Bankers' Bonus Tax Axed

the groutch

as part of the fast-tracking of the Finance Bill, the 90% tax on bankers' bonuses has been scrapped

so they are going to get away with even more of our money

sligopark

and so the reasoning behind my thinking that FF FG and labour are all of the same line breeding...

monkeys the lot of them - unfortunately for all of us... they can't wait to get us screwed and then blame FF ...

KerranJast

It'll be passed by the new Govt.

sligopark

of course it will if not passed by the present opposition ... what a shameful bunch ...

Pherekydes

Won't the banks just increase bonuses to compensate?

Tayla

sligopark wrote: »

of course it will if not passed by the present opposition ... what a shameful bunch ...

What is going on in their little bubble? They are definitely in the minus numbers in the credibility stakes at this stage....

There is only one way left to vote after today and that is SF

sligopark

Pherekydes wrote: »

Won't the banks just increase bonuses to compensate?

yes and no doubt the two Brians chuckled when they proposed this knowing the banks would just increase on the back end - somehting about 'glad it wasn't our bonuses lol lol lol nevermind our pensions LOL LOL LOL

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep, the personnel who were SOOOOO talented that they managed to bollox up the country completely.

What "top-notch bankers" do you think we have, and why do their banks need our hard-earned cash to stay afloat ?

I was sickened earlier when I heard on the news that the ONE, SINGLE CONCESSION to acknowledge that the bankers would be unemployed were it not for OUR cash was being abandoned.

If I were a TD I would vote against the Finance Bill just on this aspect alone.

The public NEEDS to have some tiny indication that the interests of the public are being looked after and that the banks aren't running the show on their own terms.

We need a Scrooge style ghost to show the bankers the future with their closed-down operations and them on the dole so as to kick their asses back into reality.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yep, the personnel who were SOOOOO talented that they managed to bollox up the country completely.

What "top-notch bankers" do you think we have, and why do their banks need our hard-earned cash to stay afloat ?

I was sickened earlier when I heard on the news that the ONE, SINGLE CONCESSION to acknowledge that the bankers would be unemployed were it not for OUR cash was being abandoned.

If I were a TD I would vote against the Finance Bill just on this aspect alone.

The public NEEDS to have some tiny indication that the interests of the public are being looked after and that the banks aren't running the show on their own terms.

We need a Scrooge style ghost to show the bankers the future with their closed-down operations and them on the dole so as to kick their asses back into reality.

The bankers (Traders) wouldn't be unemployed if the banks had not been rescued. The trading divisions were and still are profitable so they would have been sold by the creditors to raise cash.

Penalising the traders, I've said it before and I'll say it again, is to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobbieTheRobber

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You liken bankers to doctors but i can understand the value of doctors to society, but at this present time what benefit are bankers to our society?

oppenheimer1

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You liken bankers to doctors but i can understand the value of doctors to society, but at this present time what benefit are bankers to our society?

Is money not important to the way our society is structured... Think about it and come back to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A service that has cost us €22,000 each and counting.....

Also, you're assuming that an alternative cannot be set up, which is false.

A partial alternative already existed in the form of credit unions, and there were other banks such as Rabo & Ulster Bank, one of which is still here, thankfully.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Reform the criteria for the bonuses so that only highly talented personnel get them and then come back and ask us nicely for even more of our money and we'll decide if their performance has been worth it.

Biggins

KerranJast wrote: »

It'll be passed by the new Govt.

I doubt that VERY much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

IF they returned to private hands you would be correct, it would be none of our business.

However we're paying ten times what they're worth.

What price would you suggest we sell them to "private hands" for ?

How do we get our money back if we sell them as soon as someone becomes interested?

dissed doc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What criteria are used to determine the performance of a banker?

Is this reviewed and available tot he public?

Perhaps we should have a "Banker Council" like the medical council - and the public should be able to lodge complaints about the fitness for bankers to practice.

So many have compromised their ability to work effectively in the interests of the country.

We have no legal recourse as citizens.

So, give us a) specific criteria to determine performance, mandatory 3 monthly ethics in business courses for all bankers and b) a complaints system with non-banker majority to investigate complaints and determine any bankers fitness to "practice".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It kinda does since you suggested getting the banks into private hands "as soon as possible".

If you'd said that bonuses would be irrelevant "whenever the banks are back in private hands", it would have been acceptable, but the above seems to imply an agenda - or at best, a disregard for - the interests of the taxpayer that stands to lose billions.

KerranJast

Biggins wrote: »

I doubt that VERY much.

It's incredibly popular to bash the bankers so I think they'll fast track it.

RobbieTheRobber

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah good So i can understand the need for the abilty to safegaurd deposits, but these bankers who are earning massive bonuses are not merely maintaining ATM machines and safe gaurding deposits.

The problem we face is because these elite bankers gambled with the money of the bank, they clearly too risks which did not work and now we are paying the price.

