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?

What,

Most shareholders are not actually able to vote their shares because they are held as part of their pensions. It is a corrupt system. The institutions vote their shares based on comparison with their peers, not absolute performance. And being bough large lunches and Wimbledon boxes by the institutions they own.,,

What - I'm really not sure you understand what people are saying to you.

I'll insult you because you make rather illogical points which actually defy any intelligent person's reading of the situation. Are you in the city yourself?

Shareholders often do not "want" to pay large bonuses, the problem being that many of the largest shareholders in banks and financial institutions are other banks and financial institutions whose directors are often quite ready to maintain the status quo.

Interestingly, if you want to know what stakeholders like people who pay into private pensions make of all this you should look at the number of complaints that are going into the ombudsman. People have paid in for years and may have just as well left it in the current account to accrue interest. How is this possible when banks and institutions kept saying how good things were How is this possible when we had huge growth in the value of board member and employee returns over the last 20 years? Surely that was because of good performance? Its corrupt and decadent that's why people have a problem with it.

"larry and my point remains...the shareholders ^still want to pay those salaries* so even if they are not perfuming well, its none of our business. Its like me owning a shop and paying my employees a lot of money. Even if they are doing a bad job and I continue paying them lot of money - its not your business because its me making the loss and me paying them. Not you."

So when the shareholders are pensions schemes investing huge amounts of ordinary people's money, people who at an individual level don't know where it's being invested past "pick low medium or high risk", and the whole thing goes tits up, then the impact on those pensions schemes is, well, not a problem as far as you're concerned.

I have no problems with bankers getting bonuses....as long as they are not then saying "we are all in it together" with regards to austerity, or braying their approval to benefit cuts. Apart from that then good luck to them.

Zee Im beginning to think so too.

Without getting into the technicalities because obviously I'm either confused or failing to get those points across, I just think

1). We have no right to be envious/resentfuil of what people in the private sector are earning as ,on the whole, we do not contribute to it
2). Even if they were made to earn less, that doesn't mean we would earn more.
3). They work very hard and have a lot of responsibility. They should be rewarded for that
4). The market says they worth more than others (e,g, nurses)
5). No-one has explained the attitude towards higher earners that a re not bankers (e,g, lawyers and accountants). They haven't caused a crash yet they are often regarded the same as bankers.

To this day, I cannot understand how the pension funds who voted for the RBS/ABN Amro merger did not go to jail. The crisis was well underway, 90% + of REAL shareholders (the boring ones who actually come to AGMs and, you know, actually vote their shares) knew it was a disaster in the making. Yet the three monkeys (see no evil etc) pandered to the RBS management and lost their shareholders money. If shareholders meekly let that pass, it is no wonder nothing changes.

Why do you assume that people posting who disagree with you are not in the private sector, are not earning lots of money, are not in financial services? Maybe some are even in banking.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions, really.

@Mintyy

I fully expect to be deleted and I don't care. .

ahem

Whirl, I made no such assumptions. These are just MY opinions. I wanted others' opinions and I have them (and grateful).

Larry Could you please explain that to me in simple terms . Am genuinely interested

It does make me laugh when all wealthy business people are lumped together in this mysterious homogenous group called 'bankers', who are then blamed for everything that is wrong in, like, the whole wide world!

If I had my time again I would train to be a banker or barrister. I would definitely mention these to my DC.

If you hit targets you should be paid the agreed bonus, if the UK limits bonuses then the bankers will simply just go elsewhere and the UK will miss out of taxes and other substantial revenues this sector generates.

Ocelot14, bankers' bonuses are taxed at the appropriate rate as they do go through the payroll.

What,

About to go out for lunch but will respond in full later.

Actually, I don't care about bonuses, either.
To the extent I can understand anything in banking...
I would like to see bank sizes capped, fairly severely. So that if any one bank failed it would be a 'Meh' issue. And no bailouts to keep the bank going, just the general guarantees for deposits up to a similar amount.

No bank should be 'too big to fail.' Since it will cause catastrophe to our banking system for a big bank to fail, no bank is allowed to be big. Banks probably not allowed to invest in each other, either.

If something is genuinely private sector - ie not subsided by the government in any way at all - then no. I (as someone who works in HE) don't give a shit what they are paid.

However, many businesses are subsided in some way, or avoid paying tax in this country despite being based here, have been bailed out by the government - so as a taxpayer (higher rate for those who care) I do object to some of my taxes being used to pay someone's bonus.

You also have to think of all the ways in which we (the taxpayer) supports businesses through allowing them to pay people the NMW instead of a real living wage, which means that so many people need top up benefits in order to survive or those stupid work schemes that are essentially turning unemployed people into slave labour.

If 2008 taught us anything it should be that the real enemy is "politics of greed" not of envy and that is why some people are getting really angry with you.

yes, it is the politics of greed that makes people angry plus the massive depression that the banks have caused and not been punished for

as regards individual wages, i am not a fan of massive inequality of income as it destabilises society

Can't really blame the employees, if someone offered me £miilion bonus he'll yeah I would take it

See, maybe its because i don't think banks were entirely to blame for 2008 thats why I'm not as angry as everyone else? Besides, not all bankers were involved and so why should all bankers be punished.

I don't see a problem with inequality of wages. Different roles call for different salaries. If someone is doing the same job and earning very different amounts then yes we have a problem.

i don't have a problem with large salaries in the financial sector, or indeed any other. if Manchester United think Marwan Fellani is worth £125000 then more fool them.

however in some financial institutions bonuses are/were paid to reward behaviour that benefited the financial instituation at the expense of the stability of the wider economy. That's the nub of the problem, and it's far more worrying than some banker having a gold plated Aston Martin that a nurse could never afford

If you read my last post, my objection isn't just with banks!

how do you calculate someone's market worth ?

"See, maybe its because i don't think banks were entirely to blame for 2008 thats why I'm not as angry as everyone else?"

Well maybe you need an economic history lesson, ALL and i do mean ALL the organisations who have reviewed what went on in the early 2000s and culminating in the economic crash of 2008 put the blame fairly and squarely at the door of the banks and financial institutions. From the notoriously pro free market IMF and IFS, to universities, to central banks.

I';m guessing somewhere you going to blame government overspending ( the deficit in 07 was the same as when the tories left government in 97 so that's easily debunked.) or "people borrowing more than they should."

The whole thing was financial sector largesse and the hangover has been bailed out by public sector austerity. Shocking.

Zee I said See not Zee. I agree with your post when put in wider contexts about NMW (but banks aren't exactly known for paying NMW - hence the thread). My last post was mainly in reply to your last sentence.

Freud I don't know . The market decides. I guess its about how much money you can help make which then helps the economy obviously.

longtime I think all the factors you mentioned are to blame ; banks, government and people borrowing more than they can afford. I believe in personal responsibility. Tbf, I blame the government least.