EU to cap bankers' bonuses - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/3l66.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21608938[/url] [quote]European Union officials have struck a provisional deal on new financial rules, including capping bank bonuses. Under the agreement, bonuses will be capped at a year's salary, but can rise to two year's pay if there is explicit approval from shareholders. The UK, which hosts Europe's biggest financial services centre, was opposed to any of caps on bank bonuses.[/quote]

I'm glad this has gone EU wide. As a bit of a Eurosceptic myself, it's also good to see them come up with some regulation. If the UK did it alone, the bankers would just move to another country. At least now their options are either stay and keep a limited but still probably generous bonus, or move to America, which cannot possible have all of them.

Cap the bonus at $50,000. If they bitch drop the cap to $25,000. If they continue to bitch drop it to $1 and tell them to shut the hell up.

"The UK, which hosts Europe's biggest financial services centre, was opposed to any of caps on bank bonuses." Ask the average citizen of the UK what they think about banker's bonuses, and you get a picture of how representation works.

[QUOTE=TestECull;39746679]Cap the bonus at $50,000. If they bitch drop the cap to $25,000. If they continue to bitch drop it to $1 and tell them to shut the hell up.[/QUOTE] Yes because that's how the world works.

[QUOTE=Fetret;39746829]Yes because that's how the world works.[/QUOTE] Yes, actually it is. A bonus isn't the main portion of the salary.

Such bullshit, London is the biggest financial centre within the EU by a country mile - this is ridiculously unbalanced: if all bonuses are limited I can only assume that all the EU countries will adopt the same tax rules to prevent a drain from the city then? No, of course not, this is just political maneuvering against Cameron who ruffled the EU's feathers over their budget, if he decides to oppose these measures to help the city then there will be mass media backlash - they know this very well. Also how can the EU, or any government, dictate to a business what it's bonuses can be limited to? What is the justification? I'm all for bonuses being limited by shareholders, obviously as they are owners of the business; hence for RBS and Lloyds the UK government would have a controlling say - but for other banks, still, what is the justification? I'm sure that even if it was down to shareholders they would provide bonuses as rewards, rewards for say [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC]£16.8 billion profit?[/url]? And for those that say banker's ruined the economy, welp they put a heck of a lot more into the public pot than any other sector in the UK. Just for fun, here's a nice little fact; the population of the UK has a negative bank balance: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance]source[/url] - so it's not even the publics money that the bankers are supposedly 'risking'. To finish, if people were so vehemently opposed to banks and bankers bonuses, why has there not been a run on any of them? If people thought their money was at risk that much, why didn't they move it somewhere safer?

^ The UK is the sugar daddy of the EU. They only want London for the money. They care not for the English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, just as they barely care for their own constituents. Even the Germans said that they don't want the UK out of the Eurozone because it would hurt their economy. It's a valid point, but no more or less valid than the British looking out for their own interests. Soon it will be the United States of Europe.

If a bank does well, then they sure as hell deserve those bonuses Its when the bank fucked up and had to be bailed out with taxpayers money, and the boss still walks away with a multi million pound bonus at the end of the year that really makes me mad.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39747402]Such bullshit, London is the biggest financial centre within the EU by a country mile - this is ridiculously unbalanced: if all bonuses are limited I can only assume that all the EU countries will adopt the same tax rules to prevent a drain from the city then? No, of course not, this is just political maneuvering against Cameron who ruffled the EU's feathers over their budget, if he decides to oppose these measures to help the city then there will be mass media backlash - they know this very well.[/QUOTE] If London is the financial capital of Europe (Which it is), where exactly are all these suddenly broke bankers going to flee to if their bonuses are capped? Nowhere. Sure, some with decide to learn French and try to earn some more money the- oh wait, they can't, because it's an EU wide cap. This isn't changing the balance against the UK - it's standardizing a run-away practice filled with 6 million pound payments and absurd golden parachutes that the taxpayer has been forced to pay due to binding contracts and flawed business practices. [QUOTE=butt2089;39747402]Also how can the EU, or any government, dictate to a business what it's bonuses can be limited to? What is the justification?[/QUOTE] Damage limitation. A business can be closed if they become so overburdoned they cannot pay redundancy money to it's staff - but then again, what kind of business can have a single employee (Like Kweku Adoboli) make £1.4bn of fraudulent trading by themselves? This is exactly the behavior found at banking institutions all over Europe and the states. When a bank fails - as RBS did - the contacts written for the people at the top who had to quit were in the millions of pounds - for what? Running a bank built on toxic debt? The government has every right to regulate any business practice. This is why food needs testing, why markets are limited by the licenses granted - but the actual trading practice - the very core of a bank has been ignored to the point where toxic debt was allowed to be traded and individual bankers could be responsible for billions in losses. [QUOTE=butt2089;39747402]I'm all for bonuses being limited by shareholders, obviously as they are owners of the business; hence for RBS and Lloyds the UK government would have a controlling say - but for other banks, still, what is the justification? I'm sure that even if it was down to shareholders they would provide bonuses as rewards, rewards for say [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC]£16.8 billion profit?[/url]?[/QUOTE] The justification is for sweeping regulation. The government does not want to buy up more failing banks, so they are changing the core system. They can do this because thats the governments job - to fill in the gaps between legislation, which is regulation of goods and services and how they're maintained. [QUOTE=butt2089;39747402]so it's not even the publics money that the bankers are supposedly 'risking'. [/QUOTE] It is if they fail. Which they did. Hard. Their failure (Although admittedly it was a bigger thing than simple EU banks and individual bankers, granted) caused a triple dip recession - it's not the banks paying for the huge social welfare bill caused by mass job losses. [QUOTE=butt2089;39747402]To finish, if people were so vehemently opposed to banks and bankers bonuses, why has there not been a run on any of them? If people thought their money was at risk that much, why didn't they move it somewhere safer?[/QUOTE] There was. People were drawing their money out in their droves when Northern Rock was announcing it was going to crash. There were reports that people kept more money at home than before - but - lets be realistic. The average person can't just say 'fuck it' and close their bank account(s) because to most people they need a consistent bank for direct debts - there is a real lack of alternatives and a lack of the awareness of alternatives, and there was enough banks that weren't at risk for people not to bother.

