Want to tell us about your experiences using The Mix and be in with a chance of winning a £200 Amazon Voucher? Click here to go to our survey!
We are now trialing a points system in an effort to be clearer about the consequences for breaking community guidelines. Head over to this thread to find out more and give your feedback :)

Banker FUCKS still getting £2.5bn bonuses!

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some good posts here.

    Well done all lol.

    How's life on permanent side of life g_angel ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No different from the public sector, sadly.

    Bonuses are subject to the same market forces as everything else and will rise and fall with the economic tide. To say that they're obscene is a bit sweeping but generally accurate.



    bit different when the company is in administration though because other than the basic salary, bonuses come way behind creditors who are owed money..... should be investigated into how the administrators allowed these bonuses when the company owes money
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    haha okay dunc calm down, i'm working in an IB until christmas at least and i used to have lots of preconceptions about people who work in a bank. i can confirm most of them are humans, the problem with capitalism in general is that it is not sustainable in the long term. there will be lots of innocent casualties over the next few years but that is life, if you have a victim mentality about life you will always be a victim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Look guys, I am by no means a hippie socialist Marxist. I have no problems whatsoever with a capitalist system where people get rewarded for hard work. The investment banking world is completely different however - for the last 2 decades we've had a load of utter CUNTS making 7 figures a year in bonuses for doing absolutely fuck all - working like 7am-5am 5 days a week simply gambling that certain stocks or commodities will go up or down. How is it remotely justified that a nurse or teacher works hard for £18k a year starting salary, yet a banking grad can make £90k in their first year and over £1m by the time they're 27 not through that much hard work but through gambling? Gambling where the odds are in their favour - win and become a millionaire, lose and have your bank bought out / acquired a la Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrlll Lynch etc and most likely keep your job. A big gap between the rich and poor increases tensions in society. At present these fuckers only pay 40% tax on their astronomically obscene bonuses, which creates enormous discontent across the country. Imagine how people are feeling across the country right now, working so very hard to earn £20,000 for their family + kids to survive, then reading how Crispin Odey or whoever earns £28,000,000 to just bet that Northern Rock, HBOS, Lehman and Fannie Mae will go down in value. That creates serious problems in society. Tax these fuckers 75%+ of their obscene bonuses for work that contributes nothing to society and we may have a fairer society. For now them keeping 60% of 7-figure paypackets further exacerbates the rich/poor gap which is not good for anyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not that im defending these banker people at all.

    But 40% of a 7 figure sum, is way way more than 20% of someones salary who earns a lower amount. So you could argue they are getting taxed way more than the usual average joe anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dunc2008; Although there does need to be more regulation in terms of the buying and selling of debt (frankly I just think the system was set up poorly). There is a very good reason for us to allow the City to continue gambling and making lots of money - pensions. The government pension is going to gradually reduce because we have too many old people, so we will need the City to gamble with our pension funds to make them big enough to have a decent retirement.

    And thats aside from the tax revenue that the City brings in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru

    How's life on permanent side of life g_angel ?

    Not quite got there yet ;) I'm clinging onto my contractor rates as long as possible (and hitting the overtime too), but it's going to happen within the next month or two... I'm just not pressuring them into sorting it as we're so busy, it keeps slipping under the radar.

    At the same time, the downside to this is missing out on longer term rewards as we have a lot of high value deals going through, which means the share price is going up a lot, and so when I get my stock, I will get fewer shares than if I'd have joined a bit ago (you get 50% of your agreed salary in shares). Shares don't pay the bills though (or pay for anything saucy I might fancy right now haha).

    I can see a Porsche 911 on the horizon though :naughty: ... or perhaps I will just pay off a huge chunk of my mortgage like a good little boy - which I really should do, but it's just not as fun :grump: .


    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Not that im defending these banker people at all.

    But 40% of a 7 figure sum, is way way more than 20% of someones salary who earns a lower amount. So you could argue they are getting taxed way more than the usual average joe anyway.
    40%'s just not enough that's all I'm saying. Nobody needs more than a £100k salary to live nicely, so after that £100k it'd be much, much more beneficial for their town, society, the whole world if the vast majority of that needless surplus money goes back into making life better for everyone (NHS, education, infrastructure, social work, crime rehabilitation etc) than a small handful playing with millions they really don't deserve.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    g_angel wrote: »
    I can see a Porsche 911 on the horizon though :naughty:
    Eugh, 911's are so tacky these days!! Used to be cool, now I see so often anyone driving them people comment like "what a prick", "small penis" etc- its been overbought by crass, tacky, tactless nouveau riche like arrogant Asian chavs where I am! Think of something a lot more classy - a Mercedes / Jaguar, a (2nd hand, bottom of range) Aston Martin or Bentley maybe.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dunc2008 wrote: »
    Eugh, 911's are so tacky these days!! Used to be cool, now I see so often anyone driving them people comment like "what a prick", "small penis" etc- its been overbought by crass, tacky, tactless nouveau riche like arrogant Asian chavs where I am! Think of something a lot more classy - a Mercedes / Jaguar, a (2nd hand, bottom of range) Aston Martin or Bentley maybe.....

