything below average? On average.

Actually, no!!

You mean 50% of anything is below the median...!!

Sidicks

[theaxe]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

I couldn't agree more, the hypocritical outpourings over the MP's expenses 'scandal' annoyed me greatly. Yes, the rules were too lax and poorly operated but for any member of the public to claim that they'd be any better is laughable.

[crankedup]

voyds9 said:

There's me thinking spending will get us out of the recession. Must be wrong. Hang on everyone no more spending that will get the economy moving.

Would be slightly more palatable if the 'guilty' spent their money in this Country rather than taken it abroad perhaps.

[crankedup]

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

The very mention of the dirty words 'Bankers Bonus'

[turbobloke]

All In It Together surely means we all get invited to Zak's and The Boy George's holiday venue(s) next time, should we wish. For free naturally.

[NorthernBoy]

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

But pay levels ARE massively down from the pre-crisis years, and the people responsible for the damage are long gone.

You seem to be urging banks to underpay the remaining productive staff, to make some kind of point. If, for example, Barclays paid zero this year, do you not think that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot?

[turbobloke]

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

But pay levels ARE massively down from the pre-crisis years, and the people responsible for the damage are long gone.

You seem to be urging banks to underpay the remaining productive staff, to make some kind of point. If, for example, Barclays paid zero this year, do you not think that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot?

Indeed so. Unfortunately there is a lot of anachronistic anti-banker bias around still.

[crankedup]

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

NorthernBoy said:

eccles said:

It's similar to bankers bonuses,there's nothing legally wrong with it, but morally you might think they'd have shown a bit more restraint.

How should that work, then? One bank takes the lead, and sees all of their staff decamp to someone else who sees it as a great opportunity to get staff in that they'd never otherwise get their hands on?

Banks pay the very minimum that they think that they can keep their staff for, but it turns out that their staff are very valuable, and the staff know this.

Given how limited the lifespan can be (and how much of the pay goes in tax, or is given in dodgy shares) do you really expect the staff to sit there and ignore the guy waving the million pound cheque when the current boss is offering only a firm handshake, and zero commitment to do anything different the following year?

The point I was trying to make was that, put in laymans terms, a company is on the brink of collapse, gets bailed out by the government, and instead of being a bit on the humble side and being greatful for still existing, it carries on with the lavish lifestyle it had before.
Whether it's legal or not isn't the point, it just doesn't look good.
Much the same point as the OP was making I think. We have these ministers urging restraint, making cuts left right and centre, people are feeling the squeeze as prices rise and disposable income goes down, and they're off jetting away on exotic holidays or having conspicuously lavish parties.
Legally nothing wrong with it, but morally it's not perhaps the best policy.

But pay levels ARE massively down from the pre-crisis years, and the people responsible for the damage are long gone.

You seem to be urging banks to underpay the remaining productive staff, to make some kind of point. If, for example, Barclays paid zero this year, do you not think that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot?

Its time that shareholders, especially the large Corporate holders of pension funds and the like, took a far more proactive roll in calling the shots when it comes to bonus payments and salary. For to long its all been very cosy and comforting for the top end Managers of the large Institutions to ride the wave. Now the wave has broken on the beach lets see some action for VFM.

[crankedup]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

crankedup said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

David Chaytor might disagree with your assertion that there was no scrutiny of MPs' expenses, or risk of prosecution.

In other words there's very little difference.

[crankedup]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

crankedup said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

I have a mate who is a died in the wool, Guardian reading, taxpaying, Nissan driving, vegetarian, and eco-mentalist (for context). He has spent his entire life working in the public sector, or in paid employment that was directly and closely reliant on the public sector. Long time Labour voter, and outspoken critic of anyone who had the nerve to earn more than "their fair share", although happy to turn a blind eye to the amount of tax (both % and absolute) that such people pay. Similarly outspoken about the "bd bankers", and "MPs on the take". About 18 months ago he was on the verge of being made redundant. To his credit he spotted a gap in the market and decided to set up his own business, working from home. This was an enormous step, and the first time in his life that he had been reliant on his own savvy and graft to put food on the table. Good for him.

Fast forward to a conversation we were having last night when he was regaling me of tales of, if not outright fiddling, then certainly stretching, his expense claims in his new found business. Acting in his own self interest you might say... I pointed out that this is exactly what MPs had done, and exactly what the "bd bankers" have, and likely will continue to do.

The point is this... Do MPs or bankers act any differently to the way in which we all act as human beings in a capitalist economic structure when the chips are down? The individual MPs didn't make the rules but were encouraged to play within them. The individual bankers don't dictate their own pay, but are (as pointed out above) valuable commodities who have a market value. Would you honestly sell yourself and your family cheap (or cheaper) for some higher "moral" purpose? Hand on heart I know I can't say that I could, or would. Morals, particularly with regards to money, are probably best left to others.

The difference being 'stretching expenses within your own business' is open to scrutiny by the Tax Man. Its an attempt to pay less tax on earnings with the risk of prosecution.
Falsifying, allegedly, expenses paid directly from the public purse with no further scrutiny following approval is theft and abuse of public servant position.

David Chaytor might disagree with your assertion that there was no scrutiny of MPs' expenses, or risk of prosecution.

In other words there's very little difference.

Yes of course, fair point. My direction was more pre 2007 before the expenses scandal was revealed to the public. Being an M.P. then must have been very cosy indeed and this is the era to which I refer. Incidentally, the 3 former M.P'S + one Lord are up before the beak soon I believe?