Ireland forces AIB to cancel bonuses
Discussion
Soovy said:
KatieK said:
Only bankers would think they deserve a bonus for screwing the economy up. In their world they deserve a bonus no matter what happens and poor people can just go and starve. Ireland should be throwing these people in jail.
Have a couple more and good to see the shining example of socialism back here - how is the new RR Sport Katie or did you get the Porsche fixed in the end? 
Edited by 550Hep on Tuesday 14th December 14:57
KatieK said:
Only bankers would think they deserve a bonus for screwing the economy up. In their world they deserve a bonus no matter what happens and poor people can just go and starve. Ireland should be throwing these people in jail.
Only a student would comprehensively fail to understand the basics. You're not even contributing to society, let alone paying any tax or helping the poor and starving.
As soon as you've banked a few proper pay cheques you'll want to forget these postings of yours.
I applaud this decision however, I too feel it is posturing and they will receive payments under confi agreements.
ButI love all this talk of "evil bankers"!
Points to remember
Banks are businesses with shareholders and responsibilty to make money for them. No one should critisise banks for making cash, it is there business. If customers dont like it, go elsewhere.
Banks occasionally lose money, the shareholders can critisise then, but non shareholders dont really have a say. (remember though, your pension may be there!). So critisism is due in these circs.
Did banks offer unrelaistically large loans to people who could not pay them? Yes, it seems some did. BUt did they just walk down the street lobbing this cash at random punters......? NO. People asked for them.
So whilst some loans may have gone bad, it really is not all the evil bankers fault. Without the demand, there would be no "products" sold.
As for the large loans to developers, well how many of these loans show bad debt? It would be normal for a bank to secure cuch loans on existing assets as well, not just the ones they are building. So unless they have lost money, it is hard to critisise them. The developers though, building too many houses compared to demand, well clearly the fact they are empty new builds, suggest they got their calculations wrong. As did anyone who bought them at inflated prices and are now surrounded by empty houses. How many developers enjoyed the availability of cheper cash based on their performacen and balance sheets, and how accurate were those balance sheets, (Wrekin Diamond anyone??)??
Point is that we hear "evil bankers" banded around like your mortgage advisor in the Halifax is some sort fo genocidal lunatic. But why are the people who borrowed the cash, sometimes on the basis of false declarations in the UK at least, (self certified incomes) always the "victims"?
I know of two people in dire straits with their properties, both self employed, both borrowing too much for their income based on self declared incomes. Both acknowledged they did so in taking out their mortgages and I know the (now ex)broker who set the mortgage deals up). Both regualarly holiday aborad 3-4 times a year, (one has a house in Protugal) both have newish cars (oldest is 57 plated, newest is a 60 plate S3) and both families live considerably in excess of their means.
And know they realise they have over extended themselves, guess what? It was the Bank's fault you know......
If we are to avoid the "errors" of the past, we all need to acknowledge our parts played in the ecnomic difficulties. If we dont, nothing will stop it hapening again.
ButI love all this talk of "evil bankers"!
Points to remember
Banks are businesses with shareholders and responsibilty to make money for them. No one should critisise banks for making cash, it is there business. If customers dont like it, go elsewhere.
Banks occasionally lose money, the shareholders can critisise then, but non shareholders dont really have a say. (remember though, your pension may be there!). So critisism is due in these circs.
Did banks offer unrelaistically large loans to people who could not pay them? Yes, it seems some did. BUt did they just walk down the street lobbing this cash at random punters......? NO. People asked for them.
So whilst some loans may have gone bad, it really is not all the evil bankers fault. Without the demand, there would be no "products" sold.
As for the large loans to developers, well how many of these loans show bad debt? It would be normal for a bank to secure cuch loans on existing assets as well, not just the ones they are building. So unless they have lost money, it is hard to critisise them. The developers though, building too many houses compared to demand, well clearly the fact they are empty new builds, suggest they got their calculations wrong. As did anyone who bought them at inflated prices and are now surrounded by empty houses. How many developers enjoyed the availability of cheper cash based on their performacen and balance sheets, and how accurate were those balance sheets, (Wrekin Diamond anyone??)??
Point is that we hear "evil bankers" banded around like your mortgage advisor in the Halifax is some sort fo genocidal lunatic. But why are the people who borrowed the cash, sometimes on the basis of false declarations in the UK at least, (self certified incomes) always the "victims"?
I know of two people in dire straits with their properties, both self employed, both borrowing too much for their income based on self declared incomes. Both acknowledged they did so in taking out their mortgages and I know the (now ex)broker who set the mortgage deals up). Both regualarly holiday aborad 3-4 times a year, (one has a house in Protugal) both have newish cars (oldest is 57 plated, newest is a 60 plate S3) and both families live considerably in excess of their means.
And know they realise they have over extended themselves, guess what? It was the Bank's fault you know......
If we are to avoid the "errors" of the past, we all need to acknowledge our parts played in the ecnomic difficulties. If we dont, nothing will stop it hapening again.
KatieK said:
Only bankers would think they deserve a bonus for screwing the economy up. In their world they deserve a bonus no matter what happens and poor people can just go and starve. Ireland should be throwing these people in jail.
KatieKI really hope you're good looking with a fit body, becasue you clearly weren't given much in the way of brains....
Sidicks
The only issue I see here that presents a problem is that if the bank is being supported by the govenment and the govenment is making large cuts (including the minimum wage which is a bit off really) then people will rightly be angry. The rights and wrongs and logical arguments related to that don't mean much if you're being effectively punished but haven't done anything wrong.
I don't think the people on minimum wage are responsible for the swathes of empty developments.
So I can understand the anger and the bailout should have been structured to take care of this in a neater way. If the bank would have otherwise gone under then those people would have lost their bonuses along with their jobs anyway so anything they are getting now is a bonus really.
I don't think the people on minimum wage are responsible for the swathes of empty developments.
So I can understand the anger and the bailout should have been structured to take care of this in a neater way. If the bank would have otherwise gone under then those people would have lost their bonuses along with their jobs anyway so anything they are getting now is a bonus really.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those in profitable divisions obviously should. If you worked in a company that employed 2 people. You and one other and you made £1m for the company each year and the other guy lost £1m each year. Do you honestly think that that person should be paid the same as you?
You can't sack him and you can't have different basic salaries as this is discrimination, so you set low slaries and create a bonus structure that rewards you for being a winner and punishes him for being a loser.
Then he will chose to leave and you will chose to stay. Otherwise if he was being paid the same as you he would stay and you would leave. Whcih scenario is better for the business?
Do people really have such a poor understanding of how elementary business works?
It's always ironic that people seem to whinge when they guy who works in their office and is on the same income is s
t but when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it seems fair to punish success and reward failure. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff