This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Close to half a million a year seems a lot to me
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/15/submissions-to-theresa-mays...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/15/submissions-to-theresa-mays...
In reply to MG:
Its not a standard judges job and bearing in mind the amount of shit and politics around that inquiry I reckon it had to come at a premium.
I am interested to see what the hell she is renting though that 110k a year was thought appropriate. Even in London that seems a bit excessive.
Its not a standard judges job and bearing in mind the amount of shit and politics around that inquiry I reckon it had to come at a premium.
I am interested to see what the hell she is renting though that 110k a year was thought appropriate. Even in London that seems a bit excessive.
Post edited at 22:05
2
In reply to MG:
£360,000 a year - half that after tax etc,
Actually seems quite reasonable to me given the burden of responsibility hanging on the job.
Given that the average City CEO salary was recently stated as £4.5million I would take umbrage at that (if a shareholder) rather than this judge package.
£360,000 a year - half that after tax etc,
Actually seems quite reasonable to me given the burden of responsibility hanging on the job.
Given that the average City CEO salary was recently stated as £4.5million I would take umbrage at that (if a shareholder) rather than this judge package.
5
1
1
In reply to MG:
to do a job like that where you are constantly targeted by the press, the public, the CPS and others... at least that amount, the stress and responsibility is pretty high compared to any job, there is no one further up the food chain to pass the buck to.
to do a job like that where you are constantly targeted by the press, the public, the CPS and others... at least that amount, the stress and responsibility is pretty high compared to any job, there is no one further up the food chain to pass the buck to.
1
In reply to MG:
She looks worth it
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/child-abuse-inquiry-judge-pa...
She looks worth it
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/child-abuse-inquiry-judge-pa...
3
In reply to summo:
Well it is several times what similar roles get (PM, Police Commissioners etc). More than Mark Carney. Seems out of line to me. Still given the mayhem over appointing anyone, she could probably name her price.
> to do a job like that where you are constantly targeted by the press, the public, the CPS and others... at least that amount,
Well it is several times what similar roles get (PM, Police Commissioners etc). More than Mark Carney. Seems out of line to me. Still given the mayhem over appointing anyone, she could probably name her price.
1
In reply to MG:
The rationale in setting judicial pay used to be, at least in part, that a judge should have an income sufficient to ensure he (in them days of old) would be immune to temptation of taking bribes or favours.
The rationale in setting judicial pay used to be, at least in part, that a judge should have an income sufficient to ensure he (in them days of old) would be immune to temptation of taking bribes or favours.
1
1
In reply to MG:
Have you ever dealt with a Judge? In my work I have to deal with QCs; they are not like normal people, but are higher beings. I expect a Judge is more so (And a 'top judge' more so still).
These people are astonishingly intelligent in my experience. They are also 'good performers' as well.
Have you ever dealt with a Judge? In my work I have to deal with QCs; they are not like normal people, but are higher beings. I expect a Judge is more so (And a 'top judge' more so still).
These people are astonishingly intelligent in my experience. They are also 'good performers' as well.
3
1
In reply to MG:
Which is a lot, but she can't really commute from New Zealand, so it's an expense rather than what she is paid for the job.
> +£110000 housing and other bits.
Which is a lot, but she can't really commute from New Zealand, so it's an expense rather than what she is paid for the job.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Yeah, but I imagine there are a lot of people who could do the job that wouldn't need to commute from New Zealand.
The government could have done something really out-of-the-box and held the inquiry outside of London. Put it in Glasgow, you'd get a judge for a damn site less than 500K and the rest of the staff would be a lot cheaper too as would the accommodation. Plus the added benefit of getting well away from London is not being staffed from the establishment class it is supposed to be investigating.
But this is really about paying someone respectable sufficient money they are willing to sacrifice their career on an inquiry which runs and runs pushing paper about until its findings become irrelevant. Actually getting the job done would cause embarrassment. It is same playbook as the Iraq inquiry.
> Which is a lot, but she can't really commute from New Zealand, so it's an expense rather than what she is paid for the job.
Yeah, but I imagine there are a lot of people who could do the job that wouldn't need to commute from New Zealand.
The government could have done something really out-of-the-box and held the inquiry outside of London. Put it in Glasgow, you'd get a judge for a damn site less than 500K and the rest of the staff would be a lot cheaper too as would the accommodation. Plus the added benefit of getting well away from London is not being staffed from the establishment class it is supposed to be investigating.
But this is really about paying someone respectable sufficient money they are willing to sacrifice their career on an inquiry which runs and runs pushing paper about until its findings become irrelevant. Actually getting the job done would cause embarrassment. It is same playbook as the Iraq inquiry.
3
In reply to MG:
Police Commissioners, bit of a non job really it's the chief constables who carry the burden? Mark Carney all the big decisions are by committee with one vote each, so there is not any great individual responsibility.
Perhaps the reason they weren't flooded with applications was because of the job itself etc.. so no amount of money would be enough for some.
> Well it is several times what similar roles get (PM, Police Commissioners etc). More than Mark Carney. Seems out of line to me. Still given the mayhem over appointing anyone, she could probably name her price.
Police Commissioners, bit of a non job really it's the chief constables who carry the burden? Mark Carney all the big decisions are by committee with one vote each, so there is not any great individual responsibility.
Perhaps the reason they weren't flooded with applications was because of the job itself etc.. so no amount of money would be enough for some.
1
2
4
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Sadly, possibly not. The problem with British judges of appropriate seniority is that they are likely to move in circles where they have social contacts with those the enquiry is expected to investigate.
The problem is not, I suggest, this particular salary, which may be par for the course, but the generality of "top" salaries against which this salary is determined. What we need, I suggest, is substantially higher tax rates for those on salaries in excess of what is required for a comfortable lifestyle (starting say at £100k - awaiting the brick-bats from those on this forum in that category) but I accept that needs to be done on a trans-national basis if we are to keep top talent in this country.
Martin
> Yeah, but I imagine there are a lot of people who could do the job that wouldn't need to commute from New Zealand.
Sadly, possibly not. The problem with British judges of appropriate seniority is that they are likely to move in circles where they have social contacts with those the enquiry is expected to investigate.
The problem is not, I suggest, this particular salary, which may be par for the course, but the generality of "top" salaries against which this salary is determined. What we need, I suggest, is substantially higher tax rates for those on salaries in excess of what is required for a comfortable lifestyle (starting say at £100k - awaiting the brick-bats from those on this forum in that category) but I accept that needs to be done on a trans-national basis if we are to keep top talent in this country.
Martin
Post edited at 14:34
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
i seem to remember that the government had a couple of goes at that. I suspect you know why bringing someone over from the other side of the world was felt necessary.
> Yeah, but I imagine there are a lot of people who could do the job that wouldn't need to commute from New Zealand.
i seem to remember that the government had a couple of goes at that. I suspect you know why bringing someone over from the other side of the world was felt necessary.
1
In reply to Martin Hore:
Shunting money about in inflated salaries and then trying to redress the balance through taxation just creates extra bureaucracy. It would probably make more sense to ask how anyone could possibly be worth so much money and readjust salaries right across the board.
> Sadly, possibly not. The problem with British judges of appropriate seniority is that they are likely to move in circles where they have social contacts with those the enquiry is expected to investigate.
> The problem is not, I suggest, this particular salary, which may be par for the course, but the generality of "top" salaries against which this salary is determined. What we need, I suggest, is substantially higher tax rates for those earning say £100k plus (awaiting the brick-bats from those on this forum in that category) but I accept that needs to be done on a trans-national basis if we are to keep top talent in this country.
Shunting money about in inflated salaries and then trying to redress the balance through taxation just creates extra bureaucracy. It would probably make more sense to ask how anyone could possibly be worth so much money and readjust salaries right across the board.
2
In reply to timjones:
Not sure I agree. Admittedly this is a public sector appointment, but most high salaries are in the private sector. If a private company wants to pay £x million of their own money to a top executive that's arguably their own business, but if the person wants the benefits of living in Britain, lets get a decent chunk of the money they don't need for the public good through say a 70% tax rate.
