Can anyone give a reason why these banker scum shouldn’t at the very least have their pay capped, as Obama has done?

Their business model failed, their libertarian toss proved to be hypocritical shite, and now they’re asking the ordinary taxpayers they once sneered at to bail them out.

Is there any valid reason why these lowlife should get my money which I pay in taxes direct and indirect, on a salary well-below average for working full time, while large corporations don’t pay their fair share and are propped up by people like us going to work?

I’d really like to see some of the apologist ©©©©© justify this. While the NuLab traitors vilify people who’ve fallen on hard times and have to get benefist, they hobnob with these discredited right-wing twats, and all that utter shitheads like Ozzy Osbourne can do is demand that their mates be exempt from paying tax on handing over their unearned wealth to their equally pointless offspring, who are already better off than anyone else due to being part of the old boys’ network, despite not having a brain between them.

If I had my way, vermin like Matt Ridley would have a prison sentence and would count themselves lucky to still be alive. What possible reason can there be for allowing discredited scum to live at my expense?

The “risk takers” have failed, now fuck them all off and have an economy where people actually do useful work instead of sitting in penthouse flats, being scum ©©©©©.

david,

First an editors note. We have a fairly laissez faire attitude to rude language here (let’s be honest, kids don’t do politics), but there is a word you used twice which I’m removing. Please refrain from using it again. Thanks.

As for your point.

I don’t see a problem with capping the pay of bankers whose company has received a bailout. It only seems fair.

Risk should be rewarded when it works, and penalties must be levied when it fails. If not, it’s just not risk, is it?

Bankers have been masters of the universe for too long. The Anglo-Saxon economic asset bubble has intoxicated British politicians – as it meant rampant growth with little or no effort, never mind talent.

If banks fail. And they have. Then they should go into a stabilising system. Like Chapter 11 restructuring. Pay capped. Execs thinned out and the chaff removed. And the businesses should be geared for stability and with the view of returning value to the tax-payer.

Fair business. To be honest I’m surprised to get my comments allowed at all. Generally in the circles I move in we talk like this. But I’ll clean up gladly.

I agree, didn’t want to come across as someone who is against successful businessmen. I resent the fact that the top graduates have been basically wasting their time on pointless pursuits. Finance has its place, as do the law and politics, but all three are overblown. I think the same of certain public-sector jobs.

It seems that the lure of easy wealth, regardless of results, has discouraged people from really taking risks by setting up their own enterprises, especially in sectors like manufacturing. It is the waste of talent that really winds me up. By the proper definition of a risk taker, someone who stakes everything on his own venture, that is a profoundly good thing, but they should be ready to fail and have to go back to subsistence if things go really badly. In all honestly, I am not such a person, but some are and they have been fucking around with waste of time rubbish for too long.

I know I don’t convey my ideas especially well in writing (or talking) but I do understand what it’s all about, I think.