Poll: Darling announces one-off shock tax to 'break bonus culture'

[scorza]

I completely agree, but I think you have to be pragmatic here - the people who are good will simply move (or ask to be moved) to a financial centre that rewards good performance "appropriately" (from their perspective). The likes of New York, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Frankfurt, Dubai would all love some of the firms and talent that we have working in London.

The punitive levels of taxation being talked about could set Britain's economic development back to the 70s.

I sort of agree, but imo it's not a good idea to incentivise staff to take high risks in order to meet short-term targets. It's almost inevitable that this strategy will result in total failure of the organisation. The bonus culture has to end - I don't have a problem with valuable people being given higher salaries to make up for lower bonuses, as long as they can justify that salary.

Sure people may leave the UK for the US, Switzerland or the Far East, all I'll say is I think it'd be a good idea to make sure our exposure to banks that continue to operate risky bonus-based strategies is limited. I'd also like to see an EU citizen tax introduced whereby citizens of EU countries who live and work outside the EU have to pay some sort of income tax to pay for the protection they enjoy thanks to the EU - like they have for US citizens. I'm perfectly content with the idea that London should not be the world's financial capital any more. Sure it will hurt the UK economy in the short term, but in the long term we will recover and who knows, perhaps the UK's brightest graduates might want to go into honest industries like engineering in future, and when it all goes ****up again we won't be the worst affected

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Well, i can see your standpoint. However "just following orders" is not good enough. I think the whole lot of "them" shouldnt get a bonus. And by them i mean the traders and the executives.

You haven't provided any reason as to why you think that they shouldn't get a bonus.

If the Iraq war was found to be completely illegal, would you be happy to see every single serviceman who killed someone trailed for murder, or just the Government?

Can you agree with 1 trader getting a massive bonus and 100 base rate bank staff getting made redundant?

Uhh, two completely different things and areas? The two aren't even related, even in the same company (such as Barclays Capital as opposed to Barclays bank, or RBS Investments as opposed to RBS and RBS Retail). Or are you referring to the massive Lloyd's job cuts? In which case, what do you expect from a bank which swallowed another? For them to run two branches next door to one another?

 

[Stretch]

That doesn't make any sense. The decision on whether or not expand books and trade in derivatives is an executive decision, not a trader's decision.

And, even if they were "told to make as much money as possible", they did their job and deserve their reward.

The day my company goes bust I wont be getting a "reward", I'll be getting the sack.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The day my company goes bust I wont be getting a "reward", I'll be getting the sack.

What company has gone bust but is still paying out bonuses? Think carefully about what 'bust' means. Lehmans went bust, the workers didn't even get their wages.

Fact is if you, the tax payer, wants your money back (and a profit), the banks you bailed out need the best people - and this involves paying big bonuses.

It might make you jealous because you don't have the job, but lets not cut our noses off to spite our faces, eh?

Or would you prefer for them to lose their best people, for the tax payer to be repaid over a much longer term (or not at all?), just so some already very rich traders miss out on a few more £mil to add to their kitty (on which they could retire on from the age of 30)?

 

[meghatronic]

Well, i can see your standpoint. However "just following orders" is not good enough. I think the whole lot of "them" shouldnt get a bonus. And by them i mean the traders and the executives.

Can you agree with 1 trader getting a massive bonus and 100 base rate bank staff getting made redundant?

I sure as hell cant!

You can not use the bloody Nuremberg defence here! Jeez....

That 1 trader may have bought £100mil in profits into the company.....

 

[pieplough]

You haven't provided any reason as to why you think that they shouldn't get a bonus.

My reason is fairly simple. And one you will probably dismiss out of hand. Morality. I find it immoral that people are out of work because of financial institutions taking undue risks with other peoples money and putting everyone up **** creek.

If the Iraq war was found to be completely illegal, would you be happy to see every single serviceman who killed someone trailed for murder, or just the Government?

The person who made the decision. But this depends on your standpoint, i dont see the traders as the "soldiers" of your scenario.

Uhh, two completely different things and areas? The two aren't even related, even in the same company (such as Barclays Capital as opposed to Barclays bank, or RBS Investments as opposed to RBS and RBS Retail). Or are you referring to the massive Lloyd's job cuts? In which case, what do you expect from a bank which swallowed another? For them to run two branches next door to one another?

Just because the money for wages and bonuses come out of different budgets dosent make it ok. As stated above i find it immoral.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Ok, I guess when you through 'morality' into the argument, rationality goes out the window?

 

[dante6491]

Just because the money for wages and bonuses come out of different budgets dosent make it ok. As stated above i find it immoral.

No that is business. Why employ three people when two people can do the same job. There is no need to employ more than you have to, that is business, a way to maximise profits. (thus increasing the speed at which we the taxpayer get a return on investment)

 

[Glaucus]

RBS buy dutch debt that becomes UK debt, they blamed their loss of turnover on buying the Dutch company.

Which has nothing to do with people having 100% mortgages, or credit cards ect like people are implying.

 

[dangerstat]

I think this is good, not for the reasons of tax collection - but mainly because the sentiment is right. I think the whole country feels cheated by the banking (and specifically the investment banking) community. They took the risk, and it's back fired and ultimately they have to pay for that. The clear problem is punishing banks doesn't work - no one is going to put in 110% if they going to get **** all back in bonuses.

I'm still shocked by the attitude of senior bankers, and I think they still have a "yeah you bailed us out but who cares" attitude.

 

[Glaucus]

mainly because the sentiment is right.

how is the sentiment right? punishing people who a) did not cause the problem and B) are making more money and digging the banks out the mess

I think the whole country feels cheated by the banking
.

people haven't got the first idea how such things work and are idiots brain fed by a media outrage who oversimplify it and create headlines to sale papers not to inform.

 

[dangerstat]

how is the sentiment right? punishing people who a) did not cause the problem and B) are making more money and digging the banks out the mess



people haven't got the first idea how such things work and are idiots brain fed by a media outrage who oversimplify it and create headlines to sale papers not to inform.

AH2, you clearly just don't have the same view of the underlying cause of this recession as I do. I lay the blame firmly at the door of investment banks, you clearly dont.

 

[big_white_dog84]

If the taxpayer hadn't bailed out the banks these people wouldn't have any job at all. As a one off they should just grin and bear it. I've got no worry at all about them threatening to leave the UK. Good riddance - what do they actually contribute to the economy anyway?

.....I am of course only referring to those bankers whose banks were bailed out. Barclays etc can continue to do what they want imo.

 

[Glaucus]

AH2, you clearly just don't have the same view of the underlying cause of this recession as I do. I lay the blame firmly at the door of investment banks, you clearly dont.

I don't like blaming everyone, despite many of them not doing anything wrong and not loosing money. Those that got us in this situation have already reigned or been pushed out the door.

If the taxpayer hadn't bailed out the banks these people wouldn't have any job at all. As a one off they should just grin and bear it. I've got no worry at all about them threatening to leave the UK. Good riddance - what do they actually contribute to the economy anyway?

.....I am of course only referring to those bankers whose banks were bailed out. Barclays etc can continue to do what they want imo.

And if we didn't bail them out
a) the government would have spent money securing our money. But at a complete waste with no chance of getting it back. This way the government not only gets the money back bu will make a tidy profit.
b) the economy would have gone down the toilet.
c) they do far more for the economy than most other sectors. We are one of the biggest financial houses in the world.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I've got no worry at all about them threatening to leave the UK. Good riddance - what do they actually contribute to the economy anyway?

.....I am of course only referring to those

Foolish:


Fact is if you, the tax payer, wants your money back (and a profit), the banks you bailed out need the best people - and this involves paying big bonuses.

It might make you jealous because you don't have the job, but lets not cut our noses off to spite our faces, eh?

Or would you prefer for them to lose their best people, for the tax payer to be repaid over a much longer term (or not at all?), just so some already very rich traders miss out on a few more £mil to add to their kitty (on which they could retire on from the age of 30)?

 

[Voltar]

Utter idiocy, but then what else do we expect from labour.

It won't raise any significant revenue.
It will damage the UK's status as a financial centre.
It will again show Labour thrive on the politics of jealousy.

Taxation should not be used for cheap points scoring.

First response in the thread and frankly I agree with this 100%

 

[dangerstat]

I don't like blaming everyone, despite many of them not doing anything wrong and not loosing money. Those that got us in this situation have already reigned or been pushed out the door.

I totally disagree, whilst I agree that not all investment banking staff where involved I do people it was the system wide practice of selling re-packaged debt that was the major factor in this recession, and no, not everyone involved in this has been pushed out, far from it.

 

[Glaucus]

I totally disagree, whilst I agree that not all investment banking staff where involved I do people it was the system wide practice of selling re-packaged debt that was the major factor in this recession, and no, not everyone involved in this has been pushed out, far from it.

Most of the people who were involved in the policy making have gone. You can't blame people on the shop floor for policies made above.

if anyone did anything wrong there are far better producers in place, procedures that actually achieve something. Internal disciplinary or criminal. Depending what they did.

 

[RDM]

Sure it will hurt the UK economy in the short term, but in the long term we will recover

How do you know that? What business areas are we suddenly going to find that can fill a 30% gap?

 

[Dolph]

How do you know that? What business areas are we suddenly going to find that can fill a 30% gap?

More public sector jobs with no revenue generation, obviously, because only the public sector can provide anything useful or productive...