STOP BW DIRECTORS BONUSES

[LoneWolf]

In February this year, British Waterways' remuneration committee decided that any director who has exceeded the pension cap of £1.5m can simply take the money as a tax free lump sum.

 

 

Sorry but I don't find that 'obviously inaccurate'.

 

 

Well i've already explained why it is.

I've also taken the time to explain the difference between a Pension Contribution and an inducement to leave a DBS which you are obviously confused about.

But you carry on writing bollocks if thats what you want to do, then people who do know what they're talking about will just dismiss everything you say as there's nothing to distinguish you from the ignorant hoards with their chants of 'it's not fair'

[KenK]

So what you are saying is not based on first hand experience, your ranting about Directors Bonus is based on quirky nature of canals........Last year I cruised(unlike yourself) the entire length of the K&A and found it no more silted than any other canal.

Like all threads the OP might well be bonuses by they do digress onto other subjects. I have contributed to the Rugby thread.

With regard to the buildings they have not been lost just in a lot of cases made more pleasing to the eye but then as you have not spent much time on the canals I guess you would not be aware of that.

 

The reason the K&A is better than it has ever been, since it was reopened, is that two years ago it aquired its own Waterways Manager Mark Stevens. Mark is a qualified civil engineer, he has a great deal of experience dealing with the waterway network and knows how to fight his corner with the powers that be at BW. So much so that this year he received an additional £800,000 to improve the canal. That work has been ongoing all summer and will continue through the winter weather permitting.

 

It is not the directors of British Waterways it is the people like Mark and his staff who maintaine the waterways as well as they can with the money available. They don't receive bonuses or even a pay rise and they actually do their job well unlike in my opinion the BW board.

 

Ken

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Well i've already explained why it is.

I've also taken the time to explain the difference between a Pension Contribution and an inducement to leave a DBS which you are obviously confused about.

But you carry on writing bollocks if thats what you want to do, then people who do know what they're talking about will just dismiss everything you say as there's nothing to distinguish you from the ignorant hoards with their chants of 'it's not fair'

 

I often find that people who tend use the word 'obvious' and 'obviously' when they are unable to mount a convincing argument.

 

However, the point of the article is that government changes to reduce tax avoidance via pension schemes should have been used to moderate directors remuneration packages. Unfortunately, BW's remuneration committee (chaired by someone who is on record as saying that directors are underpaid by 15%)thinks otherwise and about £3m that could have spent on the waterways this year will be used to remunerate directors instead.

[Chris Pink]

The reason the K&A is better than it has ever been, since it was reopened, is that two years ago it aquired its own Waterways Manager Mark Stevens. Mark is a qualified civil engineer, he has a great deal of experience dealing with the waterway network and knows how to fight his corner with the powers that be at BW. So much so that this year he received an additional £800,000 to improve the canal. That work has been ongoing all summer and will continue through the winter weather permitting.

 

It is not the directors of British Waterways it is the people like Mark and his staff who maintaine the waterways as well as they can with the money available. They don't receive bonuses or even a pay rise and they actually do their job well unlike in my opinion the BW board.

 

Ken

 

We don't always see eye to eye Ken but I am with you 100% on this Mark Stephens is the best thing to happen to the K and A in years.

 

Let's give him Robbing's bonus.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Higgs]

And what should happen to the dilapidated property?

 

 

What should happen to the delapidated property?

 

Dear Cotswoldman,

 

I propose that another thread is started, when this one has reached the end of the bonus petition debate date; not an eternity away.

 

There are alot of people who do not want to be involved in this thread. Why waste the subject of the delapidated buildings here. I do not have the time do this now.

 

If you're so determined to move the debate away from the bonus, then I'm afraid you've lost my attention.

 

Good things do happen on the canal, I'm not disputing that.

 

You have your position on the bonus. I'm not going to be distracted, at this moment.

 

I don't make the rules up but it seems he can flout them.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Higgs

[carlt]

I earned every penny and thought about the customer first and my paymaster second. Does Robin Evans earn his money?

 

Like you, he probably thinks he does.

 

Personally, based on experience, I don't think he does which is why I think a lot of canalside property is safer in private hands (with appropriate listed building status).

 

The bonus system is a scam, like most of them, but his is by no means unique or the biggest waste of money.

 

Perhaps he should earn his money by looking into why the maintenance costs, per mile, are so much more than what is spent on our public highways, and employ someone who can negotiate a term contract with a bit more assertiveness.

