Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jay w]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076133/Bank-fatcats-STILL-receive-massive-bonuses--despite-Browns-pledge-slash-them.html

now that gets me BIG style

[HerefordElite]

i'm sorry but "catastrophic performance" and "bonus" are not heard in the same sentance where i work

golden parachute - hope the rip-cord doesn't work

[Jay w]

my view is that if you or your organisatioon have had to ask for funds from the government then it would appear you have not made profit, had you done so you wouldn't be asking in the first place.

No profit = No bonus

simple equation, no misunderstanding

[Lizzie_Zoom]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076133/Bank-fatcats-STILL-receive-massive-bonuses--despite-Browns-pledge-slash-them.html

now that gets me BIG style

The problem is I am not sure such restrictions on Public companies by a government is legal as it is a "free market" and people get paid what their employer decides to pay them.

The Government should tax these bonuses by 99p in the £1 however!!

[Vamps]

WTF How can this happen It is the ordinary person that is going to suffer, fat cat's who allowed things to get bad, world wide, still get big payouts, why should they worry.

[Jay w]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076133/Bank-fatcats-STILL-receive-massive-bonuses--despite-Browns-pledge-slash-them.html

now that gets me BIG style

The problem is I am not sure such restrictions on Public companies by a government is legal as it is a "free market" and people get paid what their employer decides to pay them.

The Government should tax these bonuses by 99p in the £1 however!!

but in this instance where they are getting handouts in order to survive or contine trading the FSA should get involved and apply some sort of regulation.....

For too long the FSA have stood back and let the big boys act acs bullies in the playground whilst the little companies suffer at their expense, they should be regulated far more and the regualtion applied more to the bigger boys.....

Whilst Austrailia are suffering they are not as bad, why? because their version of the FSA rules with an iron rod.....unlike us where it is selective rules for selective companies  

[HerefordElite]

my view is that if you or your organisatioon have had to ask for funds from the government then it would appear you have not made profit, had you done so you wouldn't be asking in the first place.

No profit = No bonus

simple equation, no misunderstanding

absabloodylutely - you can't pay a bonus from profit made by borrowing from a soft touch labour govt

t0ssers

[HerefordElite]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076133/Bank-fatcats-STILL-receive-massive-bonuses--despite-Browns-pledge-slash-them.html

now that gets me BIG style

The problem is I am not sure such restrictions on Public companies by a government is legal as it is a "free market" and people get paid what their employer decides to pay them.

The Government should tax these bonuses by 99p in the £1 however!!

but in this instance where they are getting handouts in order to survive or contine trading the FSA should get involved and apply some sort of regulation.....

For too long the FSA have stood back and let the big boys act acs bullies in the playground whilst the little companies suffer at their expense, they should be regulated far more and the regualtion applied more to the bigger boys.....

Whilst Austrailia are suffering they are not as bad, why? because their version of the FSA rules with an iron rod.....unlike us where it is selective rules for selective companies  

jobs for the boys i fear - another arm of the establishment

[Kevin Wood]

If the government has bailed these companies out by buying shares, on the assumption that they were going belly up anyway, and the existing shares were therefore pretty much worthless, the government must have a controlling stake in all of these companies and can therefore vote down any bonuses?

After all, a private individual or organisation that put capital into a business to save it would damn well want some control on how it was run from then onwards.

Kevin

[ngrainqey]

If the government has bailed these companies out by buying shares, on the assumption that they were going belly up anyway, and the existing shares were therefore pretty much worthless, the government must have a controlling stake in all of these companies and can therefore vote down any bonuses?

After all, a private individual or organisation that put capital into a business to save it would darn well want some control on how it was run from then onwards.

Kevin

i think the terms "nationalisation" where they're using the tax payers money to buy shares in companies and even though its the general public putting the money in we're getting nothing in return.

think the goverment should give the tax payers some money back for wasting so much over the "gordon brown" years.. or "stupid fat scottish backing moron"
not that there's anything wrong with scottish people- i just hate gordon brown! lol

[Nickbat]

Whoaa. Hold on a tick.

I'm not saying that big bonuses should be paid out

BUT

look at these phrases:

1...economic forecasters predict

2. The FSA has no plans to draw up a code of conduct that would set new, more restrained, benchmarks for bonuses.

3. 'Those bonuses that will continue to be paid this year are likely to be focussed (pity they can't spell at The Mail - Nickbat) on junior staff and on a few key individuals that companies wish to keep.

Let's look at these:

1. A prediction does not mean something will happen, though the article's headline quite clearly says that. Indeed it uses the word STILL in capitals.

2. I'm not sure that the FSA currently has the jurisdiction to regulate salaries. Even if it does, it would take several weeks (past Christmas) to prepare the necessary legal documentation.

3. It is wrong to assume that bonuses will only be paid to fat cats. The last quote suggests they may be paid to junior.staff. For example, is it wrong to give a bonus to someone, for example in the IT department, who is 9-5 salaried, but has worked evenings and weekends in the last few weeks in an effort to help a bank out of trouble?

I'm against large bonuses that are not deserved, but this article seems deliberately written to stir people up - without any factual basis.    

[Jay w]

Whoaa. Hold on a tick.

I'm not saying that bonuses should be paid out

BUT

look at these phrases:

1...economic forecasters predict

2. The FSA has no plans to draw up a code of conduct that would set new, more restrained, benchmarks for bonuses.

3. 'Those bonuses that will continue to be paid this year are likely to be focussed (pity they can't spell at The Mail - Nickbat) on junior staff and on a few key individuals that companies wish to keep.

