50% tax on bank bonuses...

[Ladymuck]

Hilarious or what!!!!?

*falls about laughing*

[brum]

Yes but don't you think it legitimises the practice somewhat. A green light (if ever they needed one) for the bankers to continue dishing out massive bonuses to staff who are well-paid anyway.

[Huguenot]

It's a wee bit smoke and mirrors isn't it?

[Ladymuck]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but don't you think it legitimises the

> practice somewhat. A green light (if ever they

> needed one) for the bankers to continue dishing

> out massive bonuses to staff who are well-paid

> anyway.

Yes you are right, but if the banks themselves are going to take the hit and the Treasury ends up with more in its coffers...then that makes it a little better (for me anyway...but then I'm just a simpleton). As per Mr. Tescos: every little helps. But you are right...these bankers are not deserving of such large sums of extra money.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a wee bit smoke and mirrors isn't it?

Yes a "wee bit"...but I am looking forward to the cascade of whinging/objections from the banking sector...it's already started...poor little poppets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7039105/HSBC-boss-Michael-Geoghegan-attacks-bank-bonus-tax.html

*falls about laughing*

[Jeremy]

The last I heard, we were supposed to be a capitalist country with a market economy. In my opinion companies should be free to judge what to pay their staff (over 50% of it will end up back in the public purse as it is). And actually, the majority of city workers earn a fairly normal salary - most of them are not wealthy.

I can understand the pressure on the likes of RBS, but the government didn't bail out every firm in the city. And not all the banks are guilty of irresponsible practises. But needless to say, the tax has acheived its objective of grabbing the headlines and securing a few votes.

[Marmora Man]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The last I heard, we were supposed to be a

> capitalist country with a market economy. In my

> opinion companies should be free to judge what to

> pay their staff (over 50% of it will end up back

> in the public purse as it is). And actually, the

> majority of city workers earn a fairly normal

> salary - most of them are not wealthy.

>

> I can understand the pressure on the likes of RBS,

> but the government didn't bail out every firm in

> the city. And not all the banks are guilty of

> irresponsible practises. But needless to say, the

> tax has acheived its objective of grabbing the

> headlines and securing a few votes.

But making very little money in terms of the overall deficit. Probably measured in just a few millions - and this government is spending approximately ?2,000,000,000 a day, so ?500m would represent 25% of a day's expenditure and less than 0.05% of the overall tax spend.

[SCSB79]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

But you are right...these bankers are not

> deserving of such large sums of extra money.

Yes they are.

[Brendan]

No they aren't.

[sophiesofa]

> And actually, the

> majority of city workers earn a fairly normal

> salary - most of them are not wealthy.

It depends what you class as "normal".

The bbc says this (dec 08): "Full-time workers in London earn an average of ?46,000, compared to the UK average of ?31,300, the GMB found. The biggest earners were in the City of London with an average pay of ?82,000 per annum."

That's approaching double the rest of london but I suppose it depends on what you class as wealthy and an average figure does not show much really. To me someone on more than around 50k is wealthy but I understand that others may have a much higher figure in mind.

I don't think the big bonuses are fair but I probably wouldn't say that if I worked for the banking sector.

[Ladymuck]

SCSB79 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ladymuck Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> But you are right...these bankers are not

> > deserving of such large sums of extra money.

>

>

> Yes they are.

(Altogether now): OH NO THEY'RE NOT!

Are you in the banking sector SCSB79? *massive grin*

[sophiesofa]

maybe he's dulwichmums husband? ;-)

[Ladymuck]

sophiesofa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maybe he's dulwichmums husband? ;-)

*huge burst of laughter*

[Jeremy]

sophiesofa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's approaching double the rest of london but I

> suppose it depends on what you class as wealthy

> and an average figure does not show much really.

Yep - the average will obviously be skewed by a minority of workers who earn mega salaries.

> To me someone on more than around 50k is wealthy

> but I understand that others may have a much

> higher figure in mind.

Fair enough, but bear in mind how much it costs to buy a home in an averagely priced area of London, e.g. Dulwich. On a salary of 50k a year (a realistic salary for an IT worker or back-office clerk), you'd only be able to buy a one bed flat.

> I don't think the big bonuses are fair but I

> probably wouldn't say that if I worked for the

> banking sector.

Bonuses are just a way for companies to alter the amount they pay people, according to performance. Even if you have left-leaning views and believe that high earners should contribute even more... that's all well and good, but I'm not comfortable with the singling out of a particular industry. Especially when it's politically motivated.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, to be fair it is an industry which is more than happy to take credit during the good times and claim "yeah, we did that. We had to fight the government tooth and nail mind you but thanks to our hard work you can afford a TV on a credit card and we are rolling in it"

When the whole thing went tits up precisely because of that arrogance and inflated sense of self worth it STILL manages to make it sound like they deserve every penny

The number of people reading this forum who would crawl over your dead body to be able to dream of a salary of ?50k is probably far higher than you think - so if people on ?50k are struggling (with or without bonuses) imagine what people on low twenties and less are feeling

I work in the industy in question and I don't feel picked on one little bit. If my boss tells me that I get no bonus and no pay rise I may not like it but given the state of the economy as a whole I'm not going to start saying I deserve it

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I work in the industy in question and I don't

> feel picked on one little bit. If my boss tells me

> that I get no bonus and no pay rise I may not like

> it but given the state of the economy as a whole

> I'm not going to start saying I deserve it

Respect!

