/ How much do you earn?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
KingStapo - on 20 Mar 2014
In response to an earlier post.

If you think it's a rude question please feel free to not answer.

sleavesley on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Less than the national average - and that is as a professional in the NHS.
cb_6 - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

This is very rude and I'm deeply offended
Choss on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Thats a bit personal isnt it?
Run_Ross_Run - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

12k
Mikkel - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

enough to pay the bills and a bit more.
Tim Chappell - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Why should I mind the question? This is all in the public domain. I am somewhere on a salary scale rather like this one:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/hr/salaries/gradem-prof.html

OK, now guess where

Hint: No, not the top
Jim C - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:
It might have been more subtle to perhaps ask if they are a 40 % tax payer.

It also might have helped if you had said what you earned .
JIMBO on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Not enough for what I do but the pension will make up for the sacrifice... oh wait, no that's been devalued and ruined...
MG - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

See, told you you could fly to Chamonix :-)
GrendeI on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Pre tax, a significant amount, post tax... Just enough to pay rent, fill up the car twice, one good night out and enough left over to starve my way through til the next payday.
Jim C - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:
I'm sure you are underpaid and overworked,like the rest of us Tim.


Tim Chappell - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to MG:

> See, told you you could fly to Chamonix :-)



Lead us not into temptation :-)
pneame on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

almost nothing.

I am reminded of this conversation:

Blackadder: Would you like to earn some money?

Comte de Frou-Frou: No I wouldn't. I would like other people to earn it and then give it to me. Just like in France in the good old days!

Blackadder: Yes, but this is a chance to return to the good old days!

Comte de Frou-Frou: Oh how I would love that. I hate this life; the food is filthy! [Points at his dinner] This huge sausage is very suspicious. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was a horse's wi—

Blackadder: Yes, yes, all right.
pneame on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Bloody hell! Academics in the UK make that much these days? Those are pounds, right? Not acorns?

[ types "CV" into his computers search tool..... ]
Dr.S at work - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

why the Brizzle pay grade scheme Tim? thinking of fleeing south?
I'm in the middle of L.
Tim Chappell - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Briz solely because I couldn't find the OU one on the internet, and the OU is comparable (though a bit lower).

Fleeing south? Not a bit of it. If I were in a position to do any fleeing, it would be north. If I lived in Dunkeld, I'd get 40 minutes off nearly every mountain journey-time. And if I were single, I WOULD live in Dunkeld :-)
Tim Chappell - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to pneame:
> Bloody hell! Academics in the UK make that much these days? Those are pounds, right? Not acorns?



No acorns in sight.

Every job you apply for will have 200 applicants, 190 of whom will have main-authored at least 4 relevant articles in internationally recognised journals, 160 of whom will have at least 5 years of highly-accredited teaching experience in universities, and 140 of whom will have at least 3 distinguished academics writing references for them.

Good luck :-)
Post edited at 23:03
pneame on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Brutal - we only get a few applicants like that at our local ivory tower.

As a colleague who escaped said once -
my friends say "why did you accept a job at a second rate university?"
I replied "I won't have that! That's completely unfair! Take your words back sir!








"It's a third rate university"

He's doing very well now!

JJL - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

Local mantra: 3/year; Impact factor >5

The consequence of this is interesting I think: It's far more likely that you'll hit that by doing "me too with a twist" than in original research.

Jim C - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo

> Blackadder: Yes, but this is a chance to return to the good old days!

> I am looking forward to living through my good old days.
( alas , up until now, I have not had any to look back on)

TheseKnivesMan - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I earn 17k...but pro rata as I am an archaeologist (Hi Stuart) and work on contract. So probably close to about quarter of that.
Cú Chullain - on 20 Mar 2014
17 acorns a month
Gav M - on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> And if I were single, I WOULD live in Dunkeld :-)

It's never struck me as overflowing with fanjitas.
JoshOvki on 20 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

24.5k before bonus and on call.

How about you? As you asked shouldn't you answer?
cander - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

About 10% of what I'm paid

Gordon Stainforth - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

As a "successful" writer, scarcely enough to live on, with certainly very little to spare. But the real rewards are enormous.
CrushUnit - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

The only person my salary is rude to is me :-(
Jonny2vests - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

> How much do you earn?

Every penny.

You?
ebygomm - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

£15 an hour currently.

Generally of the opinion that secrecy over salaries is not a good thing, whether that's people disclosing their own or job adverts describing salary in terms of 'competitive' or some such rubbish.
ads.ukclimbing.com
The New NickB - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to ebygomm:

> Generally of the opinion that secrecy over salaries is not a good thing, whether that's people disclosing their own or job adverts describing salary in terms of 'competitive' or some such rubbish.

I agree, but generally I have worked most of my career in places where you are on a grade, which most people will know where that grade sits on a scale which is well publicised.

My current salary is point 48 + 10% on the NJC scale, which anyone can look up if they are really that interested.
LastBoyScout on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I wouldn't ask anyone how much they earn and I wouldn't tell anyone that asked me - unless it's a requirement for something, e.g. opening a bank account or taking out a mortgage.
nniff - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

A lot less than I'm worth.



Which is the stock answer to the interview question 'How much do you expect to be paid?'
gethin_allen on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I'm disappointed nobody has given their answer in spoons.
I earn more than him (looks to left) but less than him (looks to right/tim Chappell)
Tim Chappell - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

Come come, I'm not rich. Stop that! ;-)
Tim Chappell - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> As a "successful" writer, scarcely enough to live on, with certainly very little to spare. But the real rewards are enormous.


