BBC Blog Network

User Profile

WestCornwall

Listed below are comments made by WestCornwall between Monday, 9th February 2009 and Monday, 28th September 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Brown and bonuses 11:29am on 28 Sep 2009 I always wondered why my pay was called a salary and financiers received "compensation". I now know it is compensation for being despised for their arrogance and lack of understanding. Bonuses are only part of the problem: why do we let them earn do much? I accept they have skills, work under pressure, and perform necessary tasks. But so do production managers, headteachers, doctors, lawyers. Why are bankers paid so much more? Other groups have, in recent years, joined in the prssure for higher senior pay.
We will never have a fair society until a government taxes high pay more, and increases tax on property and land. Then thre low-paid will be taxed less and assets will gradually be shared more fairly.
Would you claim MPs' expenses? 3:52pm on 21 May 2009 I think the MPs expense rules state fundamentally (roughly) that expenses must be wholly and necessarily incurred to support the MPs role. I am very unclear how this justifies the use of expenses to support the travel of a spouse, or the purchase of a (second) family home in London.
Let me be clear: I am not opposed to the use of public money to keep MPs familes together (though I am not convinced). However, I do wonder how well the central guidelines within which the Fees Office were drawn up. These people, MPs and civil servants, draft our legislation: can they not write clearly?
Would you claim MPs' expenses? 3:43pm on 21 May 2009 I have heard it suggested that MPs should be paid like a senior business executive (say (£100k) and also allowed to claim travel expenses and temporary London accommodation like business people do.
But senior business people are also part of the greedy "pay me a lot because I have talent" culture. It is this whole culture, not just MPs who are only foolishly trying to match the expectations of others, that needs to be changed.
Daniels sacrifices bonus 10:10pm on 11 Feb 2009 costaquenta writes:
Whilst some Bankers have been greedy is it not time to call off the witch hunt? Are they really any worse than average Joe who believed the value of his house could continue to grow by 10%+ a year to infinity and beyond.
Yes of course it is worse! Far, far worse. The bankers ought to have known that the value of property assets (for example, an important example) has grown at a trend of +2% or so pa above other inflation, no more than that.
Daniels sacrifices bonus 1:41pm on 11 Feb 2009 The whole purpose of money is that it can be exchanged for commodities, property, etc. An economy such as the UK's where earnings vary greatly has led to an unequal society.

Why should the finance sector have "the talent"? Other professions are in equal need. It would be better if banks employed ethical people, and more of them at lower salaries. Then they would not be so rushed. I do not care if some bank staff leave. Let them use their arrogant “talents” elsewhere. If they are so talented, let them retrain as social workers where their brilliance might improve the lot of children.

The total remuneration package for some members of the financial sector (and some other jobs) is too high. I am fully aware of the demands of the legal and education sectors, with a good knowledge too of science and engineering careers. Why should finance get the financial perks with which they can buy privilege? I have yet to see a list of the pay rates of (say) a country town bank manager, a bank clerk, etc. - these staff may well be earning pay in line with other jobs, if so - good.

I know the solution. Educationalists get first choice of school and university for their children. Lawyers get free access to justice. Estate agents (NOT bankers) get the biggest houses. Engineers get given the best cars.
The case for bonuses 09:56am on 10 Feb 2009 It isn't just the bonus culture that is wrong. I have the impression that, at last, the government has accepted this. Yvette Cooper, speaking on the Today programme yesterday and later on TV, implied that the whole remuneration should be looked at.

For years, financial institutions have paid far too much, and have distorted the pay in other sectors. It is nonsense to suggest that the "brightest and best" are needed by the banks. They are needed by medicine, law, engineering, science, education, transport, etc.

Greed, not special ability, has been the driver of some young people into finance. Hopefully there are able students now who can be recruited from university into ethical banking.
The government may well be hamstrung by existing contractual agreements that banks have set up. However, there is no legal compulsion on our government (and the tax-payer) to give guarantees of support to the banks. I suggest that all banks are told that the maximum annual remuneration, including bonuses, for anyone with a fulltime job in a bank must be less than £300k. This monstrous figure is above what top people in most other sectors can earn. Any bank that pays more than this after (say) 1st March 2009 would have the tax-payers’ guarantee of 50k for savers withdrawn. Then banks wouldn't dare to behave immorally.

