Oh the irony.. It's painful to behold.
Go on then explain how it's ironic.
Poll: Darling announces one-off shock tax to 'break bonus culture'
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
Go on then explain how it's ironic.
On the one hand i think that Labour are doing this just to make the common, poorly paid man feel better about themselves. Many people seem to hugely dislike people who earn high amounts of money - it's just jealously, plain and simple. It's the whole "i don't have it, so why should they" culture that Labour has encouraged for years.
Same with things like university fee's/EMA crap - the "poorer" kids get given FREE money, just because they don't have as much as other higher earners. But why? To make things fair? Life isn't fair.
On the other hand, i don't think bankers should be getting huge bonuses because they've been greedy and should be "punished" for this.
Same with things like university fee's/EMA crap - the "poorer" kids get given FREE money, just because they don't have as much as other higher earners. But why? To make things fair? Life isn't fair.
On the other hand, i don't think bankers should be getting huge bonuses because they've been greedy and should be "punished" for this.
Last edited:
This won't help, it's just Labour attacking the upper classes once more.
I don't agree with the bankers getting huge bonuses but at the end of the day, it's not something we're ever going to stop happening. What we should have done is let them sink when they did get in trouble.
I don't agree with the bankers getting huge bonuses but at the end of the day, it's not something we're ever going to stop happening. What we should have done is let them sink when they did get in trouble.
The subject of the continuous and unsustainable growth in housing costs, leading to people taking out huge mortgages, is tied in with the whole subject in a variety of ways.
If you're a young couple trying to get on the housing ladder, are you particularly irresponsible for borrowing a lot of money to buy a starter home? Or should they live apart with their parents? They certainly didn't ask for homes to be priced so stupidly highly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
They would lose their voting base if they did that.
Well, judging by your posting history, can I reasonably assume that you won't be voting for Labour at the next general election? I just find it remarkable how many people genuinely believe that we would be better off under a Cameron led Conservative administration. It's ironic because you think I've 'fallen' for this populist ploy, which maybe the case, yet, I won't be voting in the next election based on the myth that there's actually going to be any real change should Cameron win.
No we shouldn't, otherwise we would have had hundreds of thousands of people who would have had their savings wiped out instantly. No money means no food, no transport to get to work, no electricity, no gas, no phone, no heating. In otherwords, half the country would have melted down.
If you can't afford to pay it back...yes! Also, from what i understand, there were a lot of people using their mortgages as cheap loans which contributed to the problem.
The banks will just offset bonuses so that they fall outside of the tax threshold
Pointless, utterly pointless
Mmm... i think the government are forgetting that dealing with money is their jobs. I'm sure they know a trick or two to minimise this. But of course, it's not being done to penalise the bankers, it's being done to look like they're penalising those evil bankers who cost me my rubbish job, my stupidly expensive house, my brand new Hyundai i10 and my home cinema setup that i bought on credit.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
In terms of achievement, I think that there needs to be a change in culture. How can it be right that the banks get pumped full of investment, curtsey of the tax payer and then they see the money going out on £11.4bn of bonues, in the case of Goldman Sachs?
I have no envy, nor desire to own copious amounts of money.
Goldman Sachs made a buttload of money, they needed NO bailout or investment, they didn't want to take it, they were FORCED to take it because if they didn't it makes other investment banks look worse.
IE if 14 out of 15 banks need a bailout, and one goes "meh, don't need it, we know how to run ourselves" then people run around worried about having their money invested with the wrong people, everyone ditches other banks, goes with Goldman sachs and you have a massive problem with banks surviving.
Goldman Sach's also tried to repay the loan VERY EARLY and were refused, on the same basis of it looking very bad for other banks that weren't able to do so.
Essentially we gave them money, which sat in an account till they were allowed to pay it back, nothing more or less. Of all the people to mention who got bailout money, they aren't them. THe one responsible group of people who were really never in any danger and fairly responsibly took the bailout money to reduce chances of people panicking.
Bonus's were in their contracts, the tax laws were known, you can't change the tax laws willy nilly whenever you're aware someones about to get a big payment as other than being an unbelievably stupid prescendent to set, its completely useless, will not help the country in any way and as others have said, is ONLY to make people earning less feel better about Labour and how they are now willing to screw the rich to save the poor.
It will generate next to no cash, it will force investment banks to move away from the UK as the best people in the business move to other countries so not to be shafted, quite rightly.
A government can't continue to do two things and survive, scare off the rich so the highest tax producers all go, we've already been doing that for 20 years. Likewise you can't continue to let industry die and simply create useless jobs in the public sector to stop them being another unemployment stat. Both things added together will eventually cause the complete collapse of our economy, and till that point massive massive tax increases till it happens.
But as for the prescendent , what if everytime someone wins more than 20mil on the euro lottery he just fiddles the tax laws for 20 minutes when the payment is made, so they can nick half of it. You can't change laws when ever you want to screw specific people. This isn't a law intended long term to help everyone, its punitive against a very small group of specific people he doesn't like, its morally reprehensible that someone is allowed to change UK law to screw over specific people at all, let alone people Darling himself has a specific dislike for.
Labour's utter disdain for the class of people that keep this country afloat is astouding, shortsighted and entirely stupid. If this country votes them in again, well, I don't know we'll all be doomed. I'm not happy with the conservatives, but at least I don't KNOW they will make it worse, I already KNOW labour are and will continue to make this country worse.
shame it does understand its own message"start living in the real world".
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
This is my worry, if the financial centre shifts from the UK we are in trouble, labour have spent the past 10 years getting shot of any manufacturing we have...........
They did get a bail out in more ways than one.
Not better under any party.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,870
- Location
- Essex
Now don't this man speaketh the truth .
However one small point to add to this , who do you think started of the
MP'S Expense scandal , sometine people are as bad as each other or six year old in this case.
I will spell it out for the hard of hearing( or should I say Labour Voters ) ,PEOPLE WHO EARN MORE PAY MORE BY DEFAULT ANYHOW .
I could not agree more.
How so? I'm not saying you're wrong, just duly curious. I thought it was Thatcher that put the nail in the coffin for British industry when she privatised and imported much of the industry.