Reading the papers, getting angry

I've been reading about the bankers who are receiving bonuses from their now-state-owned banks because they're 'legally entitled' to it. So I checked the OED definition of 'bonus':

A boon or gift over and above what is normally due as remuneration to the receiver, and which is therefore something wholly ‘to the good’.    a. (a) Money or its equivalent, given as a premium, or as an extra or irregular remuneration, in consideration of offices performed, or to encourage their performance; sometimes merely a euphemism for douceur, bribe. Hence bonus-fed adj.

A gratuity paid to workmen, masters of vessels, etc., over and above their stated salary.

There's nothing in there about entitlement - rather the opposite, in fact. So is it the case, as Simon Jenkins (not an habitual critic of the City) suggests, a legal dodge to avoid tax yet again. If so, let them have their bonuses, then send in the taxman to take a large chunk of it away - if bankers expect this cash, and it's in the contract, it's pay - to be taxed at 40%.

The wider issue is that bonuses enforce a culture of individualism, greed, short-termism and recklessness. If your bonus is linked to turning a quick buck, you'll short-sell a respectable company's shares overnight without a qualm as to whether this will wreck its chances of investing in new machinery or staff, rendering it unable to compete and leading to the loss of jobs… good work, you selfish bastards (and yes, I do mean those of my relatives working for 'investment' banks).