Darling plans tax on bank bonuses

[Dupont666]

Alistair Darling is drawing up plans to face down the country's top bankers by taking the "nuclear option" of a windfall tax on their bumper bonuses as part of measures aimed at the super-rich.

The dramatic move, which was off the agenda just weeks ago, is under active discussion as the Treasury and No 10 try desperately to control the explosion of public anger over bankers' pay.

Government sources said Darling was keen to explore the option for introducing a windfall tax if practical problems – such as defining what constitutes a bonus – could be overcome.

The government will also underline its determination to ensure financiers pay their share of the cost of the crisis by fleshing out its plans for an international "Tobin tax," to be levied on City transactions, raising tens of billions of pounds. Brown threw his weight behind the proposal last month, and No 10 has since been encouraged by growing global support, including from American Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi, who said last week that the proposal had "a great deal of merit".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/06/darling-b...

why doesn't he just sort out Public sector issues first before biting the hand that feeds him, FFS they get charged 40% on the bonus anyway, how much more do they want?

[rocksteadyeddie]

I'm not quite sure how he thinks this will be possible without being taken straight to the court - and losing...

[theaxe]

I would have thought that the government would want to perpetuate the anger over bankers since it deflects attention from the expenses scandal, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other issues that actually matter...

[Fittster]

theaxe said:

I would have thought that the government would want to perpetuate the anger over bankers since it deflects attention from the expenses scandal, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other issues that actually matter...

The cost of bailing out the banks is actually larger than any of those events.

"Shadow chancellor George Osborne would not rule out a windfall tax on bonuses, likely to hit £6bn this year, but said he would prefer a future profits tax."

[johnfm]

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

I would have thought that the government would want to perpetuate the anger over bankers since it deflects attention from the expenses scandal, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other issues that actually matter...

The cost of bailing out the banks is actually larger than any of those events.

"Shadow chancellor George Osborne would not rule out a windfall tax on bonuses, likely to hit £6bn this year, but said he would prefer a future profits tax."

I call Bullst on that statement. Please show hoe bank bailout costs have exceeded the last ten years of expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Elroy Blue]

Dupont666 said:

A

why doesn't he just sort out Public sector issues first before biting the hand that feeds him, FFS they get charged 40% on the bonus anyway, how much more do they want?

So the over-paid, greedy kn@bs who caused the problems in the first place, continue to get paid billions in 'bonuses' and that's ok!

As a 'public sector worker', I'm sick of the finger of blame continually being pointed at us. I'll glad give up my pension and swap it for a few years worth of those bonuses.

[Engineer1]

I'd happily swap the uncertainty of private sector employment for public sector with its, 30 odd days holiday, 6 months on the sick a year, final salary pension and a job that makes you almost unsackable. Not all bankers are involved in this, the ones responsible have almost certainly suffered. We all of us made our career choices knowing what the possible pay and conditions would be, so being jealous of bank bonuses is daft, if we had wanted those bonues we should have tried to get a job in the banking sector.

[eyebeebe]

Elroy Blue said:

Dupont666 said:

A

why doesn't he just sort out Public sector issues first before biting the hand that feeds him, FFS they get charged 40% on the bonus anyway, how much more do they want?

So the over-paid, greedy kn@bs who caused the problems in the first place, continue to get paid billions in 'bonuses' and that's ok!

As a 'public sector worker', I'm sick of the finger of blame continually being pointed at us. I'll glad give up my pension and swap it for a few years worth of those bonuses.

Feel free to PM me and we'll see what we can do... I'd happily look at paying my last few years bonus for your pension pot!

You do realise that these huge numbers that these 'average' bonus numbers are skewed massively by a few (and I do mean a few) huge payouts to people who bring in 10s if not 100s of millions of pounds? I suspect, but can't prove as the data isn't available that the median bonus in the city in a good year is more in the range of 10-20k (taxed at 41% of course). A nice amount of money don't get me wrong, but not exactly buying a new Porsche money.

[Elroy Blue]

Engineer1 said:

I'd happily swap the uncertainty of private sector employment for public sector with its, 30 odd days holiday, 6 months on the sick a year, final salary pension and a job that makes you almost unsackable.

When you find it, can you let me know and I'll apply as well!!

Engineer1 said:

We all of us made our career choices knowing what the possible pay and conditions would be, so being jealous of bank bonuses is daft, if we had wanted those bonues we should have tried to get a job in the banking sector.

If you wanted a final salary pension..you should have got a job in the public sector!

(I'm assuming that amongst the teachers, nurses, emergency services, dustmen etc etc, you're also including the armed forces with their 22yr service/ non-contributory pension)

Public sector are easy targets and the scapegoats of this whole sorry mess! It gets me as angry as the MMGW nonsense. Target the £100'000/year 'diversity managers by all means', but it's not the ordinary Public sector workers who bankrupted the country!

Edited by Elroy Blue on Sunday 6th December 16:36

[Fittster]

johnfm said:

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

I would have thought that the government would want to perpetuate the anger over bankers since it deflects attention from the expenses scandal, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other issues that actually matter...

The cost of bailing out the banks is actually larger than any of those events.

"Shadow chancellor George Osborne would not rule out a windfall tax on bonuses, likely to hit £6bn this year, but said he would prefer a future profits tax."

I call Bullst on that statement. Please show hoe bank bailout costs have exceeded the last ten years of expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Before the war, Gordon Brown set aside £1 billion for war spending. As of late 2007, the UK had spent an estimated £7 billion in direct operating expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan (76 per cent of it in Iraq). This includes money from a supplemental “special reserve”, plus additional spending from the Ministry of Defence.

The special reserve comes on top of the UK's regular defence budget. The British system is particularly opaque: funds from the special reserve are “drawn down” by the Ministry of Defence when required, without specific approval by Parliament. As a result, British citizens have little clarity about how much is actually being spent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...

" New estimates suggest the government's recent bailout of RBS and Lloyds TSB will cost the tax payer up to £1.5 trillion.

The UK Government’s recent bailout of struggling financial giants Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB looks set to add between £1 trillion and £1.5 trillion to national debt, figures out today have revealed.

More shocking still, this colossal intervention represents the equivalent of between 70% and 100% of Britain’s GDP (gross domestic product)."

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1002877-bank-bailou...

Your call is horribly wide of the mark.

[rocksteadyeddie]

Fittster said:

johnfm said:

Fittster said:

theaxe said:

I would have thought that the government would want to perpetuate the anger over bankers since it deflects attention from the expenses scandal, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other issues that actually matter...

The cost of bailing out the banks is actually larger than any of those events.

"Shadow chancellor George Osborne would not rule out a windfall tax on bonuses, likely to hit £6bn this year, but said he would prefer a future profits tax."

I call Bullst on that statement. Please show hoe bank bailout costs have exceeded the last ten years of expenditure on Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Before the war, Gordon Brown set aside £1 billion for war spending. As of late 2007, the UK had spent an estimated £7 billion in direct operating expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan (76 per cent of it in Iraq). This includes money from a supplemental “special reserve”, plus additional spending from the Ministry of Defence.

The special reserve comes on top of the UK's regular defence budget. The British system is particularly opaque: funds from the special reserve are “drawn down” by the Ministry of Defence when required, without specific approval by Parliament. As a result, British citizens have little clarity about how much is actually being spent."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist...

" New estimates suggest the government's recent bailout of RBS and Lloyds TSB will cost the tax payer up to £1.5 trillion.

The UK Government’s recent bailout of struggling financial giants Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB looks set to add between £1 trillion and £1.5 trillion to national debt, figures out today have revealed.

More shocking still, this colossal intervention represents the equivalent of between 70% and 100% of Britain’s GDP (gross domestic product)."

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1002877-bank-bailou...

Your call is horribly wide of the mark.

Not as wide as your understanding of the issue. So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Best guess? The taxpayer will make a profit when the stakes in RBS and HBOS are realised, and the guarantees will not cost anything as they won't be called upon.

The wars, however, have cost real money, and will continue to cost us for every day we remain an occupying force.

[rypt]

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

[rocksteadyeddie]

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

To ignore the value of the asset is to only look at half the equation. Surely you can see that?

[rs1952]

Elroy Blue said:

Engineer1 said:

I'd happily swap the uncertainty of private sector employment for public sector with its, 30 odd days holiday, 6 months on the sick a year, final salary pension and a job that makes you almost unsackable.

When you find it, can you let me know and I'll apply as well!!

Engineer1 said:

We all of us made our career choices knowing what the possible pay and conditions would be, so being jealous of bank bonuses is daft, if we had wanted those bonues we should have tried to get a job in the banking sector.

If you wanted a final salary pension..you should have got a job in the public sector!

(I'm assuming that amongst the teachers, nurses, emergency services, dustmen etc etc, you're also including the armed forces with their 22yr service/ non-contributory pension)

Public sector are easy targets and the scapegoats of this whole sorry mess! It gets me as angry as the MMGW nonsense. Target the £100'000/year 'diversity managers by all means', but it's not the ordinary Public sector workers who bankrupted the country!

Edited by Elroy Blue on Sunday 6th December 16:36

This sort of bovine droppings comes up in every recession.

Most of the "evil" public sector is made up of teachers, nurses, care workers, bin men, school dinner ladies etc, many of whom would think £20k per year was a kings ransom. Are these the prople you're going to take a final salary pension away from, that they've paid in for for anything up to 40 years?

