"Bankers celebrate bonuses like the financial crisis never happened" Watch

TheCurlyHairedDude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 8 years ago
#21
****ing hell guys !!

A love how you're ALL complaining, yet if you was the one getting the £600,000 bonus you would NOT be moaning. Stop complaining because you're not in their situation, they're there for a reason, they earnt their way there.
0
reply
Reminisce
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report 8 years ago
#22
Even if it is true and the government wishes to fight a war against them, it'll never be a win-win situation because if the bankers are disgruntled, they'll simply move to Shanghai, Switzerland or New York and the UK economy will be even more screwed...
0
reply
bognor-regis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 8 years ago
#23
(Original post by SAK.A)
What about the effort they put in what about the tax on the bonuses they receive what about the tax on the goods and services they consume?
Yes I do get that argument. But the fact remains that banking isn't a productive industry, so it shouldn't absorb so much money.
2
reply
SAK.A
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#24
Report 8 years ago
#24
(Original post by bognor-regis)
Yes I do get that argument. But the fact remains that banking isn't a productive industry, so it shouldn't absorb so much money.
Did you just say banking isn't a productive industry.
3
reply
steve2005
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report 8 years ago
#25
(Original post by llamalad200)
i have NO PROBLEM with their bonuses as long as it is a bank which we did not nationalise. anyway, why is everyone bothered? sounds like jealousy to me. bonuses are an essential part of the business. they act as incentives. if britain stopped them then all the bankers may move out of the country, reducing our economy. plus, bonuses are taxed fairly significantly so they are actually a different revenue stream for the government. people need to chill out and ignore the stupidity and blame culture of the media.
Many banks are paying less than 1% on deposits and charging 17% of credit cards. It's no wonder they make a profit. I have just checked and at least one credit card charges 34.9%
0
reply
Cinnamon_Twist
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#26
Report 8 years ago
#26
(Original post by arabcnesbit)
What about the £300,000 of that bonus that goes straight to the tax man. Is this not mentioned?

What about the 20% VAT they will pay on everything substantial they buy, is this not mentioned?

What about the fact that these guys regularly do 100 hour weeks, is this lazy?

What about the fact that these people worked hard at school, worked hard at University, work hard at their current jobs and if they didn't make their bank any money they would be sacked asap. Is this mentioned?

What about the fact that if you think you get something for nothing in this world you are extremely dumb.

End of rant.
Thank you. I would rep you if I could.
0
reply
Unlmtd
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 8 years ago
#27
(Original post by steve2005)
Many banks are paying less than 1% on deposits and charging 17% of credit cards. It's no wonder they make a profit. I have just checked and at least one credit card charges 34.9%
Ever thought of the fact that the higher the charge will be of using money you don't actually own, less of it will be effectively used. If you're talking about avoiding financial crises, I certainly do think that consumption using money you don't own is a bad way to start.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 8 years ago
#28
(Original post by Shiftend)
The Daily Mirror recently reported that "lazy" traders from Barclays Capital were cashing in on there £600,000 bonuses by popping £200 bottles of champagne and by purchasing luxury black edition Porsche cars. Have a look at the article - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22926416/ - Do you agree with what is being said, is it true that "lazy fatcat" bankers are filling there boots in excess?

Why should BarCap traders feel the need to show restraint? DB, CS, GS, JPM, BC and others were not bailed out by anyone. Banks can pay whatever they like. Enough of this nonsense.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 8 years ago
#29
(Original post by bognor-regis)
Yes I do get that argument. But the fact remains that banking isn't a productive industry, so it shouldn't absorb so much money.

Have a walk down Moorgate or Canary Wharf and tell me its not a productive industry.
London would be nothing without the industry. Accept that.
0
reply
JessicaW
Badges: 1
#30
Report 8 years ago
#30
Most of what I'd say has already been said, so there's no use in repeating it, however, I'd just like to point out that I really hate the term 'fatcats', and can honestly say I haven't seen anyone use it in a way that hasn't led me to believe they are incredibly stupid.
reply
morris743
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 8 years ago
#31
(Original post by Zürich)
Have a walk down Moorgate or Canary Wharf and tell me its not a productive industry.
London would be nothing without the industry. Accept that.
What do you mean?
0
reply
Silent-Varjoisa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 8 years ago
#32
I don't understand people's reaction to this? Bankers are only human and all humans try and get as much as they can. The problem was not the bankers themselves but the lack of regulation which is the politicians fault.
2
reply
Shiftend
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#33
(Original post by arabcnesbit)
What about the £300,000 of that bonus that goes straight to the tax man. Is this not mentioned?

What about the 20% VAT they will pay on everything substantial they buy, is this not mentioned?

What about the fact that these guys regularly do 100 hour weeks, is this lazy?

What about the fact that these people worked hard at school, worked hard at University, work hard at their current jobs and if they didn't make their bank any money they would be sacked asap. Is this mentioned?

What about the fact that if you think you get something for nothing in this world you are extremely dumb.

End of rant.
Taxes are something which we all have to pay and VAT is regressive so those on low incomes are hardest hit by it. Its clearly long hours and the taxes which they do pay help our economy (if these institutions are not based in offshore tax havens that is). It is very common for graduates to get jobs in these banks through 'friends of friends' and 'jobs for the boys', in some cases parents even buy their children internships and work experience in the City. The tabloids often talk of making the bankers pay for 'the mess which they created'. I actually dislike reading any tabloid red tops, but what they write influences thousands of (mostly working class) tabloid readers up and down the country, so this negative perception of Bankers is actually quite common - particularly amongst the demographic which the tabloids target.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 8 years ago
#34
(Original post by Shiftend)
Taxes are something which we all have to pay and VAT is regressive so those on low incomes are hardest hit by it. Its clearly long hours and the taxes which they do pay help our economy (if these institutions are not based in offshore tax havens that is). It is very common for graduates to get jobs in these banks through 'friends of friends' and 'jobs for the boys', in some cases parents even buy their children internships and work experience in the City. The tabloids often talk of making the bankers pay for 'the mess which they created'. I actually dislike reading any tabloid red tops, but what they write influences thousands of (mostly working class) tabloid readers up and down the country, so this negative perception of Bankers is actually quite common - particularly amongst the demographic which the tabloids target.
Very true about the way some people get in. This is true of any of the most popular occupations though. You can't blame parents for looking out for their children though. Did you watch a programme the other day called "Who gets the best jobs"? That made some interesting points.

I believe the banks in trouble should have been allowed to go bust. But that's a thread for another day.
0
reply
Krebs
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 8 years ago
#35
(Original post by bognor-regis)
Yes I do get that argument. But the fact remains that banking isn't a productive industry, so it shouldn't absorb so much money.

:facepalm:

You would be fine if you posted that somewhere else on TSR, but this is the IB forum where people actually know what banking is.
1
reply
Lorchii
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 8 years ago
#36
(Original post by arabcnesbit)
I believe the banks in trouble should have been allowed to go bust. But that's a thread for another day.
that argument holds strong when one bank begins to fail..however if a contagion effect spreads, then surely you can't expect to see a government stand by and watch its banking system collapse! No banks - no industry! simple as! Take ireland as an example of emergency bail out being a necessity!

Its not always clear-cut where you can let them fail...
0
reply
PorcineAviation
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 8 years ago
#37
(Original post by Tom Pettifor, Daily Mirror)
Chateau Mouton Roths-child
Plebeian.
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 8 years ago
#38
(Original post by Lorchii)
that argument holds strong when one bank begins to fail..however if a contagion effect spreads, then surely you can't expect to see a government stand by and watch its banking system collapse! No banks - no industry! simple as! Take ireland as an example of emergency bail out being a necessity!

Its not always clear-cut where you can let them fail...
It takes bottle to let them fail, granted, but I'll tell you why I think they should have gone to the wall.

The assumption is that the entire financial system was about to collapse. This is nonsense. To start with when the northern rock went t**s up there were several buyers lined up. The government chose to nationalise this, it didn't need to.

Abbey National was bought by Santander as was the alliance and leicester. So they wouldn't have gone bust.

RBS owed money due to its bad investments within its investment arm. This would have been sold off to the highest bidder or allowed to go belly up if no buyers were found. Its retail bank arm would have been sold off to a rival for hundreds of billions since this side of the business was extremely strong and buyers would have been lining up to buy it for its market share alone.

No account holders would have lost money as there is too much money to be made in retail banking and some bank would have got themselves a bargain.

HBOS made lots of dodgy mortgage decisions and they would have been hammered, but someone would still buy it for the market share in retail and its mortgage business.

The truth is this.

Ireland got the bail out so that the EU could get them to pass the treaty, lower their corporation tax and generally do as they were told.

The uk banks were "bailed out" because the american banks were in much worse shape and the brits were told by their old friends across the pond what was going to happen. Also the British government didn't want their biggest banks under foreign control.

This is why the government were begging barclays to take the bail out but they told them where to go and got money from the arabs instead.

Thoughts?
0
reply
Imperial Blitz
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#39
Report 8 years ago
#39
Wait what exactly are the people that got the highest bonus?

Investment bankers or what?
0
reply
arabcnesbit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 8 years ago
#40
(Original post by Imperial Blitz)
Wait what exactly are the people that got the highest bonus?

Investment bankers or what?
Traders I think.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (249)
38.97%
No - but I will (44)
6.89%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.36%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (299)
46.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed