Tories fighting to protect bankers bonuses

My first ever big job in Singapore, was as a runner for the traders at ICAP. Honest to *, I have never seen so many people working so hard under that amount of pressure.

I also recruit them across the world into different trading houses. Some of these guys, are worth their own body weight in diamonds.

Typical British public with this though.

 

No what we need is a socialist government,and get back to helping the most needy in the country,not some smart arsed banker * who aren't in touch with reality


Edit: and where would you like me to begin with toxic finances,Lehman brothers or ABN Amro,whom which all of their debt daft * sir Fred Goodwin bought,yet we as tax payers are all still putting towards but hey we are all in it together

 

Lets see where the french economy is in a year or so and then we can argue the Socialism argument!

I predict they'll be even more on their * than they are now, I may be wrong though just my opinion.

 

You pick out two banks.

I can pick out 50 banks that make good money for economies all around the world. Behave.

Bonus - A term used for an amount of money paid based on performance or KPI's being reached. This is what the term bonus means within the bank.

What does that mean, well that means that anyone earning a bonus would have roughly had to double or triple whatever they receive in total earnings from the bank including bonus, before receiving one. Thus, bankers do not get paid these large sums of money unless the banks make millions before them.

In essence, if you open a business and make it perform well, you would expect to take some kind of dividend out of it, or performance related pay off. Bankers are the same.

Hating on them, is not going to fix the problem. Actually, they are keeping a lot of the economy together, smart trading, clever funds and investment options and smart commercial and high street banking set ups are all benefiting this economy.


Like I said, things like Bookies, casino's, payday and high interest loan companies, sub prime finance offering, silly mortgages, overpaid sports stars, media stars and people and a lax tax system that allows companies, sports clubs and personalities to cheat the tax system all need looked at before these banking people you want to blame everything on.

Even the way some of you post "posh/flash bankers" this is their lifestyle, they earn their money, do you believe the banks are silly enough to pay people large sums that are not worth it? I doubt it very much.

Socialism, especially if you go back into it is a disaster waiting to happen. In my opinion it needs to breed from strict communism and eventually into a socialist republic, to work.

But even here, a socialist republic we have banking and trading desks, because the modern world desires so.

 

Britain on the whole doesn't want a Government that will do that, otherwise we wouldn't have seen the Conservatives win the most votes out of all the political parties standing at the last election. We all know what you get with a Conservative Government, so there's no excuse.

In short, we deserve the * we'll get from them, be it bankers bonuses, bedroom tax or whatever. We voted them in.

Democracy has spoken!

 

The problem is, Scotland did not vote for the Tories. That is why we so badly need Independence.

I'll stop there as, having read the Scottish Independence thread, I am teaching my granny to suck eggs here. :icon_mrgreen:

 

You'd be better off stopping there, otherwise you'll have the usual Unionist characters along asking if Central Bedfordshire and Bracknell Forest should move for independence as it's one and the same thing as Scotland doing so! :icon_mrgreen:

 

The renationalisation of the banks would be a good start. As a nation we could still pay the top bankers big money, and indeed big bonuses, but the profits they make could and should be reinvested in the country. When they make the massive losses that we have seen recently, the country bailed them out. However, it is in the pipeline to privatise them again once they are back on an even keel. That is just wrong.

 

What an odd notion that the random man on the street should be able to dictate how much I can earn off a private company for my employment? An equally odd notion that we cap banker bonuses because last decade bankers took too much risk?

Of course people should be free to earn what they are worth. And these people are worth it.

 

I think people should be able to earn whatever their company is willing to pay them. Who are we to say how much someone is able to earn.

Something that annoys me is that just because people earn a lot, the general public seem to think they should feel some sort of shame. Would any of the people moaning turn down a big bonus? Would you *.

I don't hear anyone moaning about how much our players earn compared to a nurse or whatever other cliche comparison is always made.

