Pay bankers properly or lose their skills, says MP (From Bucks Free Press)

Yes, if they deliver!

Anyone who works hard should be well paid, naturally; many, of course, are not. Banking has always paid well ( at least for those at the top) - and, sure, a built-in bonus does no harm in incentivising. But vast payouts considered axiomatic to such people whether or not they have been provably successful are truly obscene at any time, and in particular in the present economic climate. The banks should now be held to at least begin paying back some of the huge bail - out they were given recently, and many people find it disgusting that this is not being addressed with far more alacrity.

if they perform- fine - but banks tended to pay out even when they made losses!

if a bank is 81% government owned, then the government needs to kick up a stink!

I do wonder - what exactly are these fabulous and socially essential "skills" such people allegedly have, which make them worth thousands of times more than, say, nurses? We should be challenging this whole myth; the notion that unless we pay fortunes to certain (already very well off) people, they`ll have a tantrum, leave the country and thus drop us all in it - to be honest, if they do then leave, the temptation to say "good riddance" is just too overwhelming...

If they published the criterea for receiving the bonus beforehand then it might cause less fuss. I worked in a company which set targets (eg if we sell this many units and our profits are this much) and if achieved we would get the specified bonus. If we fell short we didn't get anything. But it was clear at the outset what we needed to achieve.
So I have no problem with a bonus paid on achieving profit, share price, sales, even remaining in post, but it should be clear and also it should filter down throughout the company - after all it's the people at the bottom that allow those nearer the top to do their work.

If the base salary was not already outrageous then one would accept a sizeable bonus proportionate to how well the institution fairs. Unfortunately they have it both ways and that greats against those front line workers. If an institution has a big differential between salaries then the bonus should be a fixed percentage across all employees. Let’s face it everyone must have contributed if the institution did well!

Mutley wrote:
If they published the criterea for receiving the bonus beforehand then it might cause less fuss. I worked in a company which set targets (eg if we sell this many units and our profits are this much) and if achieved we would get the specified bonus. If we fell short we didn't get anything. But it was clear at the outset what we needed to achieve. So I have no problem with a bonus paid on achieving profit, share price, sales, even remaining in post, but it should be clear and also it should filter down throughout the company - after all it's the people at the bottom that allow those nearer the top to do their work.

Yes; your last couple of lines need to be read (and fully understood) by such people as Mr.Grieve.

where are these bankers going to go if there are better jobs out there why haven't they gone to these jobs just who is going to employ a failure is there really a job waiting for all these so called bankers

dtap wrote:

Mutley wrote:
If they published the criterea for receiving the bonus beforehand then it might cause less fuss. I worked in a company which set targets (eg if we sell this many units and our profits are this much) and if achieved we would get the specified bonus. If we fell short we didn't get anything. But it was clear at the outset what we needed to achieve. So I have no problem with a bonus paid on achieving profit, share price, sales, even remaining in post, but it should be clear and also it should filter down throughout the company - after all it's the people at the bottom that allow those nearer the top to do their work.

Yes; your last couple of lines need to be read (and fully understood) by such people as Mr.Grieve.

Mr Grieve probably doesnt have any clue what so ever about the people at the bottom! He is probably doing just fine spouting the usual ignorant rehtoric MP's do whilst feathering his nest egg ready to retire on a far from proportionate pension thanks to the tax payer!

tigeran wrote:

dtap wrote:

Mutley wrote: If they published the criterea for receiving the bonus beforehand then it might cause less fuss. I worked in a company which set targets (eg if we sell this many units and our profits are this much) and if achieved we would get the specified bonus. If we fell short we didn't get anything. But it was clear at the outset what we needed to achieve. So I have no problem with a bonus paid on achieving profit, share price, sales, even remaining in post, but it should be clear and also it should filter down throughout the company - after all it's the people at the bottom that allow those nearer the top to do their work.

Yes; your last couple of lines need to be read (and fully understood) by such people as Mr.Grieve.

Mr Grieve probably doesnt have any clue what so ever about the people at the bottom! He is probably doing just fine spouting the usual ignorant rehtoric MP's do whilst feathering his nest egg ready to retire on a far from proportionate pension thanks to the tax payer!

I for one would be fascinated to learn just what are these superhuman skills such bankers - and others - allegedly possess, which make them worth so dramatically much more than the rest of us. Perhaps Mr. Grieve would care to explain?

dtap wrote:

tigeran wrote:

dtap wrote:

Mutley wrote: If they published the criterea for receiving the bonus beforehand then it might cause less fuss. I worked in a company which set targets (eg if we sell this many units and our profits are this much) and if achieved we would get the specified bonus. If we fell short we didn't get anything. But it was clear at the outset what we needed to achieve. So I have no problem with a bonus paid on achieving profit, share price, sales, even remaining in post, but it should be clear and also it should filter down throughout the company - after all it's the people at the bottom that allow those nearer the top to do their work.

Yes; your last couple of lines need to be read (and fully understood) by such people as Mr.Grieve.

Mr Grieve probably doesnt have any clue what so ever about the people at the bottom! He is probably doing just fine spouting the usual ignorant rehtoric MP's do whilst feathering his nest egg ready to retire on a far from proportionate pension thanks to the tax payer!

