As a shareholder in RBS (like the rest of us), I would like to see how the CEO's £1m bonus is justified, given the consequences of his actions on the profitability of the parent company, UK plc (RBS hands chief £1m bonus and fuels political storm, 25 January).
He has made redundant 33,000 members of staff. Suppose half of these stay unemployed for a year (an optimistic estimate) – 16,500 people. Then UK plc foots the bill for their benefits and for the lost tax revenue. Suppose the average salary of those made redundant is £25,000 – with a typical tax loss of £3,400 each. This equals £56m. To which we must add jobseeker's allowance payments of on average £67 a week for six months and any other possible benefits – maybe an average of another £3,000 a year, which equals another £54m.
So Mr Hester's actions for the RBS branch of UK plc have cost the parent company about £110m. I propose that his bonus is not awarded and his salary is urgently reviewed.
Huw Kyffin
Canterbury
• Should the prime minister be awarded a bonus in recognition of the unemployment he is creating?
Leslie Gilbert
London
• The current wave of hostility toward the payment of bonuses – most recently expressed in Ed Miliband's call for RBS chief Stephen Hester to be denied his bonus – is a worrying sign for the UK economy.
Our latest research into accountancy and finance professionals' expectations for the economy shows 53% believe 2012 will see no deterioration in the UK's economic position. This remarkably positive collective view is a direct result of a strong performance across the industry in 2011. Unless we get more of the same in 2012, we can forget any prospect of a sustained recovery in the UK.
Seeking to deny people doing a good and important job the rewards for their accomplishments, whether they work for a public-owned company or not, is the most efficient way to drive talent to markets where enjoying the rewards of success is not considered taboo.
Dave Way
Marks Sattin Recruitment
• It is time the government stood up to the bankers and called their bluff. It said it had to give Stephen Hester his bonus because, if it had not, the entire RBS board would have resigned. The response to that should have been: "Do so." After all, there must be a limit to the number of bankers who can and would wish to emigrate to Geneva, the Cayman Islands or the Channel Islands etc.
Valerie Crews
Beckenham, Kent
• I have three questions which I would like to put to the megabucks-earning bankers, in the unlikely event that any of them ever read the Guardian.
First, is there any limit to the size of pay and bonus package which they would regard as morally acceptable?
Second, do they ever feel any sense of guilt at helping themselves to such a generous share of the national cake, especially when so many of their fellow citizens are poorly paid or out of work?
Third, how can they possibly spend these unimaginably large sums, especially in cases where they've been receiving similar amounts for several years?
Simon Green
Hull
• In most jobs, the "reward" for performing well is to keep the job or have one's contract renewed – and even that is not guaranteed in the current climate. If someone does not do their job properly, sooner or later their employment will be terminated; that alone is supposed to be a sufficient "incentive" to work hard and achieve results. Why can bankers not be given the same terms and conditions of employment that the rest of us enjoy?
Dr Pete Dorey
Bath, Somerset
• Appalled at the RBS ludicrous salaries and bonuses? Then switch to a more ethical bank at once. If we all did that, the message might just possibly get heard and even acted on.
Professor Charles Warlow
Edinburgh