So, who votes for a government that improves the lives of Bankers, and ensures the excessive profits of energy companies, but needs all the "levelling up" money to pay for the holes in Brexit?

Not me! Not my sisters, adult children/adult grandchildren/friends or my husband.

I have already said on another thread that removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a good move.

The economy relies heavily on financial services and it’s vital that our banks are able to compete with, for instance, US banks which do not cap bonuses.

Furthermore, the tax paid by recipients of bonuses will be far higher than the banks would have paid had the money been retained.

We have to compete with the EU too which has higher growth and oops! A cap on bankers bonuses. If this is the main “benefit” of Brexit then I don’t think it’s a vote winner.

Those banks with capped bonuses will be at a disadvantage in the employment stakes - and think of how much more money will flow into the Treasury through income tax.

Surely we’ll see the answer to this at the next election...

In principle, I don't like the idea of removing this cap on bonuses. But I can see the point as we need to attract more banks to invest here.

It demonstrates the government priorities. These are the people who are going to benefit most from Brexit and the bonfire of laws, rules and regulations, employee protection. People fell for it in sufficient numbers too.

London is already known as the laundromat of the world. This is the reason for Brexit.

The government’s priorities are clearly to increase the inflow of tax to the Treasury without increasing the rates of tax we all pay, and to maintain the financial services sector’s important contribution to GDP.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already said on another thread that removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a good move.

The economy relies heavily on financial services and it’s vital that our banks are able to compete with, for instance, US banks which do not cap bonuses.

Furthermore, the tax paid by recipients of bonuses will be far higher than the banks would have paid had the money been retained.

If they pay any tax GSM. If I knew they would pay at least the same percentage on all their earnings as those at the bottom of the tax scale do, that would be a start. But I simply don't believe this government will make that happen.

Banks don't invest anything, they lend money for business investment and make their profits from interest charged on the loans.

I assume that they also handle the money from overseas investors, at a price.

Given that, I'm not sure what 'more banks' would do for our economy...

However is it just a myth that the rich have such clever accountants that any tax due simply fades away?

It always amuses me when someone uses the "Oh we need to pay bankers more because otherwise we won't have anyone" excuse as quite often those same people complain about train drivers going on strike for more pay, because they disrupt essential services. It seems fairly obvious to me that there are few top bankers and therefore many people available and wanting the role, so the money really isn't an issue. (and executive bankers are not an essential service). Whereas we need many properly trained and properly paid train drivers to keep travel safe.
I suppose it's a question of if you value money or people more.

I don't know who voted for this bunch anyway. But I think some people still expect them to pull something out the bag- Hope Springs Eternal!

It seems that some posters are unaware of the importance of our financial services industry to our economy.

'To make the rich worker harder, we pay them more. To make the poor work harder, we pay them less.'

That really is the basis on which capitalism operates, and it's justified on so many levels - usually by pretending that we live in a meritocracy. A dentist lets people who have paid NI all their lives suffer agonising pain because they can't afford the treatment, and that's market forces. A train driver makes someone late for work and that's holding the country to ransom. A quick google suggests that an NHS dentist earns roughly twice the salary of a train driver, but that's ok because she has trained for years (although she doesn't pay anything like the cost of the course), while it's unreasonable of a train driver to want to hang onto his pension, conditions of service and job security, even though he works unsocial hours, has the lives of hundreds of passengers in his hands and risks having people jumping under the train he's driving. Train drivers should think themselves lucky to earn a bit above average salary, but dentists are suffering so much that it's understandable that they are refusing to take NHS patients.

I know it's not as simple as that, and I'm neither demonising dentists nor sanctifying train drivers - they were just the first occupational groups to come to mind - but that way of thinking is typical of why we have such inequality.

'Some posters'? Who are they? I am aware of the importance of financial services to the economy, but I am also aware of the importance of nurses, care workers and other groups who do not have their importance rewarded by financial incentives. If anyone can explain why that is, I might reconsider my opinion that it is grossly unfair. True, not everyone can be a good banker, but neither can everyone be a good carer - I know I couldn't.

Oh, and in answer to the question in the OP - not me. And like Iam says, nobody in my immediate circle does either.

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems that some posters are unaware of the importance of our financial services industry to our economy.

absolutely. London would not be wealthy without financial services and that would trickle down to everywhere. Many people can only see what is in front of them and don`t have much knowledge about the financial services

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems that some posters are unaware of the importance of our financial services industry to our economy.

I can’t understand why the city thought it was going to be more profitable after Brexit.
Less regulations maybe to handle dodgy money, certainly more opportunities for speculators to benefit from instability.

Genuine honest advantages, have there been any?.

Copy of my reply to GSM

I can understand your argument up to a point, but the real issue with the confetti money they received prior to the crash in 2008 was the fact that it encouraged the very thing which caused the crash.

If you cap the bankers bonus they take far fewer reckless risks. Kwartang May go for bonus deferrals, but it has been shown not to reduce the level of risk as much as capping does. Capping works because the bankers get paid the same, no matter how much profit they make their bank. There is as a result less incentive to go gambling on the money markets and invent reckless snd ultimately illegal leverage schemes which caused the market to crash so disastrously.

That is good news for the tax payer who was forced to bail the banks out as a result if this uncontrolled gambling. No doubt the debt incurred by supporting the banks is still washing around in the system.

The capping was if course enforced by EU policy so it is no surprise that Kwartang is intent on getting rid of it, but he must also take responsibility for the increase in risk.

The Guardian reported in February that there was a run on the poshest champagne as a result of the highest bonuses paid since 2008.. so I hardly think that the poor souls are exactly scrapping the barrel, snd with the cost of living crises hitting so many, it is not a good look.

Who in all honesty deserves such huge bonuses? A 28yr old I know has bought three houses since graduating using bonuses not cheap houses either London, Cotswolds? Makes me feel ill thinking about it. Nurses, carers however find themselves having to use food banks. There is something very very wrong. I couldn’t live with myself - greed pure greed.

I agree *Whitewavemark. I also think the decision needs to be put into the current context, these bankers won’t have the same opportunities to relocate to other countries in Europe for more money that they did pre-Brexit, so the concept of a brain drain is much less real.

Yes, financial services is important, but the current cap on bonuses (2x annual salary) has not held it back in the last few years , when the city has been booming , arguably it is Brexit and the fall in the £ which has caused problems. Are we saying 2 x annual ( high) salary is not enough for anyone?

Germanshepherdsmum

It seems that some posters are unaware of the importance of our financial services industry to our economy.

I don’t agree, I think that people are very aware of the importance of the financial services to the U.K., which unfortunately has been lessoned since Brexit.

However, I’m not sure why that importance should equal confetti yearly payments.

Pantglas2

Surely we’ll see the answer to this at the next election...

But people voted to get what we now have Pantglas2. We knew what they were going to do. They told us.

Obviously, we cannot think that all people disagree with what the Conservative government does. I have a very well-educated, successful, intelligent friend who would agree with the well-educated, hopefully successful and intelligent GSM.

I want to know the facts so we can "help the country" - the common mantra from those who want what this far-right, ERG-driven government does - and ALL the people. I do not believe relying so much on the "service industry", paying so much to the few who work in it, is the answer but obviously other do.

Then there is Brexit and the holes that appeared in that. The Conservative voter, whatever they voted in the referendum, knew they were facilitating this. Again, money not going to hard-pressed communities who have had an unequal investment from the centre, for years.

And the last one of those I flagged is paying the energy companies to keep their prices up. Seriously - why would you do that?