I for one would be fascinated to learn just what are these superhuman skills such bankers - and others - allegedly possess, which make them worth so dramatically much more than the rest of us. Perhaps Mr. Grieve would care to explain?

Unfortunatley they possess the skills to make the wealthy even more wealthy and thus get acredited with the afore mentioned 'superskills'. Its all to do with money and the people who bennefit from it (which lets face it is probably none of us!!)

You`re not wrong - to them it`s a virtuous circle, to the rest of us it seems plain vicious. An insular multi - millionaire`s club, the political wing of which is clearly the current government.

At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

Bankers , politicians , law-breakers and looter/rioters are out of control.
.
They talk irrational and contradictory nonsense to justify their irresponsible actions and want something for nothing. Usually taken off hard-working ordinary folk
.
Grieves is just another over-paid out-of-touch remote 'representative'.. It's about time he started to really represent the people who put him where he is. Or preferably he should get a proper worthwhile useful job for the benefit of the country him and his sort have made a mess of.
.
We will take no lectures from him , thank you

dtap wrote:
You`re not wrong - to them it`s a virtuous circle, to the rest of us it seems plain vicious. An insular multi - millionaire`s club, the political wing of which is clearly the current government.

Agreed up to the point of the current government being their political wing. It all started with Labours Blair and Brown, the former who is now benefitting probably more than anyone with his clever accountants / bankers saving him untold amounts in legalised tax evasion!

pennman wrote:
At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

These wonderful 'skilled' bankers have got us in the state we are in today. And the same people are still making a mess of things - but pretending otherwise. The Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind.
.
Grieves is trying to justify their short-sighted unforgivable financial errors and greedy carelessness in the past few years. He has lots of old friends in the banking business - probably made at the public school(s) he attended.
.
Why is it there are so many banker-related multimillionaires in the Government / Cabinet. Not trustworthy at all - no more than Al Capone anyway.

I see the Labour 'leader' is talking nonsense again. (Following taken from http://jonathanwalla
ce.blogspot.com)

Labour's suddenly discovered hostility to bank bonuses, highlights the chaos into which Labour policy has descended. I am not referring to their 13 years in government in which they actively encouraged the bonus culture. Instead, I am referring to the so-called "Five Point Plan" to solve all the country's ills. It is based on a £2 billion bank bonus tax which, Labour claims, will pay for a house building scheme with will solve the housing crisis (which they allowed to get worse in government), take 100,000 young people off the dole (after leaving nearly one million on the dole themselves) and generally will pay to reverse any cut they don't like, even though they are now supposed to be all in favour of these cuts.

None of Labour's figures stack up. The scheme would cost more than four times the money raised to pay for it. But at this moment, that's not the point. The reality is that if Labour is to stand any chance of making their scheme achieve even a fraction of what is claimed of it, bank bonuses will have to be paid big style so that they can be taxed. This £2 billion is a great deal of money but Labour can't have it both ways - arguing for lots of tax to be raised from the banks when bonuses are paid and then in the next tv interview, arguing for an end to bank bonuses. The reality is that Labour policy rests on big fat bonuses being paid by the banks. You can't kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs and then demand the corpse of the goose continues laying!

Bank bonuses are obscene imo for those banks that are funded by you and I.

Once the bail out funds have been repaid, then maybe a different story - and if the threat is that these bankers seek employment elsewhere then so be it.

One thing you can guarantee, they wouldn't risk their own capital in setting up a small finance house themselves

Interesting; and reinforces my earlier point, which is that New Labour are ToryLite. Oh for an alternative to the 3 shades of Conservatism which today constitute our "choice" !

Don't knock these 'obscene' bonus systems put in place during New Labour's time. Mr and Mrs Blair did very well out of it.
.
Now both multimillionaires and own 6 house (so far). Can't be bad. Can it ?

Bankers, at least higher up the hierarchy, are paid extremely well, regardless of performance. It is the bonuses, on top of the more than generous renumeration, is what all the shouting is about. I am surprised Mr Grieve, the Attorney General, does not see this.
I always thought it is the people who created the wealth, not the bankers.

rushma wrote:
Bankers, at least higher up the hierarchy, are paid extremely well, regardless of performance. It is the bonuses, on top of the more than generous renumeration, is what all the shouting is about. I am surprised Mr Grieve, the Attorney General, does not see this. I always thought it is the people who created the wealth, not the bankers.

Finely put.

rushma wrote:
Bankers, at least higher up the hierarchy, are paid extremely well, regardless of performance. It is the bonuses, on top of the more than generous renumeration, is what all the shouting is about. I am surprised Mr Grieve, the Attorney General, does not see this.
I always thought it is the people who created the wealth, not the bankers.

Yes , these people are not 'creative' at all - they live of the backs of the rest of the world - especially the exploited people at the bottom.
.
That's how they make themselves rich - by parasitism and 'money' out delusional ponzi systems they have set up to gain control themselves.
.
Dangerous Financial Venus Flytraps that attract others by promising nectar but dealing in death destruction and decay. They contribute nothing the world's well-being. Apart from their own illusionary self importanance , over-stuffed wallets and a few dubiously acquired country estates and buildings.