If and when we ever meet, Gordon, I shall buy you at least one beer, as a thankyou for writing Fiva, which I've just read and enjoyed enormously.

I didn't buy it. Busy Lizzie lent me her copy. Sorry.
ex0 - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

17.6k as sort of an admin in the legal sector.
gethin_allen on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Bristol pay scales seem a good deal higher than Swansea uni. Even then I'm far from a prof and pretty happy with post doc wages, I'd just like a proper contact.

Just looking at a few other universities, Swansea university is well tight with salaries!
Post edited at 10:29
Tim Chappell - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

I've just found the OU payscale and reminded myself of what my actual salary is--and in fact yes, our scale is some way below Bristol's.
Gordon Stainforth - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> If and when we ever meet, Gordon, I shall buy you at least one beer, as a thankyou for writing Fiva, which I've just read and enjoyed enormously.

> I didn't buy it. Busy Lizzie lent me her copy. Sorry.

Thanks for that, Tim. … Just keep spreading the word … :-)
Dr.S at work - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> I've just found the OU payscale and reminded myself of what my actual salary is--and in fact yes, our scale is some way below Bristol's.

Well, once you have bought that nice flat in Clifton,and arranged regular deliveries from Avery's there will not be much left ;-)
gethin_allen on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Well, once you have bought that nice flat in Clifton,and arranged regular deliveries from Avery's there will not be much left ;-)

I had a cup of tea and a slice of cake in a cafe in Clifton and almost needed a mortgage.
Paul Atkinson - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Anyone who has double figures of UKC posts daily during office hours is clearly being paid about twice what they should be :-)
Lord of Starkness - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:
Whilst not going in to amounts, I reckon I'm comfortably off - though to many people my income is probably low. I've paid off my mortgage and having no debts to speak of. My total income is probably just under the national 'average' as I'm still working after passing official retirement age, and earning enough to keep me from dipping in to my meagre savings. I need to keep working as the amount of occupational pension I get on top of my state pension prevents me from claiming any benefits in terms council tax relief! With the cost of council tax and utilities, I'd be in deep doodoos if I was just relying on my pension.

My total income is also enough for the occasional short (budget priced) holiday during 'low season' and a trip every few years to see our daughter in the backwoods of Canada. I guess once I'm no longer fit enough to work, I'll not be fit enough for 'active' holidays - particularly involving long haul flights and lots of driving!

It pisses me off to a certain extent when my sister and her hubby - who've both had a career in teaching since leaving Uni and have opted for early retirment at 60 - complain about how badly they will be off on their occupational pension, and the fact that they will only be able to take a £50k lump sum each as well until their state pension kicks in.

Dont get me wrong, I dont begrudge them the salaries they've earned, or the pension they're entitled to - as they've worked pretty damned hard and were both very dedicated professionals who enjoyed a lot of respect and admiration from their pupils. They get my admiration as well, as teaching is a job I coud never have done.

It's the whingeing about how badly off they are that gets to me. They've never had to work in 'Industry' or experience the pain of recession and redundancy.
Post edited at 11:47
Dax H - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:
Significantly less than minimum wage but enough to cover the bills when combined with the wife's wage.
Before anyone comments about how my boss is exploiting me I am the boss and myself and the other directors have taken pay cuts to fund expansion, our employees are on about 20% above the local going rate in our industry and if this expansion works the sacrifice we are making now will pay off in a big way.
lithos on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

for mere mortals York is identical to Brissle and OU (and i suspect most old-school unis,
isnt this nationally fixed by UCU ?)
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/hr/resources/pay_scales/grading_structure/#tab-1

professorial pay is different and locally negotiated AFAIR
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

What happens when you get to 49? Is that it?

Things are tight for me, I am thinking of letting one of my pastry chefs go, or having him attend to the topiary
The New NickB - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
The standard scale goes up to 49 + 15%, on my current grade I can only get to 49 + 10%. Above 49 + 15% it is Director level and tends to be decided on an organisation by organisation basis.

Some local authorities use other pay scales for the level I'm on to give them a little more flexibility.
Post edited at 12:31
ebygomm - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

Pay point at my last authority goes up to 55 (although I think the top end is lower than it was prior to JE)
Blue Straggler - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

> reminded myself of what my actual salary is--

Anyone who doesn't know their exact salary must be well minted innit. Let's burgle Tim! :-)
yorkshireman - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Obviously a lot of it depends on age and length of career. I earn what is a very good salary, and get lots of benefits and bonuses but 15 years ago when I started my career I was naturally on the bottom of the scale - working in the web industry during the internet boom was a good time to progress through salary bands and there was no 'grading' as such - you just earned what was needed to attract you to a job.

If somebody asked me I would answer (I'm not ashamed of what I earn and believe I've worked hard enough for it) but equally I would feel slightly odd. Generally my colleagues have been cagey about discussing salaries and this is a UK cultural thing I think - but it helps employers discriminate and pay what they think they can get away with - and the better negotiators tend to do better at pay review time than those who are perhaps less forceful at making their case.
The New NickB - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to ebygomm:

> Pay point at my last authority goes up to 55 (although I think the top end is lower than it was prior to JE)

Seems quite a few places continue the scale beyond 49, I wish my place did, as our situation tends to lead to a major salary disconnect between the management at my level and the top tier of management. I still think the NJC scale only goes to 49 and anything else is a local measure.
The New NickB - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I am sure Tim knows exactly what he earns, but wants to give the impression of being slightly above such things.
Blue Straggler - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to The New NickB:

Indeed.

I sometimes forget how many country estates I own :-)
TheDrunkenBakers - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I have a Ferrari
I have a 7 bedroom house
I have a million pound pension
I earn £200k per year
I don't tell folk how much I earn or what possessions I have as its kinda private.

Only one of these statements is true.

RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to yorkshireman:

> If somebody asked me I would answer (I'm not ashamed of what I earn and believe I've worked hard enough for it) but equally I would feel slightly odd. Generally my colleagues have been cagey about discussing salaries and this is a UK cultural thing I think - but it helps employers discriminate and pay what they think they can get away with - and the better negotiators tend to do better at pay review time than those who are perhaps less forceful at making their case.

Kind of agree with that, so far in all companies I've been who had so called salary bands, they were mostly meaningless. Many times I have been earning a lot less that the salary band I was supposed to be in and many times I earned a lot more than I was supposed to under the company's policy. That why in most employment contracts you have clause forbidding you to reveal your salary to your colleagues.
Lord of Starkness - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> I sometimes forget how many country estates I own :-)

Even though I'm a Lord, the only estates I've owned have been Skodas!
ebygomm - on 21 Mar 2014


Those who think that salaries are private, can you explain why you think this is a good thing?

What benefit does it give the employee?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to ebygomm:

less jealousy?
wbo - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo: That. It can save a lot of moaning especially when you start mixing in accountants, engineers and others. I know soomeone who accidentally emailed his department his pay spreadsheet and he left his job a few months later as the amount of bother was just unbelievable.

The Norwegian numbers are more restricted than they used to be, and the inco,e is post tax deductions so not always a good guide.

ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014

Once when I was working in a small startup one of my colleague received the payslip of the boss by email, apparently a mistake from the HR assistant because they had similar names.
When we found out that he was taking more than a fifth of the company's revenue in take home pay a lot of very valuable employees were so pissed off that they quit their job as a result.

I think there should be some kind of rule so that if the take home pay of some execs goes above a certain level of company's revenue they should be forced to make it public, that would definitely prevent this kind of abuse.
Post edited at 15:19
nw - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Gav M:

> It's never struck me as overflowing with fanjitas.

Notorious fleshpot of the north.
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to ebygomm:

> Those who think that salaries are private, can you explain why you think this is a good thing?

> What benefit does it give the employee?

There was a plan to make it mandatory for companies above a certain size to disclose their gender pay gap. Surprise surprise the coalition government finally decided to block it.
GrahamD - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

Fair enough, provided the execs risks and liabilities are also published. Executive pay isn't the be all and end all

GrahamD - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

Why surprise surprise ? after all the conservatives are, as far as I'm aware, the only party to have elected a woman leader (and a highly successfu one to boot)
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

> Why surprise surprise ? after all the conservatives are, as far as I'm aware, the only party to have elected a woman leader (and a highly successfu one to boot)

It's one thing to elect a woman leader, I am not sure that will do much to help reduce the gender pay gap, which has increased under tory government for the first time in years...
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
> Fair enough, provided the execs risks and liabilities are also published. Executive pay isn't the be all and end all

I can't think of anywhere where the risks and liabilities of any position would not already be more or less known by everybody. If you are a senior exec in a specific industry it's pretty clear what your risk and liabilities are...
I also think that a free labour market would actually be enhanced by better pay information rather than the current system where somehow everybody is scared to reveal how much they earn.
Post edited at 16:05
gethin_allen on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to lithos
//www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Copy%20of%20HERA_SINGLE_SPINE2013AUGNoPassword%20(2).pdf'>http://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Copy%20of%20HERA_SINGLE_SPINE2013AUGNoPassword%20(2).pdf

that link takes you to the Swansea uni scale
It seems the spine points link up but he graded scales are totally different.
Post edited at 16:25
In reply to KingStapo:

How much do I earn?

Very little of it.
Dax H - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> When we found out that he was taking more than a fifth of the company's revenue in take home pay a lot of very valuable employees were so pissed off that they quit their job as a result.

And can you explain what is wrong with this?. The boss has had the gumption and drive to start a company, if it is a start up with staff then has is either funding it from saving or from borrowed money, either way he could be risking everything he has ever worked for.
Why should he not take a good slice.

It really gets on my wick when employed people moan about how much the owner of the company is making.
All they need to do is put everything on the line and start their own firm and they too can bath is champagne and wipe their bum on £50 notes.

GrahamD - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I can't think of anywhere where the risks and liabilities of any position would not already be more or less known by everybody. If you are a senior exec in a specific industry it's pretty clear what your risk and liabilities are.

And also what the remuneration is. If people really would rather change places with their boss, they need to get off their arses and start their own company. Contrary to the green eyed amongst us, very few bosses get there by way of silver spoon. Most have to give up way more than most people are willing to.
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Dax H:

> And can you explain what is wrong with this?. The boss has had the gumption and drive to start a company, if it is a start up with staff then has is either funding it from saving or from borrowed money, either way he could be risking everything he has ever worked for.
Why should he not take a good slice

Well I don't know if you realised, but taking out a fifth of a company's total revenue for CEO pay is basically financial suicide, especially when the company was making a loss for the past 10 years, ho I forgot to mention the CEO was not the founder, nor was he ever bringing any business, most of the business was brought by a few talented salesmen and very good consultants (some of the best people I ever worked with), many of them left when they realised the boss was basically sucking the life of the company.