    :lol:

    But they are also pretty much the best driver's car out there, which is where I am coming from. I don't care about the image in the slightest (or what people think), I care about the experience, MY experience. I want something that makes me tingle, not something that makes other people go "ooooo".

    ... and the waiting list for the Nissan GTR or Audi R8 is far too long, unfortunately :( These two would be top of the list, but I am not willing to pay a large premium to jump the waiting list to get one.

    My last car was a Nissan 350Z. Some people were like "Oh, but it's a Nissan...", which just didn't bother me in the slightest. Well, they said that after seeing it, going "Wow! That looks superb!" and then me telling them what it was as they didn't have a clue. Since it was launched, it has ruled the roost in it's class as being the best driver's car. Just happens to be quite rare and look fantastic at the same time... I bought it because of the way it drives. Just superb. Some fuckwit crashed into me on the motorway (well, there were nine cars involved) and I was given an Audi TT 3.2 DSG Roadster as a hire car for a month. Utter, utter piece of crap to drive. Wooden, no feel, no sensory experience. So many people were like "OMG, you've got a TT!? WOOOOW!!" but I couldn't wait to get shut of the thing and get my Zed back. Just in a different league.

    Mercedes = not classy at all, IMO.

    Aston = Winner, but I would always lust after the DBS, which is waaaaay out of my price range. I'd feel short changed with the V8 Vantage as unfortunately, until the most recent revisions (which are only just starting to be sold), the car was flawed. Great looking, but not a match for the competition on the road, and definite production issues on the earlier cars. To get a new, 'proper' one, you're looking at the better part of £100k. No thanks. Too expensive for me right now.

    I considered a Jag, but just something doesn't work for me.

    Bentley = Just not my style. Far too showy.

    Seems like you are all about the image, chap. Shame. Image is superficial. I'm a petrol head, not a poseur.


    Lets get back on topic though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dunc2008 wrote: »
    40%'s just not enough that's all I'm saying. Nobody needs more than a £100k salary to live nicely, so after that £100k it'd be much, much more beneficial for their town, society, the whole world if the vast majority of that needless surplus money goes back into making life better for everyone (NHS, education, infrastructure, social work, crime rehabilitation etc) than a small handful playing with millions they really don't deserve.
    Gotta agree with this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dunc2008 wrote: »
    40%'s just not enough that's all I'm saying. Nobody needs more than a £100k salary to live nicely, so after that £100k it'd be much, much more beneficial for their town, society, the whole world if the vast majority of that needless surplus money goes back into making life better for everyone (NHS, education, infrastructure, social work, crime rehabilitation etc) than a small handful playing with millions they really don't deserve.

    No, it wouldn't. It would be economically, socially and morally disastrous, especially for the poor, as we'd no longer generate enough wealth to pay for any social care. It's a dislike for those who earn more than you dressed up as concern for the poor.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    dunc2008 wrote: »
    Nobody needs more than a £100k salary to live nicely.



    This depends what financial commitments they already have. You can't have a £2,000,000 house (and suitable mortgage) and then suddenly think "Oh, you know what, I'll take a pay cut to £60k as I'll be fine". Basically, you're talking crap.

    Your statement is far too sweeping. Living in Central London, attempting to buy anything nice to live in is going to be impossible on much less. The money put into the economy by the high earners accounts for far more than you might think - taking this away would be disastrous.


    ETA - just noted that somebody else just said this above me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a dislike for those who earn more than you dressed up as concern for the poor.

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it wouldn't. It would be economically, socially and morally disastrous, especially for the poor, as we'd no longer generate enough wealth to pay for any social care. It's a dislike for those who earn more than you dressed up as concern for the poor.
    Or perhaps he was reflecting on the wider philosophy that the concept of a person employed by a firm earning tens of times more than another person putting the same amount of work is false, unfounded, unjustified and a fabricated fallacy, and when you think about it, obscene and ludicrous as well.