So sure we need a banking system to store safely our deposits, but what need have we for the risk takers?

RobbieTheRobber

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Im sorry but correct if Im wrong, these so called talented people should have already been in place because they have been collecting these bonuses for a numebr of years, yet how come our banks are now indebted to the nation?

The_Minister

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So sure we need a banking system to store safely our deposits, but what need have we for the risk takers?

Two reasons spring to mind:
(1) The money made from loans pays for the safeguarding and management of deposits.
(2) We need loans so people can buy houses and set up businesses.

RobbieTheRobber

The_Minister wrote: »

Two reasons spring to mind:
(1) The money made from loans pays for the safeguarding and management of deposits.
(2) We need loans so people can buy houses and set up businesses.

Indeed we do but didnt the banks work under full liability in the past?
They dont take risk to ensure they can loan money they take risk to ensure much higher profits, at much higher risk and as it would seem to me with no libaility at all.

Tea drinker

The_Minister wrote: »

Two reasons spring to mind:
(1) The money made from loans pays for the safeguarding and management of deposits.
(2) We need loans so people can buy houses and set up businesses.

There are a whole host of charges on cards and transactions, they must account for some of the safeguarding deposits? Sure didn't bank of Ireland bring in a whole rake of conditions for "free banking" a few weeks back?
At this rate putting it under the mattress would have saved the country billions.

We were sold the same thing about politicians, oh we need to pay them in order to attract the best from business! (who did we get?)
We need to pay them loads to prevent corruption (what did we get)
It's no use asking a lad with his hand in the till how much he thinks is a reasonable amount. This is a mere extension of the endemic corruption in our society, and the enabling behaviour of most people makes it even worse. The majority of us pay these people for a simple service, they can't even provide that. If they want to run around playing games in the market that's fine, but the liability and responsibility must be contained within that unit or ban mainstream banks from using risky biz models.
Legally split the companies, and contain the liability into managable amounts.

How come all these smart fella's in the regulator, ECB and the german banks all failed in their role and we must apy for their incompetence?
Sure what about that shopkeeper in castleblaney given 32 million to make a shopping centre? What talented individual checked the biz plan?

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"leaving us with third-rate hacks who will not run our banks in a manner conducive to economic recovery"

I work in finance - unless more restrictive trading is introduced, the cycle of gambling and bailout will continue - two reasons - testosterone and profits - nothing else.

These 'third-rate hacks' made more money than the 'first class traders' who are in Bermuda now after giving your grandchildren a huge debt. MS had the right attitude when they just went in, culled the lot of them and pulled in a bunch of graduates.

thebaldsoprano

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Until the next time they come looking for a bailout. If bankers want to continue the setup of astronomical bonuses and loose regulation then let them issue their own currency and see how long they last...

This is the bit that gets me, this is our money they're diluting by issuing loans to "create wealth" and when they still can't manage to do that they come cap-in-hand to taxpayers looking for more. If they want to play with money backed by my services, then I think it's reasonable for me to expect that they be paid modestly and are well regulated. If they've a problem with this then there are plenty of other countries where they can go and find people to exploit.

fliball123

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Last I heard the person making such transactions has to pay for them. The problem people have with these bonuses is simple. The money is not their to pay them and if its paid it is taken directly out of the back pockets of tax payers. Why should the tax payer pay these bonuses...What did we get for this...

Likewise no TD or MP or politician or Civil servant who retires between 2002 (start of the bubble) and now going forward should be allowed there pensions until the state retirement age of 68 and if its against the law then this 90% tax should be imposed whats good for the goose and all

OhNoYouDidn't

4 pages in and not one person has figured it out yet.

80% of people who work in banking in Ireland do so in banks that are nothing to do with the gurantee scheme. Mostly US and British owned banks in the IFSC for example.

Why should they be taxed at 90% on their bonuses?

markpb

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

4 pages in and not one person has figured it out yet.

80% of people who work in banking in Ireland do so in banks that are nothing to do with the gurantee scheme. Mostly US and British owned banks in the IFSC for example.

Why should they be taxed at 90% on their bonuses?

IIRC the tax was on banks who had been bailed out by the taxpayer, not on all banks.

OhNoYouDidn't

markpb wrote: »

IIRC the tax was on banks who had been bailed out by the taxpayer, not on all banks.

No it wasn't. Hence it would have been eaten alive in the courts.

Of course failing and bailed out banks should not be offering bonuses (although commission is a different argument). But this was a populist and crude measure that was doomed to fail the real world test.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You may have had a point had the banks not asked for the bailout.

What gave them the idea to do that ?

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You may have had a point had the banks not asked for the bailout.

What gave them the idea to do that ?

Who cares? If Seán Fitzpatrick and Brian Goggin had told Cowen to jump off a bridge, would he do it? Ok, probably, but that's not the point i'm making.

