foxy lady Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Who bears moral responsibility for the actions of the banks? To be honest I really don't care. Certainly not enough to bother watching 6 minutes of unsourced YouTube video. I merely quote UK corporate law. As such I'm at a bit of a loss to know what all the fuss is about. Barclays is an international bank. The vast majority of its customers are overseas, and the majority of its business is conducted outside the UK. It just happens to have its headquarters in London. I have seen no evidence to suggest that their properly audited accounts are in any way irregular. If they are the taxman is entitled to go through them with a fine toothed comb. Barclays never accepted a penny piece of UK taxpayer money as a bail out. Instead it borrowed money on the international money market to cover its losses. With that in mind it is quite an achievement that they have paid corportaion tax in the UK every year. It would be a real shame if the nutters and protestors led to the group deciding to move its headquarters overseas, and for all those highly paid executives to pay their £millions of income tax to a government other than ours. I note that Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation is in the process of deciding where its head office is to be located. I'm sure their directors are watching events in London with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 To be honest I really don't care. Certainly not enough to bother watching 6 minutes of unsourced YouTube video. I merely quote UK corporate law. As such I'm at a bit of a loss to know what all the fuss is about. Barclays is an international bank. The vast majority of its customers are overseas, and the majority of its business is conducted outside the UK. It just happens to have its headquarters in London. I have seen no evidence to suggest that their properly audited accounts are in any way irregular. If they are the taxman is entitled to go through them with a fine toothed comb. Barclays never accepted a penny piece of UK taxpayer money as a bail out. Instead it borrowed money on the international money market to cover its losses. With that in mind it is quite an achievement that they have paid corportaion tax in the UK every year. It would be a real shame if the nutters and protestors led to the group deciding to move its headquarters overseas, and for all those highly paid executives to pay their £millions of income tax to a government other than ours. I note that Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation is in the process of deciding where its head office is to be located. I'm sure their directors are watching events in London with interest. not to mention the lower paid people - employed, paid, paying ee and er NI, paying Income tax, not claiming the dole, spending money in the UK supporting other businesses, paying VAT. Let us try to continue to encourage these profitable businesses to the UK to help us. As I it understand they offset their losses from the previous year against this year's profit. Something perfectly legal, encouraged by this and previous governments, moral and fair. This is a left-wing induced headline to set a trap for lefty fools and the gullible to believe and react to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 No, they didn't take bailout money. However, they do benefit hugely from the lax banking regulation, quantitative easing, guaranteed security nets, etc, etc. Barclays is funded by oil money BTW http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/01/barclay-banking-bonuses Barclays yesterday faced criticism for allowing Middle Eastern states to take a more than 30% stake in the bank as it sought to avoid taking cash from the British taxpayer to boost its balance sheet. The intricately structured financing - under which the Abu Dhabi owner of Manchester City football club will become the single biggest investor - also required Barclays to raise £1.5bn in a share placing on the open market. After the stock market closed last night, Barclays admitted that it had found buyers for only £1.25bn. In total the bank still managed to raise just over £7bn, more than the £6.5bn it had promised the UK government it would find as part of its historic bank bail-out programme announced last month. In raising the funds, the bank stunned critics who had been convinced it would fail to meet the government's deadline -which extended until next spring. John Varley, the Barclays chief executive, defended the terms being offered to encourage the royal families of Abu Dhabi and Qatar to take a combined share holding of more than 30%. End quote. It is a strange country that permits a company which has been bailed out by the taxpayer to operate a business which actually markets tax avoidance. Its a bit like a burglar has done over your house and flogged off the contents, so you invite him back to shag your daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 No, they didn't take bailout money. However, they do benefit hugely from the lax banking regulation, quantitative easing, guaranteed security nets, etc, etc. Barclays is funded by oil money BTW http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/01/barclay-banking-bonuses Barclays yesterday faced criticism for allowing Middle Eastern states to take a more than 30% stake in the bank as it sought to avoid taking cash from the British taxpayer to boost its balance sheet. The intricately structured financing - under which the Abu Dhabi owner of Manchester City football club will become the single biggest investor - also required Barclays to raise £1.5bn in a share placing on the open market. After the stock market closed last night, Barclays admitted that it had found buyers for only £1.25bn. In total the bank still managed to raise just over £7bn, more than the £6.5bn it had promised the UK government it would find as part of its historic bank bail-out programme announced last month. In raising the funds, the bank stunned critics who had been convinced it would fail to meet the government's deadline -which extended until next spring. John Varley, the Barclays chief executive, defended the terms being offered to encourage the royal families of Abu Dhabi and Qatar to take a combined share holding of more than 30%. End quote. It is a strange country that permits a company which has been bailed out by the taxpayer to operate a business which actually markets tax avoidance. Its a bit like a burglar has done over your house and flogged off the contents, so you invite him back to shag your daughter. They weren't bailed out by the tax payer. Everyone avoids tax. We all benefited from not losing our savings when the banking sector got into trouble. The bank is a net contributor to the UK economy. We should welcome them. I don't know, but if they help to contribute to the conservative party then that is an added bonus too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 They were not actually bought out, but at the time Diamond was forced to admit that without the bailout of the system Barclays would no longer exist. The distinction is entirely false. # Benefit fraud cost the country around £900 million in 2008-09 # Tax avoidance by a single company cost the country around £3,100 million in 2009-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 They were not actually bought out, but at the time Diamond was forced to admit that without the bailout of the system Barclays would no longer exist. The distinction is entirely false. # Benefit fraud cost the country around £900 million in 2008-09 # Tax avoidance by a single company cost the country around £3,100 million in 2009-10 One is evasion. The other avoidance. One cost the country money the other cost nothing - it wasn't due- no one pays voluntary tax. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 An attempt by Barclays to suppress details of its allegedly massive tax avoidance schemes two years ago ended in farce. The high street bank went to court in the middle of the night to gag the Guardian but was outmanoeuvred by free-spirited souls on the internet. The memos also quoted advice from lawyers on how to blunt any challenges from HM Revenue & Customs. The whistleblower alleged: "It is a commonly held view that no agency in the US or the UK has the resources or the commitment to challenge [barclays]." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardian-barclays-tax-secrets Arrogant parasites. I must agree with you. Never was a fan of The Guardian. How are The Guardian groups tax affairs looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I must agree with you. Never was a fan of The Guardian. How are The Guardian groups tax affairs looking? The Guardian is run by a trust, not a private company. The Guardian was not propped up by public money- Barclays was. The Guardian doesn't pay obscene bonuses to senior directors. Comparing Barclays to the Guardian is daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 The Guardian is run by a trust, not a private company. The Guardian was not propped up by public money- Barclays was. The Guardian doesn't pay obscene bonuses to senior directors. Comparing Barclays to the Guardian is daft. Barclays received no public money the guardian has received plenty of public money over the last 13 years by the advertising of sooooooooo many public sector non-jobs. Indeed Barclays appears to be a much better contributor to the UK than The Grauniad. So perhaps you are right, albeit for the wrong reasons, the two are not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Barclays received no public money . Disingenuous. Barclays would have collapsed had public money not been pumped into the system. It's not speculative to guess that future bank investors would be more careful if they saw their predecessors lose everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.