Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The tax is a really foolish idea, and was brought in against the wishes of the treasury, as a political gesture. It will not raise any additional money. It applies to a bonus over ?25k. So for those "due" a bonus over ?25k, you simply pay ?25k as a bonus and pay the rest as a salary rise, making clear in your offer letter that you reserve the right to reduce the salary next year depending on tax legislation at the time. Job done. Yes the salary increase is taxed, but only at levels that the bonus would have been taxed at last year. So no difference there to the Treasury at all.


Or am I missing something?


If you want to get taxpayers money back, you put a levy on the banks each year as they have in the US, and make that levy a percentage of the banks profits, before any money is made available for bonus pools, or indeed anything else. That way it can't be wriggled out of. The ONLY problem with this approach is that it doesn't have the headline grabbing "we've put huge taxes on greedy bankers" benefit.


Don't be fooled. This is a really silly waste of time and effort, and it won't get you any of your money back.


And no I'm not a banker. Nor have I ever been. And nor is or has Mr Beagle. And I am a tax payer. A very cross one!

I'm not sure how the Goldman actions help the taxpayer though. If they don't have a big bonus pool, they won't have to pay the huge tax bill, so the taxpayer gets no money back. Goldman just keeps the profits (which are significant this year) and spends it on something else! How does this get me my money back?!

Who said it was LadyM - but in overall terms it's just a small drop, people will go, companies will go and it sends out a message that London isn't a place for wealth generators....in the long run that will effect us all.


Sean - your place not stuffed full of people who weren't born here? Owe nothing to this country in terms of health and education? I'd be surprised if they were all raised here....."Haey we're imposing an additional new tax on your bonus from the British Govt...hey, I've always liked the look of Geneva" - who are targeteing our Investment Banking companies overtly. Plenty of people who earn huge bonuses can demontrate massive individual profits on their individual trading records they are not all culpable by any means so ypour low earners thing I just don't get. Seriously, Let's impose a 50% additional tax on anyone whose made a profit on their escalated house price greed and speculation in the housing market is just as much to blame.


Sean, though you work for one you're not a banker are you mate? And most don't share your well meaning altruism. You should know that many bankers are greedy, resent tax, have very little altruism and will potentially go abroad as will theire companies and people looking to enter investment banking or international finance will think London is anti it as a result. We, all of us, have benefited from this sector for years, without it there will be a huge gap in revenues, a massive CA defeceit, a collapse in housing market, increased unemployment, especially in London. This is at risk for a purely political tax to get the herd to go 'yah boo bankers' and it works....as this thread tends to demonstrate, London will be absolutely buggered if it loses its position as a major international finance centre and this takes that risk.


Crap tax, wrong message, risks harming our economy and all of us. Don't have to be keen on bankers to see that.




P

???? Wrote:

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

> Who said it was LadyM...


merely thinking aloud Quids...



companies will

> go and it sends out a message that London isn't a

> place for wealth generators....in the long run

> that will effect us all.



As far as I understand the situation this tax is to remain effective for one year only. Have I completely misunderstood the situation? Given this (assuming I have understood correctly) I find it hard to believe that this is going to lead to a mass exodus abroad by the banks. Indeed, I cannot help but feel that the CEOs of the affected banks are scaremongering in this regard.

I don't agree with the tax, but I don't think all this fuss about bonuses serves just political motives. There is an underlying feeling of resentment that the banks continue to dole out big bonuses to staff who are already paid well to do a job. Its a cultural thing, a bit like the expectation to give a tip at a restaurant even thought the food and service was ordinary. The idea that we'll find the City deserted because the staff aren't paid big bonuses is ridiculous - its just scaremongering by the banks as LM points out. There'll always be someone willing to step in.

I think you need to look at the evidence, ????, before running off those slightly tired arguments.


Will bankers all flee? What might the signs be, besides some whingeing supported by a Mayor who funded his election campaign with their money? Well office rents in those areas of London have been rising sharply due to demand, the Telegraph reported an anticipated growth of 100,000 jobs in the sector over the next ten years, and the Mayor is still planning for major growth in the sector. So clearly not an exodus, although of course there will be a number of footloose people who leave, just as many more come. Are we really this down on London as a place to live and do business?


Are we unfairly attacking them? Well first, much tougher regulation and taxes are coming in the USA, and most of the rest of Europe is already better regulated than the UK. Second, the public bailout of banks will probably lose taxpayers more money than their entire tax contributions for the likely duration of the recession. The bankers should thank us for keeping them in business.


Is it the best thing to do? Clearly not as a lone, one-off measure. A government more concerned with developing a more fair and resilient economy would bring forward reforms to stabilise the system, break up the riskier banks, and work both internationally and with UK regulations to shift more of our money towards useful outcomes like investment in housing, SMES, etc. rather than in financial innovations that former Fed chairman Paul Volcker suggested probably don't add anything to the economy anyway. In the long term I'd prefer to lose a little tax revenue from that sector and see more affordable housing, rather than the cost of buying a home jumping twice as fast as incomes again.


Hmph!

Global finance is highly competitive and er global...it's about, er, horrible word but 'brand' London in that highly competitive market for the employees and big financial institutions and high value smaller businesses like Hedge funds. One year WILL push and has pushed some of the high value traders and funds away and they won't come back once they've moved. Either we have a share of this 'obscenity' or we don't but without it we'll be significantly poorer - country, government individuals.Fine if that's what we want...

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> 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



There are lots of people in the city earning less than ?50k - half our accounts department for starters and every secretary. That accounts for about half our staff.

