![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You don't have a point.
Other than the recurrent 'WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA i hate the fact people in big business make lots of money and lots of profits and I don't' undertone, that is.
bankers bonuses
- Thread starter cm1179
- Start date
You don't have a point.
Other than the recurrent 'WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA i hate the fact people in big business make lots of money and lots of profits and I don't' undertone, that is.
But the global recession caused by the banks did.
You actually think the deficit was entirely caused by the banks?
Besides, the banks didn't solely cause a recession. There were lots of influences. $148 oil had a big hand in it as well!
But that wasn't the cause of the deficit and the resulting cuts.
AS said many many many times, people who make the bank a profit, get bonuses, if they didn't they wouldn't take jobs there, nor would any good bankers, meaning those they did employ would likely be worse, make worse decisions and make less money, or larger losses.
Remember not all banks and not all bankers made a loss in the economic crisis(ruddy hell, its hard not to type Crysis these days). Remember a bank could loss 40billion while the investment arm of the bank make a 10 billion profit, if you deny the billion in bonuses and all the good bankers leave, the next year the bank could make a 60billion loss with the investment arm making a 10billion loss but no one pays out 1billion in bonuses.
Is it worth saving 1 billion in bonuses, to loss 10 billion in profits? No, its not, its cutting off your nose to spite your face.
ITs "labour" thinking, they lie to everyone telling you how evil the big greedy rich people are, while throwing away business, profit, money, taxes and jobs.
Its the same way Labour over tax the rich, take say a footballer as an example. He can get 100k a week here, and used to pay 40k in taxes, and say he could work in Spain and pay 40k a week in taxes also. You raise the tax to 50% and in theory you're increasing tax income by 10k a week, great, but because that footballer is now making less money, he's MORE likely to move to Spain, which means rather than gaining 10k in tax a week, we actually lose his 40k a week when he goes to Spain, and Spain by not being greedy, gain 40k a week in taxes by charging LESS tax and encouraging the footballer to move there.
Lower taxes ENCOURAGE more jobs, and business and profit which INCREASES tax income, its the same anywhere you look, denying bonuses, and increasing taxes has for decades now decreased jobs, sent businesses packing to other cheaper countries, and decreased tax income.
Bankers deserve their bonuses, not least because the banks employed this people with bonuses in their contracts.
Now should banks be more careful with bonuses, should the contracts be more specific about what triggers the bonuses, should people not get them if they suck balls and lose a lot of money, yes. Should bonuses be removed, no, you'd just be losing billions in the long run for a VERY VERY short term very very small gain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,566
well you haven't given me your view on personal responsibility
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,566
The wealthy pay most of the taxes, so it should be no surprised that they get a larger percentage of the tax cut total back! It is only fair.
——
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
——
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
No it didnt,
before it started we had no debt? Wrong
Also our banks brought down the global system? Again no
are bonuses part of the problem or solution? Again no
so what's your issues? pretty much leaves us thinking you are doing it due to envy of uneducated.
Why not blame labour for removing a lot of regulation and ask for more regulations to be added, by focusing on bonuses?
Last edited:
I think I did. People who took out mortgages that they couldn't pay back have lost their homes. That is taking responsibility is it not? What would you like to see happen to them? Debtors' Prison?
People who invested in banks that couldn't pay back their loans have seen the value of their shareholding diminish. That too is taking responsibility. The only people who haven't taken personal responsibility are the banking executives who continue to pay themselves big bonuses despite the damage they've done.
Lloyds have returned to profit, the staff responsible for that turnaround will be rewarded
it means the bank will also be in a better position to pay back their government loan
country gets their money back, staff working hard get rewarded..whats the problem?
barclays didnt need a bailout..why should they suffer?
it means the bank will also be in a better position to pay back their government loan
country gets their money back, staff working hard get rewarded..whats the problem?
barclays didnt need a bailout..why should they suffer?
If only I could understand that.
I do blame Labour for removing the regulations that might have prevented this situation. Tell me what new regulations have been put back in place since?
How many jobs were lost at Lehmans? Bonus paid to UK bankers is taxed at 50%. Do they also pay income tax on the remainder of the bonus?
Many bank employees will have lost out too with a falling share price.
The amount of capital in hand that banks are required to hold has been raised.
my missus was an employee of the halifax..luckily we didnt keep hold of that many shares and flogged the majority when they were worth upwards of 9 quid a share!
the couple of hundred that got transferred to lloyds might buy me a curry at the moment, but they flip side is they are offering the current share save crop and such an incredibly low value its really hard to say no!
Because the world would work really well without the global/national banking system
So you would have preferred it if we had just let the banks fail?
its been done now though hasnt it, that decision cannot be reversed, so why not let them get on with their business, pay back the money and the country moves on
people never look forward and prefer to point the finger
the sooner they get back on their feet the sooner they can pay off their debt, surrely thats whats best for the country as a whole?
That is by far the absolute best example I have ever seen, if they taught things that way in schools the would be a lot less idiots complaining about things they don't understand that don't even effect them at protest marches
No, like Cameron said to Brown at the time, Labour should have used taxpayers money to nationalise the banks that were going to fail, not bail them out.