Should Senior Bankers hand back their pensions?

goodie2shoes

It appears the Minister is powerless to do anything about these gold-plated pensions, awarded to senior bankers.

Many of these recipients were in charge of our banks when they went on a lending splurge, most of which are now in state ownership/control.

Any suggestions (legal ones please) on what we might do with them & their fat pensions?

Son Of A Vidic

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Should Senior Bankers hand back their pensions? be hung, drawn and quartered?

Absolutely yes.

goodie2shoes

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Absolutely yes.

i know what 99.999% of the pop would love to see happen, but (un)fortunately those days have passed.

personally i see no impediment to slapping on a 70% super-tax.

SafeSurfer

Nothing will happen

Our ex financial regulator got a golden handshake, lump sum of €600,000 on retirement instead of being investigated for negligence, professional misconduct, corruption, call it what you will.

Its the same with the disgraced former head of FAS Roddy Molloy who retired with a car and a pension worth €4 million euro.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/disgraced-fas-chiefs-14m-hike-in-pension-1885303.html

Nothing will happen. Anyone who expresses their anger will be called a whinger and a moaner.

Celly Smunt

who loses sleep about this at night?

goodie2shoes

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Nothing will happen

Our ex financial regulator got a golden handshake, lump sum of €600,000 on retirement instead of being investigated for negligence, professional misconduct, corruption, call it what you will.

Its the same with the disgraced former head of FAS Roddy Molloy who retired with a car and a pension worth €4 million euro.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/disgraced-fas-chiefs-14m-hike-in-pension-1885303.html

Nothing will happen. Anyone who expresses their anger will be called a whinger and a moaner.

i suspect you are right.
the politicians are showing no real desire to do anything about it.
i wonder why?

blackwhite

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i know what 99.999% of the pop would love to see happen, but (un)fortunately those days have passed.

personally i see no impediment to slapping on a 70% super-tax.

I doubt that any such tax would stand up to legal challenge unless it was across the board on everybody earning above X, or in a similar style.

Equality

No, because it is not possible to force people to hand back the pension they are entitled to.
BUT
The pensions should be heavily taxed. This is easy to do. Give working people a working tax credit, to acknowledge that it costs money to get to work. Don't give this to pensioners, so then you can tax the pensions very heavily.
This is easy and effective, but it will never be brought in, because older senior civil servants have huge pensions, and they will not bring in a high tax on pensions, as it would be themselves paying it.

2ndcoming

Equality wrote: »

No, because it is not possible to force people to hand back the pension they are entitled to.
BUT
The pensions should be heavily taxed. This is easy to do. Give working people a working tax credit, to acknowledge that it costs money to get to work. Don't give this to pensioners, so then you can tax the pensions very heavily.
This is easy and effective, but it will never be brought in, because older senior civil servants have huge pensions, and they will not bring in a high tax on pensions, as it would be themselves paying it.

Senior civil servants (more specifically, the handful of officials at the top of the dep. of finance who have any say in the budget) get huge salaries, if your theory was correct why wouldn't they just scrap the higher rate of tax, or introduce more tax breaks for high earners? They pay a lot more in the last 20 years of their career than they do in 15-20 years of being on a pension?

emul8ter25

They should be stripped of their pensions and put in jail where they belong.

Seaneh

They should be fired for gross incompetence.

Agricola

It's hilarious that so many people in this country have seen their pensions devastated through no fault of their own, and yet the very people who orchestrated the ruination on this country have iron clad pensions that are practically untouchable. Should their pension pots be dropping slightly, they can always dip into the bailout cash they received to top them up. Amazing!

It's fúcking offensive to think that the only way these sickening payouts can be recouped is by government ministers asking nicely if these jokers would consider giving a little back. What a fúcked up world we live in.

goodie2shoes

Agricola wrote: »

It's hilarious that so many people in this country have seen their pensions devastated through no fault of their own, and yet the very people who orchestrated the ruination on this country have iron clad pensions that are practically untouchable. Should their pension pots be dropping slightly, they can always dip into the bailout cash they received to top them up. Amazing!

It's fúcking offensive to think that the only way these sickening payouts can be recouped is by government ministers asking nicely if these jokers would consider giving a little back. What a fúcked up world we live in.

the reason the Govt won't be in any hurry to cap/tax these pensions is not because of any legal impediment but 'cos they know they themselves have similar Rolls Royce pensions thanks to the "generosity" of you, me and every other taxpaying mug in this joke of a country.

thanks to us the bankers, the politicians, the senior civil servants, trade union leaders have feathered their nests very nicely thank you, and they ain't gonna unfeather them.

Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

blackwhite

Equality wrote: »

No, because it is not possible to force people to hand back the pension they are entitled to.
BUT
The pensions should be heavily taxed. This is easy to do. Give working people a working tax credit, to acknowledge that it costs money to get to work. Don't give this to pensioners, so then you can tax the pensions very heavily.
This is easy and effective, but it will never be brought in, because older senior civil servants have huge pensions, and they will not bring in a high tax on pensions, as it would be themselves paying it.

So you'd tax everybody in the country who happens to have a private pension just to get at the relatively small number of bankers on large pensions?

SEPT 23 1989

100% tax or a firing squad

these would be the options presented to the traitors

goodie2shoes

FORMER AIB boss Eugene Sheehy has defended his taxpayer-funded €529,000 fat-cat pension.

Nice if you can get it.

Ghandee

pmcmahon wrote: »

who loses sleep about this at night?

Possibly people struggling to make mortgage payments, now under threat of eviction due to losing their jobs, through no fault of their own, but because of the reckless actions of the bankers who brought the country and economy to is knees.

I'm sure at least some of these folk won't sleep soundly tonight.

NewApproach

No

alphabeat

we should be grinding them up and feeding them to cats.

Well I know for a fact I wouldn't hand back a cent if it were me so I can hardly expect anyone else to.

Would anyone in their right mind actually hand back any money which they are not forced to, I certainly don't think so.

I also dont think a super tax should be allowed, rightly or wrongly they are entitled to the money, a super tax would be totally unfair.

galwayrush

The Minister is not powerless to bring in a super tax for the greedy bastards.

NewApproach

Ghandee wrote: »

Possibly people struggling to make mortgage payments, now under threat of eviction due to losing their jobs, through no fault of their own, but because of the reckless actions of the bankers who brought the country and economy to is knees.

I'm sure at least some of these folk won't sleep soundly tonight.

The 'bankers' didn't force anyone to take out large mortgages.

Neewbie_noob

goodie2shoes wrote: »

It appears the Minister is powerless to do anything about these gold-plated pensions, awarded to senior bankers.

Many of these recipients were in charge of our banks when they went on a lending splurge, most of which are now in state ownership/control.

Any suggestions (legal ones please) on what we might do with them & their fat pensions?

If you were getting 350,000 p.a. from John Q. Taxpayer, would you hand any back to the gubbermint ??

SafeSurfer

NewApproach wrote: »

The 'bankers' didn't force anyone to take out large mortgages.

The bondholders didn't force the banks to borrow billions. So whats your point?

goodie2shoes

i see Eugene Sheehy has voluntarily decided to take a pension cut.
well done Mr. Sheehy!

perhaps now others can follow his good example?

we'll see.

BizzyC

So the majority of "bankers" (hate that term, rarely used to describe someone who actually works for a bank) who have private pensions and didn't partake in any dodgy activity should be made pay for the minority who were earning extortionate money?
No.

Anyone who is found to have been negligent in their duties during the build up to the boom in favour of higher earnings though, they're the ones who should be made pay.

goodie2shoes

BizzyC wrote: »

So the majority of "bankers" (hate that term, rarely used to describe someone who actually works for a bank) who have private pensions and didn't partake in any dodgy activity should be made pay for the minority who were earning extortionate money?
No.

Anyone who is found to have been negligent in their duties during the build up to the boom in favour of higher earnings though, they're the ones who should be made pay.

by your definition practically everyone ought to pay up then?

steve9859

galwayrush wrote: »

The Minister is not powerless to bring in a super tax for the greedy bastards.

Why should the founder of a successful Irish company, who worked hard, took risks, and now employs people, and who deservedly pays him/herself a nice fat pension be penalised by a supertax?

There would be no incentive to be an entrepreneur and grow a business.

And to ring fence bankers in respect of a supertax is practically impossible from a legislative perspective.

The only option is to attempt to use the courts to claw back pensions on the basis that they are deferred compensation, and that performance of the firm, when compnsation was awarded, has proven to be poor. But that route would be robustly challenged.

goodie2shoes

steve9859 wrote: »

Why should the founder of a successful Irish company, who worked hard, took risks, and now employs people, and who deservedly pays him/herself a nice fat pension be penalised by a supertax?

There would be no incentive to be an entrepreneur and grow a business.

And to ring fence bankers in respect of a supertax is practically impossible from a legislative perspective.

The only option is to attempt to use the courts to claw back pensions on the basis that they are deferred compensation, and that performance of the firm, when compnsation was awarded, has proven to be poor. But that route would be robustly challenged.

i dont think anyone is suggesting that we slap on a super-tax on all entrepreneurs.
but these institutions have failed, continue to cost us a fortune, and are in state hands.
these are not your everyday, run of the mill, local corner shops we're talking about.

BizzyC

goodie2shoes wrote: »

by your definition practically everyone ought to pay up then?

Way to highlight part of a sentence and suggest a different meaning....
You left out the "Anyone who is found to have been negligent in their duties" part of the statement.

So no, not everyone.

BizzyC

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i dont think anyone is suggesting that we slap on a super-tax on all entrepreneurs.
but these institutions have failed, continue to cost us a fortune, and are in state hands.
these are not your everyday, run of the mill, local corner shops we're talking about.