    Naturally the system is designed so any attempts to correct such disparities would (apparently) result in a mass collapse of the system. So the status quo remains as it is, and 0.1% of the workforce of a company can happily keep pocketing the immense majority of funds reserved for salaries and bonuses, while the rest of the workforce are left to share the leftovers.

    But when you think about it, none of the profits are wealth generated by city traders for their companies would happen if their secretaries, clerks, assistants, cleaners, HR personnel and canteen staff didn't turn out to work as well. I'm yet to hear a valid explanation of why sharing the wage packet and profits more equally amongst all workers would not be a good idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Or perhaps he was reflecting on the wider philosophy that the concept of a person employed by a firm earning tens of times more than another person putting the same amount of work is false, unfounded, unjustified and a fabricated fallacy, and when you think about it, obscene and ludicrous as well.

    So because a cleaner in a hospital works as hard as a brain surgeon they should earn the same? That doesnt even work in Cuba, let alone here.

    There isnt any need for government regulations, the banks will do it themselves for at least the next few years. They do not want other banks, or shareholders seeing them paying big bonuses.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    So because a cleaner in a hospital works as hard as a brain surgeon they should earn the same? That doesnt even work in Cuba, let alone here.
    Well, when you think about it, the only actual impediment to that is greed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Or perhaps he was reflecting on the wider philosophy that the concept of a person employed by a firm earning tens of times more than another person putting the same amount of work is false, unfounded, unjustified and a fabricated fallacy, and when you think about it, obscene and ludicrous as well.

    Naturally the system is designed so any attempts to correct such disparities would (apparently) result in a mass collapse of the system. So the status quo remains as it is, and 0.1% of the workforce of a company can happily keep pocketing the immense majority of funds reserved for salaries and bonuses, while the rest of the workforce are left to share the leftovers.

    But when you think about it, none of the profits are wealth generated by city traders for their companies would happen if their secretaries, clerks, assistants, cleaners, HR personnel and canteen staff didn't turn out to work as well. I'm yet to hear a valid explanation of why sharing the wage packet and profits more equally amongst all workers would not be a good idea.

    Because turning up for the same number of hours isn't the same as amount of work. Without the bankers not only would the cleaners be begging on the street, so would the rest of us. Where do you think taxation comes from? It doesn't grow on trees in some nirvana...

    The UK has done extremely well out of the banks - without them, generating profits, we wouldn't have an NHS, Social Security, policing etc. Or at least at such a low level the poor (and the rest of us really would suffer).

    The wider philosophy you seem to be espousing is one of moral purity and fuck everyone, as long as you feel good (which of course once your job goes and you're on the street may not be such a nice feeling). Your philosophy (rather than correcting a fallacy) is based on jealousy and greed, and with a kick the fuckers attitude
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well, when you think about it, the only actual impediment to that is greed.

    spoken like a true red, why bother trying to make a better life for yourself in the first place?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    spoken like a true red, why bother trying to make a better life for yourself in the first place?

    Exactly - why study, work hard etc to reach your goals if all you will receive is the same as the person who sat on their arse their entire life?

    Society would crumble as nobody could be arsed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because turning up for the same number of hours isn't the same as amount of work. Without the bankers not only would the cleaners be begging on the street, so would the rest of us. Where do you think taxation comes from? It doesn't grow on trees in some nirvana...
    And without cleaners cleaning the streets the place would be uninhabitable. And without brickies building houses bankers would have to make their own houses (out of banknotes presumably). Etc etc.

    Given that most of these bankers simply speculate with non-existent comodities of no real physical value that exist only in ether, I should think the work of cleaners, builders, drivers and manual workers is actually as vital, if not more, to all of us.

    That the former should earn up to 100s of times more than the latter for far less work (unless you consider gambling with non-existent comodities that aren't yours as hard work as sweeping the streets), and that they should get such rewards even when they fuck up is the ultimate disgrace, and what will marr capitalism as a whole as a wholly amoral and corrupt system for as long as the situation is not remedied.
    The UK has done extremely well out of the banks - without them, generating profits, we wouldn't have an NHS, Social Security, policing etc. Or at least at such a low level the poor (and the rest of us really would suffer).
    No. The UK has done extremely well out of people working hard for thousands of years. Well before, I should add, than banks existed in any form.

    Banking is but a small slice of the economy. A necessary evil that trades on the fortunes and misfortunes of others without any positive contribution to society. In the case of CEOs or bonus-amassing 'high flying' City traders, the term 'parasite' is arguably the closest one you're going to find to describe them and their trade.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And without cleaners cleaning the streets the place would be uninhabitable. And without brickies building houses bankers would have to make their own houses (out of banknotes presumably). Etc etc.

    Given that most of these bankers simply speculate with non-existent comodities of no real physical value that exist only in ether, I should think the work of cleaners, builders, drivers and manual workers is actually as vital, if not more, to all of us.

    That the former should earn up to 100s of times more than the latter for far less work (unless you consider gambling with non-existent comodities that aren't yours as hard work as sweeping the streets), and that they should get such rewards even when they fuck up is the ultimate disgrace, and what will marr capitalism as a whole as a wholly amoral and corrupt system for as long as the situation is not remedied.

    No. The UK has done extremely well out of people working hard for thousands of years. Well before, I should add, than banks existed in any form.

    Banking is but a small slice of the economy. A necessary evil that trades on the fortunes and misfortunes of others without any positive contribution to society. In the case of CEOs or bonus-amassing 'high flying' City traders, the term 'parasite' is arguably the closest one you're going to find to describe them and their trade.

    We've had this argument a thousand times and I'm busy so let's just skip to the end

    http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showpost.php?p=2126068&postcount=30

    where you admit capitalism is the best system in practice
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We've had this argument a thousand times and I'm busy so let's just skip to the end

    http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showpost.php?p=2126068&postcount=30

    where you admit capitalism is the best system in practice

    Thank you. It was starting to get boring. Again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We've had this argument a thousand times and I'm busy so let's just skip to the end

    http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showpost.php?p=2126068&postcount=30

    where you admit capitalism is the best system in practice
    Not quite. I simply say it has turned out to be the least bad working model we've experienced so far.

    But regardless of whether you think it's the best, worst or something in between, you could still admit that it is nothing short of an abomination that some people earn many, many times more than their fellow coworkers for no good reason. There is certainly shit loads of room for improvement and capitalism could still work just as well if wages and wealth were redistributed amongst workers more fairly.

    Don't let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Not quite. I simply say it has turned out to be the least bad working model we've experienced so far.

    But regardless of whether you think it's the best, worst or something in between, you could still admit that it is nothing short of an abomination that some people earn many, many times more than their fellow coworkers for no good reason. There is certainly shit loads of room for improvement and capitalism could still work just as well if wages and wealth were redistributed amongst workers more fairly.

    Don't let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.

    But there are many good reasons why some earn more than others, the key issue is whether they create wealth - bankers create wealth, therefore they are paid more than a cleaner.

    Secondly there is the issue of training, experience and expertise. Cleaners rarely need a huge amount of any of those.

    Surgeons and investment bankers get paid more than you or I because they can do something that few people can.

    However, I should point out that yes I do find it unpleasant when bankers leave somewhere having messed up with a golden handshake. Someone a lot smarter than me put it rather well 'capitalism is the worst system around, except the others'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While I appreciate the argument about specific skills requiring extensive training deserving more renumeration- for instance doctors, surgeons etc- I have to say I fail to see bankers as anything but glorified gamblers and speculators. I have little sympathy for them and even less for the obscene bonuses they get when things are going well, let alone when things aren't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And as successful gamblers they make a lot of money. Although I think its a tad more complicated than just gambling.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's exactly what the American banks were doing and it's come back and bitten them on the ass because surprise surprise they couldn't afford it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    likhary wrote: »
    That's exactly what the American banks were doing and it's come back and bitten them on the ass because surprise surprise they couldn't afford it.



    That is part of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Given that most of these bankers simply speculate with non-existent comodities of no real physical value that exist only in ether, I should think the work of cleaners, builders, drivers and manual workers is actually as vital, if not more, to all of us.

    That the former should earn up to 100s of times more than the latter for far less work (unless you consider gambling with non-existent comodities that aren't yours as hard work as sweeping the streets), and that they should get such rewards even when they fuck up is the ultimate disgrace, and what will marr capitalism as a whole as a wholly amoral and corrupt system for as long as the situation is not remedied.

    A remedy is available to you as an individual who obviously feels strongly about this.

    You could start your own trading account as it is now easier than ever. If you are successful (and your posts appear to suggest you think trading commodities is easy), the plentiful proceeds of your trade would be available for distribution to those that you consider more deserving.

    Furthermore as an individual, you would be far far far less regulated by the FSA than those professional city traders.

    Worthy of your consideration ?
Sign In or Register to comment.