to think that bankers who sue take legal action to protect their bonuses should ...

[MmeReindor]

be made to live in a grotty mouldy B&B for a month, so they can see the consequences of their actions. There are people who have lost their jobs because of the recession, who have lost their home, lost everything.

And the bankers still insist on a bonus. On top of their already well paid job?

I am speechless.

The Guardian reports today that this may happen.

Already in Germany, the Commerzbank is facing a legal challenge from its subsiduary, DresdenKleinwort

The bankers claim that Commerzbank, which bought Dresdner Kleinwort, should have honoured an agreement to provide a ?400m bonus pool for 2008. Dresdner Kleinwort reported a ?6.3bn loss for 2008, which Commerzbank believes changed its commitment to the bankers

What really gets my goat is the comment about taxes, from a think tank.

City bonuses are expected to total £4.2bn in 2011, down 38% on the £6.7bn paid out last year, ... will generate about £2.5bn for the Treasury, ... this is still some distance ...from the £6.8bn collected in the peak of 2007-08, clearly illustrating how the taxpayer also misses out when the City pays lower bonuses,"

How in the name of all that is holy, does that even make a bit of sense?

We bail the banks out with taxpayers' money, but should be grateful that we are getting £2.5bn back - if we even get it back, as no doubt some of it will vanish in an off-shore bank account, or via shady tax avoidance.

In the late 90's the investment bank that I worked for physically segregated its investment banking (traders) from customer funds (retail clients, like your everyday account at Lloyds etc).

That meant that the Bank could only trade it's own capital. I gather that this government has approved plans to reintroduce this mechanism, which should ringfence the ordinary customers cash.

those in the public sector are fighting to stop changes so when they retire they can live off their pension not have to rely on a state pension

many that work in banking will earn more in one year than a teacher will earn in 10 this is about pure greed not about needs no one needs to earn £500k a year but many many do and feel they are entitled to that why becasue the banks have paid them that not becasue they need to but because those at the top making decisions on what to pay their staff are driven by greed too

Most people in the private sector live off their state pension though - why is it such a terrible thing for public sector workers? The old adage about earnings no longer stands.

I support neither to be frank. Both sectors need to be realistic.

It just seems wrong to give moral green light to teachers but not bankers on an issue. Total earnings shouldn't come into it.

odd when banker types come on here and claim there is no alternative to the disgusting financial arrangements we endure now. "Holding the country to ransom" was an accusation thrown at trade unionist who were fighting for a decent wage. Now bankers declare it with no compunction. 'keep feeding us obscene amounts of money or we'll leave you'

but there IS no morality in the bankworld, and the day they are All nationalised can't come a day too soon.

I agree Freudian, and my support of the public sector is what seats me towards (grudgingly) saying that if it is contracted then they should get it. I would be interested to see how many banking apologists were also on the strike threads slating them though...

The only way to reform the banking sector would be by worldwide agreement, I can't see that happening.

"You'd be screaming blue murder if a company you worked for posted profits and then rescinded on their legal obligations"

Or if you'd taken a low paid job at the start of your career and started paying into a decent pension for your old age, only to be told a decade or so down the line that that was all changing.

Bankers at the top end are grossly overpaid. So, however, are a lot of senior public sector managers. They are not necessarily any more moral. People paid £150k to manage a council, people paid similar to manage a few departments within one hospital, tube drivers paid £30k + to "drive" a tube etc. And, there are plenty of dodgy deals going on, too. Look at how cosy councillors are with building developers. You only need to read private eye to see how corrupt some of the public sector is.

On the other hand, at the bottom, there are plenty of "bankers" working hard for £15-20k per year, with crappy pensions to boot.

It is fair enough to question banking, bankers' pay, and how it serves society but to isolate it from everything else is completely wrong.

"You only need to read private eye to see how corrupt some of the public sector is." - sorry Loz, when you put that fwd as some kind of defence of bankers or an attack on the PS you lost what modest credibility you had.

150K to manage a council with all of that responsibility and legal vuklnerability is utter peanuts. The same amount paid to one individual to grab more of a pie than someone else should be a criminal offence.

I agree. I would also argue there are more public sector workers on low salaries than in banking, and they out number those earning a lot. Besides, it has already been said that £150k isn't exceptional in banking, whereas it is fairly in the public sector.

So, £150k is peanuts. Try telling that to a teacher or nurse working in a ward. And at the job security and pension to it, and the possibilty of doing some cosy under-the-table deals.

Also, whatever you may feel about bankers, most of the senior ones have top degrees from top unis and do work 12+ hours/day. And your average council leader...well, why don't you look them up for yourself? And they insure against legal liability.

Sorry, credibility is based on looking at things in the round, not wrapping oneself in a halo whilst going on a witchhunt. I have explained things as they are. If they don't suit your puffed up indignity, that is too bad.

It isn't peanuts in the PS, but is relatively in banking.

If posters are familiar with the feminist bingo card, then you may see the value in having Bankers Bingo. So we hear:

• we work jolly hard

-there is no alternative -it was everybody's fault -it's no-one's fault -if we didn't do it someone else will -if we can't keep on getting loadsa money off you we'll leave -but everyone in the world does it -it's all your own faults for borrowing money we provided in loans for you ( and make a massive whack off still as well) -we pay loads in taxes ( tho' nothing like you should) -it's the govts/FSA's fault..

yadder.

I blame the public sector personally. All these over paid teachers and nurses.

Tube drivers paid £30k is a bad example. They live in a city where even a modest 3 bed house costs £200k+ so that salary is not living comfortably.

oh Loz - don't be so defensive! Though you haven't explained things as they are. You are presenting as a rather mealy-mouthed apologist, who has claimed to have washed his hands of some dirty work recently.

150k IS peanuts forthe responsibilities that come with a LA Chief Exec Position.

I know NN. Who really needs £21k as a professional after all?

Deal with facts, not what you want.

£150k is far from exceptional in banking. However, it is far from the norm. For every banker earning £150k, there are a minimum of 10 earning under £40k (And some a lot less). Also within the sanctified public sector, we also have the BBC with managers earning over £1mio per annum and many over £300k. I assume that is not peanuts in anyone's book. And I am talking managers not the "talent". And, how about the NHS? Care to look up what the senior managers earn for administrating. After all, the strategic decisions are made by politicians, so they are merely implementing them. That is very different from managing in the private sector.

Also, in front office (where the real money is made) careers tend to finish late 30s, early 40s. You have to factor that in. As you can see, I am the first to admit bankers are and have been grossly overpaid. But, I also think that they reflect where society is, they do not stand alone.

As soon as bingo cards are mentioned, you might as well cease having a meaningful discussion. Every argument that can be made (some silly, some perfectly valid) are added to a stupid list so that the opponent can cease to engage meaningfully. Just childish and boring.

The Bankers Bingo Card? No Loz, it's an entertaining way of focussing on some truths about the rubbish we are fed by apologists such as yourself - it just conveniently lists them all in one place. Which is inconvenient for you.

but thanks for the new one - 'it's a short career'. Ah So that makes it okay then. .
go on loz, give us some more 'defences'? You're doing fine so far.

Deep.

You go on in your comfortable "four legs good, two legs bad" belief. Makes things nice and simple.

????

Animal Farm, Deepie. A seminal work of literature by G. Orwell. Maybe you should look it up sometime.

Not at all Larry. But trying to put banking and the public sector on the same level in terms of culpability is insulting to be frank. Yes, there are excesses and wastages within the PS, but really, a drop in the ocean.

You would have a lot more responsibility within the PS for a £150k salary than you would for the same in banking. I would also argue you would also need to be as qualified.

who are these bankers earning less the 40k

do you mean those that work in banks on the high street?

oh I know that Loz. I am an erudite and widely read free-thinker. So Iwas confused as to why you referred me to that work. Still don't but I'll live with it.

If it was in my contract I'd definitely be suing for it.