I'm not sure how your idea of "readjusting salaries" would actually work in the private sector. Are you suggesting a "National Maximum Wage". There are examples of companies claiming to restrict the ratio between top and bottom salaries to say 1:20, but on closer examination they do this by sub-contracting out all their lower paid work - cleaners and the like.
Martin
Martin
> Shunting money about in inflated salaries and then trying to redress the balance through taxation just creates extra bureaucracy. It would probably make more sense to ask how anyone could possibly be worth so much money and readjust salaries right across the board.
Not sure I agree. Admittedly this is a public sector appointment, but most high salaries are in the private sector. If a private company wants to pay £x million of their own money to a top executive that's arguably their own business, but if the person wants the benefits of living in Britain, lets get a decent chunk of the money they don't need for the public good through say a 70% tax rate.
I'm not sure how your idea of "readjusting salaries" would actually work in the private sector. Are you suggesting a "National Maximum Wage". There are examples of companies claiming to restrict the ratio between top and bottom salaries to say 1:20, but on closer examination they do this by sub-contracting out all their lower paid work - cleaners and the like.
Martin
Martin
1
In reply to Martin Hore:
Lord alone knows how you achieve it, but to my eyes it's hard to justify the fact that we value judges etc so much more highly than the grafters that tend to the everyday essentials of our existance. Even a claimed maximum ratio of 1:20 makes little sense IMO. Higher taxes will do nothing to correct that disparity
> Not sure I agree. Admittedly this is a public sector appointment, but most high salaries are in the private sector. If a private company wants to pay £x million of their own money to a top executive that's arguably their own business, but if the person wants the benefits of living in Britain, lets get a decent chunk of the money they don't need for the public good through say a 70% tax rate.
> I'm not sure how your idea of "readjusting salaries" would actually work in the private sector. Are you suggesting a "National Maximum Wage". There are examples of companies claiming to restrict the ratio between top and bottom salaries to say 1:20, but on closer examination they do this by sub-contracting out all their lower paid work - cleaners and the like.
Lord alone knows how you achieve it, but to my eyes it's hard to justify the fact that we value judges etc so much more highly than the grafters that tend to the everyday essentials of our existance. Even a claimed maximum ratio of 1:20 makes little sense IMO. Higher taxes will do nothing to correct that disparity
3
In reply to The New NickB:
My guess is the guy from New Zealand was someone's mate.
Like I said London is not the only city in the UK you don't need to go anything like as far as New Zealand. For example, they could easily find someone in Scotland that had nothing at all to do with the establishment people being investigated and would do the job for much less than 500K.
They don't even need a judge. This guy from New Zealand is not a UK judge. Plenty of other professions with the skills to gather information and write a report.
> i seem to remember that the government had a couple of goes at that. I suspect you know why bringing someone over from the other side of the world was felt necessary.
My guess is the guy from New Zealand was someone's mate.
Like I said London is not the only city in the UK you don't need to go anything like as far as New Zealand. For example, they could easily find someone in Scotland that had nothing at all to do with the establishment people being investigated and would do the job for much less than 500K.
They don't even need a judge. This guy from New Zealand is not a UK judge. Plenty of other professions with the skills to gather information and write a report.
Post edited at 15:02
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But the issue seems to be that you want someone of outstanding legal and judicial competence to head the enquiry and that pretty much guarantees their position within the establishment, even for a Scot!!
Going as far as NZ on the other hand all but ensures the opposite.
But the issue seems to be that you want someone of outstanding legal and judicial competence to head the enquiry and that pretty much guarantees their position within the establishment, even for a Scot!!
Going as far as NZ on the other hand all but ensures the opposite.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Do you actually know anything about the role and the appointment?
For starters its a girl not a guy!
Secondly they tried endlessly in this country (with most of the prospects vetoed by the victims) before starting to trawl worldwide.
> My guess is the guy from New Zealand was someone's mate.
> They don't even need a judge. This guy from New Zealand is not a UK judge. Plenty of other professions with the skills to gather information and write a report.
Do you actually know anything about the role and the appointment?
For starters its a girl not a guy!
Secondly they tried endlessly in this country (with most of the prospects vetoed by the victims) before starting to trawl worldwide.
2
In reply to timjones:
This is an interesting point and I'm not without sympathy but in my business the pay of many of my employees is directly proportional to the income they generate. Should an employee who makes me 2x the profit not earn 2x the wage? And if not, are you going to tell her/him and then compensate me for the loss of income when she/he decides it's not worth working so hard any more?
Obviously not all wages are set by the market in as mathematically pure a fashion as in my trade, but many professions see a close correlation. Top accountants and lawyers, as partners, simply take their share of the profit, for example. Pushing aside the fact that a 70% rate would see wide scale avoidance, what incentive would those at the top of the tree have to build business and take risks if they are only to keep a tiny proportion of the proceeds.
As a business owner, my marginal tax rate is already 60.8% by the way and I often genuinely wonder whether it's worth the stress, risk and hard work!!
This is an interesting point and I'm not without sympathy but in my business the pay of many of my employees is directly proportional to the income they generate. Should an employee who makes me 2x the profit not earn 2x the wage? And if not, are you going to tell her/him and then compensate me for the loss of income when she/he decides it's not worth working so hard any more?
Obviously not all wages are set by the market in as mathematically pure a fashion as in my trade, but many professions see a close correlation. Top accountants and lawyers, as partners, simply take their share of the profit, for example. Pushing aside the fact that a 70% rate would see wide scale avoidance, what incentive would those at the top of the tree have to build business and take risks if they are only to keep a tiny proportion of the proceeds.
As a business owner, my marginal tax rate is already 60.8% by the way and I often genuinely wonder whether it's worth the stress, risk and hard work!!
In reply to BnB:
You know, I don't think you do. If instead of a judge they appointed someone with domain expertise that person could cut through the BS and get straight to the truth in a fraction of the time rather than turning it in to a 7 year game of posturing barristers and unending 'due process' while the billable hours rack up.
> But the issue seems to be that you want someone of outstanding legal and judicial competence to head the enquiry and that pretty much guarantees their position within the establishment, even for a Scot!!
You know, I don't think you do. If instead of a judge they appointed someone with domain expertise that person could cut through the BS and get straight to the truth in a fraction of the time rather than turning it in to a 7 year game of posturing barristers and unending 'due process' while the billable hours rack up.
2
In reply to BnB:
Why? Why are legal and judicial competence of such importance here? The task is to discover the facts of the matter (rather than to make legal rulings or examine points of law) and plenty of other professions deal with establishing facts.
Given the precedents of how judges do in such things (e.g. the Bloody Sunday enquiry) I'd suggest we end the presumption that such people have to be judges.
> But the issue seems to be that you want someone of outstanding legal and judicial competence to head the enquiry ...
Why? Why are legal and judicial competence of such importance here? The task is to discover the facts of the matter (rather than to make legal rulings or examine points of law) and plenty of other professions deal with establishing facts.
Given the precedents of how judges do in such things (e.g. the Bloody Sunday enquiry) I'd suggest we end the presumption that such people have to be judges.
3
In reply to KevinD:
Do you have any experience of central London property prices? A quick look on Zoopla shows there are numerous 1 bed flats in central London where £110k/year wouldn't be enough to pay for a years rent Or are you thinking that a studio in South Tottenham was more appropriate?
I do fully agree with your first point though!
> Its not a standard judges job and bearing in mind the amount of shit and politics around that inquiry I reckon it had to come at a premium.
> I am interested to see what the hell she is renting though that 110k a year was thought appropriate. Even in London that seems a bit excessive.
Do you have any experience of central London property prices? A quick look on Zoopla shows there are numerous 1 bed flats in central London where £110k/year wouldn't be enough to pay for a years rent Or are you thinking that a studio in South Tottenham was more appropriate?
I do fully agree with your first point though!
