A Political Thread pt. 2

[The Seeker]

 

[The Seeker]

**** just got real and the US response to this will be pretty severe I reckon.

A showdown between the US and Iran is starting to feel inevitable.

And if Trump gets back in office...God help us all.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[The Seeker]

 

[Gavin]

Labour October 2023



Labour January 2024

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

The shadow chancellor has told the BBC Labour would not reinstate a bankers' bonus cap that was scrapped last year by the Conservative government.

Now I don't know much about it, but can not having a cap really have a benefit for the economy of the UK?

 

[Saintjay]

Labour October 2023



Labour January 2024

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now I don't know much about it, but can not having a cap really have a benefit for the economy of the UK?

They are seriously rowing back on the green investment plan as well.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Labour October 2023



Labour January 2024

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now I don't know much about it, but can not having a cap really have a benefit for the economy of the UK?

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I don't think it's good for the government to be meddling in how much people are paid. On the other hand, the bankers bonuses are obscene and a lot of these bankers have cause huge damage to the economy (Sunak himself being one of them even before he got into government). I'd say let them have their bonuses but tax the living bejeezus out of them and also make sure people in finance are actually held accountable for some of the economic damage they cause. They can't have pretty much absolute immunity to tank the entire economy and walk away smelling of roses.

 

[Gavin]

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I don't think it's good for the government to be meddling in how much people are paid. On the other hand, the bankers bonuses are obscene and a lot of these bankers have cause huge damage to the economy (Sunak himself being one of them even before he got into government). I'd say let them have their bonuses but tax the living bejeezus out of them and also make sure people in finance are actually held accountable for some of the economic damage they cause. They can't have pretty much absolute immunity to tank the entire economy and walk away smelling of roses.

For me, not capping bankers' bonuses yet keeping the controversial two child benefit policy seems very anti-Labour to me.

But I agree, if they were taxed like mad I might be more accepting of it

 

[Reiser99]

Labour October 2023



Labour January 2024

Bankers' bonuses: No cap under Labour, says Reeves

Rachel Reeves tells the BBC that she would not reinstate the cap scrapped last year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now I don't know much about it, but can not having a cap really have a benefit for the economy of the UK?

If I remember correctly it was more along the lines of it not being worth the time to bring it back through parliament. Especially as the Conservatives have left the economy in a right state. I may be wrong though.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say

Exclusive: Party will keep plan to invest in green infrastructure but will in effect cut green ambitions by about two-thirds

www.theguardian.com

Is there anything they haven't u-turned on, yet?

 

[Saintjay]

My understanding could be wrong but i believe one of the ways they negated the bonus loss was with paying higer wages.

I thought it would be easier to tax a higher salary than a bonus. Someone who knows more about taxes will know better.

I'm not sure why Reeves thought it was so bad then, yet it isn't it so bad now. Unless it's to avoid upsetting the higher earnies who they want to vote. Keeping the ultra rich, rich as it's not worth there time isn't very Labour. At the moments they just want votes. They need the rich and Brexit voting north for that.

Bankers are an easy target anyway. The masses will still cheer a guy kicking a ball for 750k a week no problem.

 

[General Melchett]

If footballers can be paid obscene amounts with no cap then bankers should be no different. The difference between the two is that bankers have the ability to influence financial markets with their irresponsible betting and decision making not to mention insider trading which I'm sure goes on. This has a huge knock on effect on people's pension funds /private investments and any wrong doing in that regard deserves severe punishment - lengthy jail terms. It's essentially a grotesque re-distribution of wealth - from Joe Bloggs' pension funds into their own pockets.

The Tories claim they want post Brexit Britain to be a low tax low regulation country but the low regs just opens the door for bankers to abuse the system. This sector in particular needs high regs and a lot of governance especially if there are no caps on bonuses.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[The Seeker]

 

[Saintjay]

If footballers can be paid obscene amounts with no cap then bankers should be no different. The difference between the two is that bankers have the ability to influence financial markets with their irresponsible betting and decision making not to mention insider trading which I'm sure goes on. This has a huge knock on effect on people's pension funds /private investments and any wrong doing in that regard deserves severe punishment - lengthy jail terms. It's essentially a grotesque re-distribution of wealth - from Joe Bloggs' pension funds into their own pockets.

The Tories claim they want post Brexit Britain to be a low tax low regulation country but the low regs just opens the door for bankers to abuse the system. This sector in particular needs high regs and a lot of governance especially if there are no caps on bonuses.

Which it would appear Labour has no interest in changing. My understanding is limited on these things.

But like football the financial market is a global issue. With higher regs and governance the top financial institutions simply move or countries like Ireland give better terms and tax breaks. On a finacial side the city of London is a massive big player. If we lost that then we would have an issue. Which could also impact people pensions, tax revenues etc. I could be wrong as i said i don't understand the detailed workings of the global financial markets.

 

[General Melchett]

Which it would appear Labour has no interest in changing. My understanding is limited on these things.

But like football the financial market is a global issue. With higher regs and governance the top financial institutions simply move or countries like Ireland give better terms and tax breaks. On a finacial side the city of London is a massive big player. If we lost that then we would have an issue. Which could also impact people pensions, tax revenues etc. I could be wrong as i said i don't understand the detailed workings of the global financial markets.

I just find it hard to believe that a balance can't be struck which keeps London competitive but at the same time prevents things becoming fast and loose where bankers can create huge losses one year and pocket obscene bonuses the next while Joe bloggs pension fund takes years to recover

 

[Saintjay]

Today's Times -

 

[BiggusLaddus]

Alison Pollock perchance?

 

[Which Tyler]

Alison Pollock perchance?

Bound to be

 

[Saintjay]

Eric Anderson, a professor of sport at the University of Winchester