I'd suggest that is representative of many city organisations. For every one earning millions, there are many supporting the organisation and earning below average London salaries.

???? Wrote:

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

> Global finance is highly competitive and er

> global...it's about, er, horrible word but 'brand'

> London in that highly competitive market for the

> employees and big financial institutions and high

> value smaller businesses like Hedge funds. One

> year WILL push and has pushed some of the high

> value traders and funds away and they won't come

> back once they've moved. Either we have a share of

> this 'obscenity' or we don't but without it we'll

> be significantly poorer - country, government

> individuals.Fine if that's what we want...



With a name like ???? I'm wondering if you are a banker? ;-)

???? Wrote:

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

> 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.....


again :))

???? Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.....

>

> again :))




*bursts out laughing*


Cheeky!!

tomchance Wrote:


> Are we unfairly attacking them?


Well of course many within the banking sector will feel aggrieved and will attempt to give us one sob story or another about how by unfairly banks and bankers in the UK are being hit by this tax. They will also attempt to scaremonger...as e.g. has HSBC boss Michael Geoghegan who claims, amongst other things, that the tax will damage the City of London.


But at the end of the day, had they not being so grossly negligent (or at the very least reckless) with regard to their lending and investment policies, we wouldn't be in this economic quagmire.


>The bankers

> should thank us for keeping them in business.


Indeed they should. Furthermore, it is quite proper that they should be penalised for the economic and financial destruction caused as a direct result of that negligence/recklessness. Unfortunately - as expressed by tomchance, I also believe this tax (albeit headline grabbing) can only sensibly be viewed as part of the solution to restoring our coffers to financial health. Moreover, I do not consider that it is sufficiently punitive, purely because many a competent accountant/lawyer will be able to find a legal way to either avoid it completely or to mitigate its impact. The penalty should hit where it hurts. If anything, I don't believe it will hurt hard enough.

???? Wrote:

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

> I suspect we'll make a profit on the 'bail out' of RBS and Lloyds/Halifax in time.


It's certainly a possibility. But RBS will need to find a way to compensate their staff in line with the market, without causing mass hysteria...

Maybe they should adopt a Wenger like, train em young and don't pay over the odds policy?


This idea that people who work in banks are irreplaceable is palpable nonsense. This idea that the talent was too great to lose demonstrably so


Why is all this stick-shaking, passive-aggressive bluff not being called.? Trust me, no-one wants to go and live in Geneva. Not even Genoese. Governments aroudn the world are looking at banks more carefully and the environment for laissez-faire, hands-off treatment of financial institutions is going away.


And it's nothing to do with thinking banks are "evil". I do wish quids would stop with that line of argument... The media and the public are enjoying a bit of Schadenfreude is all . Are these well paid people really not big enough to suck it up?

Well the Genoese probably don't as they're from Genoa Sean..


People are going to Geneva and it actually a very nice city - clean, pretty crime free a bit dull maybe but pretty near some great cities of europe and the alps of course. High flying traders, although not neccessarily nice or even worthy, are not easily replaceable, their skills maybe particularly 'unuseful'altruitically but they are sharp, intelligent and brave and live daily by their results (none of this makes them nice or worthy by the way)...makes me laugh that people think it's sooo easy. You, I most of us couldn't do it...sorry folks. But the point is as I've said this tax won't raise much, risks London's status and our economic health but the gallery love it...your normally pretty scornful of Daily Mail rabblerousing but seem well behind it on this one Sean. And yes they are the evil bankers, just look at some of the posts on here, generalisations etc - let alone the front pages of the Mail.


Structural reform - legislation - removal of the absolute freedoms the banks have operated in (given by the Democrats and Labour incidentally) all should be looked at..but a playing to the gallery tax to try and save Gordon's skin that risks the economy of our country...no thanks. It's like a punch & Judy show. BOO HISS Bankers. Unthought out crap swallowed by people who have thir own culpability in this mess and certainly by and large benefited from the cheap, easily available boom money, tax receipts, rising asset prices and probably false sense of affluence it all created.

I'm blaming the Genoese thing on my iphone


Yes geneva is lovely, I've been there many times for work and whilst it isn't crime free at all (someone tried to mug me once, something that has yet to happen in SE22) if I was told I had to relocate I wouldn't cry or anything. But it's dullness is well known and there will be no stampede


As for traders? well, their merits/otherwise have been discussed here many times. it does take a certain type of person for sure. But I'm not cut out for drug dealing either. You make a good point about their attributes but? they have weaknesses too. And it's not just them alone who lives or dies on their daily performances.


I agree with you too that the tax is, in itself, useless and plays to the gallery. But I disagree that it risks much. I know you are worried about it and I won't dissuade you of that but that's mere disagreeing. there are bigger risks in this world to worry about


the difference between Mail-type rabble rousing and this is.. well? the Mail picks on weak and easy targets who have little or no comeback. The banking situation however, whilst misrepresented across all media, is something that was borne out of the very system and ill-regulated environment that the banks fought HARD to achieve. So blowback is inevitable


And booing from the sidelines at the people who got us into this mess seems entirely appropriate. It won't achieve anything, and some will worry it carries risk but compared to politicians who get booed at every opportunity and never get to use the "but we need to attract talent" argument it's small beer

???? Wrote:

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


> People are going to Geneva and it actually a very

> nice city - clean, pretty crime free a bit dull

> maybe


You forgot to mention the (in)famous assisted suicide clinic...


*huge grin*



Edited to say: oops, just realised it's in Zurich....sorry...that'll teach me to be facetious


*crawls back to hobbit hole*

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...