A young first-time buyer has challenged a government minister after her initial mortgage offer of 4.5% interest was withdrawn and replaced with a 10.4% deal following last week's mini-budget.
Rabia told BBC One's Question Time panel in Manchester that she would be unable to afford the new rate.
"I was given four different offers of interest rates and none of them are now available," she says.
Was an interesting Question Time last night. Must have been the first QT in about 2 years where the Tories didn't pretend they had "beaten Covid". Just as well-as I have Covid. Again.
The Tory did as good a job as anyone could in attempting to defend the indefensible. Fair play to him for being brave enough to try. The idiot on this occasion was the Cobra Beer founder. The surprise was how erudite Richard Bacon was.
What was remarkable was just how many former Conservative voters wanted absolutely nothing to do with the Party. I know it is a distance til the next election. And things will change. But, right now, there looks to be a close 3-way fight between The Tories, Lib Dems, and the SNP as to who the official Opposition will be.
In the biggest Labour win in history. Not because they are necessarily resonating with the British public. But because they are not economically illiterate and self-serving. When the Tories fall behind Labour on the Economy they are doomed.
PS-next week's QT should be fun. Piers Morgan will be on the panel...
Tory minister laughed at by audience when he claims Liz Truss isn’t peddling ‘fantasy economics’
A young first-time buyer has challenged a government minister after her initial mortgage offer of 4.5% interest was withdrawn and replaced with a 10.4% deal following last week's mini-budget.
Rabia told BBC One's Question Time panel in Manchester that she would be unable to afford the new rate.
"I was given four different offers of interest rates and none of them are now available," she says.
Was an interesting Question Time last night. Must have been the first QT in about 2 years where the Tories didn't pretend they had "beaten Covid". Just as well-as I have Covid. Again.
The Tory did as good a job as anyone could in attempting to defend the indefensible. Fair play to him for being brave enough to try. The idiot on this occasion was the Cobra Beer founder. The surprise was how erudite Richard Bacon was.
What was remarkable was just how many former Conservative voters wanted absolutely nothing to do with the Party. I know it is a distance til the next election. And things will change. But, right now, there looks to be a close 3-way fight between The Tories, Lib Dems, and the SNP as to who the official Opposition will be.
In the biggest Labour win in history. Not because they are necessarily resonating with the British public. But because they are not economically illiterate and self-serving. When the Tories fall behind Labour on the Economy they are doomed.
PS-next week's QT should be fun. Piers Morgan will be on the panel...
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Ironically, if it hadn't included the removal of the 45% additional rate tax band, the mini budget would probably have been welcomed by most people. The removal of the 45% tax band was not needed, a kick in the teeth for 98% (or more?) of the british public and has probably guaranteed that the Tory party will lose the next generation election.
Fiscal and electoral suicide for no good reason IMO.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
Ironically, if it hadn't included the removal of the 45% additional rate tax band, the mini budget would probably have been welcomed by most people. The removal of the 45% tax band was not needed, a kick in the teeth for 98% (or more?) of the british public and has probably guaranteed that the Tory party will lose the next generation election.
Fiscal and electoral suicide for no good reason IMO.
Seems like the Government has listened to me about the 45% tax rate.......
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
I can remember the days when there was a restriction on footballers wages.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
Perhaps the use of footballers was not a good choice. However it does illustrate the principle. What I am saying is that where you compete on the world wide stage for staff, if you impose restrictions on pay packages that dont exist elsewhere, you clearly run the risk of the best staff choosing to work where the restictions dont exist. This is surely completely obvious.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
I can remember the days when there was a restriction on footballers wages.
I can also clearly remember the days when footballers had to go abroad to earn the big money.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
Perhaps the use of footballers was not a good choice. However it does illustrate the principle. What I am saying is that where you compete on the world wide stage for staff, if you impose restrictions on pay packages that dont exist elsewhere, you clearly run the risk of the best staff choosing to work where the restictions dont exist. This is surely completely obvious.
That is true. But it is not the only factor.
We could (for example) introduce a new Minimum Wage for jobs where we have a shortage-from fruit picking to Nursing/Care Home Staff. At a stroke, we could ensure that we have sufficient staff from abroad.
But we don't. Why? Because it costs money.
Banks always seem to have special rules. As an example, when people refer to the £137 Billion bank bail-out, bankers immediately come back with most of it has been paid back. Try telling your Bank if you owe them money that "most of it has been paid back, so money lent/owed is irrelevant." See what they say.
The Banking industry expects us to pay when things go wrong. And yet be free to pay their staff any amounts they choose. Our risk, their reward.
We have an urgent need to compete for Staff in various sectors. Guess what? Not true for the Banking Industry. They are doing just fine.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
I can remember the days when there was a restriction on footballers wages.
I can also clearly remember the days when footballers had to go abroad to earn the big money.
Football and footballers is actually an excellent choice for comparison.
Footballers are more mobile than just about any other industry. They can (and do) earn staggeringly large amounts of money. And the best footballers gravitate to where the money is. Which means England, Germany, Spain, Italy and some individual clubs elsewhere.
But there are important restrictions on Salaries provided by the FPP Rules. To stop reckless gambling to try and secure Promotion/Trophies etc. And to provide protection for all.
The days of Maximum Wage are long gone. But players (from here and elsewhere) still go abroad for money. And always will. Rather more easily than Bankers.
Think it is important to show exactly how this has all come about. In time order:-
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted 2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader 3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates 4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot 5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2. 6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest. 7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time 8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Hard to understand how they can get away with it. I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating. They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April. Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid. The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****. As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills. Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most. How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength? What about social care? Increase the Defence budget. Support Ukraine. Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan. Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody. I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses. I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive. I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off. If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
On Bankers' Bonuses.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
My point is that if you are competing worldwide for the best people, then any restriction you put on earnings may lead to the best people going elsewhere. Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway. If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders. Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
If this was true, there would have been evidence given in support.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
I dont think your argument stands up. The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in. If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them? We all know life isnt fair. Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses. Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
Many people think that footballers earning £500,000 per week is unfair. The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
This isn't the same thing. At all.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again 2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
Perhaps the use of footballers was not a good choice. However it does illustrate the principle. What I am saying is that where you compete on the world wide stage for staff, if you impose restrictions on pay packages that dont exist elsewhere, you clearly run the risk of the best staff choosing to work where the restictions dont exist. This is surely completely obvious.
That is true. But it is not the only factor.
We could (for example) introduce a new Minimum Wage for jobs where we have a shortage-from fruit picking to Nursing/Care Home Staff. At a stroke, we could ensure that we have sufficient staff from abroad.
But we don't. Why? Because it costs money.
Banks always seem to have special rules. As an example, when people refer to the £137 Billion bank bail-out, bankers immediately come back with most of it has been paid back. Try telling your Bank if you owe them money that "most of it has been paid back, so money lent/owed is irrelevant." See what they say.
The Banking industry expects us to pay when things go wrong. And yet be free to pay their staff any amounts they choose. Our risk, their reward.
We have an urgent need to compete for Staff in various sectors. Guess what? Not true for the Banking Industry. They are doing just fine.
I have never felt any jealousy towards high earners in any walk of life.
I agree that in the sectors where it is difficult to recruit staff, this would be made easier if they paid higher wages. Although this is likely to mean higher prices for consumers. Many people would support bar staff being paid more. Although there would be less people in favour when the price of a pint was increased.
All I am saying is that a genius banker is likely to choose to work elsewhere if we were to continue to restrict bonuses. I think it would be foolish to think that they can earn millions in bonuses for sitting on their ar5es. I am certain that earning millions will be dependant upon achieving stringent targets. If you were considering two jobs, one included a bonus that was restricted, and the other wasnt. You would surely choose the unrestricted one.
If someone working in a railway ticket office resents bankers earning big bonuses, they are in for a very unhappy life. Although I think they are more likely to be jealous of train drivers earnings. To be jealous of the earnings of someone whose job you are unqualified, or incapable of doing, is very foolish. Restrict all the high paid earnings, so nobody is jealous.
