Disgust at the new round of banker's bonuses! Is it time to BAN bonuses for bankers?

This week, we've seen Goldman Sachs paying record bonuses, RBS doing the same and paying bonuses of up to £5 million pounds, and this only ONE YEAR after the bailout.

Are we seriously saying that the culture of gambling with our money should be allowed to go on?

Is it time to say to bankers:

Look we know you are smart, and yes you've been well trained and studied hard, but you cannot just gamble and expect the public to pay your losses.

Until we stop rewarding these pathological gamblers for gambling, and stop paying these bonuses, we'll never be safe from another crash.

If I am in any organisation except for a bank, I get my salary, and at the end of the year if I'm lucky I get a %5, %10 bonus, how can these highly paid bankers take bonuses of %100-%200+.

A salesman gets paid on commission, but if the sales fall through they get nothin, ONE YEAR after the bailout these guys are again going on as if it's business as usual while millions of hard-working decent folk are suffering.

This is so wrong, never in my life have I seen such proof of an all powerful, elitist conspiracy to rule the little folk.

What can we do to show our disgust, your ideas please!?

Let them have it i say, most 95% of people would take them too, so they are mostly hypocrites.

Hypocrites this society has plenty off.

I see your point, and of course it isn't the individual bankers fault, but the system of remuneration put in by senior management and allowed by the government elected by the people who's taxes pay for their mistakes and suffer the most!

reply to post by kiwifoot

---

You cannot have it both ways, if you live in a socialist state then sure do not give, but if you live in capitalism, which i do not think you do, give them.

I do not care what they do, but those moaning should look if they where the bankers.

Hm I live in the UK, socialist govt but capitalist economy!

I'm not saying that bankers can't be rewarded for success, but can you honestly say that one year after having to be bailed out, and bringing the entire WORLD to it's feet economically, it's fair to be paying these bonuses?

By the way i enjoy the debate mate, it's what ATS should be about!

reply to post by kiwifoot

---

I am not sure if it's time to ban bonuses. But it is long past time to ban banker bailouts

I think it should be mandated that whatever bonuses are to be paid out by a company be equally divided by every employee in such said company.

IMO, if banks or companies have money to give out to management, then they had a good year. That good year would not have been possible without the help of all the employees.

reply to post by jam321

---

Most definitely, I also think that these bonuses should be capped, I mean, why does someone on k500 a year need a million dollar bonus, especially if they're taking risks that they know will be underwritten by the taxpayer?

Cheers for your input Jam, I still owe ya!

Now people can take a step back and see that it has never been about socialism but forced tax payer money for the preservation of the wealthy elite in the nation.

The rest of main street America means nothing to them as we can see that they live in splendor while the rest of the nation falls in decay.

Is going to get worst much worst.

There are two ideals here that we are arguing about. People need to get that straight.

What's fair
and
Morals

Where do we draw the line between the two? Is it morally right to allow these bankers to have so much money for ruining our economy (with the help of our governments)?

Or would it be fair to take away this money earned from our so called capitalist system (not at all near a true capitalist economy though)?

If you sign a piece of paper saying that if you drop a penny out of a car and it goes into a sewer, would it be fair? Well, you signed the paper...but is it morally justifiable?

Do we follow the rules, or do we bend the rules to help the greater public.

Well, I guess if I could give an answer to that, it would be to do both...but how do you know when to do which?

reply to post by kiwifoot

---

Who is going to ban bonuses? LMAO!

The american people voted for ultra-capitalism and thats what they got. Why complain now? You want socialism? People need to ask for it,or better yet demand it, before things can significantly change.

And I am not talking about bailing out banks and "too important to let die" corporations. Thats not socialism. Thats pure, unadulterated idiocy!

Lol... No it's not time to ban bonuses. It's time to fire Congress, the ones responsible. If Congress had not bailed them out, they would have folded and the banksters wouldn't have gotten the bonuses - just as it's designed to work. But the second that Congress folded to their pressure and gave them the money, it went squarely into their responsibility.

Remember, they could have just said NO. Don't let Congress fool you into thinking that this is the banking industry's fault - IT IS NOT.

VOTE THEM OUT!!

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

---

A "little something" that is probably relevant:

"Pro is the opposite of con. That can be plainly seen. If progress means to move forward, then what does Congress mean?" - Nipsey Russell

I'll tell you what it means...we were getting conned from day 1 but were to stupid to realise it! Good vocabulary skills go a long way to understanding a problem and then being able to communicate it.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by EarthCitizen07]

The fact is that these banks should not have been bailed out.

They should not have been given money.

They should have been allowed to fail.

When government guarantees the banks will not fail then the banks have no reason to conduct business intelligently and responsibly.

this is how it all works, crash the banks, bail them out, and you are all begging for them to take away more of your rights, of course you cannot ban bank bonuses, it will destroy the FREE market, what should have been done was by accepting the bail outs the banks agree to conditions of business operations until the money is payed back, then they can return to how they wish to operate. didnt anyone wonder why there were no stipulations on the moneys lent ?