Should City Workers Voluntarily Return their Bonuses to the State?

[rabbitstew]

Would that be the Big Society in action? ie an acceptance that the City owes the State a lot of money at the moment which it is only refusing to return in the form of not paying out bonuses because it argues that the problems we now have are not the responsibility of any one individual.

And do City workers genuinely believe they only do a good job in order to get a huge bonus? That it is only the scent of money that makes them financially astute? It's not as if that theory has worked very well to date...

(yes, this is a flagrant attempt to carry on my Big Society thread...).

pagwatch - I prefer a bit hussy! I know people don't often read the threads. And I know it's difficult to keep the conversation going the way you want. It's just that my friends in real life aren't that interested in talking about politics, so I was using this thread to have a chance to think things through. (So, I basically think you are being a little bit rude to call me a "bit hussy"... especially since I seem to be the one who has done the most apologising).

If they give their bonuses to HMRC then the money will go to the state which isn't what the big society is about though is it

Good point, huddspur!!!!! That was me thinking where I would like it to go!

(Now, that's what I call constructive criticism of my argument!).

I only know a few people that earn mga money and get huge bonuses each year, but every single one of them gives alot of money to their chosen charity. One lady I know does this because she would like to be able to give more time and simply can't, so she gives the money instead, which charities need just as much. I only have a little money to give, but I do donate alot of time to two charities that I'm passionate about.

So my point is, what makes you think that city bonuses do nothing but line personal bank balances?

ie I was including my belief that we should be willing to contribute more directly to the State in my argument falsely, making it sound as though I both believed that bankers should definitely give away their bonuses AND that they should pay them to the State. I confess I have a fixed belief in the latter (that we should contribute more to the State), but not in the former.

I can see why everyone found it so difficult to understand me, now!

No I think people tailor their spending and choices based on knowing they get these bonuses i just think they should be scrapped full stop and financial geniuses paid accordingly and all others just on par with teh rest of us.

Well, I've got what I wanted out of this thread now - that my argument was flawed! Now I can leave it happy, because you have all helped me work through the logic, regardless of the misunderstandings along the way.

I am not being rude. I am just explaining that you are not a moderator and you don't own a thread just because youvstarted it.
I said I can't get past your sweeping generalizations and I can't
The city is not occupied solely by greedy overpaid indifferent types. And decent companies providing services and making money for shareholders (including pension funds) should not be 'ashamed' when they have done nowt wrong.

If you are talking about aspects of the banking system then stop saying the city. It is grating - like the wankers who cut to images of Lloyds building when talking about bsnking

(Oh, now I remember, I also translated the Big Society into a misguided attempt to encourage people to be more altruistic, rather than an attempt to get more people to choose their own causes... I think maybe I should have just written an essay at home, it was far too complicated to bring up on mumsnet and expect anyone to understand what the hell I was on about... I even forgot what I was on about by halfway through).

Sorry you took my comments personally, pagwatch (and likewise, sorry I took yours personally). It is not my opinion of people who work in the City - as I said, I have worked there myself. I admit it is verging on my opinion of people who, in my opinion, don't realise who lucky they are. But it would need a face to face conversation, I think, to understand what people are trying to say when it gets this involved.

So, can we agree to part amicably? I really don't like upsetting people just because I've disagreed with their argument and they've disagreed with mine.

Aargh. I've misexpressed myself again. I don't even despise people who don't realise how lucky they are, I just think some people don't realise how lucky they are. Double aaaaaaaaaargggggggggghhhhhhh. My only excuse is I'm very tired at the moment!

Oh, and I maybe disagree with the position of the collective (ie there is nothing wrong with the individuals, I just don't agree with the way the system works in the City, rather than the people working within the system).

Which probably does spread to wider society, but I guess I'm making a value judgment about the worth of people who move money around without creating anything physical, which is again a judgment that shouldn't have been included in this argument. In other words, I even hijacked my own original idea when I started arguing about the details with people.

Rabbitstew I think you should maybe get a better grasp of what has happened in the economy before you start blaming huge swathes of people.

DH is sitting here laughing at what you are saying - he is a city worker by the way and after just glancing at this thread said 'Does anyone on there have a clue about what they are talking about?'

Oh and lots of tradesmen are employed with bonuses paid to bankers and other professions - trickle down is something that works, ask lots of tradesmen based in the home counties each year and they will tell you they rub their hands just as hard as the bankers going into their meetings with their superiors each spring.

So your arguement is people only are allowed to be valued in society if they actually produce something physical - believe me without the financial sector this whole country would be well and truely fecked - as much as politicians say that we should move back to manufacturing it is just untenable in terms of producing the wealth and taxation that the city does.

Maybe with me working for the NHS you could offset DH being a wanky city worker against my very noble career choice?? Just wondered considering your moral compass is waved around tonight?

I now know what my problem is - I worked in the City when I didn't believe in what I was working towards, so felt like a hypocrite. In other words, I disliked myself for doing it. There is no problem working in the City if you believe what you are doing. In other words, my opinions were too socialist for that environment. I therefore feel angry at myself for doing it just because that was where I could get the best salary. So, in effect, I dislike people like myself.

MadameCasafiore - I don't have an argument, I'm just admitting to having a whole set of value judgments that I had intended to leave out of this conversation. And at no point have I ever blamed people - I started out the thread to make people think about why they were blaming people, so that we could come to a better understanding of why we are doing that, and I have achieved that. You are still arguing about something that doesn't interest me! That doesn't mean it is wrong for you to argue about it, as it quite validly questions my position and where I am coming from and has helped me understand what I was trying to understand when I started this thread.

So, yes, I feel I actually have a good grip on the economy and how money is spent. I just disagree on the current balance in the economy and who has the most power in the argument. I don't like people being so sure of their opinions, because I am not so sure of mine and an absolute certainty in the validity of your position strikes me as being a little bit self-deluded.

I want to question my views and where they come from. Some people are happy not to.

Or you could say, I agree that most of the wealth has been generated by the City in this country for a very long time. I just don't like that fact and think that maybe there could be an alternative. It's not as if all wealthy countries have that dynamic.

ps my dh and I have radically differing political views. I still live in hypocrisy with him and love him!

And another way I try to square the circle is to believe that the City is necessary, but that the principles behind the City do not sit well in the running of the NHS or other state organisations, where other principles also have to apply, not just money-making ones. In other words, I think the philosophy of the City has spread its tentacles too far.

Which has trapped me back in the political argument I thought I was avoiding! So I've used this thread to think about two different ideas.

Maybe, MadameCastafiore, I should be laughing at your husband for thinking that all mumsnet is is a forum for a bunch of women to give their opinions, rather than a forum for self-discovery. Perhaps he should try out the latter himself!!!!!

And yes, I know that is a bit offensive, but then so is laughing at something you don't understand. He was offended by my apparent lack of understanding and I am offended by his. Perhaps you could ask him to read this?

So, I've looked through this thread again and I see that I repeated ad nauseam that I did not necessarily actually believe that bankers should give their bonuses back, I just started the thread like that to provoke discussion. Yet people keep dragging it back to the lowest common denominator, as though they don't believe that I don't believe it.

I think pagwatch is right that, despite how much fun it could be, I can't get people to read things carefully enough on here to understand, and people are all too happy to jump to conclusions in order to reinforce their own opinions rather than question them.

So, does anyone feel like they understand me, yet, or do you still feel like I'm a misguided idiot who thinks bonuses should be returned to HMRC? It would be nice to know (I think...). Is it acceptable to want to use other people to understand yourself?