I think, and hope, that public anger over the vast pay differentials in our society in general will not evaporate entirely into acquiescence. Yes - some people are more capable than others; some have more energy and work harder; some put themselves on the line. We are clearly not all the same, but financial rewards for work done are insanely slewed at present, and we are invited to see this is "the way it is" rather than ask "why?" But why is a footballer worth a thousand nurses? Why is banking so lucrative? Let`s never stop asking "Why?" and maybe we`ll start to get somewhere.

dtap wrote:
I think, and hope, that public anger over the vast pay differentials in our society in general will not evaporate entirely into acquiescence. Yes - some people are more capable than others; some have more energy and work harder; some put themselves on the line. We are clearly not all the same, but financial rewards for work done are insanely slewed at present, and we are invited to see this is "the way it is" rather than ask "why?" But why is a footballer worth a thousand nurses? Why is banking so lucrative? Let`s never stop asking "Why?" and maybe we`ll start to get somewhere.

Yes, the anger and resentment will dissipate with time when the press decide to pick on somebody else. It was previously the press (actually still there!), EU Ministers, politicians, QUANGOS, teachers, etc, etc.
.
Next candidate for the press's vitriol is probably ambulance chasing "no win, no fee" lawyers. After all, without these insurance premiums wouldn't be rocketing.
.
Or maybe it'll be a kickback against the "'elf 'n Safety" culture ?
.
Or maybe the EU for fouling up the economy? Or WTO, WTB, EC or some other unfathomable acronym.
.
Or how about tube drivers holding the capital to ransom whilst the Olympics are underway?
.
What about footballers who pay little tax by routing their remuneration through offshore companies (or their dog's private bank account) ?
.
What about how football is being destroyed by the greed of footballers and their agents? Take a look at what's happened in Scotland today as an example of what's going to start happening elsewhere.
.
Theer's so many candidates to pick on.....and Mr & Mrs General Public are like children in a sweetie shop - constantly distracted by whatever is shiny and new (and leapt upon by the press).

You know why. But knowing the answer to that But all you will get is fallacious defensive or aggressive arguments from these thieves , cheats and scoundrels.
.
Nothing will change as long as greedy avaricious people rule the world. It would be better to work out ways of to loosening these persons' miserly claw-like grasp on all the generated wealth that belongs to other more deserving people.
.
Until something rational , logical and equitable is done , these immoral creatures will continue to give themselves grotesquely inflated rewards compared to everybody else

It's oh so easy for Mr Grieve, a wealthy and well connected man, to worry about the bankers. If these men leave teir jobs there are plenty of very experienced men looking to fill their jobs. Too many bankers have had their snouts in the cash troughs with little regard for the nation.

dtap wrote:

pennman wrote: At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

No-one is saying that a nurse is 'worth' a thousanth of a banker, certainly not the bankers who fall ill just like the rest of the population. Following your line of argument we should all be earning the same amount, which I am fairly sure didn't even happen in Communist regimes. I lived on a Kibbutz for a while and there were inequalities there too. What I am saying is that certain jobs pay more than others.
For reference at people who earn disproportionate amounts, just look at any Premier footballer, or Alan Hansen at MoTD (on the BBC) who was earning £1.5m p.a., Lee Evans (the comic) earns £12m. You pay top dollar to retain top people, or they walk.

Scarletto wrote:
It's oh so easy for Mr Grieve, a wealthy and well connected man, to worry about the bankers. If these men leave teir jobs there are plenty of very experienced men looking to fill their jobs. Too many bankers have had their snouts in the cash troughs with little regard for the nation.

You are correct , Scarletto. The UK financial system (after all this time) still operates on a self-selecting clique basis. Ineptly run by incompetents who keep telling everybody how wonderful they all are and 'We are worth it' Absolute and utter rubbish ---- they are the only ones who are allowed to. By their 'little friends' - the politicians.
.
Working just as the Bullingdon Club still operates , it all carries on regardless of performance or logicality or fairness or competence. That's until they run the whole system into the ground with their greed and short-sighted stupidity.
.
What a gang of scoundrels and confidence tricksters. And barrister Grieves is just another one of them and predictably sticks up for his own gang and cronies.

pennman wrote:

dtap wrote:

pennman wrote: At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

No-one is saying that a nurse is 'worth' a thousanth of a banker, certainly not the bankers who fall ill just like the rest of the population. Following your line of argument we should all be earning the same amount, which I am fairly sure didn't even happen in Communist regimes. I lived on a Kibbutz for a while and there were inequalities there too. What I am saying is that certain jobs pay more than others. For reference at people who earn disproportionate amounts, just look at any Premier footballer, or Alan Hansen at MoTD (on the BBC) who was earning £1.5m p.a., Lee Evans (the comic) earns £12m. You pay top dollar to retain top people, or they walk.

You may find that some presenters and entertainers avoid paying income tax by routing the income they derive through a company too. Entirely legal but does mean that while some people are paying 40-50% others, particularly on TV, are paying considerably less. Now you could argue that if they paid more in taxes then the economy would be better off and those deserving cases could be made mroe (or have their tax lowered).

gpn01 wrote:

pennman wrote:

dtap wrote:

pennman wrote: At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

No-one is saying that a nurse is 'worth' a thousanth of a banker, certainly not the bankers who fall ill just like the rest of the population. Following your line of argument we should all be earning the same amount, which I am fairly sure didn't even happen in Communist regimes. I lived on a Kibbutz for a while and there were inequalities there too. What I am saying is that certain jobs pay more than others. For reference at people who earn disproportionate amounts, just look at any Premier footballer, or Alan Hansen at MoTD (on the BBC) who was earning £1.5m p.a., Lee Evans (the comic) earns £12m. You pay top dollar to retain top people, or they walk.

You may find that some presenters and entertainers avoid paying income tax by routing the income they derive through a company too. Entirely legal but does mean that while some people are paying 40-50% others, particularly on TV, are paying considerably less. Now you could argue that if they paid more in taxes then the economy would be better off and those deserving cases could be made mroe (or have their tax lowered).

You may find that some presenters and entertainers avoid paying income tax by routing the income they derive through a company too. Entirely legal but does mean that while some people are paying 40-50% others, particularly on TV, are paying considerably less. Now you could argue that if they paid more in taxes then the economy would be better off and those deserving cases could be paid more (or have their tax lowered)....whoops typo!

pennman wrote:

dtap wrote:

pennman wrote: At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

No-one is saying that a nurse is 'worth' a thousanth of a banker, certainly not the bankers who fall ill just like the rest of the population. Following your line of argument we should all be earning the same amount, which I am fairly sure didn't even happen in Communist regimes. I lived on a Kibbutz for a while and there were inequalities there too. What I am saying is that certain jobs pay more than others. For reference at people who earn disproportionate amounts, just look at any Premier footballer, or Alan Hansen at MoTD (on the BBC) who was earning £1.5m p.a., Lee Evans (the comic) earns £12m. You pay top dollar to retain top people, or they walk.

Well, actually, yes, our society is indeed saying that, for example, bankers - and others - are worth far more than nurses. That`s exactly what their wage packets, in our capitalist society, are telling them - and telling everyone else. And no (see my previous post) I`m not advocating that all should be paid the same, just that we need to address the vast gulf between those pay packets, and the notion that this gulf is in any way ethical.

This man should try the old bucket trick. place your hand deep into a bucket of water. take it out and see how much of a hole you leave. Nobody is indisputable and when the Stock exchange and our Bankers start putting money back in to the economy rather than lining their own pockets we might be a bit better off. We need more Engineers and Manufacturing not more sponging off a shrinking economy

Well put , DR

"Pay bankers properly or lose their skills"??!!

Some things are just beyond parody, aren't they?

If we don't start making things in this country that people want to buy , then we are all in deep trouble.
.
Including bankers , barristers , benefit recipients , nurses , teachers , train drivers , civil servants etc etc , yes even the diminishing number of manufacturers that are left in Britain.
.
The only people who will be better off will be the politicians - who got us into this mess in the first place - by bad governance and letting the finacial scene get out of control.
.
Over-paid Financial 'experts' (Bankers) are just a symptom of a system that's been allowed to become corrupted and immoral. It would be like blaming the rats for the Plague.

The bankers take risks with our money but never their own. They get massive bonuses when they make millions but don't loose a penny of their own when they screw up. There is no balance and Dominic Grieve is a fool to make out that bankers are somehow super skilled more than anyone else in their field of work. Bankers do not add value to anything. They do not create money and are rarely creative. However most of them do live in Beaconsfield.

gpn01 wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

pennman wrote:

dtap wrote:

pennman wrote: At last, a politician who speaks sense! Let's not demonise these people who contribute so much to society. After-all, they pay tax too and buy goods and services and hire domestic staff. There is a nasty resentment in the country nowadays, spread by Labour millionaire Ed Milliband, that those who are high earners are for some reason cheating everyone else, or contributing to an unfair society. The world has never been fair. Work hard and earn well, don't sit on the sidelines and complain that other people are better off.

What we`re actually doing is demonising ordinary people (let`s, again, take nurses for example) by telling them they`re "worth" a thousand times less than these fat cats. There is rightful resentment growing in this country against such concepts. No - the world has never been fair, but when we institutionalise such unfairness (as I pointed out earlier, working hard by no means guarantees earning well) and attempt to portray it as "natural" then inevitably - and rightly - we create resentment. As for Mr. Milliband, he is part of the same problem, being New Labour/ToryLite. Same difference.

No-one is saying that a nurse is 'worth' a thousanth of a banker, certainly not the bankers who fall ill just like the rest of the population. Following your line of argument we should all be earning the same amount, which I am fairly sure didn't even happen in Communist regimes. I lived on a Kibbutz for a while and there were inequalities there too. What I am saying is that certain jobs pay more than others. For reference at people who earn disproportionate amounts, just look at any Premier footballer, or Alan Hansen at MoTD (on the BBC) who was earning £1.5m p.a., Lee Evans (the comic) earns £12m. You pay top dollar to retain top people, or they walk.

