Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Hain
- Thread starter ditchy
- Start date
Buzzer said:
FRS17 is needed by valuers when pricing deals, the IFRS version is based on present values, so the debt is not too onerous.
IR35 was a scam to avoid people leaving employment and then being re-employed as 'consultants' with no NI being paid. Agreed that some have lost out, but there were a lot of abuses taking place prior to the new rules.
ditchy said:
Q: What's the difference between a bonus and a penis?
A: Your wife will ALWAYS blow your bonus
Can someone call me a Taxi whilst I get my coat......ta
- Thread starter
- #44
who me? said:
Why assume all share traders are salesman . so if weailth cannot be created by a salesman who persuades people to purchase goods in the first place .. somebody has to or is it all just given away in a magical utopia
- Thread starter
- #45
The Clown of Pevensey Bay said:
They get a bonus as a %age of their salary as per the rest of the people who are not in direct profit reporting positions .. so if the bank does well due to its trading staff making the bank money all share in rthe success. It has been known for cleaning staff to get 100% + bonuses on their salaries .
ditchy said:
I thought that the cleaning staff went on strike last year at Goldman because their jobs had been outsourced, and they were then re-employed on an agency basis?
The IB people do work their bollocks off, and are without doubt the smartest folk you will ever encounter, so if they get a bonus, good luck to them.
tedebear
Legal Alien
ditchy said:
I'd hope so, every IB I've worked at has paid non profit staff...thats part of the reason people work there....although having said that cleaning companies, service staff (food, dry cleaning, sports etc.) have all been outsourced so not entitled to any bonuses...
Juan Albion
Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class
Anyone had a change of heart?
User removed 4
New member
He's not naive, he's playing to the crowd.
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
I'm sure you are right Bushy. I just dont get why Hain would open himself up like this. Surely he would rather receive 50% of the big earners incomes and their NI contributions than let the US or German governments get their hands on them.
It's vital to this country that the center of the world's banking is done out of the UK and not abroad. It has taken a long time for London to be accepted as the world's most important financial center and the monies this has generated are imperative if we are going to get out of this global economic mess.
Bevendean Hillbilly
New member
I'm no expert like some of you obviously are...but I seem to recall that traders speculating with the banks money and chasing astronomical bonuses were behind the near total collapse of Western civilisation...or did I dream that? am I also dreaming that Britain now faces the biggest finanacial black hole in public funds in the history of economics which will mean thousands if not millions of lower paid workers either going on the social or having their salaries capped..I get the argument that Bankers will head overseas if we restrict bonuses in the UK...well, it seems to me that if Dubai or Singapore want to run the risk of these money obsessed parasites trashing their economies with casino ethics then fine..let em. I't'll go Pete Tong for them as well sooner or later.
If the economies of the world have not learned that this is a shared risk and therefore in everybodies interest that the situation is addressed then it's only a matter of time before we fall off the cliff again. Britain cannot make a unilateral decision on this, the world has to. And it won't.
If the economies of the world have not learned that this is a shared risk and therefore in everybodies interest that the situation is addressed then it's only a matter of time before we fall off the cliff again. Britain cannot make a unilateral decision on this, the world has to. And it won't.
drew
Drew
Simple solution. Governments globaly agree criteria for bonuses so it doesn't necesarily mean the IBs will jump ship to Paris, Frankfurt etc if the same rules apply there. Also, the Government should warn the industry and any companies that ignore this and give bonuses not backed by long term objectives and profits should get a nice windfall tax slapped on them.!!!!!!!!!
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
Think that the 'pooh will hit the supporter' in the New Year when this year's figures are revealed and some of the bonus pay-outs are leaked. The trading desks are generally having a cracking year and will expect to be paid proportionally.
The rest of the country is going to go nuts.
The rest of the country is going to go nuts.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,862
Just to be clear are we quoting the same Peter Hain who claimed in excess of £160,000 in allowances etc. in 2007/08?
Is the same Peter Hain who is MP for Neath and enquired to the Fees Office about claiming allowances for 2 seperate homes in his constituency?
Is this the man who is married to a Partner of HeywoodHain, a political consultancy who claimed to have 'a detailed understanding of the political landscape in the UK'? That's the HeywoodHain company which has the same business address as MP for Neath Peter Hain's 3rd house in London.
Is this the same Peter Hain who paid his 80 year old mother from public funds to do 'constituency work' whilst she had admitted never having been to his constituency office?
Is this the same Peter Hain who failed to declare political donations of more than £100,000 in accordance with the rules of Parliament, of which he has been a member fsince 1991?
Is this the same Peter Hain who is vocal about his CND membership but voted for the Iraq War, was against a public enquiry and is very much for replacing Trident.
Is this the same ex public school boy Peter Hain who was selected by the labour party as the most suitable MP for a constituency full of ex miners?
I would be grateful if someone could let me know, as I would want to take anything that sactonious c*nt has to say too seriously
Is the same Peter Hain who is MP for Neath and enquired to the Fees Office about claiming allowances for 2 seperate homes in his constituency?
Is this the man who is married to a Partner of HeywoodHain, a political consultancy who claimed to have 'a detailed understanding of the political landscape in the UK'? That's the HeywoodHain company which has the same business address as MP for Neath Peter Hain's 3rd house in London.
Is this the same Peter Hain who paid his 80 year old mother from public funds to do 'constituency work' whilst she had admitted never having been to his constituency office?
Is this the same Peter Hain who failed to declare political donations of more than £100,000 in accordance with the rules of Parliament, of which he has been a member fsince 1991?
Is this the same Peter Hain who is vocal about his CND membership but voted for the Iraq War, was against a public enquiry and is very much for replacing Trident.
Is this the same ex public school boy Peter Hain who was selected by the labour party as the most suitable MP for a constituency full of ex miners?
I would be grateful if someone could let me know, as I would want to take anything that sactonious c*nt has to say too seriously
Lokki 7
WSU
The CEO of HSBC this week announced he is moving to Hong Kong from London to be based out there. The fact that income tax is 15% there compared to the soon to be 50% in London surely didn't cross his mind at all. With him will go a huge number of high level and support people.
Brevan Howard, one of the largest hedge funds in Europe is currently looking at office space in Switzerland to save tax.
We can criticise and berate these people and this industry but ultimately they pay our tax revenue. When they go, so will the revenue.
Here is a slightly annoying example but stick with it to the end;
The tax system explained.
Every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7(28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.
Brevan Howard, one of the largest hedge funds in Europe is currently looking at office space in Switzerland to save tax.
We can criticise and berate these people and this industry but ultimately they pay our tax revenue. When they go, so will the revenue.
Here is a slightly annoying example but stick with it to the end;
The tax system explained.
Every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7(28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man.
"Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.
The Spanish
Well-known member
doesnt matter as will NEVER happen.
It's just one of their last targets left for the middle ground, who can hate upwards and downwards of their social class when you tell them the banks are BAD.
A combination of posho's and working class people made good to despise, its a decent shot at a last gasp mass middle class labour vote, if they weren't already holed beneath the water line.
Enforcing daft regulations on the banks the state now has a major share in is one thing, for the foreign banks in London it means f*** all apart from relocation.
It's just one of their last targets left for the middle ground, who can hate upwards and downwards of their social class when you tell them the banks are BAD.
A combination of posho's and working class people made good to despise, its a decent shot at a last gasp mass middle class labour vote, if they weren't already holed beneath the water line.
Enforcing daft regulations on the banks the state now has a major share in is one thing, for the foreign banks in London it means f*** all apart from relocation.