Real Benefit Scroungers (RBS)

The total cost of the RBS (Real Benefit Scroungers) bailout has now reached £53.5 billion and far surpasses all previous banking bailouts anywhere in the world. Yet, despite this and the current economic climate, our bank (82% taxpayer owned) believes it’s acceptable to pay its boss Stephen Hester a £963,000 bonus in addition to his £1.2 million salary. Perhaps he spent last year’s entire £6.5 million bonus on soaring heating and fuel bills? :P

If the present government is serious about tackling what it calls, “The dependency culture” then it needs to show consistency, instead of bearing all of its political will and resolve down on those at the bottom of the social ladder. In true, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” spirit, RBS (Real benefit scroungers) would be a good place to start. If not, the echoes of “We are all in this together” will fall on deaf ears.

It's disgusting if I had an RBS account I would move to different bank, preferably not one owned by share holders

The argument will soon come out that they have got to pay big money to keep the top people or they will move on does not hold water with me. I look at the German economy where the wage gap between shop floor staff and top management is a lot smaller than the UK, a successfully economy with low unemployment and a stable work force.

If only it was that simple.
The bottom line is: Don't pay him a bonus (which is small compared to what he could get elsewhere), he leaves for a job that does, the bank fails, everyone loses their money.

He's the best in the business and is already turning the bank around.
You can't blame him for the failings of his predecessor or for the way the system works.
Also people keep ignoring the fact that his bonus is in shares not cash. If he fails, he loses his bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_geoghegan

If only it was that simple.
The bottom line is: Don't pay him a bonus (which is small compared to what he could get elsewhere), he leaves for a job that does, the bank fails, everyone loses their money.

He's the best in the business and is already turning the bank around.
You can't blame him for the failings of his predecessor or for the way the system works.
Also people keep ignoring the fact that his bonus is in shares not cash. If he fails, he loses his bonus.

---

Turning the bank around?

Mr Hester has conceded that it will take longer than the promised five years for RBS to revive the bank - which is effectively breaking one of his key promises since taking
control of the bank.

Under Mr Hester, its shares have fallen substantially to about 27p currently. Its stock fell 48% last year. In 2007, RBS shares were worth about 370p.

The bank is worth less than half what taxpayers paid for the shares when rescuing the group. UK taxpayers injected £45.5bn of new capital into RBS. At recent share prices, that investment has fallen in value by a painful £27bn.

In 2011, the bank's return on equity fell from 14% to 12% and the cost-to-income ratio rose to 59% from 56%. (The 2013 targets for those two measures are 15% and less than 50%, respectively, from which RBS seems far away.)

We’ve got some of the best dinner ladies, fire-fighters, teachers, police officers, taking a pay cut or freeze in real terms, but nobody is saying that they should be receiving a bonus to keep them from leaving. >:(

Even “King Kenny” could turn RBS around with a £53.5 billion cash injection. ;D ;D ;D

Don't necessarily agree with this, but the last government set his contract up and he needs time to turn the bank around.

The bonus is not pleasant, but i believe, due to the furore (or possibly because of him being leaned upon) he has declined it.

Unlike the Real Benefits Scrounger by me, who has just gone on a 2 week holiday to Morocco courtesy of the UK benefits system, whilst kindly leaving their untaxed BMW 1-series parked on the public road (also probably uninsured).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_geoghegan

If only it was that simple.
The bottom line is: Don't pay him a bonus (which is small compared to what he could get elsewhere), he leaves for a job that does, the bank fails, everyone loses their money.

He's the best in the business and is already turning the bank around.
You can't blame him for the failings of his predecessor or for the way the system works.
Also people keep ignoring the fact that his bonus is in shares not cash. If he fails, he loses his bonus.

---

I would agree if he had met his targets. He didn't. We can't blame him for the failings of his predecessors, but surely there is somthing wrong when close on £1m is given for failing??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pilninggas

Don't necessarily agree with this, but the last government set his contract up and he needs time to turn the bank around.

The bonus is not pleasant, but i believe, due to the furore (or possibly because of him being leaned upon) he has declined it.

Unlike the Real Benefits Scrounger by me, who has just gone on a 2 week holiday to Morocco courtesy of the UK benefits system, whilst kindly leaving their untaxed BMW 1-series parked on the public road (also probably uninsured).

---

Merv, you must know your neighbour really well to make such presumptions, or did you read it in The Sun?

The sacrificial lamb ?.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monday21

[quote author=pilninggas link=1327693567/4#4 date=1327758520]Don't necessarily agree with this, but the last government set his contract up and he needs time to turn the bank around.

The bonus is not pleasant, but i believe, due to the furore (or possibly because of him being leaned upon) he has declined it.

Unlike the Real Benefits Scrounger by me, who has just gone on a 2 week holiday to Morocco courtesy of the UK benefits system, whilst kindly leaving their untaxed BMW 1-series parked on the public road (also probably uninsured).

---

Merv, you must know your neighbour really well to make such presumptions, or did you read it in The Sun? [/quote]

No, i live in an area which is partly good, honest, hard-working citizens/retirees and partly people who don't want to work, if they do it is something dodgy, along with everything the state will give them.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you the whole story of some the scams some of my neighbours pull, either that or you would think I have a personal vendetta - I only hate one of my neighbours and that is because they are an anti-social addict (state-sponsored I might add). Some folk round here would do nothing for me, but i've always helped them out, without problem, if I could (some, sadly just assume I will)

I like where I live, but sadly the folk who hold it back have one thing in common, they don't work and have no intention whilst the state pays for their drink, smokes, weed and sky.

Just call me Fred Goodwin [smiley=thumbsup.gif]