4channel, I appreciate your taking the time to find the links.
davewil points out of course that Moss's pay-out was in 2009, and that this doesn't have a connection with the GST on low value imported goods. However, in terms of the worth of any executive being given golden handshakes or payouts of this amount, it certainly strikes me (and I daresay almost everyone on these boards) as obscene. His actual retained benefits were $25 million, I believe, although of course the salary of almost as much again made that an outrageous total for that year. Quoting, "The Australian Shareholders' Association said it regarded Mr Moss's remuneration as excessive." Agreed.
Indeed, the Moss example was so egregious and so widely reported that it's evident as something that stands out beyond the normal.
The second example (the first example that you give other than referencing the Moss incident) is about Andrew Thorburn receiving $1 million upon leaving the NAB. The fact that he's having to forgo those $22 million in rights to NAB shares is good news. Clearly the NAB had to give him the $1.04 million that he was contracted to receive (in lieu of the long notice period he'd ordinarily have given), and I doubt that anyone thinks he actually deserved that million... but the loss of that $22 million must sting him sharply, don't you think? This government has been (in spite of its chaos) the government who gave us the royal commission into the banks; I don't particularly worry over whether that was done willingly or unwillingly, as at the very least this has exposed scuttling cockroaches of banking misconduct, with the result that Mr Thorburn is out on his tush, even after vowing just days before to fight for his job.
So... that example, satisfying as it is, doesn't support your main contention about $50 million payouts.
The third example is not a banking executive costing shareholders $80 million. Rather... "Fourteen CEOs from 13 companies reaped generous payouts, with the average deal worth $5.71 million, almost 1.7 times the average paid over the past three years." I agree that it's outrageous for CEOs to receive such payouts. But... it's not banking executives (or even CEOs) getting $50 million payouts each.
Your example of John Fletcher's handout upon his being dumped by Coles isn't valid; the Crikey link talks about $50 million but Fletcher walked away with about $37 million. Of that, $17 million was from his remuneration package (rights to Coles shares worth that amount), and the remaining $20 million was made up of his annual salary plus the value of shares which his private companies owned. I consider that a farewell package of $17 million is still too high, especially given Mr Fletcher's poor performance, but it's not $50 million, thankfully!
You do still have the first example of Allan Moss as a genuine banking figure who walked away with a $50 million handshake. As it was about 10 years ago, I hope we've seen the last of golden handshakes of that amount.
I don't see a connection between former Prime Minister Howard, the $50 million of Mr Moss, and the GST on low value imported goods, although I suppose you could use the Moss example as a motif... Something like "The GST demonstrates the greed of the government just as Allan Moss's $50 million payout demonstrated the greed of CEOs in banks, big business, etc." I cannot really follow this argument to the point of connecting it with the current GST legislation, or as really being relevant with regard to eBay, but each to his own.
(My view is that GST on low value imported goods was always going to happen at some point. If the Liberals hadn't ratified it, Labor would have. It's probably a wise move, in fact... but time will tell. It's too early to accurately forecast its effect and results.)
