To not see the problem with bankers bonuses? Politics of envy?

[What1]

This is not a thread about a them read but I just read a comment which inspired me to ask ; why do so many people have a problem with bankers bonuses or the high salaries in the City? I mean, these are private institutions (nnot supported by the public ; except for the odd bank), so I just don't see why people think the salaries will affect them.

The way I see it, if they paid less and didn't give bonuses, then the shareholders would get to keep more to themselves and the general public don't benefit anyway (I may be wrong?)

It's just quite annoying reading all these comments which seem to stem from envy. So I have to ask ; why do you (oor people you know) have a problem with big bonuses and high salaries ; AIBU to not care about their salaries and be annoyed by these politics of envy?

Mintyy, your link to António Horta-Osório's pay packet (who arguably earned every penny for Lloyds) you linked to IS an example of sheer envy.

He is not one of the bankers who is tarred with causing the financial crisis. He is in fact working to get the bailed out Lloyds out of public ownership.

You are entitled to your views about the size of his remuneration. But your envy is shining through.

Good post butterfly

I'm with the op here. Can't stand people who dislike others because of the amount of money they are paid.

It's called market rate. In the same way that the market has determined that a footballer can be paid £300k per week, the market has determined these people can have hug bonuses.

Anyone who says they wouldn't take it, is a liar.

Just picking up on the shareholder point - most of us to indirectly benefit from this. Most pension funds will be invested and a fair few councils also invest (I vaugely recall a couple of councils were really buggered by icelands bankruptcy).

My biggest issue with bankers bonuses is it encourages corruption and illegality because the financial rewards are so big. Bonuses as a concept I have no issue with, but when they are so influential on the whole economy we should be protected from harm because of the opportunity and power of a small number of people wishing to gain financially.

I don't feel like explaining my position! It should be obvious.

As I said, I quite expect to be deleted.

ooops. I did, of course, mean huge bonuses.

Hug bonuses would be pretty cool though....

blueshoes

Just how is my envy shining through? Do you think I want to be a banker earning millions of pounds?

What colour are your eyes? I say they are the opposite.

I'm sorry but giving some sob story about those poor bankers working 14 hour days boils my piss.

There are nurses and plenty of others, doing similar hours in very important jobs, who get paid a piss poor amount in comparison. Oh how my heart doesn't bleed for those poor bankers.

Their unscrupulous investments have fucked it for every one else and they can fuck right off.

Agree with norniron.

"Anyone who says they wouldn't take it, is a liar."

Well that is patently untrue. You shouldn't judge others by your own greediness.

I wouldn't take it. I have a conscience.

nornironrock "Anyone who says they wouldn't take it, is a liar."

I don't know. Occasionally you get a good egg. Doesn't the CEO of Next divvy up his crazy bonus between his employees? And I've worked in one place where the CE declined percentage based rises and put them in a fund for staff at non-director level. His reasoning was that with people getting % pay rises, senior pay was going up and up at a bizarre rate in comparison to junior ones. Also I think he saw the argument - as do I - that many senior people are working less hard than juniors. (I know I get to work less hard than when I was younger, it's more about strategy now). As for "bankers working hard" - sure - but so do nurses, retail workers, factory workers etc etc.

stargirl
Politics of inequality, I would say. The cleaner in this company works for a contractor on a zero hours, minimum wage contract whilst the CEO earns millions... The differential is bad for society.

That's what the Labour Party have done too (leaders earn millions whilst they employ hundred of people in zero hour contracts) - why haven't they been vilified in the same way the banks have?

Not ALL banks required a bailout from the govt so I don't have an issue with people working their earning their money how they see fit. I also think although some of these traders do carry out shady deals it also encourages others so it all evens out, where one door closes another one opens.

Mintyy, you called the OP stupid but you still haven't explained why. Saying "it's obvious" is stupid because it's not that obvious.
I am enjoying reading the well reasoned thought out posts about why bankers bonuses are of concern.

