economic situation is dire

[chrisp65]

if a state owned bank that was completely up to it's proverbials, directly implicated in all that was and is screwed about banks, directly linked to the recession that will stunt a generation, reported a 5bn loss (largely due to fines for fraud etc), and it's staff earn bonus of more than £600,000,000.00

 

calculate what a bank would need to do not to give out bonuses, I'll tell you what, I'll set up a bonus guide:

 

shit broken bank taking my tax and denying me a decent lifestyle: £600,000,000.00 bonuses

 

shit broken bank found to be spunking in the school dinners mince and found to have secretly sold us all to China to make MacDonald's toys: £300,000,000.00

 

shit broken bank found to actually be responsible for the holocaust, aids, pol pot and ITV 3: virtually no bonuses at all for many of them

[veloman]

Some 'analyst' on Newsnight just spoke about the thing on salaries and rather pooh-poohed the idea.

Unfortunately he spoke about people at the top catching the 'integrity bug'. WTF?

'Bankers integrity' = perfect oxymoron.

[Dr_Pangloss]

I love the 'losing the talent' argument, someone remind me who this 'talent' is?

 

A lot bankers are dullards and most of what they do is socially useless. One of the other big problems with high salary is that the sector attracts people with good degrees in disciplines such as mathematics, physics and engineering. So it clearly causes a miss-allocation of resources, these people should be building bridges, working in R&D or working in the 'science industries' and not working in derivatives.

[colhint]

I love the 'losing the talent' argument, someone remind me who this 'talent' is?

 

A lot bankers are dullards and most of what they do is socially useless. One of the other big problems with high salary is that the sector attracts people with good degrees in disciplines such as mathematics, physics and engineering. So it clearly causes a miss-allocation of resources, these people should be building bridges, working in R&D or working in the 'science industries' and not working in derivatives.

 

 

Couldn't agree more

[tonyh29]

Obama just signed a bill to impose $85 Bn of spending cuts in the US

Wonder what impact that will have around the world ?

[Ads]

The DoD appear to be bearing the brunt. We may see the F-35 being affected.

[Chindie]

It's been fairly inevitable that the F-35 project would get hit eventually for while, hasn't it?

[Ads]

I think so. Its tipping $400 Bn, but there was some push back this week with the DoD having a pop at Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin clawing after every nickle.

When we can expect delivery, God only knows.

[DeepDish]

Obama just signed a bill to impose $85 Bn of spending cuts in the US

Wonder what impact that will have around the world ?

 

I don't think it will have much impact. And not the impact we have been led to believe through panic articles in the newspapers.

 

To put it in perspective: The 85 billion cuts come from a US federal spending in 2012 at 3539 billion dollars. Or 2.4 percent.

 

It will be more devastating if the interest rates in US bonds starts to increase. 1 percent higher interest rate will give 160 billion dollars in increased interest costs for the US. 3 percent higher interest rate, and we have an increase of costs at 480 billion dollars per year, which is almost 20 percent of all federal taxes collected!!!

Edited March 2, 2013 by DeepDish

[blandy]

I think so. Its tipping $400 Bn, but there was some push back this week with the DoD having a pop at Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed Martin clawing after every nickle.

When we can expect delivery, God only knows.

Some have been delivered, I think. about 35 of them to date. There was an issue with the [Pratt & Whitney] engine turbine blades on one of them which briefly meant they were grounded.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if the order numbers are cut.

[peterms]

I love the 'losing the talent' argument, someone remind me who this 'talent' is?

 

A lot bankers are dullards and most of what they do is socially useless. One of the other big problems with high salary is that the sector attracts people with good degrees in disciplines such as mathematics, physics and engineering. So it clearly causes a miss-allocation of resources, these people should be building bridges, working in R&D or working in the 'science industries' and not working in derivatives.

 

I'm getting slightly confused by some of the stories on this.

 

We hear that we will lose the "talent".  And we also hear that the banksters will just get round it anyway.  So...they'll get round it, and we'll lose them?  Hmmm.

 

Meanwhile, looks like Switzerland is likely to support curbs on top pay.

 

Perhaps when we lose our "talent", we can replace it with the Swiss.  With their long history of sheltering taxdodgers and laundering assets stolen from murdered Jews, they will be well qualified to replace any top banking talent we might lose.

[Davkaus]

Rolls Royce are the latest in the firing lines in this ridiculous 'morality' driven witchhunt. I wonder if any of these companies will just grow some balls and tell the MPs to either get HMRC to make better use of existing powers, draft a new bill to allow HMRC greater powers, or just **** off. This public shaming without any legal justification is tiresome.

 

Out of interest, is there any legal compulsion for companies to go along and answer MPs' questions in parliament, or do they just go along with it to try to avoid any greater public backlash?

[peterms]

Rolls Royce are the latest in the firing lines in this ridiculous 'morality' driven witchhunt. I wonder if any of these companies will just grow some balls and tell the MPs to either get HMRC to make better use of existing powers, draft a new bill to allow HMRC greater powers, or just **** off. This public shaming without any legal justification is tiresome.

 

Out of interest, is there any legal compulsion for companies to go along and answer MPs' questions in parliament, or do they just go along with it to try to avoid any greater public backlash?

 

Out of interest, if some of the richest football clubs managed to employ expensive advisers to ensure that the costs of policing games, employing referees, running a league and teaching football in schools were all borne by smaller clubs and not by them, how would you feel about that?

[snowychap]

Out of interest, is there any legal compulsion for companies to go along and answer MPs' questions in parliament, or do they just go along with it to try to avoid any greater public backlash?

They go along with it out largely because that's what people do.

Here's a pdf detailing some of the history, concerns, work, possible proposals, &c. regarding powers of the House, sanctions, privilege and so on.

An interesting read and it's a difficult question to decide upon (whether to legislate and more). Next stop seems to be the report of a joint committee next month.

[Risso]

Rolls Royce are the latest in the firing lines in this ridiculous 'morality' driven witchhunt. I wonder if any of these companies will just grow some balls and tell the MPs to either get HMRC to make better use of existing powers, draft a new bill to allow HMRC greater powers, or just **** off. This public shaming without any legal justification is tiresome.

 

Out of interest, is there any legal compulsion for companies to go along and answer MPs' questions in parliament, or do they just go along with it to try to avoid any greater public backlash?

 

Out of interest, if some of the richest football clubs managed to employ expensive advisers to ensure that the costs of policing games, employing referees, running a league and teaching football in schools were all borne by smaller clubs and not by them, how would you feel about that?

 

That really isn't a valid comparison though is it?  The richest 1% in the UK pay over a quarter of the income tax for example.

[snowychap]

The richest 1% in the UK pay over a quarter of the income tax for example.

That's a dreadful way to present a statistic (though I appreciate that you're just repeating the phrase that has filled the pages of the Torygraph, Spectator, Mail and so on since HMRC made their forecast in 2011).

[Risso]

I was actually doing nothing of the sort.

 

Here's a link from the right wing BBC.  From 2009:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm

[snowychap]

I was actually doing nothing of the sort.

 

Here's a link from the right wing BBC.  From 2009:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm

That'll be the BBC article which says: The people with the top 1 per cent of incomes pay very nearly a quarter of all the income tax, as the chart shows. (24.1%, I think it says, so not 'over a quarter').

And, yes, the Beeb probably did report the HMRC forecast in Feb 2011, too, along with all sorts of other publications - including, probably, The Morning Star online but I don't glance at that any more so I wouldn't know.

Edited March 4, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

 

Rolls Royce are the latest in the firing lines in this ridiculous 'morality' driven witchhunt. I wonder if any of these companies will just grow some balls and tell the MPs to either get HMRC to make better use of existing powers, draft a new bill to allow HMRC greater powers, or just **** off. This public shaming without any legal justification is tiresome.

 

Out of interest, is there any legal compulsion for companies to go along and answer MPs' questions in parliament, or do they just go along with it to try to avoid any greater public backlash?

 

Out of interest, if some of the richest football clubs managed to employ expensive advisers to ensure that the costs of policing games, employing referees, running a league and teaching football in schools were all borne by smaller clubs and not by them, how would you feel about that?

 

That really isn't a valid comparison though is it?  The richest 1% in the UK pay over a quarter of the income tax for example.

 

And how much should they pay?  30%? 50%?  95%?

 

Of course it's a valid comparison.  Taxdodgers shifting the tax burden on to others.  Making others pay for what they should be paying.  That's the entire point.  Speak to any small business about their view of having to pay more tax because the big guys dodge their share, and so push it down on to the little guys.  Because "only little people pay tax".

 

You work for the big people, not the little people, have I got that right?

[maqroll]

I marvel at the hypocrisy of republicans who go on and on about too much spending, but when it comes to cutting spending on our bloated and functionally retarded military, they scream bloody murder.