The decision to bail out the banks was not a banking decision. It was a political one.
It is almost laughable (were it not so serious) that in those terms, Seán FitzPatrick (bad as he was he didn't himself decide to socialise the debt) is more reviled than Brian Cowen who, if he runs, will undoubtedly be elected back into political office.

Son Of A Vidic

In my company, incompetence and ineptitude is certainly not rewarded with a nice juicy bonus. So why does the same not apply to some of the imbeciles within the banking sector? Of course the tax was always going to be dropped and I wouldn't hold my breath to see when will it be reintroduced.

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

The decision to bail out the banks was not a banking decision. It was a political one.
It is almost laughable (were it not so serious) that in those terms, Seán FitzPatrick (bad as he was he didn't himself decide to socialise the debt) is more reviled than Brian Cowen who, if he runs, will undoubtedly be elected back into political office.

Whoever originally asked for the bailout got the wheels in motion re socialising the debt.

Yes, the politicians should have told them to feck off for themselves, but they had the gall to ask having created the situation.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whoever originally asked for the bailout got the wheels in motion

So what? Wheels in motion is nothing but a Dutch ecstasy fuelled tune that European house fans dance to (it's pretty good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b97v3Y44UUU ) and is totally irrelevant to anything. It has about the relevance of the Dutch song.

Bank executives didn't shoulder the public with the debt. Government did, and many of the government will return to political office in about one month's time.

Cookie_Monster

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Whoever originally asked for the bailout got the wheels in motion re socialising the debt.

I must ask the local politician for a million quid, they'll have to give it to me then, I asked for it after all.

fliball123 wrote: »

The problem people have with these bonuses is simple. The money is not their to pay them and if its paid it is taken directly out of the back pockets of tax payers. Why should the tax payer pay these bonuses...What did we get for this...

There's no money to pay the PS either but we tax payers have to take a hit again to pay for the ridiculous Croke park deal...

That piece of legislation was madness and would have cost Ireland a lot of high quality people and eventually business would have to simply treble or quadruple the pay and other perks to keep people, rather than discretionary bonuses that need not necessarily be paid every year.

Shea O'Meara

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is my belief that we have a skewed 'Your lordship' view towards bankers. All the services you list carry a charge. Should we applaud the shop keeper every time we buy a pint of milk, 'Thanks for marking up the price to cover your costs while making a little profit for yourself.'?
Neither should be ostracised but they should also not be lauded over.

Bankers underpin society in so much as they provide a service, for which they are paid. Nothing more, nothing less.
If they wish to be a private entity they can make their own policies as regards bonuses. If they need/rely on public money to survive, the state should have the say in their bonus paying practises.

If the fear is they'll go elsewhere? So what? There will always be a bank wanting to do business where there is business. Our banks don't operate a charity. They don't hang around for the good of Irish society. Again if the fear is that if we don't furnish high end bonuses they might go elsewhere....well hopefully the next wave will be more competent at their jobs.

I always hear the argument, you get what you pay for, we must give good salaries to Politicians, bankers, RTE 'Celebs' lest they go elsewhere...worked out great for us so far on all counts, quality wise:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cookie_Monster

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Never mind the facts, the masses want to rant at the big evil bankers

Shea O'Meara

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The thread topic is to debate on bankers bonuses, hence 'Banker's bonus tax axed' being the title. It is my understanding that this 90% tax was brought in as the only way, considering the agreement, the state could minimalise these bonuses in light of the tax payer bailout to private enterprise. I was, as noted by yourself, discussing those bailed out by the public pocket.
I also stand by my point that any particular bankers are by no means the lifeblood of Irish, or any society.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Never mind the facts, the masses want to rant at the big evil bankers

A well thought out dismissive retort:rolleyes: How FFail of you.

Liam Byrne

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I must ask the local politician for a million quid, they'll have to give it to me then, I asked for it after all.

Missing the point completely.

No-one has to give it, but since they came begging they are not as innocent as some would prefer us to believe.

There's no money to pay the PS either but we tax payers have to take a hit again to pay for the ridiculous Croke park deal...

While I'd agree to a point, that is merely paying too much for services that we need, as distinct from wasting money on "services" we'd have been better off without, such as Anglo.

I know and agree that my taxes will pay for public services; I signed nothing that allows FF to hand my cash over to corrupt bankers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shea O'Meara

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No problem.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not why I joined the thread, but I would guess the only way they could tax any bank bonuses, was a blanket tax. In their typical '..after the horse has bolted' style.

DERICKOO

great at least I will be able to secure a second trip to the Maldives again this year.

http://www.tropicalsky.ie/Maldives_holidays.htm

OhNoYouDidn't

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I know and agree that my taxes will pay for public services; I signed nothing that allows FF to hand my cash over to corrupt bankers.

Fine. And you are right to be angry.

But what has that got to do with the 200,000 people who work in the IFSC?