I didn't expect to see so many replies this quick! I can't reply to them all.

Mintty No need to be rude - you could just say you disagree

I do believe in people getting paid what the market deems they are worth which is why I fail to see the problem. Especially as it's not paid for the public. These people (so I hear) work crazy hours and work very hard for their money.

Also, I don't agree that bankers and other City workers are not important just because they don't work in hospitals. I think the work they do is very important and affects all of us - as such, they do deserve to be highly rewarded. They can't be blamed just because the public sector doesn't reward as well.

See, I have no problem with footballers being paid silly amounts of money.

I wouldn't pay it out myself, but where's the harm?

Football isn't part of critical national infrastructure and doesn't cripple or accelerate the rest of the economy when it booms or busts.

So I don't care how much footballers are paid.

NB If someone now explains how football pay does have bad effects, possibly indirectly, I'm prepared to turn my beady eye on it. But my criterion for doing so remains "where's the harm?"

Butterfly: "3) ....we create massive tax breaks so that people who are amassing wealth through the financial system - not through work that brings a benefit to anyone - are able to get out of paying tax. I'm not asking for these people to be over-taxed but in many cases they can pay about 2%. They should be paying the way ordinary people, without access to tax havens and lawyers, pay. My interest on my bank account is taxed just as my income is taxed (apart from the ISA allowance). Why doesn't the same apply to them?"

You are talking about "non-doms", not bankers per se here. As Hermione says, most bankers pay top rate tax (up to 45%) on their income through PAYE. There is no way to get out of that.

Non-doms are a pretty small elite group (some globe-trotting bankers but think Russian oligarch), about 115,000 of them only in 2012-13. Their numbers have already fallen when Labour decided to charge non-doms £30,000 a year if they have been a UK resident for 7 years.

It is not a huge group though they already pay a significant amount of tax. It does generate a lot of daily mail hate though.

"House price inflation in London is largely fuelled by ludicrous city bonuses"

Not so, this is fuelled by non doms and people buying property as an investment that will go up in value. Such people too only live in such property for a couple of months of the year if that.

I don't really agree with 'politics of inequality' in the examples that have been used. Surely you can't expect a cleaner to earn as much as a CEO? Right?

One reason for the huge salary/bonus for investment bankers is "we need to attract the best, the brightest". But why? Surely the "best and brightest" should be encouraged to be scientists, engineers, medical professionals.
I see banking (and accounting) as a 'support function' - one which enables businesses to function. It's wrong that 'finance jobs' should be so highly paid.

When banks are being bailed out with tax payers money then the above statement is nonsense.

And when they fuck up (and when they do it has a huge impact on everything else) they should have to pay it back.

If I worked in a shop and made a big mistake with cash, I'd have to pay it back.

YY

Bonuses to the people working lower down the scale are no problem obviously/

This schoolsground "oh you're just jealous" idea is very, I don't know, it feels like the purpose is to shut down conversation about this.

The financial incentives in certain arms of the banking industry contributed to a host of very serious problems.

Not wanting to talk about that, to question it, should there be caps, should the system be structured in a different way, is there any way to reward that will lead to more desirable thought processes and practices, I don't think that is a conversation that should be shut down and I would question why people would want to do that. Maybe it's this "great and good" effect where those who have succeeded (in whatever terms that is measured) are conferred with positive attributes. Don't know, it's a puzzle.

Also the people on the thread have no way of knowing what sectors many people on the thread work in, or how much they earn, or what their families do and so on.

On legislation etc, it is simply a fact that when left to their own devices many people will behave in ways that are not wholly positive for those around them. That's why we have laws and taxes and all sorts of things.

If the structure of the compensation packages at the higher end of an industry has been shown to result in undesirable behaviours which have impacted adversely on others, up to and including breaking codes and / or laws, then the structure needs to be looked at. IMO.

applauds youthecat

FlabulousChix your son will not be paying half of his salary in tax

And many people work long hours for many their incentive is for different reasons look up the hours junior doctors work and the pay they get