Yes, you are? That's OK then. They'll all be claiming income support in their retirment instead so the country will be no better off

Yes, you might find a very few Chief Executives or whatever on £100k a year, but you find a lot more of those in the private sector. And do you know, odd innit, those CEOs in the private sector never seem to get made redundant when the workforce gets it in the neck. As a percentage of the total, higher paid public sector workers are a minute percentage, and you'll not save much by stopping their pensions.

I've digressed because it always gets right up my nose when people who have chosen to work in the generally higher paid private sector, start bleating when the boot briefly goes onto the other foot in times of recession.

As regards Darling, window dressing again. He won't be getting 40%, he'll be getting 51% (new higher tax band plus 1% NI contributions). I suspect another bit of spouting off so as to be "seen to be doing something" which will disappear like morning mist when the practicalities start to be considered.

[NoelWatson]

Elroy Blue said:

So the over-paid, greedy kn@bs who caused the problems in the first place, continue to get paid billions in 'bonuses' and that's ok!

Greenspan, Brown et al don't get paid massive bonuses??

[rypt]

rocksteadyeddie said:

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

To ignore the value of the asset is to only look at half the equation. Surely you can see that?

Assets are of no use when you cannot easily dispose of them without making a large loss (or causing collapse of the thing you were trying to save).

As such, should we have a budget shortfall tomorrow we cannot use the money in these assets to cover it

[Dupont666]

Elroy Blue said:

Engineer1 said:

I'd happily swap the uncertainty of private sector employment for public sector with its, 30 odd days holiday, 6 months on the sick a year, final salary pension and a job that makes you almost unsackable.

When you find it, can you let me know and I'll apply as well!!

Engineer1 said:

We all of us made our career choices knowing what the possible pay and conditions would be, so being jealous of bank bonuses is daft, if we had wanted those bonues we should have tried to get a job in the banking sector.

If you wanted a final salary pension..you should have got a job in the public sector!

(I'm assuming that amongst the teachers, nurses, emergency services, dustmen etc etc, you're also including the armed forces with their 22yr service/ non-contributory pension)

Public sector are easy targets and the scapegoats of this whole sorry mess! It gets me as angry as the MMGW nonsense. Target the £100'000/year 'diversity managers by all means', but it's not the ordinary Public sector workers who bankrupted the country!

Edited by Elroy Blue on Sunday 6th December 16:36

See this final pensions bit in bold... good... same thing goes for bonus...

If you wanted my bonuses, get off your arse and get a job in the private sector that gives you a bonus.... dont think you can have some of mine.

You werent complaining in the boom times when the public sector contributed fk all to the boom and got the bonuses and pay rises and now all they can do is bh and strike when asked to look at the recession and take a pay freeze!!

The public sector is doing a damn good job of bankrupting the Country.... Why dont you all forgo this big fact final salary pension and help out in times of need in the recession instead of take, take, take and give nothing back?

[Dupont666]

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

To ignore the value of the asset is to only look at half the equation. Surely you can see that?

Assets are of no use when you cannot easily dispose of them without making a large loss (or causing collapse of the thing you were trying to save).

As such, should we have a budget shortfall tomorrow we cannot use the money in these assets to cover it

What you mean like when we have to pay more into the black hole that is the public sector pension?

[rypt]

Dupont666 said:

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

To ignore the value of the asset is to only look at half the equation. Surely you can see that?

Assets are of no use when you cannot easily dispose of them without making a large loss (or causing collapse of the thing you were trying to save).

As such, should we have a budget shortfall tomorrow we cannot use the money in these assets to cover it

What you mean like when we have to pay more into the black hole that is the public sector pension?

No, like say when we have to pay more money for some better equipment for the armed forces ... instead of scaling back orders due to having to fund the bankers.
Or are bankers more important than our troops and their equipment now?

Edited by rypt on Sunday 6th December 17:36

[anonymous-user]

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

rypt said:

rocksteadyeddie said:

So far the bank bailout has cost no pounds. Not a single penny has been spent. Money has been invested, and that investment may or may not cost us something in the long run. We cannot know until the investment is realised. The guarantees to the sector have cost nothing. In the event that they are called upon they might cost something, but again we cannot know that until they guarantees are withdrawn.

Money invested or money put aside to cover guarantees is money that cannot be spent elsewhere, as such it has cost us.

To ignore the value of the asset is to only look at half the equation. Surely you can see that?

Assets are of no use when you cannot easily dispose of them without making a large loss (or causing collapse of the thing you were trying to save).

As such, should we have a budget shortfall tomorrow we cannot use the money in these assets to cover it

Should we have a budget shortfall? I think that ones been out of the bag for a decade under this current spend more than you have government!

Asset rich, cash poor is the norm in a downturn for any large institute or wealthy person. It doesn't mean they wont have a much brighter future in terms of cash down the line. Everything is cyclical, you just have to be smart about how you manage these cycles, fooling yourself that you've banished these cycles is what has gotten us into such a mess, and our great leader is right at the top of the pile when it comes to responsibility in having this mindset.