At the risk of inciting ire and wrath, these stories are in the main fuelled heavily by the media who seem all to eager to fan the proverbial flames.

There are two things which should be noted (IMHO):

1. Unlike many forms of employment, the Financial Industry have historically structured remuneration packages around basic + large annual bonus. Provided this is based directly on results for the individual or team in question, I have no qualms against someone taking home a huge bonus - however large - as it should be clearly demonstrable that their 'worth' for that year is significantly in excess of the "Huge Bonus".

The industry could of course restructure and remove bonuses and increase basic pay - however this would potentially mean that those who have over-achieved are then under-rewarded - and of course, those who have under-achieved are over-rewarded.

It's a result based industry - if you don't perform, you shouldn't get a bonus - it's as simple as that.

The rewards seem large - but then they are small compared to the value generated. If someone is good enough to be appointed to a role where they can earn huge reward, then one would imagine in the majority of situations they will have faced huge competition for the job from others who would also like to be in such a position.

It's no secret that they earn what they do - it is understood that someone doing this sort of work can take home a six, seven or even eight figure salary if they succeed. But then they could always have chosen to go and work in a different industry with a different remuneration structure. It's a free world and there must be jobs that pay a lot as there must be those that pay little.

2. Many firms (whilst affected by the 'crunch') have not directly received government assistance. They have continued to generate profits and (rightly) intend to reward staff as they have done for years. As anywhere, if those staff aren't performing, they won't be earning the bonuses. Presumably, the figures quoted are for the whole of the city and not just the headline firms that have received assistance?

In summary, it's a commercial world - these banks are tasked with achieving shareholder value and they should be free to do so as they see fit - else they and their staff will scarper to pastures new.

Else, we lose the golden goose, we lose the staff - the rest of the world will be more than happy to steal our treasures.

The credit crunch, the recession, the bailouts... Should bankers really be expecting bonuses this year?

The Centre for Economics and Business Research has forecast that city bankers are on course for £6 billion in bonuses this year, despite the ongoing financial support being shouldered by the taxpayer.

It reports that investment banks have seen better second and third quarters than it had expected, meaning bonuses will soar from the £4 billion paid out last year.

Politicians seem to be less than impressed with the predictions, perhaps because they're feeling the pressure of the country's budget deficit (which is expected to reach £175 billion this year).

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "These bonuses are coming from the fact that banks are earning money from substantial government borrowing and are able to earn bigger profits because there is less competition.

"What is particularly galling is that all their activities are in turn underwritten by the taxpayer."

What do you think? Is this an acceptable way of rewarding the staff behind a return to profits? Should the Treasury hit the banks with a windfall tax to claw more money into the country's coffers? Should we just be relieved that our banking sector is once again making money?