Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Banks, Bailouts and Bonuses
The banking bailouts cost us £850billion. We are paying for that with cuts to wages, jobs, services so we can make payments on the huge loads we had to get to save the banks.
Now it is reported that RBS, a bank we are the biggest shareholder in, plan to give itself a congratulatary slap on the bank to the tune of £500million in bonuses.
So the RBS must be doing really well you would think. Well no not really, they are heavily exposed to Eurozone loans and it may even need to be bailed out again.
http://www.ft.com/cms...6d2-00144feab49a.html
History repeats, some keep making the same mistakes.
Paying big bonuses is surely ill timed?
Now it is reported that RBS, a bank we are the biggest shareholder in, plan to give itself a congratulatary slap on the bank to the tune of £500million in bonuses.
So the RBS must be doing really well you would think. Well no not really, they are heavily exposed to Eurozone loans and it may even need to be bailed out again.
http://www.ft.com/cms...6d2-00144feab49a.html
History repeats, some keep making the same mistakes.
Paying big bonuses is surely ill timed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The link opens but I can't read the article as it requires me to register.
I don't know for certain but I imagine that many of the recipients are hard working junior staff who were certainly not responsible for the financial cris and have had to work harder as job cuts took effect.
Bonuses is an emotive word but they are an incentive to meet targets, and if staff meet the targets they should get them. For many staff the bonus is a key element of their salary that helps them scrape by.
But I agree that it is politically unacceptable to be seen to giving massive bonuses at the top, even though they may have met targets and done a great job in improving things. I suppose though that the government will get a lot of it back from income tax (and is there still a special bonus tax for bankers?)
In some ways banks can't win. Make a loss one quarter and everyone complains that they are inefficient and a drain on the tax payer. Make a healthy profit next quarter and people complain about the greedy banks.
I don't know for certain but I imagine that many of the recipients are hard working junior staff who were certainly not responsible for the financial cris and have had to work harder as job cuts took effect.
Bonuses is an emotive word but they are an incentive to meet targets, and if staff meet the targets they should get them. For many staff the bonus is a key element of their salary that helps them scrape by.
But I agree that it is politically unacceptable to be seen to giving massive bonuses at the top, even though they may have met targets and done a great job in improving things. I suppose though that the government will get a lot of it back from income tax (and is there still a special bonus tax for bankers?)
In some ways banks can't win. Make a loss one quarter and everyone complains that they are inefficient and a drain on the tax payer. Make a healthy profit next quarter and people complain about the greedy banks.
"Make a loss one quarter and everyone complains that they are inefficient and a drain on the tax payer. Make a healthy profit next quarter and people complain about the greedy banks."
I don't think so: make a profit or a loss and pay yourself a massive bonus - that's why people complain about greedy bankers.
I don't think so: make a profit or a loss and pay yourself a massive bonus - that's why people complain about greedy bankers.
-- answer removed --
Just a thought.....but why should anyone get a bonus for doing the job they are already getting paid for??!!
Many private sector jobs (and some public sector ones) pay on the basis of a lower basic salary plus a bonus based on results. Incentive schemes ahve been around for years and must be considered by employers to be the best way to moivate employees.
I'm not saying the banks have got their schemes right- I'm just saying that in principle bonus type schemes will not go away.
Many private sector jobs (and some public sector ones) pay on the basis of a lower basic salary plus a bonus based on results. Incentive schemes ahve been around for years and must be considered by employers to be the best way to moivate employees.
I'm not saying the banks have got their schemes right- I'm just saying that in principle bonus type schemes will not go away.
I realise that anything that looks as if it attempt to defend the bankers will be dismissed but I just want to put some perspective on this.
(1) Yes, I can see that paying bonuses is a bad move politically but if they are based on pre agreed targets it's hard to refuse to pay them. Okay teh targets may have been wrong and too easy- I don't know and I'm pretty sure others here don't know
(2) Bonuses don't just go to the fat cats that made a mess of things. The staff that work in the branches will get part of the pot too depending on their performance/results. These will be tens of thousands of people earning maybe £12000 a year who may get a few hundred pounds. Should they be denied a bonus too if they met their targets?
(3) Politicaly someone should intervene and carry out a review of whether bonuses at the top are too easy to achieve and demand that those at the top be sacked who fail to achieve targets
(4) Excessive bonus culture exists at the top in all organisaations. If we stop bonuses for bankers it may mean that they don't attract the best. Again people don't like it but it's probably true. It happens in football etc
(1) Yes, I can see that paying bonuses is a bad move politically but if they are based on pre agreed targets it's hard to refuse to pay them. Okay teh targets may have been wrong and too easy- I don't know and I'm pretty sure others here don't know
(2) Bonuses don't just go to the fat cats that made a mess of things. The staff that work in the branches will get part of the pot too depending on their performance/results. These will be tens of thousands of people earning maybe £12000 a year who may get a few hundred pounds. Should they be denied a bonus too if they met their targets?
(3) Politicaly someone should intervene and carry out a review of whether bonuses at the top are too easy to achieve and demand that those at the top be sacked who fail to achieve targets
(4) Excessive bonus culture exists at the top in all organisaations. If we stop bonuses for bankers it may mean that they don't attract the best. Again people don't like it but it's probably true. It happens in football etc
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.