Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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*

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.

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.

> 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.

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 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.

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

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!

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

> 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.

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

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.....

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.

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.

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?

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...