Why is Bob Diamond being grilled over his bonus?

[brainchylde]

Of course - none of us benefitted from the boom years when we borrowed beyond our means... we blame the banks for that too. Utter rubbish. It's all our own fault. Nothing to do with investment bankers who make their employers hefty sums of money and receive large bonuses.

I also find it insulting that a private organisation should be questioned by nosy MPs on something as private as one's renumeration. If they did this to a leader of a pharmecutical firm who specialises in ripping off the legal cartel that is the NHS, or the chief exec of the IT firm who provided services to the public sector... they'd be told where to get off!

How about we have a special tax for all the companies who benefitted from huge levels of uncosted and unaffordable public spending? I can name a few IT firms who did VERY well in the last decade off public sector work.

Lastly - I fail to see why Barclays should be punished because the likes of RBS got themselves up **** street. It isn't Barclays fault that RBS was too big to fail and the Govt decided on a bailout. Leave them alone. Fed up of left wing ideologies and outright jealousy taking over this country. We should be commending the wealthy who contribute huge amounts to the UK economy (seriously - ask how far the tax take on an average wage goes? Not very far at all - the rest of it has to come from somewhere!)

I dunno about everyone else, but I'm quite happy for these bankers to receive large bonuses and spend it. At 20% VAT the country should do quite well out of it

 

[brainchylde]

All this **** about ...... "they will all go abroad if we don't pay 'em huge bonuses" ..... **** em!, let 'em go abroad and give some of the young up and coming people a chance.

Do you have any idea of the tax take from the financial industry? Clearly not. These are highly mobile individuals. They can move within weeks. If that happens, THEN how do we fund the NHS, Schools etc. Whilst I admire your brave stance, it wouldn't work.

 

[Will Gill]

50% tax on the bonuses anyway so the state gets most of it back anyway.....

 

[brainchylde]

50% tax on the bonuses anyway so the state gets most of it back anyway.....

So not only will they probably make a profit on the investment in RBS and overall bailout, but they will get the tax take back too. Sounds like a win win!

However, I'm not sure the tax is 50% on the bonus. Not quite sure how it works but I don't think it's 50% (else there would have been little political desire for the 1 off bonus tax)

 

[dowie]

We don't tell you how to run your life, why do we think we can tell other private entities the same?

Because these particular private entities wouldn't exist if it weren't for state intervention.

In general I'm a bit wary of the whole bash a banker rhetoric - the financial sector is a huge contributor to the economy and a lot of jobs can move abroad relatively easily compared with other industries. In general we don't want to generate conditions that have a -ve impact on this sector IMO a 50% tax rate is stupid and interfering in terms of delaying bonuses etc.. in some instances isn't necessarily fair.

For very senior people IMO caution should be exercised still for the next couple of years - headline bonuses for CEOs are not necessarily justified and are not necessarily a good thing at the moment. As much as the banks are within their rights to still pay what they like politicians are certainly in their rights to question it and to put pressure on banks not to start headlines with stupidly large bonuses being paid to C level staff members.

 

[shine]

Look I'm not seriously advocating this as a way out of the financial crisis - it would be a disaster no question about it. The banking industry bailout had to happen, even Barclays and HSBC who didn't receive direct government aid were in favour of it. When you think about it that's very telling about the state of the market, imagine Boeing and Airbus being happy about the state aid they both receive.

That's just it, there is no pointing in complaining about bonuses. What we should be complaining about is our reliance on the financial industry. Our economy is so unbalanced its not funny, we need to create an environment where we can kick start our manufacturing industry.

 

[Will Gill]

So not only will they probably make a profit on the investment in RBS and overall bailout, but they will get the tax take back too. Sounds like a win win!

However, I'm not sure the tax is 50% on the bonus. Not quite sure how it works but I don't think it's 50% (else there would have been little political desire for the 1 off bonus tax)

Well my bonus was paid at 50% tax, I know they are cunning bankers, these bankers but I don't think they can wangle the almighty tax man!!

unless they are paid in kind like stock, shares etc?

 

[singist]

If only business were that simple.



Welcome to private industry.

We don't tell you how to run your life, why do we think we can tell other private entities the same?

Business could be that simple; just needs someone with the balls to call their bluff.

Welcome to private theft is more the case.

Unfortunately my life is run by following rules set by others so I am told how to run my life to a degree ........ but what I do does not impact society as a whole in the same way as what these arrogant ****s do.

Gambling with money that they don't actually have and then when they lose they don't actually 'lose' is the sort of gambling I'd like to do.


Nowt to do with jealousy (before you start) ... it just a sense of injustice when so many people are struggling on less than the national average wage.

 

[Basher]

50% tax on the bonuses anyway so the state gets most of it back anyway.....

Yep, sickening. For those successful enough to get there, they're punished with 50% tax, higher NI, limitations on pension contributions and £0 personal allowance

 

[[TW]Fox]

Because these particular private entities wouldn't exist if it weren't for state intervention.

Barclays received no investment from our government. You do realise that half the bonus's paid actually end up coming to the government in tax?

Thats right 50%! In tax. So when a private company pays a HUGE bonus, we get half of it. How great is that?

We as a country get more money if they pay a big bonus than if the company itself took it as profit. But I guess most of you don't know that, because most of you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

Unfortunately my life is run by following rules set by others so I am told how to run my life to a degree ........ but what I do does not impact society as a whole in the same way as what these arrogant ****s do.

You sound jealous and bitter, sorry - but you just do. Barclays has taken none of your money if you dont CHOOSE to be a customer with them. They are a private company operating without state aid. Why should they be held to a set of rules designed to make the less well off feel better about themselves? Why are they arrogant? It is a private organisation which exists like any other company - to maximise shareholder value.

it just a sense of injustice when so many people are struggling on less than the national average wage.