You may find that some presenters and entertainers avoid paying income tax by routing the income they derive through a company too. Entirely legal but does mean that while some people are paying 40-50% others, particularly on TV, are paying considerably less. Now you could argue that if they paid more in taxes then the economy would be better off and those deserving cases could be made mroe (or have their tax lowered).

You may find that some presenters and entertainers avoid paying income tax by routing the income they derive through a company too. Entirely legal but does mean that while some people are paying 40-50% others, particularly on TV, are paying considerably less. Now you could argue that if they paid more in taxes then the economy would be better off and those deserving cases could be paid more (or have their tax lowered)....whoops typo!

If its that **** hard to do - and so important wait until there's no one to mend, fix put right things that go wrong and see whose more important - those that gamble and skim off the profits most teenagers can do that with theirs eyes closed or those that work long hard hours everyday for a fraction of their basic wage and spend as much time learning their skills as any city banker. just ask any self employed person if they could do the a bankers job - they sell, bye and make. they do accounts, and tax returns and still need to find enough hours in the day to earn a living and bankers moan that they are hard done by. now that is a joke. if they are so **** good at their jobs and Switzerland is crying out for their skills - let them go - we can replace them and i bet the Swiss will only take the cream and the rest can get a proper job.(sorry that might mean getting their hands dirty)

The next question we should ask is how much money do we let go from our economy. - the stock exchange was set up to invest in new projects and business and in return shear in the profits (quiet right to - you take a risk you get a reward if it goes to plan- it fails you loss out)- now we have international banks and dealers / trading companies making vast sums and at the very least sending 50% to other countries. Barclay's-Abu Dhabi - Santander - Spain - BNP Parabus - Switzerland - oh then there was Leaman Brothers - USA and they boasted a £1m and minute profit level from their Global Switch Site in Docklands and they went bust- So How much of these companies vast profits are re-invested in to new UK business
(it was reported that BNP-Parabus lost £5.2 Billion via one bad trader and then brushed it off as only being 5% of their profits - work it out - how many small or new businesses would that help out when our own government is only putting up the imaginary sum of £75m)

DonRockell wrote:
The next question we should ask is how much money do we let go from our economy. - the stock exchange was set up to invest in new projects and business and in return shear in the profits (quiet right to - you take a risk you get a reward if it goes to plan- it fails you loss out)- now we have international banks and dealers / trading companies making vast sums and at the very least sending 50% to other countries. Barclay's-Abu Dhabi - Santander - Spain - BNP Parabus - Switzerland - oh then there was Leaman Brothers - USA and they boasted a £1m and minute profit level from their Global Switch Site in Docklands and they went bust- So How much of these companies vast profits are re-invested in to new UK business (it was reported that BNP-Parabus lost £5.2 Billion via one bad trader and then brushed it off as only being 5% of their profits - work it out - how many small or new businesses would that help out when our own government is only putting up the imaginary sum of £75m)

In similar vein, the last figure I read as an estimate of money salted away in tax havens (why such opportunities are legal at all, should be one of our biggest "Why?" questions at present) was 17 trillion pounds. The refusal to tackle this directly sends the same obnoxious message to the British public as does our craven whimpering before the banks and bankers: ie, if you`re not in the rich man`s club you can crawl back down your hole, sonny.

dtap wrote:

DonRockell wrote:
The next question we should ask is how much money do we let go from our economy. - the stock exchange was set up to invest in new projects and business and in return shear in the profits (quiet right to - you take a risk you get a reward if it goes to plan- it fails you loss out)- now we have international banks and dealers / trading companies making vast sums and at the very least sending 50% to other countries. Barclay's-Abu Dhabi - Santander - Spain - BNP Parabus - Switzerland - oh then there was Leaman Brothers - USA and they boasted a £1m and minute profit level from their Global Switch Site in Docklands and they went bust- So How much of these companies vast profits are re-invested in to new UK business (it was reported that BNP-Parabus lost £5.2 Billion via one bad trader and then brushed it off as only being 5% of their profits - work it out - how many small or new businesses would that help out when our own government is only putting up the imaginary sum of £75m)

In similar vein, the last figure I read as an estimate of money salted away in tax havens (why such opportunities are legal at all, should be one of our biggest "Why?" questions at present) was 17 trillion pounds. The refusal to tackle this directly sends the same obnoxious message to the British public as does our craven whimpering before the banks and bankers: ie, if you`re not in the rich man`s club you can crawl back down your hole, sonny.

It seams our so called and very absent from the area MP (home Address as listed on the Ballot papers – London) is like the many of the Magistrates and Judges from the Dickens Age - the less well-off have no say – not because the they are wrong, poorly educated or incapable of doing these so called special jobs but because they do not fit into or have access to the same social structure that those in power and have wealth possess. Hang or deport them for having the gall to disagree or to question.

I fear the age of Dickens is being resurrected under our noses; how long before we see the return of the Workhouse, I wonder?

What good reading all your comments make. Is there any chance you could get all together and start lobbying for a better deal for all of us who are working hard, doing our bit to prop up the coffers?

J B Blackett wrote:

Scarletto wrote:
It's oh so easy for Mr Grieve, a wealthy and well connected man, to worry about the bankers. If these men leave teir jobs there are plenty of very experienced men looking to fill their jobs. Too many bankers have had their snouts in the cash troughs with little regard for the nation.

You are correct , Scarletto. The UK financial system (after all this time) still operates on a self-selecting clique basis. Ineptly run by incompetents who keep telling everybody how wonderful they all are and 'We are worth it' Absolute and utter rubbish ---- they are the only ones who are allowed to. By their 'little friends' - the politicians.
.
Working just as the Bullingdon Club still operates , it all carries on regardless of performance or logicality or fairness or competence. That's until they run the whole system into the ground with their greed and short-sighted stupidity.
.
What a gang of scoundrels and confidence tricksters. And barrister Grieves is just another one of them and predictably sticks up for his own gang and cronies.

Politics of envy? Lowest common denominator? Equality? If you envy them so much why don't you become a well paid banker or city financier and create some wealth?

Kris S, many of us are lobbying, among other things: piran, I don`t smell envy here, just anger at injustice.

Correct , dtap. The tired old argument about envy being peddled around yet again has no real relevance at all and is totally off target.
.
Anyone who thinks all the hedge fund managers , ponzi scheme operators , get-rich-quick merchants and short-sighted avaricious financial 'experts' who created this world-wide mess we are in , are wonderful , not appreciated and are under-rewarded benefactors of the human race are on the wrong wave-length.

piran wrote:

J B Blackett wrote:

Scarletto wrote:
It's oh so easy for Mr Grieve, a wealthy and well connected man, to worry about the bankers. If these men leave teir jobs there are plenty of very experienced men looking to fill their jobs. Too many bankers have had their snouts in the cash troughs with little regard for the nation.

You are correct , Scarletto. The UK financial system (after all this time) still operates on a self-selecting clique basis. Ineptly run by incompetents who keep telling everybody how wonderful they all are and 'We are worth it' Absolute and utter rubbish ---- they are the only ones who are allowed to. By their 'little friends' - the politicians.
.
Working just as the Bullingdon Club still operates , it all carries on regardless of performance or logicality or fairness or competence. That's until they run the whole system into the ground with their greed and short-sighted stupidity.
.
What a gang of scoundrels and confidence tricksters. And barrister Grieves is just another one of them and predictably sticks up for his own gang and cronies.

Politics of envy? Lowest common denominator? Equality? If you envy them so much why don't you become a well paid banker or city financier and create some wealth?

If those who think this all about the politics of envy should in fact think that some of us make a reasonable living thank you very much by working hard and not relying on the nation to pick up the tab when we **** up. Those of us that run our own business's not only pay for any mistake we make but also pay to put it right as well - I don't see the banks doing that and I don't see our MP doing much to sort them out either.

Mind you - yes many of us do think we can do it and possibly better as well. not only that but we could probably do it for a fraction of the cost - just let us know where to apply and who we need to talk to because I don't see very many quitting the banking business through shame - do you ?

I recall figures (do correct me if my memory is wrong) researched by the Green Party recently which suggested that if banks were to be charged a government tax of only 0.05 % on all transactions, 20 billion pounds would be raised in the first year. This, of course, is small fry compared to revenue raised if, for instance, tax havens were closed - nonetheless, a useful amount, and it would demonstrate a solidarity with the nation`s mood.

dtap wrote:
I recall figures (do correct me if my memory is wrong) researched by the Green Party recently which suggested that if banks were to be charged a government tax of only 0.05 % on all transactions, 20 billion pounds would be raised in the first year. This, of course, is small fry compared to revenue raised if, for instance, tax havens were closed - nonetheless, a useful amount, and it would demonstrate a solidarity with the nation`s mood.

Like any other tax, what do you think the banks would do about it? They'd include it in their costs and pass it on to the customer.

We could do with losing their skills. It was their skills in greed that got us in this mire. Wait until April when people start to lose thier tax credit of £40 a month, mind I'm Branson and Green will survive.

sparky49 wrote:
We could do with losing their skills. It was their skills in greed that got us in this mire. Wait until April when people start to lose thier tax credit of £40 a month, mind I'm Branson and Green will survive.

Bankers "greed" is driven by their bonuses. The bonuses are in place to incentivise them to make profits for their companies. When the companies make profits the shares produce higher dividends and increase in value. Both of these benefit the shareholders. The major shareholders are institutional investors. Many of these represent pension funds. Pension funds are there to benefit people who have pensions. So, unfortunately, the ultimate source of "greed" is often people who want their pension plan to accumulate. Think about who those people are.
.
If you want to really go to the root cause of much of the systemic failure you need to look at two areas - the regulators who failed to put in place a framework to prevent systemic failure - the same politicians and regulators behind BASLE II legislation - that was already in place when the banks failed. The second is the environment that allowed (and encouraged) people to take out financing way beyond their means - what's known in the States as "sub-prime mortgages" where people took out mortgages despite being clearly unable to keep up with the repayments. A smaller scale version began to happen in the UK when mortgage providers moved away from the simple 2.5 x annual salary rule and towards the "self-certification" approach which meant that people could have mortgages for five times their salary. All of this was ok whilst the house price bubble kept increasing but was obviously going to fail eventually - it was individual housebuyers, mortgage brokers and mortgage providers greed that was the root cause of this. Don't see anybody pilorying that group of people though.

It used to be called pyramid selling. It is dressed up with other names nowadays , but it's still the same old scam and deceit to entrap people at the end of the line - where the heavy weight falls.
.
But now legalized by our stupid and lying politicians who pretend every thing is getting under control. And they created the problem in the first place - for their mates in the banking business and let the rest of us go hang.

Banks who allowed people to borrow way beyond their means must (at the very least) share the blame.

dtap wrote:
Banks who allowed people to borrow way beyond their means must (at the very least) share the blame.

Agree completely. Equally those who over stretched themselves are also to blame. Sadly it's a reflection of a change in our cultural ethic to a credit-based, rather than savings-based, society.

gpn01 wrote:

sparky49 wrote:
We could do with losing their skills. It was their skills in greed that got us in this mire. Wait until April when people start to lose thier tax credit of £40 a month, mind I'm Branson and Green will survive.

Bankers "greed" is driven by their bonuses. The bonuses are in place to incentivise them to make profits for their companies. When the companies make profits the shares produce higher dividends and increase in value. Both of these benefit the shareholders. The major shareholders are institutional investors. Many of these represent pension funds. Pension funds are there to benefit people who have pensions. So, unfortunately, the ultimate source of "greed" is often people who want their pension plan to accumulate. Think about who those people are.
.
If you want to really go to the root cause of much of the systemic failure you need to look at two areas - the regulators who failed to put in place a framework to prevent systemic failure - the same politicians and regulators behind BASLE II legislation - that was already in place when the banks failed. The second is the environment that allowed (and encouraged) people to take out financing way beyond their means - what's known in the States as "sub-prime mortgages" where people took out mortgages despite being clearly unable to keep up with the repayments. A smaller scale version began to happen in the UK when mortgage providers moved away from the simple 2.5 x annual salary rule and towards the "self-certification" approach which meant that people could have mortgages for five times their salary. All of this was ok whilst the house price bubble kept increasing but was obviously going to fail eventually - it was individual housebuyers, mortgage brokers and mortgage providers greed that was the root cause of this. Don't see anybody pilorying that group of people though.

and it was more lack of thinking off the norm that made it worse - if we default on a loan of mortgage the Banks step in and take their cut very quickly and without any feelings for who it hurts - also if it relates to property they will sell it and take their bit out of the money made

Will some tell me why if our banks owned the mortgage's on these sub prime loans didn't they either use what ca-lateral there was in them, take ownership or rent the properties to those that needed them. No what they did was to sell them off dirt cheap and therefore compound the problem

Short term thinking all round - if it doesn't make a buck in ten minute or less its not worth the effort

DonRockell wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

sparky49 wrote: We could do with losing their skills. It was their skills in greed that got us in this mire. Wait until April when people start to lose thier tax credit of £40 a month, mind I'm Branson and Green will survive.

Bankers "greed" is driven by their bonuses. The bonuses are in place to incentivise them to make profits for their companies. When the companies make profits the shares produce higher dividends and increase in value. Both of these benefit the shareholders. The major shareholders are institutional investors. Many of these represent pension funds. Pension funds are there to benefit people who have pensions. So, unfortunately, the ultimate source of "greed" is often people who want their pension plan to accumulate. Think about who those people are. . If you want to really go to the root cause of much of the systemic failure you need to look at two areas - the regulators who failed to put in place a framework to prevent systemic failure - the same politicians and regulators behind BASLE II legislation - that was already in place when the banks failed. The second is the environment that allowed (and encouraged) people to take out financing way beyond their means - what's known in the States as "sub-prime mortgages" where people took out mortgages despite being clearly unable to keep up with the repayments. A smaller scale version began to happen in the UK when mortgage providers moved away from the simple 2.5 x annual salary rule and towards the "self-certification" approach which meant that people could have mortgages for five times their salary. All of this was ok whilst the house price bubble kept increasing but was obviously going to fail eventually - it was individual housebuyers, mortgage brokers and mortgage providers greed that was the root cause of this. Don't see anybody pilorying that group of people though.

and it was more lack of thinking off the norm that made it worse - if we default on a loan of mortgage the Banks step in and take their cut very quickly and without any feelings for who it hurts - also if it relates to property they will sell it and take their bit out of the money made Will some tell me why if our banks owned the mortgage's on these sub prime loans didn't they either use what ca-lateral there was in them, take ownership or rent the properties to those that needed them. No what they did was to sell them off dirt cheap and therefore compound the problem Short term thinking all round - if it doesn't make a buck in ten minute or less its not worth the effort

So if you have an asset that you've acquired because someone defaulted on a loan (which means you've lost a significant future revenue stream) and you can see the price of the asset decaying further as the market crashes, would you still keep it or quickly sell it to reduce your losses?
.
Yes, you're right that this attitude contributes to price collapses - in the same way that you get price bubbles in the other direction when the market is rising. That's why people feel the need to get on to the housing ladder when they can see that house prices are increasing.
.
The markets operate to some basic and simple principles - buy when prices are rising and sell when they're dropping being one of them. If you feel you can beat the market by going against the trend then good luck.

