Bankers are bloody getting away with it.

[julesrose]

unlimited bonuses and this crappy government can't / won't do anything about it.

I think I'll move my bank account to the bank who pays the lowest bonuses. Anyone care to join?

the government was never going to be able to limit bonuses. You can't have an industry where pay is legally capped in a capitalist society. All they could do is tax them more.
And why do you care anyway - RBS and Lloyds are the only ones who got taxpayer money, and they are now being turned around for an eventual profit.

RBS is owned by us, so effectively public sector now?

I'm a teacher, the government don't seem to have struggled too bloody much to limit my salary .

I am utterly digusted with this decison on bonuses and I used to work in The City and I voted for Cameron.

It is wrong.

you can't compare working as a teacher to working for a profit-making organisation.

RBS and lloyds are the only two banks that have had government money - and yes, I can see the argument for wanting to limit their bonuses. But once you enter into privately-owned companies or companies owned by share-holders you cannot start to dictate what they can pay their employees.

And in reality the government was never going to win this - rbs are now one of the highest paying employers in the city in order to not pay out big bonuses, instead they're prepared to pay the highest salaries to get the best staff, and surely, as a tax-payer funded bank, you want them to have the best staff, to achieve the best results, to make a profit, so the money can go back into the economy?

Or would people prefer that the financial industry ships out of the UK as well, and don't think that banks wouldn't move their head offices elsewhere - I'm sure switzerland would more than welcome them in.

Also, it's a very small minority of employees that get massive bonuses, the majority of bonuses are divided up between the rest of the employees - down to the lowly bank tellers. the vast vast majority of people who work for a bank and receive a bonus are not in a position to avoid paying tax on it.

BeenBeta, not being facetious but I'm surprised that you're surprised. Cameron looks after his own - these are his own.

Twas ever thus.

I'm not comparing being a teacher to being a banker (hilarious comparison on so many levels) but I'm saying they had no trouble capping our salaries. What happened to the "we're all in it together" bullshit?

And I don't buy the line that they'll all up and leave if we don't pay them these obscene salaries. That's blackmail of the worst kind and totally untrue. Some would leave, not all.

What are people on about? This has nothing to do with the government. David Cameron urged them to cut the bonuses. He can't MAKE them do anything. This is the private sector not the public. Stop blaming the government for everything!

Sad that they have decided to go ahead with large bonuses but not much we can do and I am not surprised tbh.

"I'm not comparing being a teacher to being a banker (hilarious comparison on so many levels) but I'm saying they had no trouble capping our salaries. What
happened to the "we're all in it together" bullshit?" It's not the government that decides how much you get paid as a teacher though, is it? And teachers' salaries are not capped as far as I'm aware, but obviously the amount that teachers can be paid is limited to the amount of money the local authority gives to your school and the grade at which you are employed. Yes the government has an education budget and teachers' salaries are taken from that but that's not equivalent to teachers' salaries being capped.

That being said even if they were, the reason for that is that salaries for public sector workers come directly from the taxpayer and there is only so much money in the pot. Whereas banks like rbs and lloyds are now generating a profit and are therefore in a position to be able to increase salaries from their own resources as opposed to needing the government to increase their money, iyswim.

"And I don't buy the line that they'll all up and leave if we don't pay them these obscene salaries. That's blackmail of the worst kind and totally untrue.
Some would leave, not all." It would only take one bank to move its head office to say, zurich, to start the ball rolling. We're not talking actual individuals here - we're talking banks moving their head offices out of the UK and into another country where they are not dictated to. You are very naive if you think that this wouldn't happen.

also, it's not "we" paying these enormous salaries. apart from RBS and lloyds the banks here are all privately owned and therefore their salaries are paid from their profits, in the same way as all companies pay their employees. If you start dictating to one industry what they're allowed to pay their staff where do you draw the line?

Other than RBS and Lloyds no other bank can be dictated to about not giving bonuses as they are privately owned.

If RBS and Lloyds banks did have a cap as the government has a say it's very likely they would lose their best staff to competitors.

Of course Government can't tell privately owned companies how much to pay their staff - anyone who believes they can is naive.

KnittingRocks - I really thought better of Cameron given his background and upbringing.

This line that the Govt cant do anything about banker salaries is not correct.

It could tell banks they had to hold much more capital against trading positions and make thme write off loan losses properly and that would immediately collapse bank profits - hence lower bonuses.

On top of that, as the major shareholder in some banks it can tell managment not to pay bonuses. Fact is it just doesn't want to.