I doubt many people with the intellect and ability of somebody on the board of an FTSE100 index company are struggling on less than minimum wage somehow. The fact that some people earn under the minimum wage has nothing whatsoever to do with how much a private company decides to pay its staff.

 

[dowie]

Lastly - I fail to see why Barclays should be punished because the likes of RBS got themselves up **** street. It isn't Barclays fault that RBS was too big to fail and the Govt decided on a bailout.

RBS announced a loss of 28 billion in 2009 - 20 billion of the loss was down to ABN ambro

Barclay's also tried to bid for ABN and lost out to RBS

Barclay's would have been up **** street had it's senior management succeeded in their aims.

And regardless of the ABN bid no big bank would be left standing if it weren't for the state bailouts of the sector.

 

[brainchylde]

Well my bonus was paid at 50% tax, I know they are cunning bankers, these bankers but I don't think they can wangle the almighty tax man!!

unless they are paid in kind like stock, shares etc?

That is one of the ways - then they pay back only capital gains.

Another is they call the bonus something different... so it isn't a 'bonus'.

Another more obvious one - contracting as your own firm, therefore paying corporation tax only.

And a stat for those struggling to understand the importance of high and extremely high earners -

Top 5% of earners = 20% of tax take.
Top 50% of earners = 90% of tax take.

Take out half of the top 5% - lose 10% of your tax take. *THEN* you WILL see cuts - BIG ONES.

These high net worth individuals have a tipping point - sooner or later they will up and leave. It's a fact.

 

[shine]

And regardless of the ABN bid no big bank would be left standing if it weren't for the state bailouts of the sector.

Nor would we. Everyone of us would have lost out if the Government hadn't intervened. For a glimpse of what things could have looked like without the bailout have a read of the Great Depression. The banks may have been bailed out but it benefits all of us.

 

[scorza]

These high net worth individuals have a tipping point - sooner or later they will up and leave. It's a fact.

Then those of us who are left will reap the benefits,

 

[brainchylde]

no big bank would be left standing if it weren't for the state bailouts of the sector.

That's complete and utter rubbish - it would just result in a slimming down and amalgamation in the sector. The strongest would survive.

Lehmans Bros failed - the world didn't collapse.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Then those of us who are left will reap the benefits,

Everyone is equal eh?

Always thought you were a bit communist.

 

[dowie]

Barclays received no investment from our government.

Not directly, though you'd have to be a complete retard to argue that they didn't benefit.

You do realise that half the bonus's paid actually end up coming to the government in tax?

yes

Thats right 50%! In tax. So when a private company pays a HUGE bonus, we get half of it. How great is that?

Its not that great when it incentives people in senior positions to take the sort of risks they have done in the past knowing that they personally have in effect a free call option on the profits (its not their money) and

We as a country get more money if they pay a big bonus than if the company itself took it as profit. But I guess most of you don't know that, because most of you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

We're talking about one CEO - and the same could apply to a handful of the other people in a similar position to him - the money doesn't just disappear if he doesn't take a bigger bonus. A large portion of them a discretionary the same bonus pot still exists, the same amount will be paid out, the same amount will be taxed the pay out structure would just change and we'd be less likely to have tabloid headlines and generate less publicity. IMO C level types should take a hit for another couple of years purely for political reasons.

 

[Pudney]

That is one of the ways - then they pay back only capital gains.

Another is they call the bonus something different... so it isn't a 'bonus'

Unfortunately the government realised these (quite frankly obvious) methods of evading and wrote anti-avoidance into it to stop it.

And as a further piece of info the "bonus" tax isn't a tax on the individual it's a tax on the institution. So if someone is given £100k bonus that's what they get gross, less their applicable tax rate (probably 50%) and then the bank has to pay an additional 50% of the bonus. So effectively the government would get £100k, and the worker would get £50k (assuming total taxable pay for the year was well in the highest rate band).

The worker is no worse off, the institution is a lot worse off.

Edit: at least that's what I believe, I don't have any banking clients and I only got a brief overview in our tax updates!

 

[singist]

Snip

You sound jealous and bitter, sorry - but you just do. Barclays has taken none of your money if you dont CHOOSE to be a customer with them. They are a private company operating without state aid. Why should they be held to a set of rules designed to make the less well off feel better about themselves? Why are they arrogant? It is a private organisation which exists like any other company - to maximise shareholder value.

Jealous ... no; bitter .... too ******* right!

I wasn't talking about Barclays in particular, just bankers in general.

I doubt many people with the intellect and ability of somebody on the board of an FTSE100 index company are struggling on less than minimum wage somehow. The fact that some people earn under the minimum wage has nothing whatsoever to do with how much a private company decides to pay its staff.

I think I mentioned the word injustice with regard to people struggling on less that the national AVERAGE wage. You really do have a high regard for these people don't you? .... mmm

 

[brainchylde]

Then those of us who are left will reap the benefits,

I love reading this wooly bull*h*t on a Tuesday night. Makes me chuckle.

Personally I want to *eventually* see a nice flat tax rate of 20% across the board with a higher threshold below which you pay no tax (Somewhere around ~15k) and less central funding.

Reason? I think a person is better placed to spend their money than any government, govt department or quango will ever be.

Nothing fairer than everyone paying an equal share of their wage.

In addition I would like to see regions able to set their own rate of corporation tax (or a top-up on a central corporation tax) in order that poorer/old industrial areas can attract employers and jobs to their areas and we get less of a london-centric economy.