Banker's exodus possible - does anyone care?

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

I didn't hear her. But what do you think of the basic point, which I totally agree with?

TBH, its hard to see what the point was*.....cleaners are equal to bankers? Of course,as people! Could cleaners be bankers? some of them I'm sure, could bankers be cleaners? Probably a greater number there, not through inate skill differences possibly but perhaps in some cases.

If there were no money being created by ''top earners'' (the bankers v cleaner thing is healine fodder IMO, the report seemed, to its credit to be less ridiculous than that at least!) there would be no tax for NHS, no money for hospital cleaners at all. More of us, I would imagine everybody, will at some point come into contact with a hospital cleaner....which might be relevant. also, lets invert it>>>so bankers cost us a LOT of money this year (and I rgue its not just bankers but all of us) and if hospital cleaners don't do their jobs well the results can be worse....tbh, I'd chose bad banker over bad cleaners, and good cleaners over bad bankers, and good bankers to pay for good cleaners whereever possible!

* of course I mean the intended point, its very clear what the real point was, and I think that was the problem.

carolt

We're not going to agree on this, LIR, given I'm left wing and you're right.

Fundamentally, I think we need far fewer bankers. I don't see they provide any essential service we need. I don't wish to borrow lots of money or benefit from others doing so. Whereas if people stopped cleaning hospitals or teaching our children, that would impact on everbody's lives in ways that really matter.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

We're not going to agree on this, LIR, given I'm left wing and you're right.

Fundamentally, I think we need far fewer bankers. I don't see they provide any essential service we need. I don't wish to borrow lots of money or benefit from others doing so. Whereas if people stopped cleaning hospitals or teaching our children, that would impact on everbody's lives in ways that really matter.

There is nothing to say we can't agree to differ though! I am hugely admiring of the intellectual left (and I think I do have left wing leanings, otehr wise being rightward leaning would be easier!) I just don't think this is the best of the intellectual left!

It was not detailed in point on the radio slot....but substitute the jobs....lets say...NHS doctor, and .....hospital cleaner. Banker and betting shop clerk....airline pilot and ambulance driver.....not such a good headline? Its certanly not as clear cut. Society needs each other. We need people to be able to afford to pay for services/goods form us to pay other people for services and goods. We need people who earn best to provide for those who can't earn at all and we all need to contribute towards essential services. without higher earners, everyone elses bill would go up.

misskool

lostinrates wrote: »

without higher earners, everyone elses bill would go up.

or we could all be communists and then everyone wouldn't have to worry about home ownership and people being paid more than others?

Honestly, people get paid disporpotionate amounts to what they do. It's life. bankers just happen to be one of them. get over it.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

or we could all be communists and then everyone wouldn't have to worry about home ownership and people being paid more than others?

Honestly, people get paid disporpotionate amounts to what they do. It's life. bankers just happen to be one of them. get over it.

An option, certainly, the ones who were left could all be communists...

carolt

misskool wrote: »

or we could all be communists and then everyone wouldn't have to worry about home ownership and people being paid more than others?

Honestly, people get paid disporpotionate amounts to what they do. It's life. bankers just happen to be one of them. get over it.

We could all be communists...or socialists.

Excellent idea.

Sir_Humphrey

As if most City boys pay a full 40% in tax on their earnings in the higher bracket! Come on, I wasn't born yesterday.

As someone who spends some time in Geneva on govt business, I can tell you a winter of Sundays in Geneva is a terrible price to pay for paying a little bit less tax.

I do not see why getting rid of the greediest of the City is such a bad thing, particularly as we are supposed to be rebalancing the UK economy.

Maybe Paul Daniels will finally follow them out!

whathavewedone

The issue is that if they go there will be fewer taxes received for the NHS, education, defence, welfare state etc etc etc.

It's pure scapegoating and class war politics that achieves the complete opposite of what's intended, ie fewer taxes received for frontline services. Then the only option is to impose higher taxes on people who can't afford to fork out for expensive tax advice and or make drastic cuts to public services.

The government know this full well which is why they have increased national insurance on everyone over 20k which is going to bring in a lot more revenue than this banker's tax which even by their estimates which only bring in 500 million but will in reality probably end up losing the country more in taxes than it brings in.

Carolt and Sir Humphrey, can you provide an explanation as to why when Lawson lowered the top rate of tax to 40% more taxes were received than when the rate was set higher?

Carolt, you said on another thread how great it was to get paid for fingerpainting etc (can't recall exactly what you said but got the impression you maybe teach reception or Year 1 children?). Clearly you enjoy your job - many people don't. You also get great holidays and that should be reflected in your salary.

Banking, at the level where big bonuses are paid, is a highly pressured job. People go into it for the money - they retire early because otherwise they'd burn out.

I used to work as lawyer (another profession that's vilified by people who haven't got the first clue) and often clients would treat me like dirt - and that was just over thousands of pounds. When money is as stake even the nicest people can become quite vile. I don't doubt for a minute that bankers take a lot of abuse on a daily basis as well working very long hours, weekends, taking hardly any holiday etc. If they don't make their targets they are going to be out on their !!!. As someone who works in the public sector, you can't understand the sort of pressure that puts on people - as someone who worked as a lawyer who was only as good as last month's billing figures, I certainly can.

Why can't you just be happy that you've got a job you enjoy with great job security, a good life work/balance which enables you to spend time with your kids and accept that the trade off is that you aren't going to get rich doing it?

It's somewhat ridiculous to come on a forum about the economy after the year that we've had and say that banks aren't imporant. So you don't want to borrow money, you don't want a mortgage, you don't want to save money or invest on the stockmarket - newsflash - you are not representative of most people in the UK and even you must surely have your wages paid directly into a bank or building society account - I can't believe that a teacher gets paid cash in hand and keeps her money in a biscuit tin in the kitchen.

ChiefGrasscutter

whathavewedone wrote: »

Carolt and Sir Humphrey, can you provide an explanation as to why when Lawson lowered the top rate of tax to 40% more taxes were received than when the rate was set higher?

I'm aware of this concept and the result, but it didn't apply apply to me on a personal level when Lawson brought in this change. The reduction in tax was for me effectively a pay rise to an already well paid person and the consequent increase in my surplus income mean't that I had even more money to spend on figuring out how I could I could pay even LESS tax.
So all in all HMG lost out big time from me.....I thought they were nuts at the time!

Obviously there will be a "bell" curve for this idea - in that ever reducing tax rates will eventually start to reduce the amount of overall tax take just as increasing the tax rates equally reduces the overall tax rate

Sir_Humphrey

whathavewedone wrote: »

Carolt and Sir Humphrey, can you provide an explanation as to why when Lawson lowered the top rate of tax to 40% more taxes were received than when the rate was set higher?

Because it happened to correspond with an unsustainable boom triggered by overly lax fiscal and monetary policy.

Sounds familar?