Swiss show the middle finger to greedy failures

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
  • Armoured_Bear 4 Mar 2013 14:38:40 11,282 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Teh people Power

    Any chance of this happening elsewhere?
    Will it make a difference ? .

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • Bremenacht 4 Mar 2013 14:45:36 18,325 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Doing something similar with bankers' bonuses over here, and also claiming that steps will be taken to prevent them from bumping up their salaries to compensate (which they did before). But, outrage at this curb on raw talent is building, and it will probably come to nothing.
  • ZuluHero 4 Mar 2013 14:48:30 4,172 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I was more interested in this in the side-link bar of that article:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21654930

    Just who is this caped crusader and where does he get those wonderful toys? :)

    Edited by ZuluHero at 14:55:21 04-03-2013
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 14:52:02 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Shall we have the discussion about bonuses and the general public being idiots again?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 14:57:51 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    .

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 14:58:30 04-03-2013

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 4 Mar 2013 15:02:49 22,766 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    .
    Curse your .!
  • THFourteen 4 Mar 2013 15:05:29 33,478 posts
    Seen 22 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its a tough one.

    In a normal investment bank, people who work in operations / technology etc might get 30-60k per year, and a 5-50% bonus if the company / team does well

    the people who work in the portfolio management roles might have a salary of (i guess) 50k-1m depending on seniority. But they will get huge bonuses during good times, and smaller bonuses during bad times, but still sizeable.

    if their salaries have to go up to compensate their bonuses being capped, all that extra money will come out of the "little guy" and people who actually do the grunt work will get the sack.
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:11:32 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    tl;dr, wrote a big long post and fuck it. Think of a bonus as a performance related pay scheme. The bigger the bonus, the more the banker had to work for it and the less as a percentage he's guaranteed to get.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:13:34 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Or put it like this. Would you rather a generic banker (say his deals and trades brought in 10m for the bank annually) got paid:

    a) 100k with up to a 400k bonus.

    b) 300k flat with no bonus.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Psychotext 4 Mar 2013 15:16:30 54,240 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    As long as it's directly related to trading performance I really don't have any problem with bonuses. Pay them minimum wage and let them survive on how good or bad they are (assuming enough oversight to ensure they don't start bankrupting the banks they work for).
  • Big-Swiss 4 Mar 2013 15:17:08 8,100 posts
    Seen 50 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think this is great!

    you know, if some guys would have not totally overboarded, then this law would not have ben voted for.

    But we are talking some board dudes from pharma companies getting 72 Millions. 72 fucking millions for doing what? and medication is fucking expensive. That just doesen't sound right, there was something that had to be done!

    I'm very happy with the law!
  • Bremenacht 4 Mar 2013 15:17:47 18,325 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's not about those bankers who make a lot of money though, is it?

    It's about people in highly paid roles getting highly paid regardless of performance.

    The idiotic general public understands one thing very well: they can work as hard as they like and their salary generally remains the same. Hence, anger, resentment etc.
  • imamazed 4 Mar 2013 15:17:55 5,634 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Or put it like this. Would you rather a generic banker (say his deals and trades brought in 10m for the bank annually) got paid:

    a) 100k with up to a 400k bonus.

    b) 300k flat with no bonus.
    B.

    Because it would all be liable for income tax and so would provide more for society.

    Or are bonuses taxed more? I honestly don't know.
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:18:55 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bonuses are taxed at the same rate as normal pay.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Armoured_Bear 4 Mar 2013 15:20:32 11,282 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    As long as it's directly related to trading performance I really don't have any problem with bonuses. Pay them minimum wage and let them survive on how good or bad they are (assuming enough oversight to ensure they don't start bankrupting the banks they work for).
    It isn't, that's what caused the Swiss reaction.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:20:44 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's a)

    Banks want it to be a) because it attracts better candidates, and they can flex their cost base more in line with revenues which allows for smoother trading profile and less volatility. Bankers want it because they see the opportunity to earn 500k rather than 300k.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Psychotext 4 Mar 2013 15:21:22 54,240 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Big-Swiss wrote:
    But we are talking some board dudes from pharma companies getting 72 Millions. 72 fucking millions for doing what? and medication is fucking expensive. That just doesen't sound right, there was something that had to be done!
    I'm going to come across as a tory right now... and I really am not, but...

    Have you any idea how dim you sound right now? Do you think that money came from no-where? Or are you working on the assumption that the companies are able to magic drugs into life from no-where, just so they can sell them for next to nothing?

    Something had to be done!

    72m (72m what btw? Dollars?) is obscene, but if the company is making enough profits to make that sort of payment to him then more power to them.
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:24:09 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Shouldnt he also be rewarded in line with the organisation he is working for?
    That'll be why I made xxm for the bank and got 0.

    Some bonuses recognise people who seriously outperformed the market and deserve it, irrespective of overall performance.

    Some bonuses were agreed years ago in return for people in key roles agreeing to stay on at a bank which otherwise could very well have sunk.

    Some bonuses are given out in moderation to those who deserve them, to prevent them being poached by other banks.

    Some bonuses were related to pre-agreed performance targets which may have been met despite the overall position of the bank.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Bremenacht 4 Mar 2013 15:25:32 18,325 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Anyway.



    Yeeaahhhh
  • imamazed 4 Mar 2013 15:33:41 5,634 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:

    Its basically the 'gay marriage' of the financial world, constantly brought up so people dont pay closer attention to the real problems.
    Oh, wow. That's subjective.

    Personally I think inequality of earnings is a huge issue, and a very real and prevalent problem in today's society.

    Similarly, the blanket equality of marital union is an important sybolic milestone and can be sorted out.
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:39:27 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yep - don't solve inequality of earnings through overt caps on salary. Solve it through tax bands. But be careful.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 4 Mar 2013 15:40:47 22,766 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Was just discussing that today, with a German economist.

    Can someone explain to my why we don't have a curved line when it comes to tax bands, rather than the jarring 'step' system where crossing a threshold puts you in the same tax bracket as someone earning thousands more than you?
  • imamazed 4 Mar 2013 15:41:48 5,634 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Socialism is a separate issue. If we live in an, albeit moderate, capitalist society, they should be free to pay the bankers what they like.
    I understand why you say that, but socialism is irrelevant really. It's not a distraction; even in a capitalist country a lot of people are concerned about the growing inequality of earnings. Just because you don't see bonuses as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem for a lot of other people.
  • LeoliansBro 4 Mar 2013 15:43:00 44,282 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Was just discussing that today, with a German economist.

    Can someone explain to my why we don't have a curved line when it comes to tax bands, rather than the jarring 'step' system where crossing a threshold puts you in the same tax bracket as someone earning thousands more than you?
    Complexity.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 4 March 2013 15:43:52
    I'm in charge of a company that makes 20k profit a year and I get paid 50k

    I'm in charge of a company that makes 5bn profit a year. It's not that much harder so I should also get 50k.
  • RedSparrows 4 Mar 2013 15:44:05 22,766 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Was just discussing that today, with a German economist.

    Can someone explain to my why we don't have a curved line when it comes to tax bands, rather than the jarring 'step' system where crossing a threshold puts you in the same tax bracket as someone earning thousands more than you?
    Complexity.
    Complexity being a technical term, or what? Or you mean a curved line is overly complex? Blokey was saying that was the system in Germany.
  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply