Directors' pay rose 50% in past year, says IDS report

[dikkertjedap]

Obscene in my view

They get a pay rise, they pay more tax. I don't see the problem.

Oh, and rich people contributed to the bank bail out as much as anyone else. In fat they probably contributed more.

I would love to have the wage packet of one of these CEO's, but I don't understand the vitriolic jealousy on MN towards anyone that is a high earner.

Quite, Piglet. Executive pay is spiralling out of control - and out of all proportion to profitability, or to the wages of the other employees - because it's set by a cosy cartel acting in their own interest. The non-execs who are meant to be a brake on the board are just the directors of other companies.

Most directors aren't risking their own money - the money comes from ordinary members of the public saving into a pension fund or other type of investment. Inflated pay packages (they even have the cheek to call it 'compensation' as if they have to be bribed to turn up) have nothing to do with corporate performance, or the impact a company has on society, on its neighbours, on its employees, on its customers or the taxpayer.

Whole system is long overdue for radical reform IMO. Someone on another thread pointed out that incentives for those at the top are always inflation-busting pay rises that are completely out of proportion to the average employee's pay or to corporate performance. But incentives for everyone else are always pay cuts, no pay rises, the threat of redundancy...

If only, filo. They tend to take a big chunk of the money in 'tax efficient' ways i.e. not in basic salary where they'd have to do PAYE. Warren Buffett has pointed out how common it is for a chief exec to pay a much lower rate of tax than the office cleaner.

If the shareholders are happy with the pay packages their company's directors get then I don't see why its anyone elses business

But the shareholders aren't asked.

yikert
"If the shareholders are happy with the pay packages their company's directors get then I don't see why its anyone elses business"

"If"

Do you have a pension plan? Or a life assurance policy? Or savings in a unit trust? Peoiple who do are the ultimate owners of these companies. But because their ownership is held by a chain of middlemen, none of whom want the ultimate owners to have any say... they don't.

Most directors are not directing companies in the FTSE 100.

"No, that's not true. Vast amounts of the shares of FTSE100 companies are held by life and pension funds, or collective investments. The ultimate owners are the small man and woman in the street (or in the case of companies such as Northern Rock, or Royal Bank of Scotland, the Taxpayer in the street). However the investment companies generally sit on thir hands, and do not ask the ultimate owners how the votes should be cast. This is generally considered to be because the directors of those funds management companies are on the same gravy train and don't want to rock their boat."

If you feel that strongly about it use a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) all control and you can make you mind up around where you stick all the cash. No-one forces you to use the old system.

In any case RBS did cave in over directors pay/bonuses due to UK PLC kicking off as the major share holder.

Grevling "No-one forces you to use the old system."

Most citizens are offered no choice. The "old system" (not exactly old, more "established" needs to be changed.

CALPERS is leading the way in shareholder democracy. But the troughsnouters won't change unless they are forced to. Sadly reform will not come without regulation.

have a look

Nobody deserves that level of salary!! Pay isn't decided by how much you deserve it. If it was, SAHP's would be amongst the highest earners.

Pay is decided by how good you are at your job, and how many other people are also able to do your job. And how good you are at negotiating. It takes two to make a contract - if you ask for a pay rise your boss (or your shareholders) can either say yes, or no. They tend to say yes more readily if they know they wouldn't be able to replace you in a hurry.

Currently DH and I are directors of our own limited company. Our pay is not set by a cosy little cartel, it is totally dependent on how well we do the work we do. We are risking our own money. And yes, the company is doing well. Right now this minute. There is absolutely no guarantee that it will still be doing well tomorrow.

" Quite simply, there is no need for anyone to earn as much as that. "

Who are you to decide that? How do you or anyone have the impertenence to tell a stranger much they are allowed or need to earn?

I work for myself.

In 2010 my income was about 40% higher than 2009 (although this year is nowhere near so good). So what is it to do with you?

Shareholders rarely even get the opportunity to vote specifically on directors pay. It is usually bundled up in a motion that includes everyone's pay, or it is a general vote of confidence in the board. The pay of individual directors is never put forward at AGMs that I know of. I think there is a general conspiracy to make it as difficult as possible for individual shareholders to have any real say. Maybe the law should be changed to make it easier.

Oh, I hate this sort of OP line. Directors of PRIVATE COMPANIES can jolly well get paid what they like. They pay tax. It's all part of a free market. why is it obscene? If your DH was the director, would you complain?

NB I don't know any such directors and am certainly not married to one.

I'm taking a leap in the dark here, but I suspect that those of you grizzling about how obscene it is to earn lots of money don't earn in a year what some of those you despise pay in tax in a month for your children's education, NHS and benefits.

I get sick to the back teeth of people frothing at the mouth about The Rich whilst enjoying the fruits of their labour.
If you keep taxing the well off, they will fuck off, believe me and that will be a bloody disaster for most of the things some of you hold do dear. I know of at least two companies looking to go off shore and I know they are not the only ones.

LeNameChange there is solid research that suggests the bigger the disparity in wages / wealth that exists in a society, the more unhappy the society is. Both rich and poor.

We've had thirteen years of Labour Mr Gin and only 18 months of The Evil Tories.
What did Labour do to eradicate that gap?

My DH is a director, as it happens. Not of a FTSE 100 but earns well.
He has no off shore accounts and pays 50% tax on most of his earnings. He works on average 80 hours a week.
When you do the same, you can call him greedy and obscene all you like.

Lookattheears I think you're mistaking me for a labour supporter.

Whoever is in power the research I mentioned still has the same conclusions.

'Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.'

wiki link here

"CALPERS is leading the way in shareholder democracy. But the troughsnouters won't change unless they are forced to. Sadly reform will not come without regulation."

What, the CalPERS who has had to fire directors for misappropriating billions and being ridiculously corrupt here? Hardly an example I would think

Mr Gin, that link doesn't work. And it isn't wiki. Did you mean this one?
www.pionline.com/search?q=shareholder+democracy&searchcategory=teasers%3Bfree%3Breg%3Bdailyreg%3Bprintsub%3Bdaily%3Bfacetoface%3Brcblog%3Bchart01%3Bchart02%3Bchart03%3Bchart04

or this one?
www.pionline.com/search?q=calpers&searchcategory=teasers%3Bfree%3Breg%3Bdailyreg%3Bprintsub%3Bdaily%3Bfacetoface%3Brcblog%3Bchart01%3Bchart02%3Bchart03%3Bchart04

or this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calpers

sorry I meant of course AbsofCroissant

works for me piglet. here is the address

www.pionline.com/article/20110315/REG/110319964/

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage