90% Tax on AIG bonus, should UK follow?

polyalloy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7953869.stm

themanbearpig

I'm suprised the elite went for this. They must have noticed everyone was starting to realise that the whole system is corrupt.

bubblesmoney

lets see if brown follows suit with similar action against executives of failed institutions skimming off millions in bonuses and pensions here in the uk! why the f*ck do these people still have their knighthoods after ruining the biggest uk banks and millions of savers money plus the taxpayers money while they can wallow in millions of pounds of bonuses and pensions. plus get to keep their knighthoods which were given for services to banking industry to add insult to injury.

A._Badger

bubblesmoney wrote: »

lets see if brown follows suit with similar action against executives of failed instituations skimming off millions in bonuses and pensions here in the uk! why the f*ck do these people still have their knighthoods after ruining the biggest uk banks and millions of savers money plus the taxpayers money while they can wallow in millions of pounds of bonuses and pensions.

OK, how about a deal?

I'd say a tax on such bonuses was fair, providing the same rules applied to politicians and civil servants (NHS managers, MOD procurement types etc) who similarly fail.

Until it does, why single-out the bankers?

bubblesmoney

A._Badger wrote: »

OK, how about a deal?

I'd say a tax on such bonuses was fair, providing the same rules applied to politicians and civil servants (NHS managers, MOD procurement types etc) who similarly fail.

Until it does, why single-out the bankers?

yes that should apply for anyone getting bonuses if tax payers funds are used for propping up the company due to its bad investment decisions.

anyway this has already been passed by one house of the usa elected representatives by a majority, let us see what the other house does now. politically it will be suicide for obama if he vetoes this plan.

wonder if this gets copied here as well.

lostinrates

Why not just review how wages and bonuses are paid, and make tax avoidance less enjoyable. I don't mind proportionate bonuses, paid for good work not as an expected: its the lunacy of the current situation thats nuts IMO.

globalds

A._Badger wrote: »

OK, how about a deal?

I'd say a tax on such bonuses was fair, providing the same rules applied to politicians and civil servants (NHS managers, MOD procurement types etc) who similarly fail.

Until it does, why single-out the bankers?

Because by anybody's standards bankers have been rewarding themselves with obscene bonuses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158500/How-HSBC-bankers-pocket-32m--despite-60-cent-profit-fall.html

Just to add ..These taxes are punitive taxes ...To send a message ...
It would appear the government are playing a sneaky game here ..Shouting there condemnation and at the same time quietly informing the financial world that as far as London and UK is concerned it is business as usual.
An opportunity of a century will be missed if the banks are allowed to get away with cutting out the middle man altogether and just taking billions straight off the government.

A._Badger

globalds wrote: »

Because by anybody's standards bankers have been rewarding themselves with obscene bonuses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158500/How-HSBC-bankers-pocket-32m--despite-60-cent-profit-fall.html

I'm not a banker and have little respect for them.

However, have you considered the levels of greed, corruption and equally obscene remuneration of some of our politicians?

And, after all, weren't they at least complicit in getting us into this mess?

globalds

I agree to a certain extent.
The golden rule has to be ..never let any group self police .
Doctors ,politicians or even the police have never policed themselves with the interest of the general public at the top of their agenda.

Bankers bonuses are somewhat different these bonuses are the result of deals struck where all parties involved were fully aware of the scam they were involved with.

bubblesmoney

lostinrates wrote: »

Why not just review how wages and bonuses are paid, and make tax avoidance less enjoyable. I don't mind proportionate bonuses, paid for good work not as an expected: its the lunacy of the current situation thats nuts IMO.

this 90% or even 100% bonus tax rule is needed where bailed out institutions have deliberately worded contracts so that they have to keep getting bonuses. so not paying the bonuses would be a contractual default and if they go to court then they would get many times the damages.

best way to call their bluff is for new emergency legislation making it mandatory for all bailed out institutions that give massive contractual bonuses to report the details to income tax authorities and deduct tax at source before dishing out the bonuses. if the new legislation passes and stays at 90% tax for bonuses in bailed out institutions then the courts cant do anything as there will be no contractual break. check mate time for the crooks who worded out these fancy contracts for themselves at the expense of tax payers. this way the company stays in the clear by paying the bonuses as per the contract, but the govt who bails out the institution gets the claw back by a 90-100% tax, this would be legal and not breach of contract as the executives obviously havent got a contract with the govt from exempting themselves from new tax laws. retrospective tax laws have already been won in court by even the british govt, so there is legal precedence for doing this in the past.

the same excuses are being used to dish out contractual bonuses to staff at the failed institutions in the uk as well. time to legislate similarly here as well and call their bluff. if they truely are deserving of bonuses then they shouldnt need bailouts in the 1st place.

Degenerate

A._Badger wrote: »

OK, how about a deal?

I'd say a tax on such bonuses was fair, providing the same rules applied to politicians and civil servants (NHS managers, MOD procurement types etc) who similarly fail.

Until it does, why single-out the bankers?

I don't have a problem with the principle, but I'm not aware of politicians or civil servants awarding themselves big bonuses for failure in the way bankers have.