1
In reply to BnB:
How do you value the contribution of the person who keeps the toilets clean for the employees with such a high opinion of their value
> This is an interesting point and I'm not without sympathy but in my business the pay of many of my employees is directly proportional to the income they generate. Should an employee who makes me 2x the profit not earn 2x the wage? And if not, are you going to tell her/him and then compensate me for the loss of income when she/he decides it's not worth working so hard any more?
How do you value the contribution of the person who keeps the toilets clean for the employees with such a high opinion of their value
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
After the Lockerbie and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi conviction I thought that it was generally accepted that Scottish justice was a complete joke :|
> The government could have done something really out-of-the-box and held the inquiry outside of London. Put it in Glasgow, you'd get a judge for a damn site less than 500K and the rest of the staff would be a lot cheaper too as would the accommodation. Plus the added benefit of getting well away from London is not being staffed from the establishment class it is supposed to be investigating.
After the Lockerbie and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi conviction I thought that it was generally accepted that Scottish justice was a complete joke :|
2
In reply to timjones:
I see the smiley, but the reason I work in my industry is that no one has the right to an inflated view of their value. Their true worth is up on the board (or on the spreadsheet) according to their productivity and their income reflects that to the penny.
As for the cleaner. We outsource that work. It looks, literally, like a shitty life and their income is set by market forces, which are for them very cruel. Hence my sympathy with your standpoint. I merely sought to provide a counterpoint.
> How do you value the contribution of the person who keeps the toilets clean for the employees with such a high opinion of their value
I see the smiley, but the reason I work in my industry is that no one has the right to an inflated view of their value. Their true worth is up on the board (or on the spreadsheet) according to their productivity and their income reflects that to the penny.
As for the cleaner. We outsource that work. It looks, literally, like a shitty life and their income is set by market forces, which are for them very cruel. Hence my sympathy with your standpoint. I merely sought to provide a counterpoint.
In reply to blurty:
>
Yes it always astounds me how quickly a judge understands the most complex of cases, cuts through all the crap and can see the wood from the trees. Their judgement has to be good, amazingly good, because afterwards if it comes to appeal everything they say will be picked up in minute detail and scrutinised by other amazingly intelligent people with lots of time, and all the text books and case law to hand.
>
> These people are astonishingly intelligent in my experience.
Yes it always astounds me how quickly a judge understands the most complex of cases, cuts through all the crap and can see the wood from the trees. Their judgement has to be good, amazingly good, because afterwards if it comes to appeal everything they say will be picked up in minute detail and scrutinised by other amazingly intelligent people with lots of time, and all the text books and case law to hand.
In reply to BnB:
Surely by outsourcing the shitty jobs at knockdown rates everyone is subscribing to the perception that they are worth more than those who do the more menial but essential tasks?
At the end of the day everyone contributes to the output whatever their role.
There's a large part of me that would like to see a serious restriction on wage differentials right across society. Deep down I'd probably like it to be considerably lower then the 1:20 suggested earlier in the thread.
> I see the smiley, but the reason I work in my industry is that no one has the right to an inflated view of their value. Their true worth is up on the board (or on the spreadsheet) according to their productivity and their income reflects that to the penny.
> As for the cleaner. We outsource that work. It looks, literally, like a shitty life and their income is set by market forces, which are for them very cruel. Hence my sympathy with your standpoint. I merely sought to provide a counterpoint.
Surely by outsourcing the shitty jobs at knockdown rates everyone is subscribing to the perception that they are worth more than those who do the more menial but essential tasks?
At the end of the day everyone contributes to the output whatever their role.
There's a large part of me that would like to see a serious restriction on wage differentials right across society. Deep down I'd probably like it to be considerably lower then the 1:20 suggested earlier in the thread.
1
In reply to MG: yes, but they make different contributions with differing levels of stress and responsibility. I do agree that large wage inequalities are bad, but legislating for it is tough. I'm in a small team that will spend or not spend a big lump of cash this weekend. How do you value that.
For the length of training and amount the judge will have taken, expertise and considerable scrutiny and responsibility I would expect to pay a lot.
For the length of training and amount the judge will have taken, expertise and considerable scrutiny and responsibility I would expect to pay a lot.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...