Tax Payers lose £900M as investors fear political interference with RBS

[MrSmith]

The only way your going to shift more stuff is if:

 

Your customers have money

You offer cheaper stuff than your competitors

You offer a reliable source

You offer stuff which nobody else does

 

There are a few other things but those are the basics and I hope you get the idea. It just doesn't make sense to say because businesses are taxed less they create more jobs.

 

I find myself agreeing with mecky:o

 

Several companies are expanding at this time, ASDA, McDonalds, Subway, their expansion doesn't mean more jobs, because they are in competition with other companies that supply similar products, all that will happen as they expand is another business will contract and may have to cut jobs, will have lower profits so will pay less tax.

[anywebsite]

I find myself agreeing with mecky:o

 

Several companies are expanding at this time, ASDA, McDonalds, Subway, their expansion doesn't mean more jobs, because they are in competition with other companies that supply similar products, all that will happen as they expand is another business will contract and may have to cut jobs, will have lower profits so will pay less tax.

 

But they employ more people who can then afford to buy more products. Economics isn't a zero-sum game! If you take people off the dole & give them a job, they have money to spend with other businesses, if they're skint then they don't.

[truman]

More people in work equals more demand..

 

But they employ more people who can then afford to buy more products. Economics isn't a zero-sum game! If you take people off the dole & give them a job, they have money to spend with other businesses, if they're skint then they don't.

 

That's what I said earlier...more people earning money equals more demand equals more employment..etc.etc..

[anywebsite]

Now then, to help your future postings on this subject, you may wish to have a read of this.

 

You're welcome.

 

I make the website that he gets a lot of his traffic from. I might not be a trader, but I make websites for them. What are your qualifications other than reading a few web pages that I help to produce & promote?

 

Share prices react to news. It can be all kinds of different news. I don't have knowledge of everything that affects every share price. They can also be affected by other markets, like the currency market, bond prices, etc.

 

There was a definite drop in share price when this was all over international news, maybe it was just coincidence like you say, but it seems unlikely.

 

If you look at the shares of other UK listed banks they also dropped & then regained their position, but they didn't drop as far & are back up to or above their previous highs now. RBS dropped further & hasn't regained as much value.

[Lockjaw]

I make the website that he gets a lot of his traffic from. I might not be a trader, but I make websites for them.

 

Share prices react to news. It can be all kinds of different news. I don't have knowledge of everything that affects every share price. They can also be affected by other markets, like the currency market, bond prices, etc.

 

There was a definite drop in share price when this was all over international news, maybe it was just coincidence like you say, but it seems unlikely.

 

If you look at the shares of other UK listed banks they also dropped & then regained their position, but they didn't drop as far & are back up to or above their previous highs now. RBS dropped further & hasn't regained as much value.

 

Woah, waitaminute - don't get me wrong. I don't think it was just coincidence!

 

The share price fell because a lot of people sold RBS. That is a fact. The reason they sold them is, in my opinion (as yours), the Hester thing. I have no problem with that. That doesn't mean they were right to sell, though, does it?

 

My issue is with the initial and subsequent posts that claim this makes us £x million worse off. That is nonsense, and all the rest of the guff about future share price and what the government will sell the shares for is total conjecture.

 

Regarding your last point, you are wrong, RBS is back up to it's previous value, I stated this earlier, and look at this:

 

1 Week: RBS +1.23% FTSE 100 -0.26%

1 Month: RBS +38.8% FTSE 100 +3.3%

RBS continues to outperform the market and, in the last week, has moved in the opposite direction. How, exactly, has the taxpayer lost millions of quid?

 

[All my figures are from the FT site, by the way, and I haven't double checked them against any other sources.]

 

Oh, and I thought your opening statement was much cooler before you edited it and added the extra sentence.

[MrSmith]

But they employ more people who can then afford to buy more products. Economics isn't a zero-sum game! If you take people off the dole & give them a job, they have money to spend with other businesses, if they're skint then they don't.

 

So if Asda employ an extra member of staff and pay them £10K per year, and Asda’s profit margin is 20% on the generous side. Asda will have to sell £50K of produce to break even; if they don’t break even they make less profit and pay less tax. Assuming the person was on £5K in benefits there is now an extra £5K for this person to spend which is only 10% of the expansion that is required to break even. This means for Asda to sell this extra produce a competitor must lose some sales and will either make less profit or pay less tax or will make one person redundant.

The only way employing someone will benefit the economy is if they are employed to do something that isn’t already being done by someone in the UK, rather than taking work from a UK business we take work from a foreign business, that would put extra money into our economy and take someone that is unemployment in to employment, unless we then employ a foreign worker to do this extra work.

[Emily Moore]

Course it is! This whole thread, however, is built around a claim that two days' share price movement has cost the taxpayer 900M. It is nonsense.

I'm glad you agree.

 

It seems you have nothing intelligent to add to this thread after all. When you have to resort to claiming that someone is agreeing with your post when they aren't you are fooling no one including yourself.

[truman]

Woah, waitaminute - don't get me wrong. I don't think it was just coincidence!

 

The share price fell because a lot of people sold RBS. That is a fact. The reason they sold them is, in my opinion (as yours), the Hester thing. I have no problem with that. That doesn't mean they were right to sell, though, does it?

 

My issue is with the initial and subsequent posts that claim this makes us £x million worse off. That is nonsense, and all the rest of the guff about future share price and what the government will sell the shares for is total conjecture.

 

Regarding your last point, you are wrong, RBS is back up to it's previous value, I stated this earlier, and look at this:

 

1 week1 month6 months1 year5 yearsRoyal Bank of Scotland Group PLC+1.23%+38.80%-7.50%-34.08%-95.11%FTSE 100 Index-0.26%+3.73%+7.18%-3.66%-8.41%

1 Week: RBS +1.23% FTSE 100 -0.26%

1 Month: RBS +38.8% FTSE 100 +3.3%

RBS continues to outperform the market and, in the last week, has moved in the opposite direction. How, exactly, has the taxpayer lost millions of quid?

 

[All my figures are from the FT site, by the way, and I haven't double checked them against any other sources.]

 

Oh, and I thought your opening statement was much cooler before you edited it and added the extra sentence.

 

So as RBS are doing so well now then Hester must be doing his job properly and deserving of his bonus..so the gov. have no need to be involved? Or have I mis-understood

[truman]

So if Asda employ an extra member of staff and pay them £10K per year, and Asda’s profit margin is 20% on the generous side. Asda will have to sell £50K of produce to break even; if they don’t break even they make less profit and pay less tax. Assuming the person was on £5K in benefits there is now an extra £5K for this person to spend which is only 10% of the expansion that is required to break even. This means for Asda to sell this extra produce a competitor must lose some sales and will either make less profit or pay less tax or will make one person redundant.

The only way employing someone will benefit the economy is if they are employed to do something that isn’t already being done by someone in the UK, rather than taking work from a UK business we take work from a foreign business, that would put extra money into our economy and take someone that is unemployment in to employment, unless we then employ a foreign worker to do this extra work.

 

Money is made all the way down the line not just at Asda..and people other than Asda employees shop there..

[Emily Moore]

RBS is currently looking for a replacement for Brian Hartzer who is currently the chief executive of its UK retail bank and who anounced that he was leaving to take up a top post at Australia's Westpac Bank. Hartzer earned around £2m last year in salary and bonus. It seems he had little problem finding alternative employment. I wonder what sort of salary package the politicians will be offering in order to attract a replacement.

 

It will be interesting to see how that pans out. I presume no one is going to sign up to a deal that they expect to be broken. They will probably have some dead beat civil servant with no banking experience thrust upon them, but at least they will be able to pay him £50K which will please the critics.