In answer to the comment that, without high rewards for the finance sector, "The talent would have gone elsewhere":
Why should the finance sector have "the talent"? It would be better if banks employed ethical people, and more of them. Then they would not be so rushed. I do not care if some bank staff leave. Let them use their arrogant “talents” elsewhere.

My main point was and is that the total remuneration package for the financial sector is too high. I am fully aware of the demands of the legal and education sectors, with a good knowledge too of science and engineering careers. Why should finance get the financial perks with which they can buy privilege?

I know the solution. Educationalists get first choice of school and university for their children. Lawyers get free access to justice. Estate agents (NOT bankers) get the biggest houses. Engineers get given the best cars.

What twaddle bankers speak.

The government is being feeble by not realising the power that it has.
Docking bankers' pay 5:52pm on 09 Feb 2009 It isn't just the bonus culture that is wrong. I have the impression that, at last, the government has accepted this. Yvette Cooper, speaking on the Today programme this morning, said that the whole remuneration should be looked at.

For years, financial institutions have paid far too much, and have distorted the pay in other sectors. It is nonsense to suggest that the "brightest and best" are needed by the banks. They are needed by medicine, law, engineering, science, education, transport, etc.

Greed, not special ability, has been the driver of some young people into finance. Hopefully there are able students now who can be recruited from university into ethical banking.
The government may well be hamstrung by existing contractual agreements that banks have set up. However, there is no legal compulsion on our government (and the tax-payer) to give guarantees of support to the banks. I suggest that all banks are told that the maximum annual remuneration, including bonuses, for anyone with a fulltime job in a bank must be less than £300k. This monstrous figure is above what top people in most other sectors can earn. Any bank that pays more than this after (say) 1st March 2009 would have the tax-payers’ guarantee of 50k for savers withdrawn. Then banks wouldn't dare to behave immorally.

The government is being feeble by not realising the power that it has.
Are Barclays' profits irrelevant? 2:19pm on 09 Feb 2009 In reply to Gleinster (#138), I don't have many restrictive suggestions. I simply don't want this society to stand behind banks that pay salaries that distort other employment salary structures. If banks want to take the risk, if they really are so clever and so talented, then let them get on with it.

But, and it is a big but, those who pay very high salaries would never get baled out by the taxpayer.
Are Barclays' profits irrelevant? 2:11pm on 09 Feb 2009 In #120, UKTroll makes the comment, that without high pay for the finance sector "The talent would have gone elsewhere".
Why should the finance sector have "the talent"? It would be better if banks employed ethical people, and more of them. Then they would not be so rushed. I would not care if bank staff left.

He also writes that "Bonuses serve as a good incentive". My main point was and is that the total remuneration package for the financial sector is too high. I am fully aware of the demands of the legal and education sectors, with a good knowledge too of science and engineering careers. Why should finance get the financial perks?

I know the solution. Educationalists get first choice of school and university for their children. Lawyers get free access to justice. Estate agents (NOT bankers) get the biggest houses. Engineers get given the best cars.

What twaddle bankers speak.
Are Barclays' profits irrelevant? 07:59am on 09 Feb 2009 It isn't just the bonus culture that is wrong. I have the impresssion that, at last, the government has accepted this. Yvette Cooper, speaking on the today programme just now, said that the whole remuneration should be looked at.

For years, financial institutions have paid far too much, and have distorted the pay in other sectors. It is nonsense to suggest that the "brightest and best" are needed by the banks. They are needed by medicine, law, engineering, science, education, transport, etc.

Greed has been the driver of some young people into finance. hopefully there are able students now who can be recruited from university into ethical banking.
The government may well be hamstrung by existing contractual agreements that banks have set up. However, there is no legal compulsion on our governement (and the tax-payer) to give guarantees of support to the banks. I suggest that all banks are told that the maximum remuneration for anyone with a fulltime job in a bank must be less that £300k. This monstrous figure is way above what people in most other sectors can earn. Any bank that pays more than this after (say) 1st March 2009 would have the tax-payers guarantee of 50k for savers withdrawn. Then banks wouldn't dare to behave immorally.

I think the government is being feeble by not realising the power that it has.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

WestCornwall