Can\’t this Robin Hood Tax idiot fucking read?

Financial services continued to enjoy the largest awards, totalling £13.3bn in the year to March – the same as in 2012 but well beneath the 2007/2008 peak of £19bn. Bonuses per financial services employee fell £100 to £11,900.

Oil and gas workers received the next highest average bonus, of £6,700 – a £200 drop on last year. Total bonuses to non-financial firms rose 1pc to £23.6bn, closing in on the 2007/2008 peak of £24bn.

So, roughly speaking, finance sector bonuses are one third of all bonuses in the economy.

Simon Chouffot, a spokesman for the Robin Hood Tax campaign, said: “It’s outrageous that during one of the most scandal-ridden periods in the history of banking, City bonuses still far outstrip those in the rest of the economy.

Simon Chouffot is a cretin. One third is less than a majority, so they are not outstripping those in the rest of the economy, are they?

“But bonuses are only part of the story – City salaries are accelerating at break-neck speed to stay ahead of regulation and ensure the privileged few still receive their lottery-sized pay packets.”

Yes you pissant little moron. You change the rules in one part of the economy and peoples\’ behaviour changes as a result of that rule. Which is what will happen with your Robin Hood Tax as well, as I\’ve been shouting at you for the past 5 years. Behaviour will change, the economy will be smaller that it would have been, the incidence will be upon workers and consumers of financial services, not banks or bankers. Oh, and net revenue will be negative. All of which just goes to prove that Mr. Chouffot is both a cretin and a moron. For obviously, no one who actually understood these points would be working to foist this monstrosity onto the rest of us, would they?

10 comments on “Can\’t this Robin Hood Tax idiot fucking read?

  1. Be fair. If we’re trying to understand him, we can see he means bonus per employee. For the financial industry represents (if the numbers are accurate) one third of bonuses but far far less than one third of employees.

    Further those bonuses in finance are hugely skewed towards the top – yes that happens in other industries too but probably not to the same extent. A really small handful of fabulous deal-clinchers take most of it, Barclays’ branch managers won’t get that much, let alone the cashiers or people selling insurance.

  2. The oil and gas boys have done well. True, our bonus was smaller, but I bet the base salaries and packages outstrip those of the bankers in most cases. Fortunately, these idiots think we walk about in greasy overalls carrying massive wrenches so aren’t a natural target: wait until they figure out we’re mostly white-collar office workers.

  3. Having dealt with Barclays Bank managers – who don’t have direct lines or comany email – I would like to think they weren’t getting a bonus. Shot, maybe. Bonuses, no.

  4. Tim “far outstrip those in the rest of the economy” is just a way of saying banking bonuses are far more generous than those in the rest of the economy, I don’t think it’s a claim that banking bonuses, when summed, constitute the majority of total bonuses in all sectors.

  5. It’s probably changed since I wrote their system, but each of the Barclays branches is allocated a bonus pot twice a year. This is divided amongst the staff, based upon pay grade and performance “rating”, A-E. Everyone with reports (ie staff) must submit quarterly performance reviews for them and the share of the bonus is pot is based on this (I don’t know, I didn’t do the calculation system).

    Branch managers were definitely included in this system. I don’t remember the numbers, but junior branch staff on say £8-£12k could expect an annual bonus of less than £1500. Branch Managers were paid about twice as much (salary & bonus).

    The system handled bonuses for all Barclays Branch and related staff (Woolwich, regional managers, etc) – about 35000 employees. It did not handle bonuses for senior staff or other divisions of Barclays; I don’t know about those.

    As an aside, one of the things I thought was grossly unfair was the requirement that the staff ratings fit a standard distribution. So even if you’re a great manager and have recruited the best, some of them are going to get poor ratings, get fed up and leave. At senior levels, the ratings are A-D and the D’s are the ones laid off/summarily dismissed. I saw some very senior managers gaming the system to remove rivals whom they saw as a threat. I always questioned how it helped the bank to have staff focussed on doing this, rather than their assigned role.

    I was a contractor there, not a staff member.

  6. Justin>

    For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with you that it doesn’t work, but the justification for the bonus/firing structure makes some sense at least. It is, roughly, that by chopping off the low end of the distribution even if they’re performing more than adequately, you don’t lose much and it serves to encourage the others – and that the situation where all workers are at least adequate is unfortunately rare.

    I think what actually happens is that you tend to lose the workers performing just above those you want to fire, since they don’t have a great deal of job security, and are more able to move.

  7. It depends down to what level ‘fitting the distribution’ happens. Where I used to work it was pretty low down the tree so there were inevitable statistical anomalies. At least it wasn’t ‘bottom 20% fired every year’, but the poorly marked got sent to ‘re-education camps’, and if that didn’t work they were let go.

  8. While his maths may be questionable, the basic point about the ‘business as usual’ bonus culture still stands IMO.

  9. @Tractor Gent
    “It depends down to what level ‘fitting the distribution’ happens”

    I saw a number of instances where managers were asked told to redo their ratings because “no ‘E’ grades have been specified”.

    Not to justify the grades, but to change them. So some poor sods were downgraded, despite being measured and previously rated higher, as the recording and analysis system for the ratings was pretty good and accurate [modest cough].

    “No ‘A’ grades”? Never occurred, because that would be a tacit admission of being a poor manager.

    So the level was individuals within a team, whose rating, and therefore bonus and possible employment prospects were hammered to fit into an artificial ideal.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.