Taxpayer may get £500bn liability

bubblesmoney

SamIAm wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a bad thing for tax payers if everyone followed this policy? By forfeiting all the banks that have received tax payer’s money then the bank will have no customers, which removes any possibility of the bank’s survival.
If this happens wouldn't the government have to effectively write off the bailouts, which ultimately means all that tax payers money has disappeared down a black hole?

Or have I missed something?

I'm not suggesting you are wrong to have moved your money, it's just I can't see everyone doing this resulting in anything but disaster!

oops forgot to see this thread again after my earlier post on the 24th hence the late reply to your query.

guess generali has explained it much better than i ever could. so saves me the trouble of repeating some of the same things.

i dont see why some banks cant go bust. savers would still get their money upto £50,000 from the govt compensation scheme, share holders go bust, the assets and liabilities will get sold on, the situation could be less painful if a well thought out prepack administration plan was drafted in advance and rammed down the throat of the bad bank by the govt and save jobs via the prepack administration route. loads of people are looking for openings like branson who has been hankering for a toehold in banking for a few years.

if bad banks are allowed to go bust via prepack schemes then the fall out like lehmans can be avoided. actually trust in the govts ability to not shaft the savers would be back. it might actually improve labours chances of winning an election if they made the bank banks pay for their bad behavior instead of rewarding them with bailouts!!!!!

more bailouts is just throwing more good money after the bad money. better to cut our losses and let the good ones survive. that money intended for bailouts of bad banks will serve a better purpose elsewhere for helping small businesses survive the downturn and provide much needed financing which can be provided via good banks who should get more support from the govt if needed. it is in the publics best interest to encourage good banks and discourage bad banks and not the other way around.

i was initially a labour supporter myself but not anymore seeing the sh1te that they cook up for savers and prudent people.

see all details of uk banking crisis on this link and who owns what banks on this link.

on the second link, i wont put my savings in any bank needing tax payer bailouts because i do not approve of their business practices and them putting their snouts into taxpayers pockets. as far as i know banks that needed bailouts are RBS group and Lloyds+HBOS groups. barclays seem to be keen on the bad assets insurance scheme so i wont favour them either for any business. northern rock etc are fully tax payer owned so no point shunning them now. but i wouldnt give even them my savings or business. any company that needs bailouts wont get any business from me. if all prudent people did this and made a statement with their money then pretty soon the govt would be forced to heed this message whether they like it or not. so all you savers and tax payers who dont like bailouts, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND DONT SUPPORT ANY COMPANY THAT NEEDS BAILOUTS IN ANY MANNER. dont keep any savings with them etc. atleast that is what i will be doing as far as practical.

as far as i care labour govt and all its supporters can go put all their savings in these companies and eat the big crap sandwich themselves instead of trying to ram it down the general publics throats via bailouts.

ps:
best of luck to generali for the interview.

bubblesmoney

ianmoticon wrote: »

That's interesting BUBBLESmoney. Which are the banks which have not been bailed out?

Is Barclays one?
What about Abbey?

barclays wasnt bailed out by the govt but they seem to be interested in the bad assets insurance scheme.

abbey is owned by santander, so i dont think they have needed a bailout yet!

see the links in my above post for more details of bank bailouts in the uk.

Kenny4315

If Britain where a business it would be up for sale for £1.

The liabilities that we now have are beyond control, it is just simply GINKCUF ridiculous. These idiot bankers and politicians should be hung drawn and quartered !!! Pieces of them sent to branches across the country as a warning not to make any further KCUF Ups.

SamIAm_3-2

bubblesmoney wrote: »

oops forgot to see this thread again after my earlier post on the 24th hence the late reply to your query.

guess genarali has explained it much better than i ever could. so saves me the trouble of repeating some of the same things.

No worries - sorry for my late response! And like you said, Generali answered a lot of the questions I had.

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i dont see why some banks cant go bust. savers would still get their money upto £50,000 from the govt compensation scheme, share holders go bust, the assets and liabilities will get sold one, the situation could be less painful if a well thought out prepack administration plan was drafted in advance and rammed down the throat of the bad bank by the govt and save jobs via the prepack administration route. loads of people are looking for openings like branson who has been hankering for a toehold in banking for a few years.

Before any bank bailout I would have totally agreed with you.

bubblesmoney wrote: »

more bailouts is just throwing more good money after the bad money. better to cut our losses and let the good ones survive.

I'm still not sure that cutting our losses _now_ is a good idea.
As I see it, any shareholder losses equates to losses for the government which the tax payers would eventually have to pay. It is my belief that, now the initial bailouts have occurred, the cost to the tax payer is too much to preclude letting either RBS or HBOS go into administration. At least continued support means that there is a chance that the banks will recover and the government can cover most if not all of its financial commitments with little or no cost to the tax payer in the future.