RBoS to report losses of £5bn and investment banking bonuses of £1.3bn

[Tooting Gull]

And the tens of billions in tax revenue generated by these hateful bankers that has been propping up the creaking NHS and state education system for years, who would replace that?

I don't think there is another sector that is so desperate to portray itself as wealth creators/altruistic benefactors. It's all b***shit, they are as profit-driven as anyone else.

But yet again the main point is being missed. No one is saying banks per se should be abolished. It is their expecatation that even if they get it wrong (the ones that have) they get a huge handout. It's wrong. If anything, if you are operating in a no-risk culture like that, you should be paid less - a lot less. People/companies who get rich after taking risks that COULD have seen them go bankrupt, fair play to them. They got it right, and get the rewards.

I don't think your taxation point is relevant, and certainly no more so than other sectors (even before you got into looking at tax avoidance) - but we may be about to find out, as the crazy amounts we've had to fork out saving them are now going to hit public expenditure.

 

[Lokki 7]

I don't think there is another sector that is so desperate to portray itself as wealth creators/altruistic benefactors. It's all b***shit, they are as profit-driven as anyone else.

Of course. And it is that pursuit of profit that generates the tax revenue that we all benefit from.

But yet again the main point is being missed. No one is saying banks per se should be abolished. It is their expecatation that even if they get it wrong (the ones that have) they get a huge handout.

They did get it wrong, ridiculously so as we all know. But would you rather they all failed in a dominoe effect and the global economy is plunged into chaos and anarchy? And don't forget that is capitalism that provides the cushy comforts you take for granted everyday. Plus the "handouts" are not charity gifts, it's not an ideal situation but the taxpayer does now own these businesses which may one day turn a healthy profit.

I don't think your taxation point is relevant

How is it not relevant? What a strange thing to say. Tens of billions in tax revenue, tens of thousands of jobs not relevant?

 

[Tooting Gull]

That's all very well, but was is your alternative to NOT bailing out those banks?

Well, it's flattering of you to think that I would have the solution to that - seeing as it is currently troubling the finest minds of the G7.

I would, though, have thought it was obvious that you need to find some way of the banks themselves bearing the cost of such incompetence. That could either be through some kind of insurance payments from them before the problem, or reserves to cope with one afterwards, or activity taxes. That might mean slightly lower profits. Boo hoo.

I'm quite happy to be in the camp of every finance minister (virtually all of them) who believes banks themselves should not escape the way they did this time.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I'm quite happy to be in the camp of every finance minister (virtually all of them) who believes banks themselves should not escape the way they did this time.

I think thats the nub of it. The whole world accepts that the gross incompetence and sheer unadulterated greed of the Banks has led us to a crippling financial collapse which we have not even begun to feel the knock on effects of yet. Just wait until those interest rates start to creep up again whilst we have such massive Public and Private debt in the system.

Lokki, I accept you are closer to it than many on here and I accept you have a view based on personal success within the City but surely you can accept that Banks are not benevolent wealth sharing institutions that they are purely incentivised by greed and that that, and that alone, has caused the Mother of all financial crises.

There must be a period where globally banks accept that they are wholly responsible for this mess and not start hoovering up bonuses this soon after the crash...surely?

Its just way way too soon and its plain wrong.

 

[User removed 4]

So your BEST argument is that other people wish they were bankers. If you believe that, you're more of an idiot than I thought. And I didn't think you were Einstein.

Thats not what i put , you and everyone else who read the response knows that, so you've fallen back on a pretty weak distortion of what i wrote argument, this CONFIRMS you''re not einstein.

 

[Lokki 7]

but surely you can accept that Banks are not benevolent wealth sharing institutions that they are purely incentivised by greed and that that, and that alone, has caused the Mother of all financial crises.

I agree 100% with this. All I'm saying is that in their pursuit of profit they have funded alot of government spending and created a lot of jobs in this country, as well as being one of our best export earners of foreign currency.

We all enjoyed the benefits, unfortunately we are all having to suffer the pain of gross incompetence but net net we are much better off as a society over time. Banks are not benevolent but neither are they evil. People like Tooting tend to start frothing at the mouth without acknowledging the positives, or coming up with better solutions. I'm just trying to balance that out.

 

[Tooting Gull]

don't forget that is capitalism that provides the cushy comforts you take for granted everyday.

I would imagine that for those in the sector with the wit to realise it (and I'm sure that includes you) it is ironic that it has taken a virtually communist solution to save these most capitalist of institutions. You would agree?

 

[bhaexpress]

I'm sure it's all Thatcher's fault.

 

[Lokki 7]

I would imagine that for those in the sector with the wit to realise it (and I'm sure that includes you) it is ironic that it has taken a virtually communist solution to save these most capitalist of institutions. You would agree?

Yes, it is incredibly ironic and embarrassing for the industry, I absolutely agree. I’m not saying the banking sector is perfect, far from it, and I agree with firmer regulation as the only solution. Unregulated rampant capitalism would be a nightmare. Unfortunately, very few people really understand much of what is traded and that’s where the real problem lies, both for banks risk management departments and the regulators.

 

[Tooting Gull]

net net we are much better off as a society over time. .

At least I have put my money where my mouth is, and suggested possible alternatives to avoid this happening again, see above. Whereas you cannot possibly back this statement up.

People out there aren't stupid. If they genuinely believed all their schools and hospitals were being paid for by a few City boys getting rich, they would cut them some slack. But they don't, and rightly so.

 

[Easy 10]

I agree 100% with this. All I'm saying is that in their pursuit of profit they have funded alot of government spending and created a lot of jobs in this country

Except that the tax revenue previously generated by the banks has now been obliterated by the monolithic bailout the government has had to action to prop them up, which has blown a cataclysmic hole in the public finances that is going to take this country generations to fully recover from, if ever.

As for the jobs...by many forcasts, the unemployment backlash has yet to fully kick in.

 

[Lokki 7]

At least I have put my money where my mouth is, and suggested possible alternatives to avoid this happening again, see above. Whereas you cannot possibly back this statement up.

People out there aren't stupid. If they genuinely believed all their schools and hospitals were being paid for by a few City boys getting rich, they would cut them some slack. But they don't, and rightly so.

I don't have exact figures to hand and can't be arsed to look them up for an NSC mass debate. But the fact is the economy has grown decade by decade and every measure of living standards has gone up over time. Of course this is not all down to the City but it has played it's part, and significantly so. This is not really in doubt.

Anyhoo, my market shuts at 4:30 so I'm overdue at the pub. Chin chin.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm sure it's all Thatcher's fault.

McGhee shirly?

Well, it's flattering of you to think that I would have the solution to that - seeing as it is currently troubling the finest minds of the G7.

I would, though, have thought it was obvious that you need to find some way of the banks themselves bearing the cost of such incompetence. That could either be through some kind of insurance payments from them before the problem, or reserves to cope with one afterwards, or activity taxes. That might mean slightly lower profits. Boo hoo.

I'm quite happy to be in the camp of every finance minister (virtually all of them) who believes banks themselves should not escape the way they did this time.

but what to do now. as you highlight, seems the economist and finance minsters dont have an alternative, you arent offering one and even the loonies havent stuck their neck out. until theres a better plan, lets carry on as we are, thanks.

Except that the tax revenue previously generated by the banks has now been obliterated by the monolithic bailout the government has had to action to prop them up

dont forget though, an awful lot of the bail out are loans and in some cases no more than a loan facility. theres a nice little earner on the horizon when RBS and Lloyds shares get sold off. 10 years time we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. probably while hearing another Chancellor claim to have eradicated boom and bust...

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

US, can you answer this question for me, its hypothetical , but here goes, you work for a mortgage broker selling plain vanilla mortgages, you have a stonkingly good year and you are on a profit share deal of 10 % of everything you make, which in this case is £5000,000, great i'm due £500,000 you think, but here's the rub, your employer also sold and marketed exotic complicated mortgages which it got into great difficulties with,though they were absolutely nothing to do with you , and had to be bailed out by the government , so now the taxpayer is the major shareholder ,its in the interest of the taxpayers to retain the talent that IS making money consistently ,by paying out bonuses, but because of the public outcry , none are going to be paid would you
a) think , ok no bonuses this year , but i'll hang aroun in the HOPE of getting one next year , even though XYZ bank down thre road are guaranteeing i'll get one if i make profits or
b) f*** off to xyz bank straight away, thus depriving the state owned bank of much needed talent ?

difficult to anser that as I have been self employed for 10 years now but I can tell you my income is 25% of what it was pre 2008, my tax bill for this year is £ 500 and I am earning less than the minimum wage and most McDonalds employees, everything is dandy at Spielberg Towers mate so although its not a " who has suffered the most " competition the crisis has pretty much wiped me out.

 

[ROSM]

difficult to anser that as I have been self employed for 10 years now but I can tell you my income is 25% of what it was pre 2008, my tax bill for this year is £ 500 and I am earning less than the minimum wage and most McDonalds employees, everything is dandy at Spielberg Towers mate so although its not a " who has suffered the most " competition the crisis has pretty much wiped me out.

any chance of answering his question rather than go into another 'woe is me' post?

 

[User removed 4]

difficult to anser that as I have been self employed for 10 years now but I can tell you my income is 25% of what it was pre 2008, my tax bill for this year is £ 500 and I am earning less than the minimum wage and most McDonalds employees, everything is dandy at Spielberg Towers mate so although its not a " who has suffered the most " competition the crisis has pretty much wiped me out.

I'm gutted for you mate, genuinely, pretty much the same happened to me when i left the security of a trading job with a bank to trade self employed, had some years of a very good living followed by near bankruptcy, so while i may not agree with what you say, i most certainly will cut you some slack as i know first hand how difficult your situation must be, i really hope that the situation rights itself and you get back on an even keel, though your position must be very difficult and probably feel impossible , i would say that the old adage that 'the darkest hour is just before dawn' worked for me , and hopefully will for you too.

 

[Simster]

any chance of answering his question rather than go into another 'woe is me' post?

This.

 

[beorhthelm]

...I can tell you my income is 25% of what it was pre 2008, my tax bill for this year is £ 500 and I am earning less than the minimum wage and most McDonalds employees,

so, your saying previously your tax bill was around £2k a year and you earnt no more than £23/h? methinks you have some nice tax avoidance strategies, i pay more than tax. did you not put some away for the hard times?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The question is irrelevant as I am self employed so would not get those options.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I'm gutted for you mate, genuinely, pretty much the same happened to me when i left the security of a trading job with a bank to trade self employed, had some years of a very good living followed by near bankruptcy, so while i may not agree with what you say, i most certainly will cut you some slack as i know first hand how difficult your situation must be, i really hope that the situation rights itself and you get back on an even keel, though your position must be very difficult and probably feel impossible , i would say that the old adage that 'the darkest hour is just before dawn' worked for me , and hopefully will for you too.

thanks mate, a lot of people are suffering and good to see some empathy. I will not take the bait of the others as their not worth it.