oh dear oh dear oh dear..we are screwed
Discussion
Am I being stupid? I don't see a story at all.
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Oops, OK it does say that 1.5bn is for bonuses. Carry on!
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Oops, OK it does say that 1.5bn is for bonuses. Carry on!
Edited by kambites on Thursday 30th October 08:20
I’m affair this type of corruption will not stop until theres a revolution.
It one rules for them and another for us.
“Do as we say and not as we do”.
Just wait until next year when the government announces that YOU will have to pay an extra 2-3 pence on your income tax to pay for their privileged no morals lifestyle.
It one rules for them and another for us.
“Do as we say and not as we do”.
Just wait until next year when the government announces that YOU will have to pay an extra 2-3 pence on your income tax to pay for their privileged no morals lifestyle.
Edited by zooooom on Thursday 30th October 08:22
kambites said:
Am I being stupid? I don't see a story at all.
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Nope, standard DailyMail tactics. Focus on the hatred easy on the facts. They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
richyb said:
kambites said:
Am I being stupid? I don't see a story at all.
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Nope, standard DailyMail tactics. Focus on the hatred easy on the facts. They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
No doubt there is a Daily Mail spin to this story, but....
.... given the market for bankers is much more fluid now, what with all the job losses, why are these banks still even offering bonuses !?
In order to keep staff !? hardly
Of course every company has to continue to pay its staff, but given our capitalist market driven system, salaries should be going down and bonuses stopped imho simply on the basis that there are excess bankers in the market
.... given the market for bankers is much more fluid now, what with all the job losses, why are these banks still even offering bonuses !?
In order to keep staff !? hardly
Of course every company has to continue to pay its staff, but given our capitalist market driven system, salaries should be going down and bonuses stopped imho simply on the basis that there are excess bankers in the market
mark69sheer said:
richyb said:
kambites said:
Am I being stupid? I don't see a story at all.
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Nope, standard DailyMail tactics. Focus on the hatred easy on the facts. They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
king disgusting!! What are the Gov. doing to end this sort of thing?kambites said:
Oops, OK it does say that 1.5bn is for bonuses. Carry on!
The high priests of capitalism with their heads in the trough while their failed business models suck on the tit of the taxpayer along with the dole wallahs.The hypocrisy doesn't bother them. They are immune to the obvious odiousness of their behaviour. Just so long as they get the money and can't be endighted for fraud it's ok in their book.
We should have let their banks fall and set up a new exchange denomination with our taxes.
paoloh said:
mark69sheer said:
richyb said:
kambites said:
Am I being stupid? I don't see a story at all.
They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
Nope, standard DailyMail tactics. Focus on the hatred easy on the facts. They have put 7bn into a pool which gets used for salaries and bonuses next year. That's roughly a 10% rise over last year. No-where does it say that one cent of that will actually be used for executive bonuses. Do you expect them to not pay their staff next year?
king disgusting!! What are the Gov. doing to end this sort of thing?Big cash bonuses might be a sign that the firm is about to go tits up, or at least that the partners are not confident about the future (i.e. emptying the tills on the way out).
ISTR reading about a similar thing happening at Salomon Bros in the 80s.
That said, I don't know whether £3m is considered a big bonus at partner level.
ISTR reading about a similar thing happening at Salomon Bros in the 80s.
That said, I don't know whether £3m is considered a big bonus at partner level.
A very great many people who work in the financial industry on this side of the pond get paid virtually on their bonuses. It's not uncommon for typical earnings to be 3/4 bonus.
IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
MrVelox said:
A very great many people who work in the financial industry on this side of the pond get paid virtually on their bonuses. It's not uncommon for typical earnings to be 3/4 bonus.
IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
Yes, but presumably the point of a bonus is to reward good performance. If the bonuses still come after a period of massive under-performance, what's the point?IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
MrVelox said:
A very great many people who work in the financial industry on this side of the pond get paid virtually on their bonuses. It's not uncommon for typical earnings to be 3/4 bonus.
IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
But it might be like tax evasion . . or avoiding NI contributions.. IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
HundredthIdiot said:
MrVelox said:
A very great many people who work in the financial industry on this side of the pond get paid virtually on their bonuses. It's not uncommon for typical earnings to be 3/4 bonus.
IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
Yes, but presumably the point of a bonus is to reward good performance. If the bonuses still come after a period of massive under-performance, what's the point?IE, you do a job that's got a typical salary of $150,000. You might get $60,000 during the year and a $90,000 bonus.
It's not like management is lining their pockets with the money.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff