Oh dear - Bradford & Bingley nationalisation looks increasingly likely

baby_boomer

FT - Building Societies are furious that they will have to pay for B&B

It's an odd form of moral hazard. The institutions that didn't take risks and survived, will have to pay for those that took risks and didn't.

Is the government really going to create "financial stability" in this way? Or undermine the good banks and BSs?

The taxpayer might escape, but the saver and borrower will have to pay .

Maybe this is why the government, via the FSA, seems keen to let Nationwide BS hoover up the other 58 Building Societies for free? Then it can use it as a cash cow for the FSCS?

Guardian

".....The FSCS has admitted it would have to ask banks, building societies and other deposit takers to find £450m next September to cover the first of the half-yearly interest payments...."

Times

An end to free banking. Consumers to foot the bill for B&B in higher bank charges

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Actually it's my experience that tax cuts favour middle earners. The rich don't pay much tax as they can afford to avoid it. The poor don't as they don't have much money to pay.

These are exactly the sorts of people that governments fete at election time ('hard working families') before soaking them for every penny they can for the next 5 years.

No, you are wrong. The cuts in spending that result from the tax cuts fall mainly on the poor (who are most reliant on services like the NHS as they tend to suffer worse health) and middle earners (who lose out as benefits move to means testing).

Income tax cuts just give with one hand and take with the other. They are a con.

lostinrates

Is there a current official measure of what is a low, middle or high earner?