10%

[OwlHoot]

Firstly I am not a massive fan of bankers, secondly there are very few who as rich as everyone claims they are and finally the politicians are as much to blame if not more than bankers for, for example lending money to sub prime borrowers.

I find the hypocrisy startling. here we have a rich and prosperous industry that yield billions in tax to so many people. are they grateful ? No. Instead we have these people who are feeding out of the trough of others, showing no thanks, yet hate the people providing for them and hate them even more when they turn the tap off.

The bankers are a red herring. The people who have really let us down are the vast swathes of socialists parasites who are bleeding Europe dry in order to feed their own personal entitlement

Been saying it for years, but in truth even the politicians and the socialist parasites they pander to are almost irrelevant too.

Follow the cause and effect back, through numerous paths both direct and otherwise, and the ultimate root cause is the vast and growing 3rd World population combined with increasing globalisation dissolving barriers to wealth transfer.

[BrilloPad]

According to Dimblebore, the City is 10% of GDP. So, if he's right, 90% of GDP has flip all to do with a load of spivs in our stinking capital. To listen to some folk on here and elsewhere go on about how flippin' vital it is and how it must be allowed to do whatever the flip it likes at all times, you'd think it was the other way round.

I take exception to banks being bailed out by the UK taxpayer. But the Wimbledonization of the city is nearly complete. The foreign banks that are here could move anywhere. Better they are here and we get the tax revenue from them.

[Jeff Maginty]

..

[d000hg]

I am beginning to wonder SAS if you are in actual fact an agent. We seem to be agreeing rather a lot these days

Wow, that's a real back-handed bitch-slap.

[VectraMan]

The bankers are a red herring. The people who have really let us down are the vast swathes of socialists parasites who are bleeding Europe dry in order to feed their own personal entitlement

WHS x1000. I'm so sick of hearing leftists making excuses for themselves by blaming "bankers". Whatever the banks may or may not have been responsible for, that was the credit crunch, that was 2008. The problem now is little to do with them, and the only reason the banks might need another bailout is that the taxpayers are defaulting on their debts.

.. insane rant...
There is simply no way to justify rewards for failure, and certainly not MASSIVE REWARDS for MASSIVE FAILURE. Would you at least agree with that last sentance?

Our whole society is based on reward for failure. Very few people are paid based on success; the vast majority of us are paid a wage no matter what, and contractors aren't any different. Ironically DA may well be one of the few who isn't (if he's paid on commission; I've no idea how dodgy agents operate).

[DodgyAgent]

WHS x1000. I'm so sick of hearing leftists making excuses for themselves by blaming "bankers". Whatever the banks may or may not have been responsible for, that was the credit crunch, that was 2008. The problem now is little to do with them, and the only reason the banks might need another bailout is that the taxpayers are defaulting on their debts.





Our whole society is based on reward for failure. Very few people are paid based on success; the vast majority of us are paid a wage no matter what, and contractors aren't any different. Ironically DA may well be one of the few who isn't (if he's paid on commission; I've no idea how dodgy agents operate).

We are generally paid a fee contingent upon placing someone either in the form of a "one off" fee or on the drip in the form of a margin from a contractor, so we are true capitalists. Contractors also earn their pay as a direct result of supply and demand. These dynamics vary hour by hour according to individual requirements, availability, other opportunities etc - although there are generally accepted "standard benchmark rates" that underpin the market (just as there are with agencies though this has been broken down by PSLs and by the relative ease of finding people directly).

Contractor rates have been hard hit by Indian offshore companies importing cheap programmers under the ICT program.

[doodab]

It does have some value as a facilitator of investment/liquidity, but its value has been vastly overblown in recent years, hence the ridiculous "masters of the universe" label that the media have given them. Actually, that label is more about people who earn mere £thousands being in awe of those who "earn" £millions than it is about any special skills/achievements/merit.

Actually that label is due to Tom Wolfe in Bonfire of the Vanities. It's entirely ironic as the self-anointed "master of the universe" in question is completely undone by events beyond his control.

[doodab]

There is simply no way to justify rewards for failure, and certainly not MASSIVE REWARDS for MASSIVE FAILURE

In a world where it's every man for himself, receiving a massive reward is the very definition of massive success. What you did or didn't do in order to get your hands on it is irrelevant.

[Doggy Styles]

You say there are few bankers who are as rich as everyone claims. I reckon there are at least 1000 bankers in London who have been paid £1million or more for one years work in the last few years. You only have to read about the size of the bonus pool at one of the big investment banks (typically 2 or 3 £billion) to realise that there is some serious money being paid out to these supposed "masters of the universe". Every £1million is the eqivalent of £20grand per year salary for 50 people for 1 year (yes I know there are more costs to employment besides salary). Think how many jobs could be created if £1billion was diverted from the bonus pool and used to pay people to do proper jobs like repairing the numerous potholes on our roads, or building much-needed affordable housing.

I agree with Dodgy that bankers are a red herring, and here's why.

The finance sector is responsible for 11% of the UK's tax revenue. If you get rid of the bulk of that, you've got to find that money from somewhere else, or the UK will be in a much worse position than it is now. This, incidentally, is what Cameron is trying to protect by not signing up to the latest EU treaty, but that's covered in other threads. 11% is a huge amount to find, if we could find another 11% today our deficit would be wiped out and we'd be dancing in the streets.

Secondly, bankers are necessary. The massive amount of money turning over in the financial systems needs managing, and that's what bankers do. Some do a good job, some don't, and most do something mundane and boring in the middle. The bad and failed bankers make the headlines and by all means curtail their bonuses, but the bottom line is that the amounts involved are very small compared to the sovereign debt problems affecting everyone now.

Lastly, on the subject of redistributing bankers' salaries (using Jeff's' estimated figures above), the UK takes far more tax from 1000 people on £1 million a year than they would from 50,000 people on £20,000 (it would be less than 50,000 and their tax take even less but, like Jeff, I'm ignoring overhead costs for the sake of the argument). That's more tax revenue that would have to be replaced somehow. There is also the problem of how you'd extract that money from private financial institutions, whose money it is.

Bankers are a convenient scapegoat to blame, but it gets us nowhere.

[doodab]

Lastly, on the subject of redistributing bankers' salaries (using Jeff's' estimated figures above), the UK takes far more tax from 1000 people on £1 million a year than they would from 50,000 people on £20,000 (it would be less than 50,000 and their tax take even less but, like Jeff, I'm ignoring overhead costs for the sake of the argument). That's more tax revenue that would have to be replaced somehow.

That assumes that public expenditure remains constant. Arguably there would be a benefit to employing those 50,000 people that would reduce the burden on the public purse, by directly reducing the number of unemployed and also an associated reduction in crime and health problems.

The calculation also seems to be based purely on income tax. As the people who would benefit from the redistribution are presumably poorer they are more likely to spend the money than save it, resulting in additional VAT revenue. As the money would then circulate several times in the wider economy the net additional revenue would be several times £200 million. Their collective enterprise might even add additional value over and above wage costs generating additional corporation tax revenue as well.