Very interesting debate, which has been framed in news services to provoke just such sentimentality with good pros and cons, but really not on the money, dare I controversially say.
As someone who has some humble exposure to the inner workings of the bonus culture, the argument is surely NOT about the size of the bonus, because in good times the cake is bigger to divide (that's just good old fashioned meritocracy working), but more about the structural flaws inherent in risk / reward systems.
We must not forget that excessive and self-vested risk taking (which brought capitalism to its knees in 2007-08 etc), and the exigencies to curb incentivisation is about why bankers receive bonus when they make money but why no disincentivisation if they lose money other than being sacked! In an "all or nothing gambit" behavioural science suggests we take the risk regardless of consequence - the pay-off is worth it!!! So indeed, the debated needs to be centred again and talk about retrospective 'clawback provision' when money is lost; that's closer to being on-the-money.
We all know that 'private profit (not just bankers!)and taxpayer losses (when music stopped)' was incurred in the last merry dance of the financial cycle. Also I'm NOT concerned about non-doms welfare because they act like 'hot money' chasing highest interest / exchange rate benefits; as they are a) priviledged minority (some stat suggested 116,000 non-doms in UK!!!) and b) their contribution to society and community in taxes or social inclusion is negligible as HNWI (high net worth individuals) can exploit tax shelters / loopholes and are often behaviourlly a clique-set.
We DO NOT want the bonus pendulum to swing fully the other way, but we must encourage UK authourities to ply firm and fair principles to aborhorent flaws in reward / risk values.