Banks to face stricter supervision

[Deleted User]

As far as this country is concerned the banks cost more than they are worth.

They went bust, some directly the rest didn't because the key ones were propped up by the people who they rip off with PPI etc.

Since then they have tried to reduce their lending where possible. They have targeted small businesses for this as they are a more politically acceptable target. This has caused massive job losses throughout the country.

We have record debt and potential credit issues as a nation as a result. This make the deficit more of an issue and so we have even more job losses in the public sector to help tackle it.

Inflation is also running higher than would be desirable (I think there's a thread on this )in a better situation as it helps reduce the value of the nation's debt and we can't afford to rein it in as after the financial crisis the banks created, which WAS entirely foreseeable especially to those at the heart of it, the economy is in too weak a state.

Despite the large amounts of tax paid albeit a tiny proportion of profits they make here, overall we would be better off without them as the businesses and jobs they cost us is not worth it in tax nor peoples livelihoods.

Unfortunately they donate large sums to our political parties and get all the concessions they want (beats paying more than 1% tax) so nothing has nor will be done about them.

chewmylegoff

[quote=[Deleted User];43768686]Despite the large amounts of tax paid albeit a tiny proportion of profits they make here, overall we would be better off without them as the businesses and jobs they cost us is not worth it in tax nor peoples livelihoods.[/QUOTE]

the stories about banks paying pitiful amounts of corporation tax really don't tell the whole story about the tax generation, because banks largest costs by a long way are staff costs, and roughly half of the money they pay to staff ends up in the pocket of the treasury. plus banks cannot claim VAT back, so 16.67% of all their other expenditure goes into the revenue's pocket (not to mention the amount of tax collected from the businesses supported by the banks).

so i think it's a bit rash to declare the banks "not worth it", in the long term.

besides, if you get rid of all of the banks, what are you going to put in their place? where will people keep their money? how will they get mortgages?

you'd have to create another banking system to replace the one you evicted, which seems a bit pointless.

[Deleted User]

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the stories about banks paying pitiful amounts of corporation tax really don't tell the whole story about the tax generation, because banks largest costs by a long way are staff costs, and roughly half of the money they pay to staff ends up in the pocket of the treasury. plus banks cannot claim VAT back, so 16.67% of all their other expenditure goes into the revenue's pocket (not to mention the amount of tax collected from the businesses supported by the banks).

so i think it's a bit rash to declare the banks "not worth it", in the long term.

I'm glad we agree about the corp tax being pitiful. Over the years they have used many tactics to help their employees as well as the companies avoid tax. I'm willing to bet that the proportion of employees that are tax domiciles is significantly smaller than in most other industries.

Although well paid their numbers are not great in comparison to the number of jobs and businesses already lost to this recession they created. The tax revenue lost, let alone the impact on these people, is much greater than that the banks and their loathsome employees pay collectively.

besides, if you get rid of all of the banks, what are you going to put in their place? where will people keep their money? how will they get mortgages?

you'd have to create another banking system to replace the one you evicted, which seems a bit pointless.

I'm not saying stop having any high street banking nor even investment banking where the biggest problems are.

Unfortunately we can't undo the damage and thanks to Operation Merlin and our current crop of politicians we can't do much to punish them but to help restrict future problems, and off the top of my head (so not an exhaustive list) I would like to see:

A ban on the banks or their staff giving political donations.

Some serious restrictions on their tax dodging schemes although these would be hard to establish the banks more than any other industry really take the p1ss.

A clawback or delay introduced to bonus payments so that in future when
bank employees that make dodgy deals leading to problems within the foreseeable future they are not rewarded for it.

The banks being forced to maintain their existing lending to businesses that have been servicing that debt. Hard to believe it but at the moment they are closing accounts and calling in loans on the weakest of pretenses even when there are no missed payments.

That the banks pay the full cost of the crisis, not just their dodgy trades.

Serious penalties for breaches of the rules and the substitution of gaol time for fines for individuals involved in breaking the rules.

I will think of some more no doubt but as the banks have now legally got away with it there is no point.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];43772052]
The banks being forced to maintain their existing lending to businesses that have been servicing that debt. Hard to believe it but at the moment they are closing accounts and calling in loans on the weakest of pretenses even when there are no missed payments.
[/QUOTE]

Where is the substance to support this?

Do you work in any area of finance or understand business finance?

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Where is the substance to support this?

Do you work in any area of finance or understand business finance?

I have a business and know several other business owners one of whom has experienced this.

The fact that the banks are making efforts (especially the government owned ones) to call in loans let alone not lend anything further is fairly well known by people in business.

Just because the banks make public statements about supporting business and maintaining lending doesn't mean its true.

Recent experience has made it painfully clear that they are not trustworthy organisations.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Is Cameron lining up some Dominatrix Madams for them?

julieq

So if we remove banks, who lends to businesses?

You seem to be complaining because they exist, and in the next breath complaining about what they do.

In a capitalist economy anyone complaining about banks is like a fish complaining about water being wet.

Thrugelmir

[quote=[Deleted User];43772378]I have a business and know several other business owners one of whom has experienced this.

The fact that the banks are making efforts (especially the government owned ones) to call in loans let alone not lend anything further is fairly well known by people in business.

Just because the banks make public statements about supporting business and maintaining lending doesn't mean its true.

Recent experience has made it painfully clear that they are not trustworthy organisations.[/QUOTE]

What you are expressing is opinion without fact or substance.

Banks need to lend money to make profits. That's their business.

You are in business yourself. So you perform credit checks and enquiries on your customers before allowing them trade credit terms.

In my experience over many years. Directors of smaller businessess are more often or not unwilling to provide personal guarantees to support borrowing. As they don't want to take the risk. So its a two way relationship. Not the one way one you are suggesting.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What you are expressing is opinion without fact or substance.

Banks need to lend money to make profits. That's their business.

Banks expect to take a further hit & have been told to increase their "bank account" balances.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What you are expressing is opinion without fact or substance.

Banks need to lend money to make profits. That's their business.

You are in business yourself. So you perform credit checks and enquiries on your customers before allowing them trade credit terms.

In my experience over many years. Directors of smaller businessess are more often or not unwilling to provide personal guarantees to support borrowing. As they don't want to take the risk. So its a two way relationship. Not the one way one you are suggesting.

Since the credit crunch banks, especially those owned by the tax payer, have wanted to repay as quickly as possible so they do not have the restrictions of being shackled to the government.

If they call in loans with any excuse they can, these people generally have given personal guarantees. So they can get early repayment via the sale of the individual's assets.

They don't care if this ruins his livelihood and causes him to lose his home despite never missing a single payment.