RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 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. If the banks collapsed, the whole of the Uk would have, so we all benefited. You can't single out the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus 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. Barclay's to the best of my knowledge received no funding from the British Government so thus what it does with its money is none of my business. As I understand it Barclays secured the required capital through the Middle East. While they may not be earning quite the same as bankers the top brass at The Guardian aren't exactly living hand to mouth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/31/guardian-alan-rusbridger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 If the banks collapsed, the whole of the Uk would have. Evidence? What's actually happened is that big banks are more confident than ever that they would never be allowed to fail. The idea than banks do something of exceptional difficulty is nonsense Borrowing money from the BOE at .5% and lending it out at 5% isn't exactly nuclear physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Evidence? What's actually happened is that big banks are more confident than ever that they would never be allowed to fail. The idea than banks do something of exceptional difficulty is nonsense Borrowing money from the BOE at .5% and lending it out at 5% isn't exactly nuclear physics. So what are you saying? Are you saying all companies should be run as non profit making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Dennis Healey said "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall." In the case of banks that have received public money, it strikes me as unbelievable that they are allowed to pay bonuses and dividends at all until they have paid back the money they received from the government with appropriate interest. It's easy for them to pay back loans from the Treasury at any interest rate, because the BOE is lending them all the money they want at .5%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 FT articles are behind a firewall I think: Martin Wolf on the subject: Tax the windfall banking bonuses Nov 19, 2009 Excerpt: "Windfall taxes are a ghastly idea. They are a sop to prejudice, a burden on risk-taking and a form of arbitrary confiscation. No sensible person should support them. So why do I now find the idea of a windfall tax on banks so appealing? Well, this time, it really does look different. First, all the institutions making exceptional profits do so because they are beneficiaries of unlimited state insurance for themselves and their counterparties. As Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England argues, the state has “become the last resort financier of the banks”.* In the UK, total support amounted to a staggering 74 per cent of gross domestic product. These must be the largest business subsidies ever. Second, the profits being made today are in large part the fruit of the free money provided by the central bank, an arm of the state. The state is giving the surviving banks a licence to print money. Third, the case for generous subventions is to restore the financial system – and so the economy – to health. It is not to enrich bankers, particularly not those engaged in the sorts of trading activities that destroyed the financial system in the first place. Fourth, ordinary people can accept that risk takers receive huge rewards. But such rewards for those who have been rescued by the state and bear substantial responsibility for the crisis are surely intolerable. What makes them yet more so is that the crisis has devastated the prospects of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of innocents all over the globe. The public finances will be devastated for decades: taxes will be higher and public spending lower. Meanwhile, bankers are about to reap huge rewards. This damages the legitimacy of the market economy. Fifth, it is hard to argue in favour of exceptional interventions to bail out the financial sector at times of crisis, and also against exceptional interventions to recoup costs when the crisis is past. “Windfall” support should be matched by windfall taxes." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9d3132c-d55b-11de-81ee-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EQ9Drcdn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Dennis Healey said "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall." In the case of banks that have received public money, it strikes me as unbelievable that they are allowed to pay bonuses and dividends at all until they have paid back the money they received from the government with appropriate interest. It's easy for them to pay back loans from the Treasury at any interest rate, because the BOE is lending them all the money they want at .5%. As a genuine question does anyone know why the government didn't place a ban on large bonuses being paid until the loans had been repaid? Also I believe I read somewhere that the shares we (Government) now own in the various banks are worth more than the loans? If that's the case why not sell the shares and spend the money on not making the cuts so deep and so soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 yeah but i blame the immigrants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Dennis Healey said "The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall." In the case of banks that have received public money, it strikes me as unbelievable that they are allowed to pay bonuses and dividends at all until they have paid back the money they received from the government with appropriate interest. It's easy for them to pay back loans from the Treasury at any interest rate, because the BOE is lending them all the money they want at .5%. Dnnis Healey had to go cap in hand to the world bank - so he's no one to quote. The banks need to pay the good staff to stay on help repay the debt, otherwise the good ones will go elsewhere. And they wont get any money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 As a genuine question does anyone know why the government didn't place a ban on large bonuses being paid until the loans had been repaid? Also I believe I read somewhere that the shares we (Government) now own in the various banks are worth more than the loans? If that's the case why not sell the shares and spend the money on not making the cuts so deep and so soon? Because selling the shares in great quantities would devalue them. Supply and demand. Anyway if they are shareholders, then we will be receiving dividends from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.