Maybe some more transparency could have prevented this company from going under despite having what was the best product on the market at the time..
RomTheBear - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
> And also what the remuneration is.
No it's not at all, from my experience it depends a lot on company culture, especially in medium sized private company there is little control and big variations.

> If people really would rather change places with their boss, they need to get off their arses and start their own company. Contrary to the green eyed amongst us, very few bosses get there by way of silver spoon. Most have to give up way more than most people are willing to.

You are missing the point, it's not about jealousy or people wanting to trade place with their boss, it's about having much more efficient system and prevent abuse. Nothing wrong about someone reaping the profits from an investment they made or an good CEO taking a high pay, however when a CEO is basically killing a business by taking a disproportionate salary like it happened in this company, this is a different story.
Some rule forcing to disclose salary that are out of proportion with the size of the business could be a good safeguard against that.

The boss of my previous company is paid 100M$ per year an I am perfectly happy with that, since the company is generating billions in profits every year, but in the case I was describing before, the company was making a loss and was driven to the ground...
Post edited at 18:15
Dax H - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:


> Well I don't know if you realised, but taking out a fifth of a company's total revenue for CEO pay is basically financial suicide,

No it's not, it all depends on the business, in the early days I took 80% of my revenue as a wage and I am still trading 28 years later. These days I take less that 2% and my employees take up to 5% of our turnover each.
Myself and the other directors are taking less to fund bringing in new people (the company is self funding, I don't believe in loans or overdrafts) so that we can expand more.
It will take a couple of years of less than minimum wage and working 60 to 70 hour weeks but the end game if it works out will leave the directors earning a significant amount of money and hopefully get us to the point where I can sell up and retire at 50.

The part about your old place going under is a shame and sounds like very bad management on the part of your boss but if he owned the company that he made that choice, if he answered to shareholders then blame them for letting him run it in to the ground.

It would be interesting to see how he came out of it financially.
A mate of mine ran a firm and he gouged his customers in a big way , he used to laugh about it and advised me to do the same but tthat's not my way.
It worked for him though, he was a millionaire by 40 and sold the business at 50 and retired a multi millionaire and the icingon tthe cake is that he goes in as a consultant on the more interesting and fun jobs so basically he is minted, dumped the long hoursand hhassl but sstill gets to do the fun stuff.
hokkyokusei - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:


> I think there should be some kind of rule so that if the take home pay of some execs goes above a certain level of company's revenue they should be forced to make it public, that would definitely prevent this kind of abuse.

Director's renumeration is published in a company's accounts, as a total. I think the law is about to change such that individual director's renumeration will be published.
hokkyokusei - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well I don't know if you realised, but taking out a fifth of a company's total revenue for CEO pay is basically financial suicide, especially when the company was making a loss for the past 10 years,

Hang on, didn't you say:

"Once when I was working in a small startup ..."

Small startup's don't make a loss for ten years.
Seocan - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to Tim Chappell:

hey, my wifes an academic (the only one, no, there's maybe three, that I've met that I've any time for) and they're not given her that much.

Anyway, I almost did move to Dunkeld, I thought about taking the room above the pub, but thought it would be a bad move.
Did I miss out on anything?
windjammer - on 21 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:
we shudnt have to pay tax after 39 hours of work,its up to the individual if he wants to work overtime, have a incentive to earn extra money
KingStapo - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

To keep things going:

46k
bentaylor1986 - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Current pretax income is £49.5k, dont understand the need to br private about it. Ive worked bloody hard to get to where I am.
wurzelinzummerset on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to bentaylor1986:

A history of having worked "bloody hard" is poorly correlated to salary. Anyone who's kept a full-time job the last five years has probably worked "bloody hard"; that would include a middle-manager on £50K or a cleaner on £15K.
BnB - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to Dax H:

> No it's not, it all depends on the business, in the early days I took 80% of my revenue as a wage and I am still trading 28 years later. These days I take less that 2% and my employees take up to 5% of our turnover each.

> Myself and the other directors are taking less to fund bringing in new people (the company is self funding, I don't believe in loans or overdrafts) so that we can expand more.

> It will take a couple of years of less than minimum wage and working 60 to 70 hour weeks but the end game if it works out will leave the directors earning a significant amount of money and hopefully get us to the point where I can sell up and retire at 50.

It takes equal measures of foresight and determination even to set out on that road, and huge amounts of dedication and hard work to succeed. Some people will always begrudge your success but you and those close to you will know how deserved it is. Good luck with your ambitions.
stroppygob - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I got paid $89,000 last year.
rwong9 - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Never enough!!!
birdie num num - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I don't actually Earn, any of my 50k.
teflonpete - on 22 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

£50k pa until yesterday. £0 from today until I get another job.
mrdigitaljedi - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

more than most less than others, but unfortunatly not enough for me 2 retire yet.
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:

> Director's renumeration is published in a company's accounts, as a total. I think the law is about to change such that individual director's renumeration will be published.

I think this is only for PLCs right ? Or will it apply as well to private companies ?
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:

> Hang on, didn't you say:

> "Once when I was working in a small startup ..."

> Small startup's don't make a loss for ten years.

Yes they do as long as they have investors backing it up. In the case of that specific company they had two investments rounds from investment funds of about 15 millions pound each that kept it going or so long. When you know that directors salary was 1.6 millions pound per year you start to see how much of this investments went into his pocket rather than into the business...
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014

I once worked for a company one at 120k and I had not much to do at all. I was fixing performance issues in banking software which required to be on call on the time and fix any issues rapidly but 90% of the time nothing was happening.
I calculated that I was working at most 10 hours per week.

On the other hand I also had jobs in the past that were technically more difficult than that and I was on 20K working 48hours a week all on nighshifts...

To sum it up working more doesn't earn you more, it's mostly a matter of luck, who you know, and being at the good place at the good time, and how close to the money you are in your job.
Post edited at 16:27
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to Dax H:

> No it's not, it all depends on the business, in the early days I took 80% of my revenue as a wage and I am still trading 28 years later. These days I take less that 2% and my employees take up to 5% of our turnover each.

Yes it depends on the business, if you are a company with ten employees and your bring a lot to the business, it makes sense. But in that case it was a company of 120 employees that badly needed to expand,it just couldn't do that with one person taking out a fifth of the revenue and not bringing much of the bacon...
I think financially he came out very well because he was taking millions of pounds of salary every year, the investors on the other hand got nothing back, they eventually sold the company for slightly less than they put in...
Lord_ash2000 - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

How much you earn tell you very little about most people, what you should ask is how much does your wealth increase over an average month / year.


I know people on £25k a year with far more disposable income / ability to save / asserts / shiny toys then people who earn significantly more due to individual lifestyle choices.
Oceanrower - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

How much do I earn? Either £9,000 a year or half a million.

Depends on who's asking, the taxman or some really hot girl in a club.......
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> How much you earn tell you very little about most people, what you should ask is how much does your wealth increase over an average month / year.

> I know people on £25k a year with far more disposable income / ability to save / asserts / shiny toys then people who earn significantly more due to individual lifestyle choices.

Mostly depends on where you live. 25K in London and you'll be in survival mode no matter how cheap your lifestyle is.
needvert on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

40k if I stopped taking unpaid leave. Apparently the world average is 6.2k. I consider my salary a remarkably large amount.

I don't work very hard, though it does have its own notable stress burden.

Lord_ash2000 - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Mostly depends on where you live. 25K in London and you'll be in survival mode no matter how cheap your lifestyle is.

Exactly my point. Hence why simply asking how much someone earns tends to have little bearing on how "rich" they actually are.
hokkyokusei - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, you're correct, I was mistaken. For unquoted companies only the total of directors' renumeration must be disclosed. Apologies.
hokkyokusei - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well that's just crazy!
But, to be honest, it's no ones business but the owners/investors in question.
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> Well that's just crazy!

> But, to be honest, it's no ones business but the owners/investors in question.

What's your argument ? I think we have a cultural bias in the UK when it comes to make salaries public. I worked for a big american company and the salaries and bonus package of all directors were known by everybody.

I think if there are indications that some salaries are so high that they are putting the future of the company in danger, then it should be made public to employees and shareholders. After all company's directors have by law a duty to try to make the company a success, but this is impossible to enforce without some kind of public scrutiny.

I have seen many times very well connected so called "serial entrepreneurs" who are appointed as directors of small startups after a small investment, suck the life out of them in huge salaries, and sell at a low price at the first opportunity. The thing is that they can almost never loose because even if the company is not profitable, they might not take a big profit on their investment but can still pay themselves a huge salary as long as there is cash flowing in the company.

Of course it's not the majority of company's director, but it's happening quite a lot in the tech industry which in know well, and I've seen quite a few startups being driven to the ground by greedy directors who don't realise that before buying yourself a ferrari you first have to make your business a success...
Post edited at 17:51
hokkyokusei - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> What's your argument ?

My argument is that it's up to the owners and investors to decide how the money is spent.

> Of course it's not the majority of company's director, but it's happening quite a lot in the tech industry which in know well, and I've seen quite a few startups being driven to the ground by greedy directors who don't realise that before buying yourself a ferrari you first have to make your business a success...

Yes, but it's nobodies' business other than that of the owners and investors. If the investors don't care to oversee the use of the money they are investing then they are incompetent. If owner's choose to spend their investment money unwisely, then they are incompetent. Enough of each and the business will fail. But it's their money and their decision.

I should disclose that I am a director of a company that was a tech startup 11 years ago. My co-owners and I decide not to take the past outlined above and we now have a successful group of businesses. But it was our money and our decision, and we chose to do with it as we wished.



RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> My argument is that it's up to the owners and investors to decide how the money is spent.
It's not really an argument you are giving me here, more an opinion.

In UK corporate law directors have a duty to promote company's success in the interest of all stakeholders (investors, employees, suppliers, creditors...). This idea that because you own a business you can do whatever you want with it is wrong, owners are not the only stakeholders.
Of course owners can decide how the money is spent but it has to be towards a goal of making the company a success.
Post edited at 18:29
JJL - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

More than you














But less than her
hokkyokusei - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:
> It's not really an argument you are giving me here, more an opinion.

I disagree.

