What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

Just now, Sweep said:

Not really, if it's so needed, why isn't all the financial world doing it?

Anyway, we're just gong round in circles, we'll never agree. I'd prefer an individuals earning potential not to be capped, and you prefer people's potential earnings to have a cap. We may as well just leave it there. 

I don't "prefer people's potential earnings to be capped". We're talking about bankers. Who fucked us all over in the run up to 2008, and got away scot-free at further cost to us and our Governments coffers. Yes, let's agree to disagree, and leave it there.

22 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The bankers getting more money means more tax take, removing NHS pension cap will cost government more money. 

Until the banks go pop again and the Tax payer foots the bill to bail them out.

The cap on Bankers bonuses was introduced because the behaviour encouraged by such bonuses led to the last financial crisis. 
These are not bankers as we know them or working in insurance etc they are speculative investors. As we have heard in recent months London is awash with corrupt Russian money, if we unilaterally remove the caps do you think this will lead to better behaviour ? ( if you do you are 100% wrong btw)

Nick Leeson was a highly  successful investment manager for Barings Bank making millions for him and his company by speculating on market movements. All great till he had a run of bad results costing the company millions.

in the financial crisis people were making a fortune by buying up billions of pounds worth of debt without fully understanding what they were buying. It was all assumed the housing market would never collapse, it did and we were all fucked.

Unlimited bonuses lead to reckless behaviour. You are basically letting people gamble with someone else's money , if they win, everyone is happy. If they lose the Bankers walk away with previous years bonuses tucked and no come back for the losses. 
We had this system it fucked us up. Measures were introduced to stop it happening again. Why would you go back to it ? 
Tying into the Cost of Living crisis is not 100% linear but it is a strange message to be giving. BTW I can guarantee you that these bonuses will be paid using every loop hole in the tax laws available to people earning such bonuses. 
I get the argument that over taxing people might stop the best of the best coming to the UK but the reality is that the lack of control and regulation in the City attracts a lot more dirty money than anything else. 

3 minutes ago, Ani said:

The cap on Bankers bonuses was introduced because the behaviour encouraged by such bonuses led to the last financial crisis. 
These are not bankers as we know them or working in insurance etc they are speculative investors. As we have heard in recent months London is awash with corrupt Russian money, if we unilaterally remove the caps do you think this will lead to better behaviour ? ( if you do you are 100% wrong btw)

Nick Leeson was a highly  successful investment manager for Barings Bank making millions for him and his company by speculating on market movements. All great till he had a run of bad results costing the company millions.

in the financial crisis people were making a fortune by buying up billions of pounds worth of debt without fully understanding what they were buying. It was all assumed the housing market would never collapse, it did and we were all fucked.

Unlimited bonuses lead to reckless behaviour. You are basically letting people gamble with someone else's money , if they win, everyone is happy. If they lose the Bankers walk away with previous years bonuses tucked and no come back for the losses. 
We had this system it fucked us up. Measures were introduced to stop it happening again. Why would you go back to it ? 
Tying into the Cost of Living crisis is not 100% linear but it is a strange message to be giving. BTW I can guarantee you that these bonuses will be paid using every loop hole in the tax laws available to people earning such bonuses. 
I get the argument that over taxing people might stop the best of the best coming to the UK but the reality is that the lack of control and regulation in the City attracts a lot more dirty money than anything else. 

Amen

5 minutes ago, Ani said:

The cap on Bankers bonuses was introduced because the behaviour encouraged by such bonuses led to the last financial crisis. 
These are not bankers as we know them or working in insurance etc they are speculative investors. As we have heard in recent months London is awash with corrupt Russian money, if we unilaterally remove the caps do you think this will lead to better behaviour ? ( if you do you are 100% wrong btw)

Nick Leeson was a highly  successful investment manager for Barings Bank making millions for him and his company by speculating on market movements. All great till he had a run of bad results costing the company millions.

in the financial crisis people were making a fortune by buying up billions of pounds worth of debt without fully understanding what they were buying. It was all assumed the housing market would never collapse, it did and we were all fucked.

Unlimited bonuses lead to reckless behaviour. You are basically letting people gamble with someone else's money , if they win, everyone is happy. If they lose the Bankers walk away with previous years bonuses tucked and no come back for the losses. 
We had this system it fucked us up. Measures were introduced to stop it happening again. Why would you go back to it ? 
Tying into the Cost of Living crisis is not 100% linear but it is a strange message to be giving. BTW I can guarantee you that these bonuses will be paid using every loop hole in the tax laws available to people earning such bonuses. 
I get the argument that over taxing people might stop the best of the best coming to the UK but the reality is that the lack of control and regulation in the City attracts a lot more dirty money than anything else. 

You're just jealous.

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Im chucking this in again

Id say the fuck up that is the NHS is a more pressing matter

Many v experienced folk fuck it off due to a pension cap

Why are we getting to work on bankers first

Speaking of getting to work, when are the shithouses actually going to do something...theyll be off to party season in the blink of an eye

Nah it'll be reet the waiting lists will just disappear because important people will be mean to the 'Hospital Bosses' and all the Daily Mail people will cheer. 

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

The bankers getting more money means more tax take, removing NHS pension cap will cost government more money. 

Might keep a few more people alive which will also cost more money

So yeah, youre right, lets keep losing experienced ppl and paying more to the private sector

4 minutes ago, Casino said:

Might keep a few more people alive which will also cost more money

So yeah, youre right, lets keep losing experienced people and paying more to the private sector

Suppose it’s a number crunching exercise as to which is cheaper. 

1 minute ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Suppose it’s a number crunching exercise as to which is cheaper. 

