Bonus

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

ok yeah, i used the wrong word, i should have said their jobs were funded by the tax payer. I know no job is secure at the moment.

My point still stands, taxpayers are not bailing out every other firm that goes bust

Bailing out is very vague, they are loaning money rather than giving it away...it does have to be paid back. I seem to recall the RBS initial loan was at 12% interest (preference shares). 12%?! Hardly the bargain of the century!

[Balky001]

The Gov is spineless. The US and the French declared no bonus to be paid for those taking Gov't backing but the UK are going to have a review to be published next August, so typical.

I know its difficult for people to swallow who never get a bonus or receive very little but the average worker on very average pay in the City does include that as part of the package and so put up with relatively lower annual wage. If 10,000 people get £1500 its not exactly big news in the grand scheme of things, its the few that get > £200K that grabs the headlines.

...he works 18 hour days 6 days a week and is never off his blackberry and doesnt see his kids and has contributed to his arm of the bank making around 4 Billion £......

I would say he is the one who's gone wrong.

Originally Posted by SimJ

...he works 18 hour days 6 days a week and is never off his blackberry and doesnt see his kids and has contributed to his arm of the bank making around 4 Billion £......

I would say he is the one who's gone wrong.

you know - I have never thought of it like that- me being mr materialstic!! hmmmmmmmm food for thought- maybe me is "better off" ..

Originally Posted by muffles

Bailing out is very vague, they are loaning money rather than giving it away...it does have to be paid back. I seem to recall the RBS initial loan was at 12% interest (preference shares). 12%?! Hardly the bargain of the century!

im sure theres many companies that would be more than happy with that rate to save them from going under

[Balky001]

Originally Posted by Quiff Wichard

you know - I have never thought of it like that- me being mr materialstic!! hmmmmmmmm food for thought- maybe me is "better off" ..

Definately. Most people that are 24/7 tend to be pretty poor partners/parents, spending money to cover up the time they spend away from the family which is the real commodity children need, not PS3!

Apologies for the sloppy quoting btw.

Originally Posted by Balky001

The Gov is spineless. The US and the French declared no bonus to be paid for those taking Gov't backing but the UK are going to have a review to be published next August, so typical.

That maybe so, but French government is profoundly corrupt. They're probably pocketing the cash themselves - and then some.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

the difference is, if you're working for anyone else eg woolies and they go bust your out on your ass, not a job let alone a bonus. If a bank goes bust your job and bonus are secured by the tax payer

When Woolies went under, the knock-on effect was fairly minor. It took Zavvi out too, who were already shaky, but neither was providing a neccesary service. Our current economic system is completely dependant on bank lending, if you doubt it just ask yourself how we got in this recession in the first place- "credit crunch". Banks aren't being loaned (not given- loaned, with interest payable) money just to keep them afloat, they're being loaned money to keep them lending.

Originally Posted by jamesrichardson

im sure theres many companies that would be more than happy with that rate to save them from going under

And they took it, didn't they?

Nonetheless a 12% interest rate increases the debt quickly. I'd be surprised if it was that easy a decision for anyone - in some cases it's going to be better to go under with a smaller debt than try to struggle on with loans on high interest rates. These loans undoubtedly have to be big loans or they wouldn't be needed; imagine a mortgage at 12% (in fact, some people probably will be able to remember those!).

What you say might be accurate but I don't see the connection from me saying it's not quite the bailout you implied, to companies being willing to take the 'bailout' money...