Fat cat pay. Is it obscene ?

[Pat494]

Sir Martin Sorrell, the longstanding chief executive of advertising company WPP, received £70.4m in cash and shares last year in one of the biggest pay deals in UK corporate history.

Estimates of his 2015 pay deal have been made since the disclosure last month that Sorrell received nearly £63m in share awards. The advertising company’s annual report on Friday showed that a £4.2m annual bonus and other payments had pushed the total to £70.4m.


“While the value of Sir Martin Sorrell’s award is very large, it was the result of an outstanding set of returns to share owners,” said Sir John Hood, chairman of the WPP compensation committee.


Sorrell’s pay deal – which means he has received £190m since 2009 – is being announced at a time of renewed shareholder focus on executive pay, with two FTSE 100 firms – BP and Smith & Nephew – receiving “no” votes for the pay deals.

His figure for 2015 includes a £47,000 allowance for accommodation when he stays in his own home in New York.

Sorrell founded WPP in 1985 when he borrowed £250,000 to buy a stake in shopping basket maker Wire & Plastic Products. Through a series of acquisitions it is now the world’s biggest marketing and advertising group and an acquisitions machine, combining advertising agencies such as JWT and Ogilvy & Mather with PR companies.

 

[Pat494]

Does Martin Sorrell deserve the £74m bonus ?
Obscene amount. If the politicians weren't receiving softeners from the rich they would be slapping 95% taxes on any amount over £1m. Let them bugger off to Panama and run the gauntlet there if they want to be so mean.
But looking at the other side of the coin why employ useless people like Fred the shred, heads of COOP, RBS, Tesco etc. ? Still on mega salaries. The faceless people who employ them should be fined for lack of care !

Everyone should pay their fair share of tax whether in or out and not load it onto those that have to carry the burden.

 

[tomorton]

How would my life be better if the head of a company I'm not involved with earned less money?

How did my life get worse when he became such a big earner?

 

[Pat494]

How would my life be better if the head of a company I'm not involved with earned less money?

How did my life get worse when he became such a big earner?

1.With that sort of money he could afford to pay " bent " accountants to dodge taxes.
2.It doesn't do him or us any good if he doesn't have to try so hard any more.
3.Share it around into White Knight venture capital etc.
4. Keeping up a stately home/listed property/Britain's heritage could be tax deductible. Overseas mansions ? Get the tax man onto it.

 

[Pat494]

Knocks a hole in Dodgy Dave's bullsh1t of One Nation when some have too much and many have too little.

Reminds me of the film Shalako when the rich Lady had to eat her own jewels.

 

[timsk]

Hi Pat,
I'm with Tom on this: I don't have an issue with Martin Sorrell's pay deal at all. If he hadn't started the company, then the thousands of people he now employs would have had to find work elsewhere and the revenue to HMRC in taxes would be lost. Besides, very wealthy people tend not to just stuff their cash under the mattress; they spend it on planes, cars, yachts and property with diamond encrusted loo seats etc. The point being that their money gets circulated back into the system so that others can have their share of it.

My socialist principles kick in regarding the millions at the other end of the spectrum, especially those who, through circumstance or lack of opportunity, have to rely on the state. So long as Mr. Sorrell and his ilk pay their taxes so that the state has funds to support the poor and disadvantaged, then good luck to him I say.
Tim.

 

[new_trader]

Charities and Philanthropists

My socialist principles kick in regarding the millions at the other end of the spectrum, especially those who, through circumstance or lack of opportunity, have to rely on the state. So long as Mr. Sorrell and his ilk pay their taxes so that the state has funds to support the poor and disadvantaged, then good luck to him I say.
Tim.

Private charities and philanthropists have always done a much better job than inefficient, wasteful, bloated Government. If the Government taxed us less, people would be more willing to donate to charities or they would have more money to look after themselves or they would have more money to look after their own loved ones so there would be much less need for welfare.

Why do I have to pay for other people's children or elderly parents?

Who exactly are the "poor and disadvantaged" people you speak of?

 

[timsk]

Hi n_t,

Private charities and philanthropists have always done a much better job than inefficient, wasteful, bloated Government. If the Government taxed us less, people would be more willing to donate to charities or they would have more money to look after themselves or they would have more money to look after their own loved ones so there would be much less need for welfare.

I agree with you to some extent - but a central elected body that looks after the broad interests of those less fortunate than you or I helps to ensure that the number of people that slip through the net and end up homeless on the streets is kept to a minimum.

Why do I have to pay for other people's children or elderly parents?

Because you choose to live in a country where that's the system in place - assuming you do (live in the UK). Perhaps because you're a generous, caring person, who understands that not everyone has your ability to earn sufficient income to enable them to live independently of the state - again, assuming you do (support yourself without state help).

Who exactly are the "poor and disadvantaged" people you speak of?

I meant it as a catch-all term to cover anyone who, to a greater or lesser extent, relies on the state to put food on the table or a roof over their head.
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

Why do I have to pay for other people's children or elderly parents?

Who exactly are the "poor and disadvantaged" people you speak of?

Can't make out if your questions are rhetorical, hypothetical or just hysterical.

 

[Pat494]

There is a new type of Fascist appearing on the political scene. They only care about themselves in a mean and greedy way. No regard for their fellow citizens but just grab as much money as they can at anyone's expense. They pay as little tax as they can get away with.
As for giving to Charity ? I think not. Well they have always been around I guess but not so blatantly.
Scrooge types ? Definitely. Appreciated by nobody and generally a miserable lot as they hog it to themselves.
Definitely worth a look by the tax man to relieve them of their baubles.

 

[new_trader]

Democracy

Hi n_t,

I agree with you to some extent - but a central elected body that looks after the broad interests of those less fortunate than you or I helps to ensure that the number of people that slip through the net and end up homeless on the streets is kept to a minimum.

What you really mean is the Government gives away free stuff to win votes. You always end up with more of what is subsidised and less of what is taxed. But that's democracy, and the goal of every country is to end up like Greece...or even Venezuela...

 

[Mr. Charts]

What's obscene is the people who fail and get paid huge amounts by their friends on the boards and "remuneration" committees and those who get big payoffs and immediately move into other jobs in the NHS and other state owned "businesses".

 

[tomorton]

What's obscene is the people who fail and get paid huge amounts by their friends on the boards and "remuneration" committees and those who get big payoffs and immediately move into other jobs in the NHS and other state owned "businesses".

Yes it is. Though there's reason of sorts behind it -

We all know the Peter Principle - managers rise to the level of their own incompetence. There's no such ceiling in the UK public sector. If you're a public sector manager / chairperson / commissioner / mayor over an incompetent manager, how do you get rid of them? You can't sack them, its too costly and looks bad for you - makes you look like you can't manage your own managers. You can't harass them through endless traning courses and special assignments and postings, they might take up a constructive dismissal case. If you've got space you might be able to hide them in a far away corner where they can't do much damage, but the opportunities for this (which used to be infinite in the public sector) are fewer now its leaner.

Safest way to be rid of a twit is promote them. Then you look great at developing talent and next week they're somone else's problem.

 

[Pat494]

I suppose gone are the days when doing the job and a medium remuneration was OK. Now it's squeeze the last drop from the NHS or whoever. No matter patients have to do without doctors for 2 days. Admittedly the stupid Govt. should listen more and pontificate less.
Most of the politicians are the sort of loud mouths who have or would have failed at everything else. They aren't bright enough to realize that they know very little about Health, Education etc.

 

[Pat494]

Yes it is. Though there's reason of sorts behind it -

We all know the Peter Principle - managers rise to the level of their own incompetence. There's no such ceiling in the UK public sector. If you're a public sector manager / chairperson / commissioner / mayor over an incompetent manager, how do you get rid of them? You can't sack them, its too costly and looks bad for you - makes you look like you can't manage your own managers. You can't harass them through endless traning courses and special assignments and postings, they might take up a constructive dismissal case. If you've got space you might be able to hide them in a far away corner where they can't do much damage, but the opportunities for this (which used to be infinite in the public sector) are fewer now its leaner.

Safest way to be rid of a twit is promote them. Then you look great at developing talent and next week they're somone else's problem.

One of the biggest drawbacks in business is that managers are afraid to promote people more talented than themselves for fear of being overtaken and sacked.

 

[Atilla]

How would my life be better if the head of a company I'm not involved with earned less money?

How did my life get worse when he became such a big earner?

I find personal questions such as this, really daft as much as I respect you Tomorton and Mr Charts.
To be clear that is the assertion that somehow lesser off people do not want others to be rich. People simply want a level playing field. Not just a case of envy and poor people being green and rich being blue.


If it is a private company than I have no problem with how it is run and how much boss decides to pay others or him self as long as it adheres to employment contract laws.

Where pay of public company directors are concerned than we do have a serious problem with how it is run and numeration is made. This is purely because when buying and selling shares on the stock market we need a level playing field where all companies adhere to same rules of compliance and regulation.

Moreover, personnel gain and stock options lead to excessive risk taking to meet short term targets without due consideration to long term interests of the company.

ESPECIALLY so when the government & tax payer have had to bail out a good few.

Also, if these top wig execs are using illegal off-shore accounts to evade tax. No problem with legal stuff.

Mr Green is a case in point having paid him self and his Mrs dollops of cash whilst the pension pot has not been attended to. Last time I recall anything like this
Robert Maxwell took the easy way out off his yatch but this time round Mr Green seems to have purchased a new one for him self.

If the Government pension guarantee scheme is to kick in to fill the void and pensioners end up losing 10% of the their pension pot, then this is a serious matter for all of us.

Do I care about any of this trash... No. Not at all. Just simply academic interest in current affairs and the market place. That's all.

 

[NVP]

The world is full of people simply envious and jealous of other peoples success

We Brits are one of the worse at this .....I have spent time working in a few countries and none compare to our submerged issues with anyone doing better than ourselves .....

If someone is making money and is not breaking the law then good for them.....one pound, one million pounds ,100 million pounds.....good for them

If the law is broken then prove it and prosecute them.......if they are testing the morals of many regarding activities and decisions then it's subjective .....no law has been broken......that's life......we are not all,the same re moral compasses .....and it seems the big guy up top still rarely sends done the lightning bolts on such characters who are bending the rules to make money.....sad but true

If people havnt the balls or brains to make serious money then I don't see how they can try to stamp on people who can......unless one can prove foul play of course......

N

 

[NVP]

One of the biggest drawbacks in business is that managers are afraid to promote people more talented than themselves for fear of being overtaken and sacked.

Welcome to corporate life

And Start your own business or consultancy...the only way to solve the issue above

 

[Pat494]

Perhaps the really mean need a bit of encouragement to spread it around a bit. I am not talking laxatives here. Would you like to be one of their tenants as they take over the financial world and bleed you dry ? Those squished into the ghetto can come out in force and regain their place in the sun !

Have a little compassion and be human.

 

[Pat494]

The Neo Fascists with their despicable greed let the Left wing extremists through to power and rue the consequences as in Russia not so long ago.

Get human attributes before it is too late.