'Should bankers' bonuses be stopped?' poll discussion

If the bank did not require state aid the public has no right to butt its nose in.

Most of it just amounts to jealousy I'm afraid.

Different kettle of fish if its a bank that has received state aid though.

jmb2808 wrote: »

I work for the government and work my hardest and I never get a bonus or even a letter of thank you every year and to top it all off the government are in talks about stopping a pay rise next year for us!
How dare they!!!
Why should they get a bonus each year for just going to work and doing their job???? I don't!!!!

Kind of sums up public sector mentality. If you don't like it why don't you get out?

I think that there is a balance to be had with bonuses. I have a few opinons that i would like to share.

1st - if the goverment baled out banks do not pay the market bonus levels, all the very good talented people will leave to the companies that will pay them properly. Then we will be left with the not very good people at the banks. This means that the bank will NEVER be able to pay the money back to the goverment.

2nd - while the bonuses are very high, the pressure that these people live under is massive. They rarely see their families, have nervous breakdowns and work 80+ hours per week. they should be FAIRLY paid for this. However i do feel that these bonuses are too high.

3rd - if the goverment imposes bonus limits on bankers, they should do for the whole country. so that would be all perfomerance related pay stopped.

4th - these bonuses support a bigger industry. these people have to pay tax on this so 40% goes to the goverment. they then spend the rest on hotels, cars, houses, restaurant, shopping etc. So this means more companies will go bust.

5th - while the goverment has given money to these banks, most of it is in garentees, meaning that unless they default on them it does not cost the goverment as much.

6th - If the goverment did not help these banks, the country would be far worst off.


finally after all that ranting i voted C as it should be shareholders who ditate rules on bonuses as it is their money.

If there were genuine cut-throat competition in the banking industry they wouldn't have the billions of pounds to hand out in bonuses, would they?

It does seem wrong that, just because they are in the business of working with money, the traders get paid ten to a hundred times more than people in other equally skilled industries.

I am torn between A & B

I think a relevant point is being missed here. If you had 50 traders in your company each earning a salary of say £250,000.00 PA and getting potential bonuses of £750,000.00 each PA then that is a wages bill of £50,000,000.00 PA. Would you want to put these people on salary only positions?

The salary would be an unadvoidable cost and if you didn't make the profits to cover this cost then you post a loss, driving share prices down etc.

if you start a new business and are watching the pennies then you give yourself a small salary and make it up with dividends based on your Companies ability to pay them, is that not the same here?