No, but you also have to understand that there are honest, hard working, people who invested in their private pensions and were not in any way associated in the business planning that lead to this mess, nor profited from it, who will be crippled by a blanket supertax.

admiralofthefleet

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i know what 99.999% of the pop would love to see happen, but (un)fortunately those days have passed.

personally i see no impediment to slapping on a 70% super-tax.

why not a 99.9% tax on bonuses and pensions? the government have shown that they can legislate when they want to so i dont know why they are dragging their heels on this

marcsignal

I'm normally not keen on taking cues from the Americans, but in this case...

on Dec. 11, 2008, Mr. Madoff was arrested at his Manhattan home by federal agents and charged in a 20-year Ponzi scheme that was the largest fraud in Wall Street history.

On March 12, 2009, Mr. Madoff pleaded guilty to all the federal charges filed against him — 11 felony counts, including securities fraud, money laundering and perjury.

A few months later, Judge Denny Chin of the federal district court in Manhattan imposed a term of 150 years on Mr. Madoff.

NYT


....something along these lines would be just swell

steve9859

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i dont think anyone is suggesting that we slap on a super-tax on all entrepreneurs.
but these institutions have failed, continue to cost us a fortune, and are in state hands.
these are not your everyday, run of the mill, local corner shops we're talking about.

Tax is not the way to go. It would be impossible to legislate for one and not the other.

Clawback of pensions for poor performance is an option, but fraught with pitfalls. The arrangements will be largely contractual, and approved by the board. They can't just be torn up. They are unlikely to be tied to performance.

And being crap at your job is not a crime.....as we are finding out with the failure to bring architects of the financial crash to book. So there is no legal basis to tear up the arrangements.

The only option as far as I can see, should these guys fail to volunteer to lose some of their pensions, is to argue in court the somewhat philosophical point that pensions are effectively deferred earnings, and that there is therefore legal basis for clawback. And I'm not surprised that there isn't the appetite for that fight.

I fear that the horse has bolted at this stage. Better corporate governance will change things for the future, but short of public pressure forcing voluntary give-ups, im not sure there is much that can be done.

steve9859

marcsignal wrote: »

I'm normally not keen on taking cues from the Americans, but in this case...



NYT


....something along these lines would be just swell

Except that that was a crime. Eugene Sheehy, Patrick Neary etc were crap at their job, but that is not a crime. Seanie Fitz is different and he will have his day in court.

UCDVet

I don't see why people hate bankers so much? I like successful, rich people....

sfwcork

Some people would have been given the pension fairly and earned it.Others not so.

some bankers worked their way up the chain and did nothing wrong.They deserve to keep the pensions which they were given.It wasnt their decision on what pension they were given


The banker who were neglectful and proven to be should be forced to hand bank a large % to a level to which is deemed fair

marcsignal

steve9859 wrote: »

Except that that was a crime. Eugene Sheehy, Patrick Neary etc were crap at their job, but that is not a crime. Seanie Fitz is different and he will have his day in court.

That's true I suppose.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

It appears the Minister is powerless to do anything about these gold-plated pensions, awarded to senior bankers.

Many of these recipients were in charge of our banks when they went on a lending splurge, most of which are now in state ownership/control.

Any suggestions (legal ones please) on what we might do with them & their fat pensions?

From what I understand, the problem is bringing in legislation that is retro-active to deal with this. If such legislation is brought in, it could be easily abused by future Governments.

goodie2shoes

well if the constitution needs changing let's change it.

tbh most of it is as outdated & as much use as deV's underpants.

i listened to that lu-la John Walters prattle on the other evening, so if nothing else the debate it might provide more light entertainment.

SafeSurfer

Is the attorney general that advised the government that there was nothing they could do about senior banker pensions the same attorney general who gave them legal advice on the information contained in the booklet and on the website of the Children's Referendum?

R0ot

Increase tax on all pensions over a certain amount to 90% in the banking sector and then sit back and laugh.

bluecode

Bring in a specialised tax to cover this matter. It can be done. Not that it will be done. The chances or our gutless politicians actually doing something like that is nil. No they's rather screw the rest of us for higher taxes to pay the fatcats. About the same chance that any of them will end up in prison.

All they'll do is wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do.

goodie2shoes

bluecode wrote: »

Bring in a specialised tax to cover this matter. It can be done. Not that it will be done. The chances or our gutless politicians actually doing something like that is nil. No they's rather screw the rest of us for higher taxes to pay the fatcats. About the same chance that any of them will end up in prison.

All they'll do is wring their hands and say there's nothing they can do.

A1

i agree 100%.
my belief is they can change this if they wanted. they are gutless and are hiding behind legalize 'cos they do not have the will to do otherwise.
IMO another big reason (apart from being cowards) is they do not want Joe Public clamoring for a large tax hike/super levy on their own (Cabinet Ministers & Snr Civil Service) fat-cat, gold plated pensions.
they know they will be next in line.

they're all in this together (FF, FG, Lab, Snr. Civil Servants, Trade Union leaders) and they're fleecing the average hard-pressed joe in order to feather their own nests!

We need to keep pressure on our TDs to amend this. It can be done!