tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post4252948883259121788..comments2024-03-29T10:48:38.142+00:00Comments on Coppola Comment: RBS and LiborFrances Coppolahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-77037100129350739192013-02-27T11:16:23.757+00:002013-02-27T11:16:23.757+00:00It will be interesting to see if GO tries to put p...It will be interesting to see if GO tries to put pressure on RBS bonus' to be paid in full in this tax year (before the top-rate tax reduction in April)<br /><br />There was an ouotcry over banks and high-net worth previously delaying their bonus payments to avoid the 50% tax, so surely he should try to get them (including Lloyds) to pay them in full in March to maximise the tax revenueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-47987235657466410962013-02-08T14:06:40.402+00:002013-02-08T14:06:40.402+00:00Would the implementation of ringfencing not help t...Would the implementation of ringfencing not help to solve the fairness question here? Most of the honest wage earners at UK banks would be likely to reside in the 'retail' side of the bank whilst the vast majority of dishonest risk-takers would likely reside in the 'investment bank'. The two sides could have two separate bonus pools and the costs of failings and misdemeanours could be more fairly apportioned according to where the blame were to lie. Let's not forget though that plenty of "ordinary people doing ordinary jobs" were involved in the sale of PPI and knew full well when they were granting/selling unaffordable loans on commission, so having a separate bonus pool ought not to mean a guaranteed bonus pool. This solution obviously doesn't require any kind of legal ring-fence but is likely more readily explained to a sceptical public alongside a formal separation. <br /><br />Of course the costs to the bank are disproportionate to the gains to the offenders, that reflects the huge responsibility that some individuals have and take too lightly. However many other staff would have been in a position to observe, directly or indirectly, poor ethical standards in operation and so sharing the pain across staff is an incentive to all to do a better job of weeding out black sheep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-46760760332840719882013-02-07T21:00:08.581+00:002013-02-07T21:00:08.581+00:00I doubt the aggregate personal net wealth of the p...I doubt the aggregate personal net wealth of the probably two dozen people involved is commensurate with the fine (traders like to spend it, it may even be negative), deduct the cost of due process, and that route may end up a net cost to the taxpayer. Simple, not.cighttp://commentisglee.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-88591611916513219532013-02-07T20:49:11.579+00:002013-02-07T20:49:11.579+00:00RBS may also lose some of their staff, and it'...RBS may also lose some of their staff, and it's the best people who tend to be mobile, which may end up detrimental to the taxpayer as owner. It's difficult to quantify this effect but it must exist, otherwise we're arguing that RBS staff are insensitive to how much they're paid, in which case they should all be paid the minimum wage from the CEO down. I think this is what Osborne implies, therefore at the very minimum his minister salary should be set to the minimum wage.cighttp://commentisglee.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-52128261872974961322013-02-07T20:17:29.279+00:002013-02-07T20:17:29.279+00:00Criminals need to be tracked down and made to pay....Criminals need to be tracked down and made to pay. Simple.devonseaglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02637463423116171963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-78492639739977444502013-02-07T18:21:43.573+00:002013-02-07T18:21:43.573+00:00Hi Richard,
Yes, that's a fair point. Forcing...Hi Richard,<br /><br />Yes, that's a fair point. Forcing RBS to pay the fine from bonuses could actually leave the Government worse off, because of the loss of higher-rate income tax and/or CGT revenue. Osborne is politicking again. Frances Coppolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09399390283774592713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8764541874043694159.post-75218175741752550112013-02-07T18:05:06.274+00:002013-02-07T18:05:06.274+00:00Osborne is just playing to the gallery with his no...Osborne is just playing to the gallery with his not being paid by the taxpayer nonsense. RBS accounts are not consolidated with the public sector so there was never any question of the taxpayer paying in the sense of a Treasury transfer payment. Whether RBS pays bonuses to their staff from income or pays a fine from income makes no difference to the equity value of the Treasury holding. The effect will be neutral if they reduce the bonus pool by the same amount as the fine. It costs RBS balance sheet nothing financially other than intangible reputation harm.<br /><br />However, the amount paid in bonuses reduced does cost the HMRC reduced revenue collection from the bonuses. I believe like the Barclays fine the FSA after deducting their expenses from the fines are donating the money to military charities. I agree that it is unfair on all the RBS staff unconnected to Libor.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937606253138392580noreply@blogger.com