[QUOTE=Harry3;39749519]If a bank does well, then they sure as hell deserve those bonuses Its when the bank fucked up and had to be bailed out with taxpayers money, and the boss still walks away with a multi million pound bonus at the end of the year that really makes me mad.[/QUOTE] Well the two 'state-owned' banks are RBS and Lloyds, Stephan Hester of RBS has given up his bonus and Lloyds only received a bailout because of the HBOS acquisition - Northern Rock also got bailed out but was sold off to Virgin group. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;39749799]1. If London is the financial capital of Europe (Which it is), where exactly are all these suddenly broke bankers going to flee to if their bonuses are capped? Nowhere. Sure, some with decide to learn French and try to earn some more money the- oh wait, they can't, because it's an EU wide cap. This isn't changing the balance against the UK - it's standardizing a run-away practice filled with 6 million pound payments and absurd golden parachutes that the taxpayer has been forced to pay due to binding contracts and flawed business practices. 2. Damage limitation. A business can be closed if they become so overburdoned they cannot pay redundancy money to it's staff - but then again, what kind of business can have a single employee (Like Kweku Adoboli) make £1.4bn of fraudulent trading by themselves? This is exactly the behavior found at banking institutions all over Europe and the states. When a bank fails - as RBS did - the contacts written for the people at the top who had to quit were in the millions of pounds - for what? Running a bank built on toxic debt? The government has every right to regulate any business practice. This is why food needs testing, why markets are limited by the licenses granted - but the actual trading practice - the very core of a bank has been ignored to the point where toxic debt was allowed to be traded and individual bankers could be responsible for billions in losses. 3. The justification is for sweeping regulation. The government does not want to buy up more failing banks, so they are changing the core system. They can do this because thats the governments job - to fill in the gaps between legislation, which is regulation of goods and services and how they're maintained. 4. It is if they fail. Which they did. Hard. Their failure (Although admittedly it was a bigger thing than simple EU banks and individual bankers, granted) caused a triple dip recession - it's not the banks paying for the huge social welfare bill caused by mass job losses. 5. There was. People were drawing their money out in their droves when Northern Rock was announcing it was going to crash. There were reports that people kept more money at home than before - but - lets be realistic. The average person can't just say 'fuck it' and close their bank account(s) because to most people they need a consistent bank for direct debts - there is a real lack of alternatives and a lack of the awareness of alternatives, and there was enough banks that weren't at risk for people not to bother.[/QUOTE] 1. Referring to the second part of my first point, if there is to be capped bonuses and therefore incomes across the EU for bankers, why is there not equal taxation? There is the potential that bankers will attempt to relocate to somewhere with a better tax regime and, given the size of the City of London, we're most likely to lose out. 2. Maybe they did so because they knew there would be bailouts and stimulus? Gordon Brown sold most of our gold at rock-bottom prices between 1999-2002 in order to bail out an American bank - who knows, they might have expected the same? But still, your point, whilst entirely valid, to me doesn't justify legislating against bonuses - it justifies regulation of debts and transactions. 3. Still doesn't quite tackle bonuses, just the core business of the bank - I would have thought if there was to be action on preventing future meltdowns that the inner goings on of every bank would be scrutinized, not just banker bonuses. 4. The only bank to be in any major trouble in the UK was Northern Rock and it's still going today though, how did they fail hard exactly? None of the bank bailouts went to banks within the City of London 5. That was because they thought Northern Rock was about to collapse, not because they were angry at the big banks - people could move their money to NationWide, for example, if they didn't like banks.

You expect bankers will be broke if their bonuses are gone?

ITT: People don't know how the EU works.

[I]Only[/I] a year's worth of salary as the maximum bonus? I'm weeping

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39749258]^ The UK is the sugar daddy of the EU. They only want London for the money. They care not for the English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, just as they barely care for their own constituents. Even the Germans said that they don't want the UK out of the Eurozone because it would hurt their economy. It's a valid point, but no more or less valid than the British looking out for their own interests. Soon it will be the United States of Europe.[/QUOTE] The UK is not in the Eurozone. They are in the EU, but the Eurozone only includes countries that have adopted the Euro. It's something the UK has had the privilege to be exempt from.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39750688]The UK is not in the Eurozone. They are in the EU, but the Eurozone only includes countries that have adopted the Euro. It's something the UK has had the privilege to be exempt from.[/QUOTE] And Denmark. Although Denmark entered a agreement while doing so to keep their currency closely linked to the Euro, so the conversion rate back and forth is constantly more or less stable.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39751106]And Denmark. Although Denmark entered a agreement while doing so to keep their currency closely linked to the Euro, so the conversion rate back and forth is constantly more or less stable.[/QUOTE] Sweden too, although they're in a different position than Denmark. Here's a map of the current EU and their Euro status: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Euro_accession.svg/500px-Euro_accession.svg.png[/IMG] Blue states = Those already using the Euro Green states = Those obligated to adopt the Euro at some point Brown states = Those negotiated an opt-out agreement, are not obligated to use the Euro Purple states = Those that use the Euro without an agreement with the EU Croatia should be marked green, but they're ascending to the EU later this year. That's how it looks right now.

^ That map makes sense. Of course I'd like to see the British Isles grey :v:

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39750633][I]Only[/I] a year's worth of salary as the maximum bonus? I'm weeping[/QUOTE] It's two years, if they get shareholder's approval. I like this, maybe it means the banks might actually use their new capital to invest in businesses and countries to help the economy pick up.

But how will they live without their Maseratis and Gallardos and Carreras?

[QUOTE=dass;39755228]But how will they live without their Maseratis and Gallardos and Carreras?[/QUOTE] Public transportation. Like the common man.

[QUOTE=Van-man;39758580]Public transportation. Like the common man.[/QUOTE] [I]May God have mercy on their poor souls[/I]

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;39755129]^ That map makes sense. Of course I'd like to see the British Isles grey :v:[/QUOTE] Why's that? For every cock-up in Brussels there's at least two here. At least we sometimes get the occasional bit of legislation like this one, because we all know how much Tories love bankers.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39751152]Sweden too, although they're in a different position than Denmark. Here's a map of the current EU and their Euro status: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Euro_accession.svg/500px-Euro_accession.svg.png[/IMG] Blue states = Those already using the Euro Green states = Those obligated to adopt the Euro at some point Brown states = Those negotiated an opt-out agreement, are not obligated to use the Euro Purple states = Those that use the Euro without an agreement with the EU Croatia should be marked green, but they're ascending to the EU later this year. That's how it looks right now.[/QUOTE] Hard to see, but the tiny yellow states also use the euro if I remember correctly. At least San Marino did when I went there.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39759395]Why's that? For every cock-up in Brussels there's at least two here. At least we sometimes get the occasional bit of legislation like this one, because we all know how much Tories love bankers.[/QUOTE] At least the mess ups Parliament makes is due to their own stupidity, and not the stupidity of others forced upon them. I'm just not partial to the idea of a federated Europe.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39759395]Why's that? For every cock-up in Brussels there's at least two here. At least we sometimes get the occasional bit of legislation like this one, because we all know how much Tories love bankers.[/QUOTE] Oh! So did you vote for von Rompuy and Barroso?

[QUOTE=butt2089;39761899]Oh! So did you vote for von Rompuy and Barroso?[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the idea of being any big part of the EU. I can imagine the confusion I caused. Still, there's benefits too.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39761925]Don't get me wrong, I really don't like the idea of being any big part of the EU. I can imagine the confusion I caused. Still, there's benefits too.[/QUOTE] Cameron screwed over their budget increase, they're going to screw him over in the UK; he will get ripped to shreds if he's seen to be defending the bankers.

[QUOTE=butt2089;39762017]he will get ripped to shreds if he's seen to be defending the bankers.[/QUOTE] Oh no those poor bankers need defending.

Do you really think the big bad EU is out to get us