Barclays bank pay bonus

[Bonzo77]

It is only notionally a UK bank. The reason it is here is because we are a good place to hide tax... no tax paid by mutlimillionaire businessmen for seven years and close proximity to tax havens like Jersey, Luxemborg where they can shift their money around and avoid paying tax.

 

http://www.where-does-it-go.com/uk-money-news/barclays-tax-avoidance/142

 

Regardless, if HSBC decides to move to Hong Kong it's not going to help our econemy is it?

[ChrisT70]

Well it's their company, they can pay him what they like surely?

 

Or is that argument too complicated for some people?

 

so you havent noticed any of the many MP's, and top people who actually run this country, urging serious pay restraint for the top bankers?

 

or have you been asleep for the last 3 months, or is it poss too difficult for you?

 

in the current climate, where the vast majority of public sector are facing a pay cut/freeze/job loss, and the private sector has massive unemployment, can it be right for a bank to be paying multi million pound bonuses?

 

it sets an example that many other banks will want to follow now. comprendez?

[mike84]

I seem to remember Sheffield Wednesday were on the verge of bankrupcy and owing £30 odd million to Co-op Bank. That money had to be written off by the bank and Wednesday walked away without any debts. But I don't suppose that had any effect of players wages.

Perhaps folk who bank at the Co-op should be kicking off about footballers pay.

 

The co-op bank receive £8million from the new owner and they came to an agreement to write the remaining amount off I believe. Something that Banks do every single day with companies and individuals. They also receive the interest payments on the debt for the best part of 15 years. They probably had most of the money back anyway.

 

The co-op came to a similar type of agreement with Derby County a several years ago. They as a company made a decision to cut their (probable) losses and receive something rather than nothing.

[mike84]

so you havent noticed any of the many MP's, and top people who actually run this country, urging serious pay restraint for the top bankers?

 

or have you been asleep for the last 3 months, or is it poss too difficult for you?

 

in the current climate, where the vast majority of public sector are facing a pay cut/freeze/job loss, and the private sector has massive unemployment, can it be right for a bank to be paying multi million pound bonuses?

 

it sets an example that many other banks will want to follow now. comprendez?

 

 

Why, as an employer should you be dictated to about what you pay your staff (exept the minimum wage). The owners of the company (shareholders) have the power to change things if they feel its in the best interest of the company.

[ChrisT70]

Why, as an employer should you be dictated to about what you pay your staff (exept the minimum wage). The owners of the company (shareholders) have the power to change things if they feel its in the best interest of the company.

 

because the government want to encourage some restraint in pay to the minority to prevent a possible uprising from the majority!

its purely the banking sector that had to be bailed out, not industry / private companies etc (ie forgemasters!) so its the banking sector that should be restricted. the police are being hammered today, how do you think they feel seeing this continue?

[taxman]

Why, as an employer should you be dictated to about what you pay your staff (exept the minimum wage). The owners of the company (shareholders) have the power to change things if they feel its in the best interest of the company.

 

Which would be OK in the case of Man Utd who don't need the Govt to prop them up and bail them out should they fail, but isn't the case re banks who know they will never, ever, ever, be allowed to go to the wall because the schmuck taxpayer will always be there to bail them out.

 

It's win win for the banks. Profit, they get rich, fail they get bailed out. No other business or industry has that safety net. Thats why they can continue to take the ****.

[RonJeremy]

The banking sector was bailed out, not to save the banks per se, but to save those people and businesses who had saved and had money in the banks. The whole economy would have been in an even worse state than the labour left it, had they not propped them up. There was no choice. I don't approve of them having lent to NINJAs and other hopeless cases, but the scottish banks in the UK did this and we are all suffering the consequences.

[Guest sibon]

The banking sector was bailed out, not to save the banks per se, but to save those people and businesses who had saved and had money in the banks. The whole economy would have been in an even worse state than the labour left it, had they not propped them up. There was no choice. I don't approve of them having lent to NINJAs and other hopeless cases, but the scottish banks in the UK did this and we are all suffering the consequences.

 

There was always the option of bailing out the customers rather than the banks though. That might have been a better option. Let the failed banks go to the wall, but protect the assets of the prudent customers.

 

It seems that we've done the opposite.

[RonJeremy]

There was always the option of bailing out the customers rather than the banks though. That might have been a better option. Let the failed banks go to the wall, but protect the assets of the prudent customers.

 

It seems that we've done the opposite.

 

Much as I hate to praise GB - he didn't have much time to act, and although he facilitated the Lloyds group taking over HBOScotland, which was obviously a mistake for them (a prudent bank), it was the rightish thing to do at the time. He did try to support some of people's savings up to £30k IIRC. He had to do something.

[Guest sibon]

Much as I hate to praise GB - he didn't have much time to act, and although he facilitated the Lloyds group taking over HBOScotland, which was obviously a mistake for them (a prudent bank), it was the rightish thing to do at the time. He did try to support some of people's savings up to £30k IIRC. He had to do something.

 

No doubt. Maybe he made the right decision, I'm not so sure (this is odd, you are the Tory, I'm the red:D).

Now that the dust has settled, I think that it is time that we had a proper inquiry into the bail outs.

 

We really can't allow the situation to persist where the banks feel invincible. If market forces are so very healthy, it is time to get them to blow up the bankers' kilts again. At about -5 celcius:)