The bonus system is unfair to whom? If a trader created tens of millions in revenue it's unfair to reward this individual trader even if the firm as a whole records loss? If a team or department generated £1bn in business, it would be unfair to reward them even if the firm reports a loss overall?

well in normal industry if a company records a loss no one gets feck all. no matter which department made a profit or loss, but then they are running the country not mp's so i suppose it's to be expected :thumb:

In your industry perhaps, but the finance, not just in banking, it is normal practice to reward employees in order to retain the top revenue generating employees.

lol ours must be arse about face then, because the salesman who make the money for our company gets feck all, no bonus at all just a salary plus car, so there is no incentive for him to sell more. ive been saying it's stupid since i started working for them years ago. still just potter on until something better comes along

Well if the company you work for hasn't made a profit, unless it has massive cash reserves how will it pay bonuses?

I'm sure most companies would like to pay bonuses to the staff helping their cause but in most cases if a company has no money then it cannot do this.

exactly my point lloyds have lost £500million so how can they pay £365million in bonuses, and if you read my post properly we have made a profit, a very large one and still we only get 2% OF SALARY. well 2% of sod all is sod all 2% of a lot of money is a lot of money, and its the ones at the top that don't actually generate any sales who get the most because of the % rule. they just tell us what to do,and reap the benefits, COMMERCIAL GREED is whats fecking this country over, a more equal distribution of wealth is whats needed and a flat rate of tax for anyone on 25k or more problem solved

1. Instead of getting 2%, how would you structure the distribution of the "bonus"?
2. So what would you like to see happen for those at the top that "don't actually generate any sales"?
3. What flat rate of tax would you set for those on over £25k?

i remember reading somewhere if and its a big if everybody actually paid 20% we wouldn't have a problem, the problem as i see it is people are recieving huge amounts and paying sod all. mr green is a classic example he avoided paying 280million in tax because everything is in his wifes name, and she lives in monaco, thats the problem right there :thumb:

A flat tax would be set for everyone and set at far less than £25k. I really cannot see the point of the 40% rate as it's a massive disincentive if you're just below the threshold, as I am. There needs to be a massive simplification on tax as people with the means pay less tax than one of their cleaners. Tax alone isn't the answer. I'd also privatise the NHS and take a open eyed look at the whole benefit system including who would be entitled to any and an individual lifetime maximum amount drawn.

i don't think 25k tax bracket would be needed as 280million tax is the same as 200000 people paying tax on 14grand

Society would be a much happier place if people would stop all this bitterness and envy about what others have that they don't, and focus on bettering themselves for a change.

The general public really p#ss me off with all this resentment and envy.
In America success is celebrated.

The reduction of debt achieved at Lloyds/HBOS/RBS is definitely a success under the circumstances, so if bonuses are performance related then what's the problem?

Nevermind, let's all whinge about British Gas instead.

I would be happy with a 20% flat tax rate, I'd be so much better off. Philip Green's tax avoidance is not illegal and the ethics of this warrants a whole separate thread of its own.

Back on the topic of capping bonuses, I'm against the principle of our Government, let alone some EU bureaucrat in Brussels capping and dictating what we can or can’t pay to people. This capping will be targeted solely at the banking industry and this I guess will include those in retail as well as those in the investment banking side of the business and will be a huge disincentive for those working or thinking of working in this sector. Any traders involved in trading investment instruments such as equities, derivatives, bonds, gilts, futures, commodities and foreign exchange will look to move to another sector not affected by the cap, these include insurers, reinsurers, independent fund managers, brokerages etc, etc. What incentive is there to stay at RBS or Lloyds? What do you think it will do to the taxpayer “owned” banks? Staff do move and do often relocate, I see it all the time where I work and it is easy in a global multi-national organisation.

Why is 40% tax a 'massive disincentive'? You only pay it on the money above the threshold. You are still earning more money, just paying more tax.

I agree on simplification or closing the loopholes, but more money always more money, it just so happens it means more tax.

Geezer

Yes and in America, bankers are getting punished. Nothing to do with envy; I would rather sell stationary than work for a bank. It's about the public being affected by epic levels of incompetence, greed and arrogance. Funnily enough having to pay for it all is rather irritating.

In almost any other industry, if you fail then you go bust.

It's the sickening greed that quickens me to weep and vomit and anger. Capitalism, or captalists at least, failed the big test. Still we see public liability and private profit. I'm ashamed of our system, I'm ashamed of our institutions and I'm ashamed of the public's apathy in confronting the grifters who headed up the biggest confidence trick in history.

It has a lot to do with envy. If presented with the opportunity, the majority if not every Joe Public would secretly accept 100% of their salary as a bonus and if possible would take it tax free. Ask yourselves this, what is this really about? Do you honestly think that capping renumeration for all employees in the banking sector will prevent another financial crisis from ever occuring? or is this just another opportunity to punish every single employee in the banking sector? If it is the former then you're extremely naive. The vast majority of those working in this sector are neither incompetent, greedy or arrogant.

Yes I know but what about those that did cause this mess? No comeback, no punishment. That's what is annoying. Very annoying.

The banks have cut over 160,000 jobs as of last year and many more since the 2007/8 when the crisis began. Back then the banking industry brought in over £70bn income tax revenue, this is now set to drop to £40bn. When do you think we should stop bashing the bankers? Who are you going to blame when we effectively kill off this industry?

I think the bonus culture encourages risk taking & sharp practice.The top guys are only as good as their last quarters results.There is no long term view.These people are greedy & avaricious & self-centered by nature.That's how they got to the top.(There are studies that have found they have many of the same traits as sociopaths )

You need people like that too drive companies forward but they also need some controls & strong legislation.These where removed from the banking sector & the results speak for themselves.

I don't blame the bankers.It's what they are & what they do.As has been said ,a lot of people would do the same given the chance & no legal consequences.
I blame the people who took there hands off the controls & let them do it.

I bet the vast majority of that number were honest , hard working people. I imagine that the ones that caused the mess - the "talented elite" - are still high and dry.

You can't complain at bankers being tarred with the same brush on one hand then use a similar line when talking of job losses.

and i wonder how many of the 160,000 were ground troops on 18k a year, every bigwig on 500,000 a year has to get rid of 27ground troops in order to keep his own job :thumb:thats where all the tax revenue has gone little people paying tax

On personal experience 90% of us at my work don't go over the 40% threshold with overtime due to the increase in tax on the amount earnt. It's the same with a lot of people I know. If they actually raised the 40% threshold, or even better, abolished it, the gov't would probably actually see tax revenue would rise. Some people think the higher the tax the more revenue that's raised, it's simply not true.

Well going by your past comments, isn't it the whole banking industry that's guilty of causing this mess? A "whacking great house of cards...dragging the UK and Europe down with it"? Of the "elites", high profile cases the likes of Fred Goodwin, Bob Diamond, Adam Applegarth, Oswald Gruebel, Kenichi Watanabe as reported in the media are gone, but there are many more CEO's and top execs here and around the world have been sacked and rogue traders prosecuted.

The "talented elite" aren't ones to hang around, I've seen a former CEO move to a wealth management firm in Toronto, another go to a Swiss clearing house group, a number of head traders gone on to setup hedge funds and investment boutiques in Zurich and the Cayman Islands and number of execs relocate to New York and Zurich in the years I've worked in my firm. I'm sure these instances are far from unique in this industry and the last I heard, they were doing pretty well. Me? I'm just looking forward to my rather modest bonus next month. ;)

I think you'll find losses were on all levels right up to senior management. Sure there were more "ground troops" affected, but that only to be expected since they out number "generals".

I don't understand that logic, 60p for every pound earned above the threshold is better than nothing. :wonder:

You've forgotten about national insurance as well. Also, I'd rather not bother doing overtime and spend my time doing something else other than working and paying more tax. It's not just me either.

Even after NI you'd still be financially better off. But fair enough, work-life balance and all that. :thumb:

Well it makes perfect sense to me! If I was taxed at the lower rate I'd be doing overtime above and beyond the current 40% tax mark. Which perversely they will be lowering in April to £41,450 from £42,475.