Let's look at these:

1. A prediction does not mean something will happen, though the article's headline quite clearly says that.

2. I'm not sure that the FSA currently has the jurisdiction to regulate salaries. Even if it does, it would take several weeks (past Christmas) to prepare the necessary legal documentation.

3. It is wrong to assume that bonuses will only be paid to fat cats. The last quote suggests they may be paid to junior.staff. For example, is it wrong to give a bonus to someone, for example in the IT department, who is 9-5 salaried, but has worked evenings and weekends in the last few weeks in an effort to help a bank out of trouble?

I'm against large bonuses that are not deserved, but this article seems deliberately written to stir people up - without any factual basis.    

A double edged sword there......and i would answer yes and no to it.....

let me explain

I run my own business, it is moderately sucsessful, and at the end of the year i take a percentage of the profit as a bonus (dividend) however if the profit is not there i lose out.....that's the nature of the beast

however the employer in me would possibly see someone working a salary job and putting in the hours in order to help out, if that individual had contributed something over and above then yes i would go some way to seeing that they were rewarded.......but it is proportional

 

[HerefordElite]

Whoaa. Hold on a tick.

I'm not saying that bonuses should be paid out

BUT

look at these phrases:

1...economic forecasters predict

2. The FSA has no plans to draw up a code of conduct that would set new, more restrained, benchmarks for bonuses.

3. 'Those bonuses that will continue to be paid this year are likely to be focussed (pity they can't spell at The Mail - Nickbat) on junior staff and on a few key individuals that companies wish to keep.

Let's look at these:

1. A prediction does not mean something will happen, though the article's headline quite clearly says that. Indeed it uses the word STILL in capitals.

2. I'm not sure that the FSA currently has the jurisdiction to regulate salaries. Even if it does, it would take several weeks (past Christmas) to prepare the necessary legal documentation.

3. It is wrong to assume that bonuses will only be paid to fat cats. The last quote suggests they may be paid to junior.staff. For example, is it wrong to give a bonus to someone, for example in the IT department, who is 9-5 salaried, but has worked evenings and weekends in the last few weeks in an effort to help a bank out of trouble?

I'm against large bonuses that are not deserved, but this article seems deliberately written to stir people up - without any factual basis.    

i don't like The Mail either Nikbat but no they can't have a bonus coz i don't get one

[Nickbat]

Whoaa. Hold on a tick.

I'm not saying that bonuses should be paid out

BUT

look at these phrases:

1...economic forecasters predict

2. The FSA has no plans to draw up a code of conduct that would set new, more restrained, benchmarks for bonuses.

3. 'Those bonuses that will continue to be paid this year are likely to be focussed (pity they can't spell at The Mail - Nickbat) on junior staff and on a few key individuals that companies wish to keep.

Let's look at these:

1. A prediction does not mean something will happen, though the article's headline quite clearly says that.

2. I'm not sure that the FSA currently has the jurisdiction to regulate salaries. Even if it does, it would take several weeks (past Christmas) to prepare the necessary legal documentation.

3. It is wrong to assume that bonuses will only be paid to fat cats. The last quote suggests they may be paid to junior.staff. For example, is it wrong to give a bonus to someone, for example in the IT department, who is 9-5 salaried, but has worked evenings and weekends in the last few weeks in an effort to help a bank out of trouble?

I'm against large bonuses that are not deserved, but this article seems deliberately written to stir people up - without any factual basis.    

A double edged sword there......and i would answer yes and no to it.....

let me explain

I run my own business, it is moderately sucsessful, and at the end of the year i take a percentage of the profit as a bonus (dividend) however if the profit is not there i lose out.....that's the nature of the beast

however the employer in me would possibly see someone working a salary job and putting in the hours in order to help out, if that individual had contributed something over and above then yes i would go some way to seeing that they were rewarded.......but it is proportional

 

Absolutely, spot on.

But there is nothing factual in the article to support the alleged CERTAINTY that fat cats will get huge bonuses. It's the media I've a problem with in this case. I would blow my stack if a trader in a failed bank got a mega-buck bonus, but it has yet to happen. And the point about valued junior staff getting bonuses is not that contentious given that any employer (especially one in trouble) will need to keep key workers onside. If you've got hard times ahead, you'll want the best staff.

Essentially, once again, the media try to present a complex problem in an excessively emotional and simple way (presumably for simpletons).

[Nickbat]

Whoaa. Hold on a tick.

I'm not saying that bonuses should be paid out

BUT

look at these phrases:

1...economic forecasters predict

2. The FSA has no plans to draw up a code of conduct that would set new, more restrained, benchmarks for bonuses.

3. 'Those bonuses that will continue to be paid this year are likely to be focussed (pity they can't spell at The Mail - Nickbat) on junior staff and on a few key individuals that companies wish to keep.

Let's look at these:

1. A prediction does not mean something will happen, though the article's headline quite clearly says that. Indeed it uses the word STILL in capitals.

2. I'm not sure that the FSA currently has the jurisdiction to regulate salaries. Even if it does, it would take several weeks (past Christmas) to prepare the necessary legal documentation.

3. It is wrong to assume that bonuses will only be paid to fat cats. The last quote suggests they may be paid to junior.staff. For example, is it wrong to give a bonus to someone, for example in the IT department, who is 9-5 salaried, but has worked evenings and weekends in the last few weeks in an effort to help a bank out of trouble?

I'm against large bonuses that are not deserved, but this article seems deliberately written to stir people up - without any factual basis.    

i don't like The Mail either Nikbat but no they can't have a bonus coz i don't get one

Me neither. I'm self-employed. I asked myself for a bonus, but I told myself that if I didn't like it I could jolly well go and work for my alter ego.