I have spent most of my life rowing with banks, and am not very keen on them. Restricting bonuses makes no sense.
Comments
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tory-minister-question-time-audience-laughs-budget-paul-scully-130451736.html
1. Johnson forced out. Feeling that he cannot be trusted
2. While the Country is in crisis, long drawn-out process to decide which will be the new unelected (by the public) Leader
3. Lots of votes by MPs, whittling down the Candidates
4. Only consistent thing was that Rishi Sunak was the overwhelming choice of MPs. While the true battleground was who was to make the 2nd "open" spot
5. Penny Mordaunt was consistently in 2nd place. But, as the Far Right Candidates lessened, the gap narrowed. And, on the final vote, Liz Truss (for the 1st time) made the Top 2.
6. The polls clearly showed that, amongst the Tory faithful, the policies and abilities were irrelevant. White Woman. Not Brown man. End of. As if by magic, MPs who backed Sunak immediately switch sides for no reason other than self-interest.
7. During the "hustings" (which were nothing of the sort), Truss is allowed to promise that she will (ignoring the massive debt) spend more, and tax less. With completely uncosted fiscal plans. That the Chancellor says is madness. But people vote for giveaways over reality. Every time
8. Truss is elected. And goes ahead with the fiscal madness that is uncosted tax cuts. Ignore the Office for Budget Responsibility. By pretending that a Budget is not a Budget. How dodgy is that? Scrapping the cap on Bankers bonuses and the Top Rate of Tax immediately. While next year, there may be (far smaller) cuts to Basic Rate Tax. While looking at how to reduce spending on things like Benefits. Ignoring the obvious fact that that the most needy in Society do not pay tax at all.
How can all this happen in this way? How can the Conservative Party be voted in on a Manifesto, and then totally change pretty much everything (from Leader to Economic strategy) without calling an Election?
By treating the people of this Country with Contempt.
Fiscal and electoral suicide for no good reason IMO.
I find listening to them defending the indefensible very frustrating.
They are claiming that the u-turn on NI is a gain for low earners, when they only brought it in, in April.
Stopping the 45% rate of income tax was just stupid.
The help with energy bills was good, but it is still double the cap of a year ago, and is only a finger in the ****.
As a result of the mini budget the mortgage rates have become a bigger worry for many people than energy bills.
Inflation will affect everyone, but the poorest the most.
How do you cut public expenditure, and bring the police, and NHS up to strength?
What about social care?
Increase the Defence budget.
Support Ukraine.
Despite the polls, markets, exchange rates, inflation figures, they are still prepared to come out and defend the plan.
Cuts to public expenditure will affect everybody.
I have never been bothered about bankers bonuses.
I think that any cap on wages is likely to make the best candidates go elsewhere, and is counterproductive.
I have always taken the view that restricting anyones wages doesnt make me any better off.
If you could restrict bankers bonuses and give the proceeds to the poorest, I would change my view.
Have you noticed that there is lots of talk about the "cap". But nothing about what the cap actually is.
The current cap is this. In any 1 year, the cap is 100% of Salary in all cases. And 200% if shareholders consent.
So what this Government is saying is this. If an Investment Banker is earning (say) £250,000 per annum, and does a good job for his employers. He can currently receive an unlimited pay rise, plus a Bonus of £250,000, or £500,000 with shareholder approval. Together with a Bonus next year that will increase in line with his new salary.
And this is not enough?
PS-there is no restriction on wages. And not much of one on bonuses. Government not exactly taking the same line with the "overpaid" Railway Workers...
Also any restriction on bonuses may lead to higher salaries anyway.
If a bank makes extra profits through a restriction in bonuses, they will hang on to them or give them to shareholders.
Joe Bloggs is unaffected either way.
There was no evidence whatsoever to show people were leaving the country in search of better bonuses. In any event, top rate tax was already lower than all our comparable rivals in Europe.