[DirtyBox]

The number of people reading this forum who would crawl over your dead body to be able to dream of a salary of ?50k is probably far higher than you think - so if people on ?50k are struggling (with or without bonuses) imagine what people on low twenties and less are feeling

maybe they should go and get a highly paid job in the City then

[sophiesofa]

> Fair enough, but bear in mind how much it costs to

> buy a home in an averagely priced area of London,

> e.g. Dulwich. On a salary of 50k a year (a

> realistic salary for an IT worker or back-office

> clerk), you'd only be able to buy a one bed flat.

Erm I don't agree with that one. If you're not wasteful with your money then you can save for a good deposit for 2 or 3 years and get a 2 bed property. My boyfriend and my combined salaries are only a bit over 50k but we saved hard and last year bought a 2 bed garden flat in the area - it is a 'doer uper' and 7 months later it's still a bit of a state but it's a step on the ladder.

> Bonuses are just a way for companies to alter the

> amount they pay people, according to performance.

> Even if you have left-leaning views and believe

> that high earners should contribute even more...

> that's all well and good, but I'm not comfortable

> with the singling out of a particular industry.

> Especially when it's politically motivated.

I'm not against bonuses but I think they have got out of control in the last decade or so.

[SeanMacGabhann]

is that a serious point dirtybox?

Let's say everyone on less than 25k "got a job" in the city in some strange world where that is possible. Would those city salaries still be ?50k? course not

Besides who is now doing the cleaning, the assisting, the caring and all the other menial rubbish jobs which are needed for society to function

[Ladymuck]

DirtyBox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maybe they should go and get a highly paid job in

> the City then

*scratches head*

[????]

It's the "evil bankers" - and by the way I am not one - who have largely underpinned the massive expansion in public spending in the last 10 years (it's doubled in real terms...er pity that's not been matched in service) as well as much of London's economy. We can talk about the unfairness of it all and wether it is right to have an economy this inbalanced etc etc until the cows come home but in REAL LIFE how are we going to replace those tax receipts? and how do you think all the related jobs supported by the city directly such as legal/management consultancy, avccountncy. commercial property, surveying etc etc or indirectly - retail/restaurants, hey even art (not all bankers are philistines) are going to do if we discourage it? To keep levels of public spending even vaguely near to where they've been, we need a flourishing Financial Service sector including ludicrous hedgefund plonkers earning millions, sadly, the outlook of many people in the city doesn't tend to be to the greater good and their jobs are utterly transferaable internationally - until we rebalance our economy a tax that says bugger off rich people and won't really raise much at a potential risk to the most important tax raiser of the last 15 year or so just for the sake of politics looks stupid...but eh we're suckinh it to those terrible bankers.

Now, if you argue that the current meltdown is all because of this madness and subsequent bubble, and it's a reasonable argument, then we better strip out the effect that it's had on our current situation and that includes personal wealth, our assets and the economy as a whole, governemnt spending - so it all will be reduced by about a third but at least we won't have the terrible city and those ghastly bankers...or chintzy little bistros, or cute knick knack shops, or skiing holidays...well any holidays abroad, but we'll all be morally better.

Scapegoatery and hypocracy.....

[Jeremy]

I'm not claiming that people on 50k are struggling. Not at all. Just pointing out that not everyone who works in the city is loaded (an alarmingly common misconception).

And sure, many key players in the industry were greedy and made huge mistakes. But not everyone. I feel that a more appropriate reaction would be more effective regulation... instead what they've given us is a cynical headline grabbing tactic.

I think we should get off the subject of what people "deserve"... it's not really the point. There are plenty of people who earn more than the average city worker, for doing jobs which are no more worthwhile.

[matthew123]

Banking staff tend to fall into 2 categories, Revenue or Support. Revenue is the core business and are there to make money - many of the top earners in Revenue (e.g. Trading, Sales, Investment Bankers) can go an work at any financial firm and the profits will follow hence they have contracts with agreed percentage of profits, i.e. you make ?6m for the firm and you take 5% bonus or whatever.. bit like an estate agent, mortgage broker etc etc.

In Support (e.g. Back Office, HR, Logistics, IT et al) the bonuses are in many cases going to work out less per hour than if that person had received overtime for the additional hours they do over their contracted 35 hour per week.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Some broad claims there quids. No public service improved dramatically in line with investment? really?

And all the money that was available to fund public services was a result of the banking sector and not the general global economic outlook?

And nor is anyone (much) suggesting bankers are evil. I don't consider myself such

but what exactly is so wrong as to suggest to ANYONE (bankers or not) that you earn more than a good wedge, this country and it's education, infrastucture etc supported you and now that some restraint is in order all you do is bleat about the injustice of it all and bugger off somewhere else.

If someone pays them a bonus of millions than by all means accept it , but if circumstances (and that could even mean a politically motivated bit of jealousy from a government) mean that said bonus gets taxed, maybe it's worth sucking it up for a year or two (you can always flick paperclips at the cleaners in the office at 6am if you need to let off steam) until the economy moves around again. You'll be alright mate.. you'll be fine.

the people in the city earning 30-50k or so are not likely to get the kind of bonus that triggers the extra 50% tax anyway so that issue is moot surely?

[Jeremy]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the people in the city earning 30-50k or so are

> not likely to get the kind of bonus that triggers

> the extra 50% tax anyway so that issue is moot

> surely?

Not really... the overall bonus pool will be affected.