Trust me, at a slight tangent, the inability of the NHS to retain/attract highly trained staff to permanent roles costs a fucking fortune

Would you believe GPs arent interested in being partners, 3 or 4 days on what is actually glorified zero hours terms is far more profitable for them and much more expensive for the system

2 minutes ago, Casino said:

Trust me, at a slight tangent, the inability of the NHS to retain/attract highly trained staff to permanent roles costs a fucking fortune

Would you believe GPs arent interested in being partners, 3 or 4 days on what is actually glorified zero hours terms is far more profitable for them and much more expensive for the system

Doesn’t surprise me, government just has to get a grip, perhaps to late for this Tory government to sort out before the election, be surprised if they get rewarded with another term to have another go. 

6 hours ago, Casino said:

Trust me, at a slight tangent, the inability of the NHS to retain/attract highly trained staff to permanent roles costs a fucking fortune

Would you believe GPs arent interested in being partners, 3 or 4 days on what is actually glorified zero hours terms is far more profitable for them and much more expensive for the system

I’ve known nurses go on a job-share contract “for family reasons” and then work for an agency at the same hospital for at least 50% more money (So I’m going to guess the nurse, trained by the NHS, gained experience with the NHS, is actually costing at least double via the agency) Quite often she was doing the same job as her contract employment.

Stop this agency work and you’d save a fortune.

11 hours ago, Sweep said:

Not really, if it's so needed, why isn't all the financial world doing it?

Anyway, we're just gong round in circles, we'll never agree. I'd prefer an individuals earning potential not to be capped, and you prefer people's potential earnings to have a cap. We may as well just leave it there. 

 

It's an EU wide cap.

3 hours ago, MickyD said:

I’ve known nurses go on a job-share contract “for family reasons” and then work for an agency at the same hospital for at least 50% more money (So I’m going to guess the nurse, trained by the NHS, gained experience with the NHS, is actually costing at least double via the agency) Quite often she was doing the same job as her contract employment.

Stop this agency work and you’d save a fortune.

without the agency workers, thered be no NHS and thats big fat fact

33 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

It's an EU wide cap.

But not worldwide ?

 

18 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

But not worldwide ?

The U.S also introduced massive regulation of financial institutions after 2008.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/what-are-major-laws-acts-regulating-financial-institutions-were-created-response-2008-financial.asp

29 minutes ago, Cheese said:

The U.S also introduced massive regulation of financial institutions after 2008.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/063015/what-are-major-laws-acts-regulating-financial-institutions-were-created-response-2008-financial.asp

Any of them limit the bonuses Bankers can earn ?

12 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

Any of them limit the bonuses Bankers can earn ?

Not explicitly, but actual caps are still being looked at, and there are other tools that allow claw-back of bonuses if things go to shit. A well-regulated system doesn't need a cap. It's all very complicated of course.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/banker-bonuses?leadSource=uverify wall

I think the main point being made in this thread is that it seems the new Chancellor of the Exchequer's priority is to remove the cap on banker's bonuses in the middle of a National cost of living crisis. If the economy was booming, maybe it would seem less grotesque.

Edited September 16, 20223 yr by Cheese

34 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Not explicitly, but actual caps are still being looked at, and there are other tools that allow claw-back of bonuses if things go to shit. A well-regulated system doesn't need a cap. It's all very complicated of course.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/banker-bonuses?leadSource=uverify wall

I think the main point being made in this thread is that it seems the new Chancellor of the Exchequer's priority is to remove the cap on banker's bonuses in the middle of a National cost of living crisis. If the economy was booming, maybe it would seem less grotesque.

My point is that unlimited bonuses for excessive risk taking in any economy is fundamentally flawed. The US idea of re couping the bonus is a very partial solution as the bonus could be a small fraction of the losses. 
I repeat these controls were bought in to reduce the chance of another financial crash, if removed they encourage high risk taking and fraudulent activity. London is already the money laundering capital of the world (allegedly).

These controls do not restrict the salaries that can be paid to attract the best they restrict the bonuses. The EU was bringing fwad a whole series of anti money laundering laws, by leaving the EU we have not implemented them. Without getting into the debate re Brexit again, look who funded Farage and see if there is any correlation between the time the changes were proposed and when the funding really kicked in.

This not about putting a cap on entrepreneurial behaviour is about cutting fraud and excessive risk taking. Why should some prick in the City earn a massive bonus because he gets lucky on a bet if when he loses it does not affect him ? 

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

I think the main point being made in this thread is that it seems the new Chancellor of the Exchequer's priority is to remove the cap on banker's bonuses in the middle of a National cost of living crisis. If the economy was booming, maybe it would seem less grotesque.

In order to reduce inflation the Government needs to persuade huge numbers of people to accept lesser wage increases. This move does not remotely help to achieve that.

On the NHS early retirements to avoid penal charges on large pensions, the rules need to be relaxed or removed. They really don't serve a useful purpose anyway and the situation will continue to deteriorate with the current rules.

Never mind

Edited September 16, 20223 yr by Cheese

3 hours ago, mickbrown said:

It's an EU wide cap.

So not the whole world then? 

10 minutes ago, Sweep said:

So not the whole world then? 

No, but not just us either

Rather scuppers those planning to fuck off to Frankfurt or Paris

1 hour ago, mickbrown said:

No, but not just us either

Rather scuppers those planning to fuck off to Frankfurt or Paris

But not New York, Shanghai or Singapore 😉

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

But not New York, Shanghai or Singapore 😉

Nope. Fuck em, I'll wave them them off 

17 hours ago, mickbrown said:

Nope. Fuck em, I'll wave them them off 

And wave goodbye to the tax take, fantastic idea it ain’t.