100% income tax?

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hold on. Read my initial posts, I don't agree with this tax. Neither the tax itself, or the way it is being implemented. So I'm not tarring anyone.

What I disagree with, is that they will all leave. I think that's merely blackmail.

No, tube drivers threatening to strike and plunge the capital into chaos and cost millions of £'s in lost production so they can get another inflation busting pay rise is blackmail. An experienced, capable and highly skilled professional moving jobs to gain more money is freedom of trade and one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

the_ash_and_the_oak

I have no problems with workers acting in concert imo

Graham_Devon

Harry_Powell wrote: »

No, tube drivers threatening to strike and plunge the capital into chaos and cost millions of £'s in lost production so they can get another inflation busting pay rise is blackmail. An experienced, capable and highly skilled professional moving jobs to gain more money is freedom of trade and one of the cornerstones of capitalism.

They are merely threatening it at the moment. You have used the word "threatening" in the tube driver analogy and called that blackmail, and left out the word "threatening" in the bankers analogy.

If it isn't blackmail, how do you explain "If you do this, we will leave the country". Is that not a threat?

Now that the threatening is over, as the policy is actually in place, they are not talking about moving anymore, they are talking of avoidance. The threat has died down now that it hasn't gone their way.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hold on. Read my initial posts, I don't agree with this tax. Neither the tax itself, or the way it is being implemented. So I'm not tarring anyone.

What I disagree with, is that they will all leave. I think that's merely blackmail.

the black mail point has been sensationalised by the tabloid press.
it's the board room that threatened to resign.

these guys are a different story to the people that generate the income and profit for these firms where the anger is directed at.

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

You're tarring the wrong people Graham. Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Alliance and Leicester, HBOS, RBS were not brought down by their fund managers investing in equities (indeed as far as I know Northern Rock and B&B didn't have a brokerage wing), they were brought down because they loaned too much money into a single sector - property (and in the case of NR, gave 120% mortgages to people who had no way to pay them back).

Northern Rock and Lehmans securitised quite a bit of debt

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I disagree with, is that they will all leave. I think that's merely blackmail.

Well, you're wrong.

They already are leaving.

lemonjelly

bendix wrote: »

Seeing as how the so-called supertax is only valid until 5 April 2010, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out how banks can avoid it - don't pay bonuses until April 6th.

There - simple, isn't it?

This is cynical political posturing by Labour - they know they will raise precisely £0000 from it, but it will deliver a few extra votes to simple-minded voters who don't bother to read beyond the headlines.

Erm yeah.

Only the thresh-hold then will be 50%, not the current 40%.

decisions decisions....

Harry_Powell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They are merely threatening it at the moment. You have used the word "threatening" in the tube driver analogy and called that blackmail, and left out the word "threatening" in the bankers analogy.

If it isn't blackmail, how do you explain "If you do this, we will leave the country". Is that not a threat?

Now that the threatening is over, as the policy is actually in place, they are not talking about moving anymore, they are talking of avoidance. The threat has died down now that it hasn't gone their way.

As chucky has already said, it was the board of RBS who threatened to quit, not the bankers themselves. They will make individual decisions based on their own circumstances. Blackmail doesn't come into it unless they formed a collective and everyone in the banking sector went on strike to force the government to change their policies (in this case the policy on bonuses). A bit like the unions tried to do in the old days, and still do in certain industries.

It is remarkable how the Government built up the financial sector in this country, helped in part by having loose regulation, and took the credit (sic) when everything was going well. When things go badly, they hide their hand in it all and deflect all the blame onto the bankers. It's a bit like the magic trick where the Liverpool manager fails every season and yet the fans blame the Yank owners instead of him, even though they have given him all the money he needs and left him to it. Magical!

the_ash_and_the_oak

not sure what is inherently wrong with collective withdrawal of labour power

Danstar_2

chucky wrote: »

Northern Rock and Lehmans securitised quite a bit of debt

I know someone who worked for Lehmans in New York and now has a job with BarCap and is in the process of setting up his own company. He told me about the huge risks at Lehmans but all that mattered was end of year profits so he would be taking home in excess of $6mil pa.

Does he feel guilty in light of Lehmans going bust? Probably not, the banks let it happen not the bankers who make it happen.

Do I envy him? Yes, how many people can honestly say given the opporunity to work within company practices, regardless of risk, wouldn't jump at the opportunity to take him millions of pounds/dollars a year.

When I graduate and do my masters I will try to go into banking, the prospect of giving up 10-15 years of my life working excessively hard to retire from the industry at 40 with a few millions in my Coutts account and go into an easier senior corporate job is what I'm aiming for.