I have no problem with high pay and big bonuses where they are deserved and properly earned.

I am in no doubt that without direct and indirect Govt and Bank of England support no banker would have a job let alone bonus.

Our governments tend to be frightened of the bankers and the press. More frightened than they are of the voters. (Until about 18 months before the general election)

I see Cameron as a good speiler; but not much of a leader. Events could force the Tories to go it alone with a minority government. (they can last if other parties dont want an election)

Ok firstly let's be clear. The deficit the government are making cuts for is NOT caused by the banks.

This was caused by decades of overspending. The banks have not helped but as others have said, only the nationalised banks have had public money.

Now you might argue that as part of this bailout, said banks should not be able to pay huge bonuses. And I'd have every sympathy for that view.

Except Labour didn't stipulate that in the contracts. So now the Tories are left holding the bag and trying to negotiate a smaller bonus based on a contract which has already been signed! The right time to have nailed them on that would have been when they were desperate for money facing collapse. Why would a banker now agree to pay less? We own them and the contract is binding.

For those owned privately and didn't need support, it's a slippery slope to start insisting on certain remuneration in a free society. It's something the government should just not do.

these guys have contracts and a specific means to decide remuneration.

as they refresh staff, they can change that package, or tweak it within the terms of the package.

but they can't just bin those contracts once signed.

the problem with this is if the government insisted on it, they could end up spending yet more in fruitless litigation due to breach of contract.

in my (non public owned) bank our bonuses were downed within the existing framework last year. but not done away with completely.

Exactly. So let's say you are a fat cat banker. The govt is your boss and last year you agreed a measly couple of million squid.

Now your "boss" comes back and says "Listen old chap, there's a bit of a kerfuffle. Can we just give you £1 million instead?". What would you say?

I think I'd be waving my contract at them and saying " nah!"

Well, that just goes to show how morally bankrupt these people are. Nobody needs to have a 2 million quid bonus. It is completely unnecessary and indefensible.

Do people really want the government telling them how much they can earn ?
Nobody needs a 2 million bonus, well nobody needs a lottery win but you don't hear of many winners handing the lot over to charity do you ?

Well, yes, I seriously WOULD like the government to put a cap on these ridiculous amounts, particularly when banks continue to bleed their customers dry with their unfair charges and pay most of their call centre staff the minimum wage.

I think we need a much fairer society, not one where a handful of people receive a bonus worth 100 times the average worker's salary.

At least charities benefit from the National Lottery in some way, although frankly I think your comparison is rather strange.

woolyideas, by your measure, footballers, actors, pop stars and other high earners are morally bankrupt.

beenbeta - as i'm sure you know, capital requirements have been raised and it is harder to make profits (from less leverage).

unfortunately it's customers and shareholders who will fund much of the pain, not employees.

if things are going to change, shareholders should step up to the plate and give a toss about pay that could be going in their pockets instead in the form of dividends.

but the government can only do so much as a shareholder in RBS and Lloyds, without hurting the chances of its own profit on the stakes. Incidentally the bailout gave it a say on the RBS bonus pools last year but not this year.

You are only charged when you break the rules that you agree to, they pay their staff what their staff are prepared to accept, if all the staff wanted more money they could a) ask for it b) move to a better paid job or c) strike for better conditions, but they are good little sheep and put up with it. Who's the fool ?

I read recently an article written by someone knowledgeable saying that London will always remain competitive even if taxes were raised. Damned if I can find it now to link.

So I think it's gumpf that banks will just move out of the country. Empty threats IMO.

I think taxes are the way to sort this out. That and keep funding HMRC tax evasion teams to sort out the loopholes, instead of cutting their staff.

Most banks are private companies and so are entitled to pay whatever bonuses they like and there is little the Government can do about it. The nationalised banks could restrict/stop bonuses but that is likely to disenfranchise staff and lead to the best bankers at the nationalised banks being headhunted and moving to the non-nationalised banks.

it is not an empty threat for the myriad of foreign investment banks and investment banking arms of large UK banks to relocate their UK people to friendlier climes. Yes there are certain businesses that are preferable to do on the ground in the UK but there are plenty of trading desks and other functions that could set up elsewhere.
That would be a massive amount of tax revenue going out the door.
It is also entirely possible that banks like HSBC and Standard Chartered, which actually do most of their business in Asia, would relocate.
Anyone who thinks this is an empty threat should be aware of all the U.K. corporates that have moved their HQ to Ireland for tax purposes, e.g., WPP, Shire, United Business Media, Henderson Group.