I seem to remember Gordon Brown putting forward tougher Bank regulations before this all happened only for Mr Cameron to block it and then blame the Brown for the mess. Politicians don't you just love em.

sparky49 wrote:
I seem to remember Gordon Brown putting forward tougher Bank regulations before this all happened only for Mr Cameron to block it and then blame the Brown for the mess. Politicians don't you just love em.

Ah yes, Mr Brown who when chancellor sold off half of the UK's gold reserves when the price was low (but not falling) averaging $282 an ounce. Currently it's trading at $1,730 an ounce.
.
Also the same Mr Brown who oversaw his own "Golden Rule", about public spend not going beyond a particular limit, sidestepped by utlising PFI which kept massive public financing off the Country's balance sheet (and left a legacy of debt for the subsequent government to fall foul of).

Well, I`m no New Labour supporter (I might be more persuadable if they weren`t, basically, ToryLite), but given the Tories` commitment to Labour`s spending plans whilst in opposition, right up to the banking crash, surely apportionong blame here is somewhat academic?

They are all crooks , liars and cheats , whichever party.
.
And mealy-mouthed sanctimonious hypocrite extremely rich barrister Grieves ( real name 'Grievous' - as in bodily harm) is one of them - not one of us.
.
That's really what Cameron meant when he said 'We are all in it together' - meaning his little gang plus all politicians are all in it. But we ( the ordinary folk ) are not permitted to be in it. Unless you are one of Them.
.
They are filthy disgusting disease-ridden creatures - like noisy blood-sucking blow flies , feeding off and further infecting a sick body that's dying. No offence intended (!)

Well, yes - hard to argue with. "We`re all in it together" clearly referred to the rich and powerful, and certainly not those at the bottom of the heap.

gpn01 wrote:

DonRockell wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

sparky49 wrote: We could do with losing their skills. It was their skills in greed that got us in this mire. Wait until April when people start to lose thier tax credit of £40 a month, mind I'm Branson and Green will survive.

Bankers "greed" is driven by their bonuses. The bonuses are in place to incentivise them to make profits for their companies. When the companies make profits the shares produce higher dividends and increase in value. Both of these benefit the shareholders. The major shareholders are institutional investors. Many of these represent pension funds. Pension funds are there to benefit people who have pensions. So, unfortunately, the ultimate source of "greed" is often people who want their pension plan to accumulate. Think about who those people are. . If you want to really go to the root cause of much of the systemic failure you need to look at two areas - the regulators who failed to put in place a framework to prevent systemic failure - the same politicians and regulators behind BASLE II legislation - that was already in place when the banks failed. The second is the environment that allowed (and encouraged) people to take out financing way beyond their means - what's known in the States as "sub-prime mortgages" where people took out mortgages despite being clearly unable to keep up with the repayments. A smaller scale version began to happen in the UK when mortgage providers moved away from the simple 2.5 x annual salary rule and towards the "self-certification" approach which meant that people could have mortgages for five times their salary. All of this was ok whilst the house price bubble kept increasing but was obviously going to fail eventually - it was individual housebuyers, mortgage brokers and mortgage providers greed that was the root cause of this. Don't see anybody pilorying that group of people though.

and it was more lack of thinking off the norm that made it worse - if we default on a loan of mortgage the Banks step in and take their cut very quickly and without any feelings for who it hurts - also if it relates to property they will sell it and take their bit out of the money made Will some tell me why if our banks owned the mortgage's on these sub prime loans didn't they either use what ca-lateral there was in them, take ownership or rent the properties to those that needed them. No what they did was to sell them off dirt cheap and therefore compound the problem Short term thinking all round - if it doesn't make a buck in ten minute or less its not worth the effort

So if you have an asset that you've acquired because someone defaulted on a loan (which means you've lost a significant future revenue stream) and you can see the price of the asset decaying further as the market crashes, would you still keep it or quickly sell it to reduce your losses?
.
Yes, you're right that this attitude contributes to price collapses - in the same way that you get price bubbles in the other direction when the market is rising. That's why people feel the need to get on to the housing ladder when they can see that house prices are increasing.
.
The markets operate to some basic and simple principles - buy when prices are rising and sell when they're dropping being one of them. If you feel you can beat the market by going against the trend then good luck.

Thanks for making my point so well.

Take people who through foolish lending had properties that were worth less than they had borrowed - kick them out onto the street leaving thousands on empty properties and a lot of homeless people and families that now can not borrow to find a home.

Next pay people to guard these properties to stop them being used and therefore letting them decay and so making them worth even less.

Then to cap it off - sell these houses and flats in bulk at vastly knocked down prices and so flooding the market and making these properties that were worth at least something worth even less.

Its called supply and demand - you flog off a lot of something very cheep it drives the price down artificially.
The Banks could have stepped back, accepted Interest only payments (or rent) and so recouped their money over a longer period - even sell at the right time and still retaining the land they were sitting on (which any builder will tell you is the bit that costs the most especially in cities and large towns) but no they went in heavy as always, flooded the market and making their losses much worse