Anna B Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 £100,000,000 Bonus for the boss of Persimmon the building company. Apparently it's the government's taxpayer funded 'Help to Buy' scheme that's boosted their profits, hence the bonus for the CEO. However the houses are being sold leasehold and the freehold has been sold off to investors to profit from.. Now I've nothing against 'help to buy' if it works, but £100 million bonus for anyone seems excessive to me, especially when partially funded by taxpayers. What do you think. Is it acceptable in times of austerity? And what's going to happen to the freehold in the hands of profiteers. Is this going to be the next PFI scandal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I think it was the case that when "Help to Buy" was announced Persimmon's share price went through the roof in anticipation of lots of Govt subsidy hence the resultant bonus. An unanticipated consequence of the Govt announcement perhaps, but also a massive indictment of Capitalism, the housing market and the absolute and unfettered hatred the Tories have of Social Housing. Instead of "Buy to Let" they could have just allowed the building of more council houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 £100,000,000 Bonus for the boss of Persimmon the building company. Apparently it's the government's taxpayer funded 'Help to Buy' scheme that's boosted their profits, hence the bonus for the CEO. However the houses are being sold leasehold and the freehold has been sold off to investors to profit from.. Now I've nothing against 'help to buy' if it works, but £100 million bonus for anyone seems excessive to me, especially when partially funded by taxpayers. What do you think. Is it acceptable in times of austerity? And what's going to happen to the freehold in the hands of profiteers. Is this going to be the next PFI scandal? If you're stupid enough to buy leasehold then whose fault is that? Why should you have a say on how much people should be paid? Especially for a non-government organisation? People are paid what they are worth. Bottom line is, you have no idea how much anyone should be paid in a range of professions. Jealous envy comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naive Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 If you're stupid enough to buy leasehold then whose fault is that? Why should you have a say on how much people should be paid? Especially for a non-government organisation? People are paid what they are worth. Bottom line is, you have no idea how much anyone should be paid in a range of professions. Jealous envy comes to mind. Except that in this case, taxpayers money is being used to grease the deal. Without that money, there would be no sale. The buyers also have no option but to accept the rather disadvantageous leases. I'd agree that it was all fine if this was a free market transaction. It isn't. The government and house builders have rigged this, using taxpayers money. That money is ending up in Fairburn's trousers. Nice work if you can get it. It would be much better if we let the housing market crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Except that in this case, taxpayers money is being used to grease the deal. Without that money, there would be no sale. The buyers also have no option but to accept the rather disadvantageous leases. I'd agree that it was all fine if this was a free market transaction. It isn't. The government and house builders have rigged this, using taxpayers money. That money is ending up in Fairburn's trousers. Nice work if you can get it. It would be much better if we let the housing market crash. So what you are saying is, if government money is used in anything, then pay should be constrained even if there is no government input in the running of the company? A housing crash is a good idea for the wider economy why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share Posted January 8, 2018 If you're stupid enough to buy leasehold then whose fault is that? Why should you have a say on how much people should be paid? Especially for a non-government organisation? People are paid what they are worth. Bottom line is, you have no idea how much anyone should be paid in a range of professions. Jealous envy comes to mind. Nothing to do with envy. This is going to destroy Capitalism eventually, if not civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naive Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 So what you are saying is, if government money is used in anything, then pay should be constrained even if there is no government input in the running of the company? A housing crash is a good idea for the wider economy why? I'm saying that when you rig a market, you should also rig the pay that people can gain from it. A housing crash would benefit loads of people. It certainly wouldn't damage the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I'm saying that when you rig a market, you should also rig the pay that people can gain from it. A housing crash would benefit loads of people. It certainly wouldn't damage the economy. Yes, im sure all those homeowners who plunge into negative equity and cannot pay off the mortgages will be brilliant for the economy. Moron. You certainly live up to your username. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 A housing crash would benefit loads of people. It certainly wouldn't damage the economy. House values equal equity. There isn't an economy in the world that can cope with a sudden, major, loss in equity. A readjustment of a few percentage points is fine, the sort of 'crash' that would be needed to fix the housing market in the UK would be catastrophic for the country. A loss of equity leads to a loss of investment, leads to a loss of profit, leads to a loss in both labour and spending. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist, or even an economist, to work that one out. If houseprices in the UK are to come down it needs to happen through natural readjustment (prices in London down, elsewhere up) and investment in capacity (ie. more houses need to be build). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Yes, im sure all those homeowners who plunge into negative equity and cannot pay off the mortgages will be brilliant for the economy. Moron. You certainly live up to your username. I don't think he/she is the kind of person who reads from history. If they bothered to see what happened to the UK economy in the early 1990's which was a recession caused by high interest rates and low house prices, which plunged a lot in negative equity then they would think twice. They probably don't understand what negative equity is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now