 

In my opinion far more BW money is heading into the pockets of private contractors than Robin Evans will earn in a lifetime.

 

Edited to add: I would stress, though, that, owing to lack of knowledge or experience, I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that you do, indeed, earn every penny.

Edited September 30, 2011 by carlt

[LoneWolf]

I often find that people who tend use the word 'obvious' and 'obviously' when they are unable to mount a convincing argument.

 

 

yes, so do I.

 

I dont need to 'mount a convincing argument' I'm telling you a FACT

 

you said

 

In February this year, British Waterways' remuneration committee decided that any director who has exceeded the pension cap of £1.5m can simply take the money as a tax free lump sum

 

and I said

 

The remuneration committee do not decide on the tax status of payments to directors be they salary, pension contributions or incentives to leave a DBS

The tax status of a payment will be decided by the legislation that applies to that type of payment.

 

What exactly don't you understand about that? Its not a matter of opinion, its a FACT.

 

and its an obvious FACT to anyone who knows anything about tax - if you are writing about tax you really should know this, as i said in my second explanation, it's pretty fundamental

 

 

I'm going to give up now, you dont seem to want to listen.

 

regards

LoneWolf ACA, CTA

[Allan(nb Albert)]

yes, so do I.

 

I dont need to 'mount a convincing argument' I'm telling you a FACT

 

you said

 

 

 

and I said

 

The remuneration committee do not decide on the tax status of payments to directors be they salary, pension contributions or incentives to leave a DBS

The tax status of a payment will be decided by the legislation that applies to that type of payment.

 

What exactly don't you understand about that? Its not a matter of opinion, its a FACT.

 

and its an obvious FACT to anyone who knows anything about tax - if you are writing about tax you really should know this, as i said in my second explanation, it's pretty fundamental

 

 

I'm going to give up now, you dont seem to want to listen.

 

regards

LoneWolf ACA, CTA

 

What you are saying above, in effect, is that the remuneration committee can decide on the tax status by choosing the type of payment. Yes, I understood that before your explanation.

 

The remuneration committee chose a type of payment that was tax free and I said 'a tax free lump sum'.

 

I think you may have read something into the article that was not intended.

[Guest]

What should happen to the delapidated property?

 

Dear Cotswoldman,

 

I propose that another thread is started, when this one has reached the end of the bonus petition debate date; not an eternity away.

 

There are alot of people who do not want to be involved in this thread. Why waste the subject of the delapidated buildings here. I do not have the time do this now.

 

If you're so determined to move the debate away from the bonus, then I'm afraid you've lost my attention.

 

Good things do happen on the canal, I'm not disputing that.

 

You have your position on the bonus. I'm not going to be distracted, at this moment.

 

I don't make the rules up but it seems he can flout them.

 

Higgs - it's not for anybody (other than the mods) to say what can be posted in whatever thread, threads go OT all the time and apart from anything else this has just about run as far as it can go anyway, you don't agree with the bonus' and you think loads more should sign the e-petition

 

- I get the message.

[sociable_hermit]

LoneWolf, I think he's saying that the remuneration committee chose to offer lump sum payments for those who would otherwise have gone over the pension threshold (i.e. are receiving very large sums indeed). As such the pension is just another way of boosting the remuneration of certain individuals at a time when BW is supposedly struggling. I don't think the tax status of those payments was central to the debate and nor do I see any deliberate attempt to state that they were the ones deciding whether those payments were taxable. It is the fact they were offered at all that is being discussed.

[Higgs]

Higgs - it's not for anybody (other than the mods) to say what can be posted in whatever thread, threads go OT all the time and apart from anything else this has just about run as far as it can go anyway, you don't agree with the bonus' and you think loads more should sign the e-petition

 

- I get the message.

 

Unless the mods want to do something, I can't help it if other people want to add something and I have to reply. Of course I have questions. I'm sorry it's tiresome to some. It's only becoming a measure of what people will put up with. This just isn't restricted to the Canal.

 

I'm in the minority. So what?

 

Unless the mods shut this down, it isn't over. Do people not like being reminded that the sh*t they're in, is in no small part, down to the antics of a similar breed of operator to Evans.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Higgs

[LoneWolf]

What you are saying above, in effect, is that the remuneration committee can decide on the tax status by choosing the type of payment. Yes, I understood that before your explanation.

 

The remuneration committee chose a type of payment that was tax free and I said 'a tax free lump sum'.

 

I think you may have read something into the article that was not intended.

 

no, that is not what i'm saying.

 

First off, as i explained earlier, you are mixing up an incentive to leave a DBS with remuneration.

 

Now what is this 'lump sum' you are referring to? Is it an incentive to leave a DBS or is it remuneration/pension contribution?

 

 

If its an incentive to leave a DBS

 

Then it is a payment to compensate the director for not getting the pension he would be entitled to under the scheme. The director gives up the pension - he loses future income. the payment is to compensate him for that. It is not free money he is given. It should be calculated so that the value of the pension he gives up is EQUAL to the payment he receives now. This is a complicated actuarial calculation, taking into account the timings of the payment, expected interest rates, expected inflation, expected date he dies etc.

It is not anything to do with remuneration or pension contributions.

If the actuarial calculation is correct then the director DOES NOT BENEFIT

i've explained the tax above - the only way it is tax free is if it is paid into a qualifying pension scheme. If he gets cash IT IS TAXED

 

 

 

If it is salary it is taxable

 

If it is pension contributions it is tax free provided

1. the scheme it is paid into is a qualifying scheme

2. the amount is under the cap

 

 

You did not say 'tax free lump sum' you said "any director who has exceeded the pension cap of £1.5m can simply take the money as a tax free lump sum"

 

THIS IS NOT TRUE - they cannot simply take the money tax free as i have just explained yet again.

 

If you still think they can then why dont you prove it to me. When i have that proof, i'll send it off to HMRC and then it will get taxed as it should be.

 

In fact, you may be slandering the remuneration committee here by suggesting they are committing tax fraud

 

 

I really am giving up now.

 

It's not me reading something not intended, I'm reading what you wrote. It's you writing about something you don't understand and therefore writing something that you perhaps didn't intend that is the problem.

 

 

LoneWolf, I think he's saying that the remuneration committee chose to offer lump sum payments for those who would otherwise have gone over the pension threshold (i.e. are receiving very large sums indeed). As such the pension is just another way of boosting the remuneration of certain individuals at a time when BW is supposedly struggling. I don't think the tax status of those payments was central to the debate and nor do I see any deliberate attempt to state that they were the ones deciding whether those payments were taxable. It is the fact they were offered at all that is being discussed.

 

:sigh:, now you're doing it. ok what do you mean by lump sum payments? or are you just spouting something someone else has said without knowing what you mean.

Please be precise in your answer

 

The point i was making was that if i read something that i know for a fact to be untrue in an article then i'll doubt the whole of that article if the incorrect fact is something as fundamental is the one i've quoted.

 

I was trying to be helpful to Allan in the hope that the next article he writes cant be dismissed as the whinings of someone who doesnt know what they're talking about. but he is determined not to understand and to insist that the directors have received some tax free cash because it suits his (unspecified) agenda

[Guest]

Unless the mods want to do something, I can't help it if other people want to add something and I have to reply. Of course I have questions. I'm sorry it's tiresome to some. It's only becoming a measure of what people will put up with. This just isn't restricted to the Canal.

 

I'm in the minority. So what?

 

Unless the mods shut this down, it isn't over. Do people not like being reminded that the sh*t they're in, is in no small part, down to the antics of a similar breed of operator to Evans.

 

You are missing my (main) point by a country mile -

[Allan(nb Albert)]

no, that is not what i'm saying.

 

First off, as i explained earlier, you are mixing up an incentive to leave a DBS with remuneration.

 

Now what is this 'lump sum' you are referring to? Is it an incentive to leave a DBS or is it remuneration/pension contribution?

 

 

If its an incentive to leave a DBS

 

Then it is a payment to compensate the director for not getting the pension he would be entitled to under the scheme. The director gives up the pension - he loses future income. the payment is to compensate him for that. It is not free money he is given. It should be calculated so that the value of the pension he gives up is EQUAL to the payment he receives now. This is a complicated actuarial calculation, taking into account the timings of the payment, expected interest rates, expected inflation, expected date he dies etc.

It is not anything to do with remuneration or pension contributions.

If the actuarial calculation is correct then the director DOES NOT BENEFIT

i've explained the tax above - the only way it is tax free is if it is paid into a qualifying pension scheme. If he gets cash IT IS TAXED

 

 

 

If it is salary it is taxable

 

If it is pension contributions it is tax free provided

1. the scheme it is paid into is a qualifying scheme

2. the amount is under the cap

 

 

You did not say 'tax free lump sum' you said "any director who has exceeded the pension cap of £1.5m can simply take the money as a tax free lump sum"

 

THIS IS NOT TRUE - they cannot simply take the money tax free as i have just explained yet again.

 

If you still think they can then why dont you prove it to me. When i have that proof, i'll send it off to HMRC and then it will get taxed as it should be.

 

In fact, you may be slandering the remuneration committee here by suggesting they are committing tax fraud

 

 

I really am giving up now.

 

It's not me reading something not intended, I'm reading what you wrote. It's you writing about something you don't understand and therefore writing something that you perhaps didn't intend that is the problem.

 

 

 

 

:sigh:, now you're doing it. ok what do you mean by lump sum payments? or are you just spouting something someone else has said without knowing what you mean.

Please be precise in your answer

 

The point i was making was that if i read something that i know for a fact to be untrue in an article then i'll doubt the whole of that article if the incorrect fact is something as fundamental is the one i've quoted.

 

I was trying to be helpful to Allan in the hope that the next article he writes cant be dismissed as the whinings of someone who doesnt know what they're talking about. but he is determined not to understand and to insist that the directors have received some tax free cash because it suits his (unspecified) agenda

 

Where did I suggest that the remuneration committee were committing tax fraud?

 

You are also making a false assumption that the remuneration committee wished to provide directors with an incentive to leave the pension scheme.

[LoneWolf]

Where did I suggest that the remuneration committee were committing tax fraud?

 

You are also making a false assumption that the remuneration committee wished to provide directors with an incentive to leave the pension scheme.

 

chuffing hell Allan you are hard work

 

you said the remuneration committee decided to pay the directors a tax free lump sum. - I am telling you as clearly as i can that they cannot legally do this.

 

fwiw i dont think you intended to imply that they were committing tax fraud, i think you're ignorant about tax & dont understand what you wrote

 

 

I'm not making any assumptions - you brought up the incentive to leave the scheme - i'm just explaining to you what such payment is and how it's taxed.

I have no idea what the wishes of the remuneration committee are - and unlike some i dont make up stuff where i'm short of facts

 

 

Now tell me what the 'lump sum' you are referring to is and provide the proof I asked you.

[Ssscrudddy]

With all the talk of bonuses, whether you think they are a good idea or not, & pensions tax free or not, lump sums etc... it's kind of not relevant.

 

An e-petition needs to make 100,000 signiatures in 3 months, if it achieves this then the government MAY decide to look into it, but they dont have to. More likely if it doesnt get the required number in the target time they most definitely wont look into it.

I thought I read somewhere there are 35,000 people living on the canals, so even if everyone signs it, it isnt going to get the required number of signiatures...

 

However with all of that said, maybe I'm missing the point completely, but I was under the impression that this is about the directors bonus...

 

The renumeration board took the decision that the directors must not be paid a bonus, but apparently the directors have paid themselves a bonus anyway

 

& surely that is wrong (along with them breaking the law by ignoring FOI requests on the same subject)

[DaveG]

"And then there’s the British Waterways Board. The salaries of their top four employees – Robin Evans, Nigel Johnson, James Froomberg and Phillip Ridal – add up to £900,000. That’s thirty nurses. In the age of austerity we’ve got to ask ourselves what we really value in the public sector: and I know what the answer is. It’s not the fat cats but the frontline workers". David Cameron: March 2009

 

"Under a Conservative government, any public body that in future wants to pay someone more than the PM's salary will have to come to get the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 'It would set an example across Whitehall that the age of excess for quango fat cats has to end."' George Osborne: March 2009

[Higgs]

"And then there’s the British Waterways Board. The salaries of their top four employees – Robin Evans, Nigel Johnson, James Froomberg and Phillip Ridal – add up to £900,000. That’s thirty nurses. In the age of austerity we’ve got to ask ourselves what we really value in the public sector: and I know what the answer is. It’s not the fat cats but the frontline workers[/b]". David Cameron: March 2009

 

"Under a Conservative government, any public body that in future wants to pay someone more than the PM's salary will have to come to get the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 'It would set an example across Whitehall that the age of excess for quango fat cats has to end."' [/b] George Osborne: March 2009

 

.............................................................................................

 

 

 

 

 

"Nothing is as irritating as the fellow who chats pleasantly to you while he's overcharging you."

 

Kin Hubbard ( Frank McKinney Hubbard - American Humourist )

[Higgs]

"Statistics indicate that as a result of overwork, modern executives are dropping like flies on the nation's golf courses."

 

Ira Wallach - American Screenwriter.