According to this mornings papers, Ministers are 'trying to negotiate' a cap on RBS bonuses of £25,000.
This is 'a bid to silence the public outcry over the City's culture of huge rewards and dangerous risk-taking'.
What planet are the Government on?
We OWN 68% of RBS. Ministers shouldn't be negotiating, they should be telling RBS to take a running jump, preferably from a very high floor.
The fact that RBS are even suggesting bonuses in the current situation shows that they still have not got the first clue about their culpability for the financial crisis nor any idea of how they are seen by the rest of the population who have had to bail them out.
The fact that a Labour Government thinks a cap on bonuses, set at a level higher than most people earn in a year, is in any way acceptable, shows how comepletely out of touch they are with reality too.
And is it really too much to ask that there might be at least a hint that the Government's motives might have something to do with what is right, rather than what is expedient?
Bankers should not be getting any bonuses at all, for several years if ever again.
Senior Executives, whose massive salaries were justified on the basis that high salaries were needed to attract 'the best people' have blown that theory right out of the water. They trousered millions in the good times, and they should be taking salary cuts now.
And we, or at least anyone who is still feeding the profits of these numpties, because we share the blame for letting them get away with it, should move our accounts to the nearest mutual building society.
5 comments:
The Government can't interfere with legal contracts however disreputable such contracts are. It can uses TAX. For this tax year & next all income in excess of £.5m however & where ever come by including pension contributions should be taxed at 100%. That would take care of those whose bonuses are reasonable. This goes for footballers, media 'stars', anybody.Unfair on those who have genuinely earned big money maybe but no more unfair than ordinary people losing their jobs & homes
As an (fortunately small) Equitable Life pension holder I'm not convinced by the idea that mutuals good, Plcs bad argument.
The government can interfere with contracts by legislation if it so wished.
Agree with Hywel here this `the Govt can't interfere with legal contracts` is a nonsense as the contract would have been worthless had the bank collapsed.
What about the contract the banks had with the British people.
Let's face it this Government couldn't run a bath let alone a bank
Several companies round our way have asked their employees to take voluntary pay cuts - the alternatives being the sacking of a proportion of the staff or the company going bust.
General the staff have agreed, understandng the reality of the situation, and regardless of their contracts.
These are the same people whose taxes (or future taxes) have ben used to bail out the banks.
To my mind that is the attitude I expect to see from the banks.
And I don't expect the Government to give the banks any more of my future taxes unless and until we see that attitude.
I expect this attitude to start at the top, with the best paid bank execs making it clear that they do not expect bonuses for several years and that that they accept that their over-inflated pay packets will have to take a cut.
And if I was a Minister and they raised the isue of their contracts I would tell them exactly where they could shove them.
Hywel - I'm sure it is not quite a simple as 'mutuals good, banks bad', but I don't see the mutuals a) queuing up for handouts from the taxpayer or b) paying salaries or bonuses on the sacle the big banks do.
I think one of the problems of the banking system we now have is that it is dominated by large companies whose only aim is profit, rather than smaller institutions rooted in their communities and maintaining at least some understanding of ethics.
I can at least still go into a branch of either of our Building Societies and speak to someone who is capable of a response above the level of 'computer says no'.
Post a Comment