Bank of England Madness

[Cyclone]

The Conservatives sold off more public assets in 2015 than in any other year to date, according to new figures.

 

Over £26billion was raised for Government coffers through privatisation, largely thanks to the sale of Eurostar and Royal Mail.

 

Is this £26 billion included in the 2015-16 £533,686m tax receipts?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12126140/Government-sold-off-more-public-assets-than-ever-before-in-2015.html

 

Is it tax? No. Is it included therefore? What do you think?

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:29 ----------

 

so you know better than financial experts?

 

You have to remember that people who voted for exit have had enough of experts.

They'd rather be ignorant and wrong than have someone who's studied something tell them about it.

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:30 ----------

 

[/b]

 

What I don't understand is why would they? What's in it for them that they would want the UK to fail? If things are bad here, they're also bad inside the EU. I still think we will be better off outside the EU eventually.

 

If you're already rich, you can get richer in the turmoil. They won't be the ones to suffer.

They're not "all in it together".

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:31 ----------

 

Interest rates should be set a couple of % above the inflation rate otherwise it is robbing from people who have saved money and leading people into debt when they get into difficulty by spending too much. I think it is highly irresponsible to live hand to mouth with nothing set aside for emergencies.

 

Set by who? Banks are commercial organisations, they set their own interest rates based on market forces.

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:32 ----------

 

I understand the principle very well. But Eurostar and Royal Mail were not in essence profit making vehicles. Dividends were pifflingly small. It would have taken 100 years to get that amount of money from it.

 

The Lloyd shares were all sold at a profit to the taxpayer and given the sale price vs the current price, it's looking like a pretty good deal.

 

RM pays quite good dividends actually. The ROI is >5% and has been since the public sale.

[I1L2T3]

I understand the principle very well. But Eurostar and Royal Mail were not in essence profit making vehicles. Dividends were pifflingly small. It would have taken 100 years to get that amount of money from it.

 

The Lloyd shares were all sold at a profit to the taxpayer and given the sale price vs the current price, it's looking like a pretty good deal.

 

The real RM story is the plundering by Osborne of the pension fund so for one year only he could pretend he was £28bn closer to his deficit reduction target.

 

The taxpayer now needs to meet all RM pension liabilities in perpetuity. £28bn of pension fund assets were nationalised, leaving the taxpayer with almost £10bn more of unfunded pension liabilities.

 

Not only was RM sold at a knockdown price but the taxpayer was left on the hook for £37.5bn of unfunded pension liabilities.

[El Cid]

I understand the principle very well. But Eurostar and Royal Mail were not in essence profit making vehicles. Dividends were pifflingly small. It would have taken 100 years to get that amount of money from it.

 

The Lloyd shares were all sold at a profit to the taxpayer and given the sale price vs the current price, it's looking like a pretty good deal.

 

A Treasury spokesman said: "Central to our plan to fix the public finances is the sale of Government assets to help pay down the national debt and ensure economic security for working people.

 

"That's why we've set an ambitious target to sell £5 billion worth of assets by 2020, which will put us on track to meet our target."

 

Osborne will only meet his debt target by selling off public assets which explains why the Tories are flogging off the family silver at record pace.

 

Now the first sell-off of 2016 has already taken place.

 

The Government announced on January 22 that it had sold its stake in a 67-acre redevelopment site near King's Cross station in London, raising £371 million.

[I1L2T3]

I predict that Leave voters will continue to be in denial about the consequences of their actions.

 

The thing that makes me laugh is when people say there will be riots if we don't Brexit.

 

Surely there is a similar risk if we do. Perhaps even more. The older Brexiters are more likely to write angry letters and apply to go on Question Time, or maybe just sit there with a cup of tea seething while the Daily Mail pushes their buttons.

 

The younger people..........

[spilldig]

Is it tax? No. Is it included therefore? What do you think?

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:29 ----------

 

 

You have to remember that people who voted for exit have had enough of experts.

They'd rather be ignorant and wrong than have someone who's studied something tell them about it.

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:30 ----------

 

 

If you're already rich, you can get richer in the turmoil. They won't be the ones to suffer.

They're not "all in it together".

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:31 ----------

 

 

Set by who? Banks are commercial organisations, they set their own interest rates based on market forces.

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 07:32 ----------

 

 

RM pays quite good dividends actually. The ROI is >5% and has been since the public sale.

By passing a law if that's what it takes. They outlawed organisations that were charging borrowers too much interest, so why stand by and see savers robbed? To be honest I was disgusted that it was a conservative government that did away with index linked national savings. I got mine a number of years ago but that option is now closed to anyone joining over the last few years. Everything I notice at the moment which pays anything like 5% seems to have more strings attached than a piano.

[biotechpete]

 

RM pays quite good dividends actually. The ROI is >5% and has been since the public sale.

 

It does now yes, similarly eurostar pays dividends now, but both as government run businesses were basket cases. It took some smoke and mirrors reorganisations to get them into a place where they were even saleable .

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 12:02 ----------

 

A Treasury spokesman said: "Central to our plan to fix the public finances is the sale of Government assets to help pay down the national debt and ensure economic security for working people.

 

"That's why we've set an ambitious target to sell £5 billion worth of assets by 2020, which will put us on track to meet our target."

 

Osborne will only meet his debt target by selling off public assets which explains why the Tories are flogging off the family silver at record pace.

 

Now the first sell-off of 2016 has already taken place.

 

The Government announced on January 22 that it had sold its stake in a 67-acre redevelopment site near King's Cross station in London, raising £371 million.

 

One development site in London? That's hardly the family silver. To what extent does that put all of us under thumb of big corporations? I guess this was a development which needed some state backing to get underway, but that's the point in government investments. There comes a time to cash them in and use the money for something else, like securing investment in another development project or paying down the debt. I guess near kings cross might be the Crick Institute. Even so, I don't want to live in a country where the state owns all the land in perpetuity. I'm comfortable that the tax payer should invest to get projects started but then the state needs to take a step back.

[Anna B]

........trouble is that the money thrown is Phoney!....just like Corbyns policy plans today,all to be paid for on the never never with phony money!

 

Can someone explain why it's OK to print 'phoney money'and give it to the banks, but not OK to print 'phoney money' and use it for the benefit of the people?

[tzijlstra]

Can someone explain why it's OK to print 'phoney money'and give it to the banks, but not OK to print 'phoney money' and use it for the benefit of the people?

 

Sure, but as you have demonstrated in the past you are so blinkered when it comes to economics (as illustrated in this thread as well as many others) that no matter how well it is explained you will ignore it anyway.

[ricgem2002]

Nobody makes you put money in the bank...

you tried asking your employer to pay you in cash

[Cyclone]

By passing a law if that's what it takes. They outlawed organisations that were charging borrowers too much interest, so why stand by and see savers robbed? To be honest I was disgusted that it was a conservative government that did away with index linked national savings. I got mine a number of years ago but that option is now closed to anyone joining over the last few years. Everything I notice at the moment which pays anything like 5% seems to have more strings attached than a piano.

 

And what do you imagine would be the result of such a law?

 

Do you think highstreet banks would offer interest bearing savings accounts? Or would they simply close them?

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 14:47 ----------

 

Can someone explain why it's OK to print 'phoney money'and give it to the banks, but not OK to print 'phoney money' and use it for the benefit of the people?

 

Do you understand how fiat currency works?

 

---------- Post added 05-08-2016 at 14:48 ----------

 

you tried asking your employer to pay you in cash

 

I'm capable of withdrawing it on the same day it's deposited.