If you take away bonuses, the best people will just go elsewhere, or base salaries will go up.

 

This.

 

As its the publics money they are gambling/speculating with I think we have every right to say.

 

It isnt the publics money though. And even if it was I still think it would be ludicrous to have a say.

 

How's it not? Who are the people who put their money in these places (with no choice but to do so)? Ludicrous? Sorry Maggie but you're gonna have to explain why people wanting a say in what happens with their money is ludicrous.

 

Well if we are talking about the bank rescue package in 2008, the only major banks who took up the option of full participation was Lloyds and RBS. Of those the government effectively purchased 60% of shares in RBS and 40% in Lloyds. So when you are talking about "all our money" in the banking sector, what you really mean is a substantial holding of shares in 2 banking companies, and a majority share holder in just 1.

If we are talking about shareholder power we would probably agree. But then we are talking about 2 companies. We are not talking about capping the wages in a private industry or restricting the earning potential of everyone in an industry because a decade ago some people were misbehaving.

And even in the context of RBS and Lloyds people should still not be given a say as simply have no idea of the value of employment in a sector they dont belong in. You probably have no idea what I am worth to my employer just as I wouldnt you what you are worth (assuming we have different professions). Therefore it is daft that at your end of year review, I should demand any input into whether your company gives you more money or not.

Finally, regarding the "its our money" argument - it simply isnt. Because when the government takes your money off you in the form of taxation it no longer becomes your money. Otherwise I would spend my days pulling cigarettes out of the mouths of every welfare claimant and demanding that they reinburse me

 

I'm talking about it being our money cos thats where we are effectively forced to put it. Nothing at all to do with shares or taxes. Go to your employer and ask him to pay you in cash. Then try and pay your bills. You simply cannot do it these days, at least without incurring huge additional fee's. I wasn't on about shareholders (though thats what we all should be in a nationalised system) but the fact that you have no choice but to put your money into a private system.

 

Of course it is to do with taxes as that is how the program was funded. We do not have a say in how our taxes are spent after we hand them over regardless of the area the money is going into. We cannot drive up to a defence base and ask to see the bomb we paid for, or ask people who live off welware to give us some money back when they can afford to. Because it is no longer our money. And even if it was, your issue is with 2 banks, not an entire industry.

Likewise it has everything to do with shares. Because that is how these two banks were "bailed out". They werent just given a hand out - the government bought and still own a huge amount of shares. If the shares go up we win, if they go down then we lose. If RBS shares get to the 50p mark (or equivalent as i think they have since been repriced) then the government will start selling them back into the market and "we" get our money back. The only way to do this is by paying the best people.

 

Fantastic post.

People seem to be under the impression that these guys just get handed their wages every month, and then get an astronomical bonus at the end of the year no matter what, which is total nonsense. They will have their salary, and an uncapped potential for bonus, which will be dependant on performance.

 

I can guarantee you I was not on about that bail out specifically. I am talking about why the public have no choice but to give their money, even on a short term basis, to private companies. As I said, you dont have a choice these days but to put your earnings into one of them, or face heavy "conditions" if you dont. Even then you would be excluded from being able to pay for many things as a lot of places will not accept cash transactions.

I'm not sure how I can make that much clearer. You dont have a choice but to give a private company your money. Which they in turn can do pretty much what they like with it. Hence why I think that banks should be state owned. That way more people will benefit from it, including the top cats.

 

Banning bonuses is not the answer, and I'm in agreement with those that say the top talent will just go elsewhere if we do.

What I think is needed is more accountability and transparency on the part of boards who continually award bonuses regardless of performance.

If someone is improving the customer experience and adding value for the shareholder then I don't see a problem paying a competitive bonus.

But if the board implements a reward system that pays out no matter what, as a customer I want to be able to see this and make an informed choice about where to take my business. And as a shareholder, I want to know who on the board is accountable.

I think most annual accounts show remuneration at director level anyway, so I don't see it as a big problem.