Why aren't we taxing our fatcats at 90%?

Because the legislation required has to be pushed through by the very people who, when they lose power in the 2010 election, expect to reap a fortune sitting as non-execs on the boards of these scum companies.

It'll be interesting to see if the US bill gets through the senate...!

Don't forget that the word 'bonus' conjures up pictures of fat cats smoking cigars, but in reality a lot of the bonuses are paid to lower mortals who were only doing their job and for whom a bonus is part of their contractual pay. Should they not get the bonus? If they should, where is the line between the shoulds and the shouldn'ts? I think the senate will give this one a hard time, even if we all agree that the fat cats themselves who steered the boat should not get anything.

Rob Graham

No, not if the taxpayer has saved their job by bailing out their employer. Perhaps any that think they should would like to swap with a Woolworths employee.

No idea. It seems to me that the banks should wake up to the new reality: they are now part of the public sector, and in our country people whose jobs depend on the money provided by taxpayers seldom get bonuses.

Even if the government saved their jobs I don't see that they should have their pay cut restrospectively.

Robert

They drew the line at $250,000. That should leave out all the call centre staff on minimum wage.

OK, how about a pay freeze until the taxpayer is repaid in full with interest?

Pay cuts are not unheard of in the private sector.