Banker's exodus possible - does anyone care?

abaxas

kmmr wrote: »

That's also a good point. RBS is a huge organization, and some areas will be making a lot of money, and the worst areas are costing the rest of the profit!

Anyway, the vast vast majority of banks and bankers/traders do NOT work for RBS or HBOS. They work for any one of the 700 or so banks in the UK, pumping huge amounts of tax and money into the economy. And all are penalised by these silly populist rule changes.

As someone said before, they also supported numerous shops, using that evil bonus money. Presumably all those who benefited from the bonus all down the chain now also get hit with 50% tax?

Then if they want a bonus, they need to split the group up.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

abaxas wrote: »

Then if they want a bonus, they need to split the group up.

So you want to remove the 6 Billion pounds a year of profit making investment arm, and leave us stuck with the loss making retail banking arm. The bit that is the whole reason we guaranteed the banks to begin with.

Instead of letting the profit making bit subsidise the loss making bit, you'd split it up and let the taxpayer cover the whole loss. And all that to not let the bankers earn bonuses they've earned making profits to pay us back with after the bailouts.

Great Plan!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So you want to remove the 6 Billion pounds a year of profit making investment arm, and leave us stuck with the loss making retail banking arm. The bit that is the whole reason we guaranteed the banks to begin with.

Instead of letting the profit making bit subsidise the loss making bit, you'd split it up and let the taxpayer cover the whole loss. And all that to not let the bankers earn bonuses they've earned making profits to pay us back with after the bailouts.

Great Plan!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

A plan that every other business has to do. Why does this need to be a special case?

Maybe failure is the new success? People will just skim off money and leave the rest for others to pick up the bill. Is that really the UK we want?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

abaxas wrote: »

A plan that every other business has to do. Why does this need to be a special case?

Maybe failure is the new success? People will just skim off money and leave the rest for others to pick up the bill. Is that really the UK we want?

So just to be clear, you'd rather the taxpayer paid Billions more, than let a banker get the bonus they rightfully earned making profits to pay us back?

Are you clinically insane?

ses6jwg

Its clear from some comments in this thread that some people should stick to the Sun, cans of Stella and X factor because they seem to lack the mental capacity to grasp such important and complex topics as economics.

smartn

I don't see why traders should get bonuses unless they outperform the markets though. Lets face it most private investors could have made money in the last twelve months by sticking a pin in a random list of shares. The share prices were driven down by panic caused by the banks and then back up again as the panic eased.

Over the last ten years shareholders have made very little in the way of profit if you look at the indicies, and yet traders can benefit more from having boom and bust than from a steady rise. This to me is just plain wrong.

I'm all for rewarding outperformance though.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So just to be clear, you'd rather the taxpayer paid Billions more, than let a banker get the bonus they rightfully earned making profits to pay us back?

Are you clinically insane?

No,

I believe that the rules should be followed without exception. Why bothing sticking to laws or rules, when there is no consequence for breaking them?

It's a bit like <16 car theives. They know they are above the law, so can steal with imputity.

kabayiri

I'm not quite sure why so much of the debate here focuses on hard numbers, such as what profits are/are not generated by investment bankers.

Quite frankly, it matters nought.

Public perception, on the whole, is massively stacked against these people, and political parties, eager to appeal to the masses, will prey on any bit of populism they can get.

Having a spokesperson like Angela Knight does them no favours either. She is the same person who defends bank charges on the masses on television. Hardly a winning recipe.

Blacksheep1979

carolt wrote: »

Am I the only person to feel 'Oh good, I'll be glad to see the back of the greedy, incompetent barstewards', when I read articles like this?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c7d6520-e37e-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html

Sadly moves like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/10/brown-and-sarkozy-tax-bankers

make it less likely they'll have anywhere more lucrative to bog off to.

No you're probably not the only stupid person out there. Have you seen how much tax these folk pay, or the sums of money that goes through the country due to them.

Now in your blinkered little world you're probably just looking at the likes of RBS/Lloyds etc who have some of our money, but if you open up your eyes and look at firms from outside the uk that haven't had any uk taxpayer money like goldman sachs, deutsche bank, jpm morgan, morgan stanley (and the list goes on) - do you really want to lose their tax money?

Another simple example that you may understand better is say a Morgan Stanley banker gets a 100k bonus and is based in the UK. Ignoring NI (both from the company and the individual) £40k of that goes straight to the govenment as tax. Then he decides he wants a fast car/house/holiday/other consumer goods and 15% (soon to be 17.5%) of that goes to the government. Also as he's a fairly well paid person he probably eats out/drinks out a fair bit - again money through tax and supporting the leisure/service industries.

Anyone you know work or have anything to do with those industries/rely on them, think we can really do without the money?

carolt

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

No you're probably not the only stupid person out there. Have you seen how much tax these folk pay, or the sums of money that goes through the country due to them.

Now in your blinkered little world you're probably just looking at the likes of RBS/Lloyds etc who have some of our money, but if you open up your eyes and look at firms from outside the uk that haven't had any uk taxpayer money like goldman sachs, deutsche bank, jpm morgan, morgan stanley (and the list goes on) - do you really want to lose their tax money?

Another simple example that you may understand better is say a Morgan Stanley banker gets a 100k bonus and is based in the UK. Ignoring NI (both from the company and the individual) £40k of that goes straight to the govenment as tax. Then he decides he wants a fast car/house/holiday/other consumer goods and 15% (soon to be 17.5%) of that goes to the government. Also as he's a fairly well paid person he probably eats out/drinks out a fair bit - again money through tax and supporting the leisure/service industries.

Anyone you know work or have anything to do with those industries/rely on them, think we can really do without the money?

Did you know that starting a post by addressing someone you disagree with as stupid isn't usually the most effective means of getting them of consider your point of view?

I'm not stupid, but you ARE unnecessarily rude.