UBS pays no Taxes atleast until 2014

DC · 16th April 2010, 07:59 AM

UBS will not pay taxes atleast until 2014, despite hughe profits and imoral bonuses beeing payd, after the swiss people had to pay to save them from brankrupty.

is this fair? what are your thoughts?

Frank327 · 16th April 2010, 11:21 AM

Well, why don't they have to pay taxes? What's the reasoning behind it? If they're making profit they should be paying taxes.

Undesired Walrus · 16th April 2010, 11:35 AM

I'm a little wary of these 'Robin Hood' taxes that isolate the bankers as their source of attack. It seems like a short term populist measure born out of anger rather than a long term problem of stopping such enormous bonuses.

One idea would be for the Government to force banks to write tougher contracts for their new high-flying employees. The reason they pay out these massive bonuses is in order to keep 'talent' in their organisation and to therefore prevent them from leaving for a larger salary. If they had a clause in their contract that stressed that they should remain for at least 12 months it may reduce the bonus culture somewhat.

Or we could nationalise these vital public services (I.e, the banks). That would be one way of keeping their salaries in check.

TriskettheKid · 16th April 2010, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I'm a little wary of these 'Robin Hood' taxes that isolate the bankers as their source of attack. It seems like a short term populist measure born out of anger rather than a long term problem of stopping such enormous bonuses.

One idea would be for the Government to force banks to write tougher contracts for their new high-flying employees. The reason they pay out these massive bonuses is in order to keep 'talent' in their organisation and to therefore prevent them from leaving for a larger salary. If they had a clause in their contract that stressed that they should remain for at least 12 months it may reduce the bonus culture somewhat.

Or we could nationalise these vital public services (I.e, the banks). That would be one way of keeping their salaries in check.

Speaking as someone who works in compensation, that is a bad idea.

The bonus, and indeed the total direct compensation, could be well within proper alignment. The issue, though, is not the SIZE of the bonus, but the EASE of which it is obtained. Tie the bonus to more meaningful metrics, make the targets harder to achieve, as well as the threshold for payment. Make the leverage something around 200% of target (which is normal). And then give the Compensation Committee discretionary power to adjust.

This is, of course, ignoring the impact of equity.

DC · 17th April 2010, 03:13 AM

the reason behind the tax break was that we as a nation could not afford to let them go bankrupt.
this is the reason now the government wants to split them up, or atleast get out the part of UBS and CS that are needed for the people, (credits for small and middle bussiness and the "payment system") so the people dont have to worry when a speculative part of the bank goes bankrupt.

the Bonuses wouldnt be our bussines if they didnt need our taxmoney. but the shareholders voted to give em those bonuses.

and without bonus payment they would have made profit last year, but now that bonuses are payd, no profit, now its a loss. so it almost doesnt matter how usefull they are for the bank, they get trown money at them and its not just a bit. the same was the case in 2007 i think. alot profit but even more bonuses than profit, so in the end, no profit. crazy.

funk de fino · 17th April 2010, 07:10 PM

Banks suck

16th April 2010, 07:59 AM	#1
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	UBS pays no Taxes atleast until 2014 UBS will not pay taxes atleast until 2014, despite hughe profits and imoral bonuses beeing payd, after the swiss people had to pay to save them from brankrupty. is this fair? what are your thoughts?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

16th April 2010, 11:21 AM	#2
Frank327 Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 38	Well, why don't they have to pay taxes? What's the reasoning behind it? If they're making profit they should be paying taxes.
Frank327 Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 38

16th April 2010, 11:35 AM	#3
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,904	I'm a little wary of these 'Robin Hood' taxes that isolate the bankers as their source of attack. It seems like a short term populist measure born out of anger rather than a long term problem of stopping such enormous bonuses. One idea would be for the Government to force banks to write tougher contracts for their new high-flying employees. The reason they pay out these massive bonuses is in order to keep 'talent' in their organisation and to therefore prevent them from leaving for a larger salary. If they had a clause in their contract that stressed that they should remain for at least 12 months it may reduce the bonus culture somewhat. Or we could nationalise these vital public services (I.e, the banks). That would be one way of keeping their salaries in check.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

17th April 2010, 03:13 AM	#5
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	the reason behind the tax break was that we as a nation could not afford to let them go bankrupt. this is the reason now the government wants to split them up, or atleast get out the part of UBS and CS that are needed for the people, (credits for small and middle bussiness and the "payment system") so the people dont have to worry when a speculative part of the bank goes bankrupt. the Bonuses wouldnt be our bussines if they didnt need our taxmoney. but the shareholders voted to give em those bonuses. and without bonus payment they would have made profit last year, but now that bonuses are payd, no profit, now its a loss. so it almost doesnt matter how usefull they are for the bank, they get trown money at them and its not just a bit. the same was the case in 2007 i think. alot profit but even more bonuses than profit, so in the end, no profit. crazy.
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

17th April 2010, 07:10 PM	#6
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Banks suck
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

16th April 2010, 11:57 AM	#4
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus I'm a little wary of these 'Robin Hood' taxes that isolate the bankers as their source of attack. It seems like a short term populist measure born out of anger rather than a long term problem of stopping such enormous bonuses. One idea would be for the Government to force banks to write tougher contracts for their new high-flying employees. The reason they pay out these massive bonuses is in order to keep 'talent' in their organisation and to therefore prevent them from leaving for a larger salary. If they had a clause in their contract that stressed that they should remain for at least 12 months it may reduce the bonus culture somewhat. Or we could nationalise these vital public services (I.e, the banks). That would be one way of keeping their salaries in check. Speaking as someone who works in compensation, that is a bad idea. The bonus, and indeed the total direct compensation, could be well within proper alignment. The issue, though, is not the SIZE of the bonus, but the EASE of which it is obtained. Tie the bonus to more meaningful metrics, make the targets harder to achieve, as well as the threshold for payment. Make the leverage something around 200% of target (which is normal). And then give the Compensation Committee discretionary power to adjust. This is, of course, ignoring the impact of equity.