There is certainly at least some evidence as to impact on salaries. But how much exactly-not rocket science to work out that 100/200% Bonuses, plus unlimited future rises are more important.
Depends who you mean by Joe Bloggs. If Joe Bloggs is a Public Sector Worker, a Railwayman, a Postman, a Nurse, he would regard this as deeply unfair.
Which, of course, it is.
The best candidates may have chosen to work elsewhere when the restrictions came in.
If the restrictions were not seen as an impediment, then why remove them?
We all know life isnt fair.
Nurses dont choose their job with a view to making millions in bonuses.
Many more people may think that train drivers earning over 100k per year is unfair.
The same people would moan if the Premier League introduced a restriction of say £100,000 per week and all the best players went elsewhere.
1. The Government did not give the Premier League £137Billion for reckless risk-taking, only to facilitate them doing it again
2. You are not comparing like with like. There are no restrictions on the salaries of Bankers or Footballers. The equivalent would be this. De Bruyne currently earns £20,800,000.00 a year. Do you think he would be off if he was told that, while his pay and benefits remain uncapped, he could not receive a bonus of more than £20.8million (or £41.6 million with shareholder approval) for winning the Champions League?
Compare/contrast with promising an effective pay rise of 5% via tax cuts, only to change your mind.
Seems like the Government has listened to me about the 45% tax rate.......
Turns out that Ms Truss as PM is even more entertaining than Boris was. Who'd have thought?
However it does illustrate the principle.
What I am saying is that where you compete on the world wide stage for staff, if you impose restrictions on pay packages that dont exist elsewhere, you clearly run the risk of the best staff choosing to work where the restictions dont exist.
This is surely completely obvious.
We could (for example) introduce a new Minimum Wage for jobs where we have a shortage-from fruit picking to Nursing/Care Home Staff. At a stroke, we could ensure that we have sufficient staff from abroad.
But we don't. Why? Because it costs money.
Banks always seem to have special rules. As an example, when people refer to the £137 Billion bank bail-out, bankers immediately come back with most of it has been paid back. Try telling your Bank if you owe them money that "most of it has been paid back, so money lent/owed is irrelevant." See what they say.
The Banking industry expects us to pay when things go wrong. And yet be free to pay their staff any amounts they choose. Our risk, their reward.
We have an urgent need to compete for Staff in various sectors. Guess what? Not true for the Banking Industry. They are doing just fine.
Footballers are more mobile than just about any other industry. They can (and do) earn staggeringly large amounts of money. And the best footballers gravitate to where the money is. Which means England, Germany, Spain, Italy and some individual clubs elsewhere.
But there are important restrictions on Salaries provided by the FPP Rules. To stop reckless gambling to try and secure Promotion/Trophies etc. And to provide protection for all.
The days of Maximum Wage are long gone. But players (from here and elsewhere) still go abroad for money. And always will. Rather more easily than Bankers.
I agree that in the sectors where it is difficult to recruit staff, this would be made easier if they paid higher wages.
Although this is likely to mean higher prices for consumers.
Many people would support bar staff being paid more.
Although there would be less people in favour when the price of a pint was increased.
All I am saying is that a genius banker is likely to choose to work elsewhere if we were to continue to restrict bonuses.
I think it would be foolish to think that they can earn millions in bonuses for sitting on their ar5es.
I am certain that earning millions will be dependant upon achieving stringent targets.
If you were considering two jobs, one included a bonus that was restricted, and the other wasnt.
You would surely choose the unrestricted one.
If someone working in a railway ticket office resents bankers earning big bonuses, they are in for a very unhappy life.
Although I think they are more likely to be jealous of train drivers earnings.
To be jealous of the earnings of someone whose job you are unqualified, or incapable of doing, is very foolish.
Restrict all the high paid earnings, so nobody is jealous.
I have spent most of my life rowing with banks, and am not very keen on them.
Restricting bonuses makes no sense.
https://news.sky.com/video/cut-consumption-or-get-a-new-higher-paid-job-says-conservative-party-chair-12710016