> In UK corporate law directors have a duty to promote company's success in the interest of all stakeholders (investors, employees, suppliers, creditors...). This idea that because you own a business you can do whatever you want with it is wrong, owners are not the only stakeholders.

I take it you are referring to section 172. That's not my interpretation.

> Of course owners can decide how the money is spent but it has to be towards a goal of making the company a success.

Correct.

To clarify, directors must act in the best interest of the company for teh benefit of the members.

Post edited at 18:43
RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> To clarify, directors must act in the best interest of the company for teh benefit of the members.

Yes, the directors must act for "benefit of its members as a whole" that includes all stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, the community, its environment...

As a more general point I think that somehow director's remuneration above a certain level should increase his liability. That plus investors in general should have total control over director's remuneration.
Post edited at 19:50
hokkyokusei - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, the directors must act for "benefit of its members as a whole" that includes all stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, the community, its environment...

No, it doesn't. Stakeholders is a superset that includes members. There's a requirement to treat other stakeholders (which, as you say, includes employees) fairly in pursuit of the interests of members, but that's not necessarily in the interests of those other stakeholders. Just as an example, as a director, I may decide that, in the interests of the members, I need to cut costs, which may entail redundancies, which is clearly not in the interest of all of those other stakeholders, particularly the ones being made redundant.

RomTheBear - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:

> No, it doesn't. Stakeholders is a superset that includes members. There's a requirement to treat other stakeholders (which, as you say, includes employees) fairly in pursuit of the interests of members, but that's not necessarily in the interests of those other stakeholders. Just as an example, as a director, I may decide that, in the interests of the members, I need to cut costs, which may entail redundancies, which is clearly not in the interest of all of those other stakeholders, particularly the ones being made redundant.

Yes of course "fairly" is the word used in section 172 and that's the important one. For example a director taking excessive remuneration prior to insolvency is clearly not treating its members fairly.
But in reality the directors liability are so low that as a creditor chances that you could sue the director successfully are slim, we should have some kind of system to increase director's liability when remuneration is excessive.
benjyclarke46 - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Hahaha 1st year apprentice rate of £2.90 an hour... :D
The RigPig - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

All depends how many days I work each year, but this year in the region of £85-90k. Its been a busy year..
AndyC - on 23 Mar 2014
In reply to The RigPig:

> All depends how many days I work each year, but this year in the region of £85-90k. Its been a busy year..

Woohoo! And it's not even the end of March! All praise to the Black Gold!
hokkyokusei - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't see the relevance of your response. You said that directors had to run a business in the interests of all of it's stakeholders, which isn't true. I pointed out that directors have to run a company in the interests of it's members, which does not include all stakeholders. Having reiterated this I'm going to leave it at that.
RomTheBear - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> I don't see the relevance of your response. You said that directors had to run a business in the interests of all of it's stakeholders, which isn't true.

“A director of a company must act in a way that he considers, in good
faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the
benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst
other matters) to –
(a)The likely consequences of any decision in the long term
(b)the interests of the company’s employees
(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with
suppliers, customers and others
(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community
and the environment
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for
high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly between the members of the
company.”


If for example a director is taking an excessive remuneration prior to insolvency he is clearly not behaving in a way that promotes the business, does not act fairly between the members of the company, and has no regards for the other stakeholders.

However such cases are rarely prosecuted successfully by creditors because of the "in good faith" requirement which makes it really easy to get away with it. I think the law has changed and they now also look at your experience as a director when trying to decide whether you acted in good faith or not, but it's still very hard to prosecute.

My point is that we should have some kind of mechanism to stop abuse happening before it goes to court, for example give more power to owners to control director's pay, increase liability of directors when pay goes beyond a certain level etc...
Post edited at 10:49
BAdhoc - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I an in retail and earn £6.76/hour on a full time contract, the benefits mean I save about £100 a month on other things. Senior sales assistant, so if anyone knows of any better paid jobs going give me a shout :)
FrankBooth - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

I've only ever worked in the private sector, initially as an employee, and for the past twenty years as a business owner with staff of my own. As an employer, I would prefer staff to keep their salaries private. My current company has grown gradually over the past 15 years, taking people on when we feel confident that the business can sustain them, rather than forcing growth and risking letting people go when the work dries up. We aim to bring salaries into alignment at annual reviews, but there are times when similarly qualified people are on quite different salaries, purely because they negotiated a better deal at interview (and we needed to react quickly).

As for directors' salaries, again I think this is a private affair - I've invested an awful lot to make my company a success. The reason we've kept going for fifteen years is that my partner and I are not greedy. It's taken us this long to begin paying ourselves a good salary (by which I mean, more than we would be earning in similar roles if we were employees). Running my own company means I only work with people I like, and only with clients I respect. I can can take holidays when I like, but in reality this equates to a lot less than everyone else.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to FrankBooth:

Always the victim ey? Everyone thinks they work harder for less money, no matter how much they earn. Got to keep that ball rolling. I bet Wayne Rooney is like "but I work so much harder than ordinary people, world cup this year, that's going to eat into my summer".

P.S this is nothing to do with you in particular, just a general trend.
RomTheBear - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to FrankBooth:
> As for directors' salaries, again I think this is a private affair

Most people are saying that salaries are a private affair, but nobody bothers to argue much as to why. Where is the rationale behind it ? It's mostly a cultural bias.
I can't help to wonder that when some people are so reluctant to reveal how much they earn it might simply be because they probably are ashamed of earning too much, or too little, and not really because of "privacy" concerns.
Surely having proper information on salaries would probably make the labour market more efficient.
Post edited at 18:05
Tall Clare - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sure I read somewhere that in Norway, everyone's salary is out there for anyone else to know, because of the way taxes are done.

It must be cultural bias - I don't feel comfortable revealing what I earn.
andyathome - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

£42,825 p.a.

Why do you want to know?
Robin Woodward - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to FrankBooth:

I think employees not being open about their salaries between themselves is silly. As a boss you should have the balls (and the logic/method) to justify why you pay people what you pay them. If people aren't happy with their pay, they can try and re-negotiate, or they can leave. If you don't want people to leave, then pay them what they're worth to you. If your business is run well, then people will be 'earning' their pay anyway, so it shouldn't be an issue. I can see much larger issues occurring if you encourage employees not to share their salaries and then someone finds out and you aren't able to justify variations.

Equally, I think it makes sense not to hide what a director/owner pays themselves. This is fairly discernible if people investigate your accounts, which (depending on your type of company) is available publicly with know-how.

Also, the fact you have only just started paying yourself a 'good salary' may well be slightly irrelevant as you may well have been building up a business with significant worth, and therefore effectively earning yourself money throughout the process (I accept this isn't always the case, but generally is).

In general I don't see how openness can do anything but make a healthier working environment in the long run.
mbambi - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

F$£k all
andyathome - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Just read right through the thread. Bloody hell! Aren't people really precious about just coming out with a number. What does it matter!

ads.ukclimbing.com
ebygomm - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

> I'm sure I read somewhere that in Norway, everyone's salary is out there for anyone else to know, because of the way taxes are done.

Societies that are judged to be more equal tend to be more open about these things, cause or correlation?

MG - on 24 Mar 2014
In reply to andyathome:

Do you want to put your medical records up too?

I honestly don't know exactly.
AndyC - on 25 Mar 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

> I'm sure I read somewhere that in Norway, everyone's salary is out there for anyone else to know, because of the way taxes are done.

That was the case - you could look up your neighbours and colleagues in the 'skattelister'. The last couple of years they have been tightening up the system so you can't do it anonymously. But it doesn't stop the media publishing 'top 100' lists and other statistics.

It's only taxable income. Also misleading because people can have other sources of income besides their salary.
Lurking Dave - on 25 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

About $200k

But this probably doesn't mean much unless you know the cost of living, tax rates etc.

LD
Cú Chullain - on 25 Mar 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> Just read right through the thread. Bloody hell! Aren't people really precious about just coming out with a number. What does it matter!

I imagine a few of the higher earners on here, if they were to post their income details would be flamed by some elements of this forum for being either very smug or having the audacity to have done quite well with their career choices. Then the usual poverty porn 'Top Trumps' debate will start where some moron will state that nobody needs more then £15,000 a year to live on and that any more makes you a greedy tory scumbag who is sucking the country dry and should be taxed at 4000% and have their organs harvested. Then some other working class hero will wade in and declare that £15,000 is actually a kings ransom and that they can get by on £5000 a year because they eat grass and built an igloo out of human waste and pubic hair but they are happy with their lot....etc....etc
TheDrunkenBakers - on 25 Mar 2014
In reply to andyathome:

> Just read right through the thread. Bloody hell! Aren't people really precious about just coming out with a number. What does it matter!

Ill show you mine if you show me yours
Gordon Stainforth - on 25 Mar 2014
In reply to Cú Chullain:

Do you speak from experience, Cu Chu?
Geoboy - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Cú Chullain:

haha, this is such an inflammatory topic/question to post in the first place, but i guffawed when i read this reply.

I've been on a phd studentship (about 15k p/a untaxed) for 4 years, and slightly less for an msc before that, and life has been good. I can't imagine ever desperately needing more than this do be happy.
cander - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Geoboy:

In years to come when you get married, have children and get a mortgage - take a moment to reflect on your post and how your monetary requirements change as your life circumstances change.

Tall Clare - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to cander:

I have friends who've raised two children, go skiing, have paid off a mortgage, don't want for much, on £30k/year between them, and other friends who struggle to make ends meet on £120k. I think there are so many other factors that come into play that it's impossible to surmise much from people's salaries.
galpinos - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> I imagine a few of the higher earners on here, if they were to post their income details would be flamed by some elements of this forum for being either very smug or having the audacity to have done quite well with their career choices. Then the usual poverty porn 'Top Trumps' ...... that £15,000 is actually a kings ransom and that they can get by on £5000 a year because they eat grass and built an igloo out of human waste and pubic hair but they are happy with their lot....etc....etc

As a contractor in the O&G business (if I remember correctly) it must have taken a while to wade through the caviar and champagne bottles in order to get to your computer to type that..... ;)
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Exactly, although in my experience, friends like yours who on the face of it, earn little but lifestyle is good usually have other factors you are completely unaware of. The main one being parental help/inheritance which they keep quiet about.

That's not to say it's not possible of course
RomTheBear - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

> I have friends who've raised two children, go skiing, have paid off a mortgage, don't want for much, on £30k/year between them, and other friends who struggle to make ends meet on £120k. I think there are so many other factors that come into play that it's impossible to surmise much from people's salaries.


Admittedly someone on 15K with a house inherited from his parents is better off than someone on 30K with a 600£ rent.

However if some people are struggling on 120k I would suggest that they seriously stop buying crap they don't need ;-)
Tall Clare - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In their case the skiing holidays are because he grew up in Grindlewald so skiing as a family thing is something that's always happened... and they run their business from their boxroom at home so some of their expenses can be offset that way. I do think that some people let money slip through their fingers and others are incredibly organised, but, as you say, outsiders rarely have a true and complete picture.
Tall Clare - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

In this particular case it's more to do with servicing three mortgages (don't ask!) and, with the 120k being from a single salary, getting caned for tax on a large chunk of it - as I said above, the headline is pretty meaningless.
Skyfall - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

> However if some people are struggling on 120k

That could be because they are paying tax at an effective rate of 60% on the top £20k.

Or it might not... ;)
David Barratt - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

Less than I want to...
RomTheBear - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Skyfall:

> That could be because they are paying tax at an effective rate of 60% on the top £20k.

> Or it might not... ;)

Well if you are on 120,000K salary you still get 72K net of tax, or about 6000£ per month...
Geoboy - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to cander:

I will, and I hope my monetary requirements do not change and dictate my lifestyle. That's my aim, anyway. Since I have a mortgage, long-term girlfriend and a very demanding dog (honestly, he may as well be a child), I don't think this is too unrealistic. I can see how my comment looked pretty ignorant though (i.e. "student")
Tall Clare - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Geoboy:

> a very demanding dog (honestly, he may as well be a child)

Sounds familiar... :-)

Geoboy - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

£6000 p/m! Wow, i've no idea what I would do with that much money. Give plenty to charity i would hope. I'm sure my cost of living would go up very quickly and soon it would seem like nothing.
Donnie - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo:

If it's not been said already, I think what you really mean is, 'how much are you paid?'

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Geoboy:

Believe me , you would soon spend it. Very easy to lose £1500 in a pension, £2000 on a mortgage, £1000 house keeping (family of four)

You have £1500 left. Car payments? Holidays? Socialising? Commuting? Birthdays/days out? General saving (not pension)?

Agree it is good money, but it doesn't go as far as you think.
Frank4short - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to KingStapo: Approximately 6,000,000 halalals

cander - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Geoboy:

On the contrary, having been exactly where you are and thought the same, I completely understand your point of view.

But it will change (dogs cost considerably less than children, and they don't need their own bedroom - which in time becomes their own house). Couples with a dog don't need a 4 bedroom house, but families do. You won't be worried that when you die your wife and family will be left without your income (middle aged men think about this and make provision - pensions, life assurance), You can live in a dump with chav's as neighbours (I knew a few lecturers who had to do exactly that) - once you have kids you don't want them to be in that environment, you want them to have the best opportunity to realise their full potential, so want them to go to a good school that gives them lots of opportunities. I wanted my children and now Grandchildren to have a broad view of the world, I want them to travel, to see other cultures, to make new friends from different countries - Skiing, try that with three kids on a budget. Guess what, there's a pretty substantial price tag associated with all this. Good luck if you think you can do it off minimum wage - you can't.
RomTheBear - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Believe me , you would soon spend it. Very easy to lose £1500 in a pension, £2000 on a mortgage, £1000 house keeping (family of four)

Well yes for sure if you want to live in a big mansion, run three cars, and have a full time cleaning lady, and want a multi million pounds pension pot ,120,000k is not going to get you far. Apart from that if you make sensible lifestyle choice you can do very well...
Geoboy - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to cander:

In summary, don't have children.
Tall Clare - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

The family in question have good reasons for needing to shove quite a bit of money aside each month - and they have childcare costs, which can swallow money too. As said above, unless one can know *exactly* what another person's circumstances are, it's all pretty much hot air. I do agree that £120k is not broke by any stretch of the imagination though!
cander - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Geoboy:

Wrong
The New NickB - on 26 Mar 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Believe me , you would soon spend it. Very easy to lose £1500 in a pension,

No one has really mentioned pensions, for many with contributions paid by employers this is also pay. My FS pension costs my employer about 15% on top of my salary and given annuity rates is worth considerably more than that to me.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Cú Chullain - on 27 Mar 2014
In reply to galpinos:

>

> As a contractor in the O&G business (if I remember correctly) it must have taken a while to wade through the caviar and champagne bottles in order to get to your computer to type that..... ;)

Naaah, the Philippino maids clean that kind of mess up for me ;-p

I have been on this forum 10 plus years and have seen these type of discussions pop up from time to time and while I was being somewhat sarcastic in my above reply there was in my opinion a grain of truth in what I said. There are a few chippy people on here who can get quite upset if they feel the income of someone is 'excessive' or even worse, if you are deemed to be a bit 'posh' as well. Somehow for a few being one or the other invalidates your views or contributions to any debates because clearly you have had an easy life are out of touch with the real world despite those making the judgements having no idea of your background. Several years ago, I lived and worked in Monaco and I updated my profile to reflect that fact. While a few people emailed me to ask for my advice about the various crags on the Cote d'Azur I got quite a few unsolicited emails handing out abuse based on nothing more then the perception that I must be some kind of millionaire Aston Martin driving international playboy and therefore somehow deserved the scorn. When I moved back to the UK and updated my residence to 'London' the tw*tish emails seemed to stop as I was once more deemed to be an average joe bloke.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.