Campaign for debt free money, stable house prices, pension still worth something...

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a bit of a conundrum though, isn't it?

If the collection of bankers is quite so intelligent, why was it that the lowly taxpayer had to run in behind them to pull their pants up?

You seem this is the sort if thing that I'm talking about. "The taxpayer" did not do anything to help. Your taxes have not increased, you've not paid a banking levy, you've not had your savings raided to keep me in ludicrously expensive shoes, or anything like that at all.

Can you point to the occurrence of the government taking your money to bail out banks?

You can't of course, as the taxpayer did not contribute anything.

As to the subject of intelligence, what makes you think that you are in a position to judge even that? You come across as someone who would have struggled at school. The sort of person who believed that they were as bright as a button, but who never quite hit the grade. I came into banking on the back of a particle physics doctorate, so can laugh off your clumsy insults, designed to provoke, instead of to raise interesting points, but please, indulge me. If you want to criticize my intelligence, how does yours stack up?

Don't be shy. I get the impression that you are quite stupid from your writing, but please, prove me wrong, tell me what your mind has achieved for you...

TickersPlaysPop

BillJones wrote: »

It's perhaps best, then, not to form too strong an opinion on what is a pretty complex subject.
.

Hi Bill

I haven't posted any strong opinions on this thread, so maybe you have me confused with somebody else?

Anyway, still no stampede from the 'experts' on here to divulge some background info on themselves....

To add to the latest posts... My take on what has happened since 2008 is the UK residents indirectly 'paying' for the bank bail out. How?

Private sector job cuts and pay freeze/cuts
Public sector job cuts/pay freeze (which was much later than the private sector!)
Service cuts from local council, and national level
Consolidation of services resulting in reduced service, albeit those involved will insist otherwise
Mortgage rationing leading to more people renting and effectively paying the wealthy money, preventing those renting from owning a property in later life.

I thought everybody believed this? I.e. Austerity to help reduce the deficit.... and eventually start paying the actual government debt off?

Bill you are correct, the tax payer didn't give any money to bail out the banks.... the government borrowed using the tax payers as the means to borrow, committing us all to pay for the bank bail out for many years.

If we could stop getting at each other's throats on the most minor details.... the money creation magic trick/ fraud is happening right now.... in China... And that will be the next big earthquake for the world economy....

But the west stand idle allowing it to happen.... just like the last financial farce leading up to 2008.

antrobus

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

....Antrobus
Scratched record matey......

Scratched record? You mean like continually posting comments like this;

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

...Anyway, still no stampede from the 'experts' on here to divulge some background info on themselves.......

To which the response would be, This is an open forum - anyone can post, and not just those people who have supplied their biographical details to TickersPlaysPop.:)

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

...to correct you... I have never mentioned financial conspiracy and your hint that I'm some Russian communist sympathiser is laughable :-)...

To correct you, you claimed that there was a "clique of people" operating here in accordance with some sort of undisclosed agenda, which would be a conspiracy in most people's books. I simply chose to fun of that "laughable" allegation in a particular fashion.

And why would you think anyone would accuse you of being a "Russian communist sympathiser"? This isn't the 1970s you know. Russia is quiet capitalist these days.:rotfl:

BillJones

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Bill you are correct, the tax payer didn't give any money to bail out the banks.... the government borrowed using the tax payers as the means to borrow, committing us all to pay for the bank bail out for many years.

Well again, not really. Much of the "cost" was guarantees which were never used, and for which the banks paid dearly. I've seen again and again the potential payout listed as a cost of the bailouts, which just makes no sense. It is the same as claiming that Aviva is massively bankrupt, as every customer could tomorrow claim the maximum allowable claim after driving their car into a bus queue.

As to the borrowing, it's not even clear whether that will cost much at all. Again, much was used to buy equity stakes, it was not paid out to m e in bonuses.

And finally, it's utterly disingenuous accounting to look at the "cost" of all of these things and to leave out the tax receipts that the sector paid in the years before and since.

If you look at this link,

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paye-and-corporate-tax-receipts-from-the-banking-sector-2013

then you can break down the tax receipts from banking in recent years in a variety of ways. From 2005/6 to 2012/13, the sum take by the treasury is £170 billion pounds.

As this sheet shows,

http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/

although "guarantee commitments" of over £1tr were mentioned (which is the same as adding up all of Aviva's potential payouts if every policy claims the maximum), the actual cash outlay was £133bn. The current maximum amount guaranteed is £26bn. Against that, the government own £24bn of RBS at present.

That same document suggests a total cost of £5bn for the bailout. The banks have paid that in tax twice over already this year.

Graham_Devon

BillJones wrote: »

You seem this is the sort if thing that I'm talking about. "The taxpayer" did not do anything to help. Your taxes have not increased, you've not paid a banking levy, you've not had your savings raided to keep me in ludicrously expensive shoes, or anything like that at all.

Can you point to the occurrence of the government taking your money to bail out banks?

You can't of course, as the taxpayer did not contribute anything.

As to the subject of intelligence, what makes you think that you are in a position to judge even that? You come across as someone who would have struggled at school. The sort of person who believed that they were as bright as a button, but who never quite hit the grade. I came into banking on the back of a particle physics doctorate, so can laugh off your clumsy insults, designed to provoke, instead of to raise interesting points, but please, indulge me. If you want to criticize my intelligence, how does yours stack up?

Don't be shy. I get the impression that you are quite stupid from your writing, but please, prove me wrong, tell me what your mind has achieved for you...

Considering the paragraphs above and your apparent need to throw insults around should someone question you, what's the point?

Though I'd be interested to know where the money came from if it wasn't the taxpayer bailing out the banks? Flying pigs drop off bundles of notes? Someone plant a beanstalk and a banker climbed to the top to find cash heaven?

Generali

BillJones wrote: »

As to the borrowing, it's not even clear whether that will cost much at all. Again, much was used to buy equity stakes, it was not paid out to m e in bonuses.

And finally, it's utterly disingenuous accounting to look at the "cost" of all of these things and to leave out the tax receipts that the sector paid in the years before and since.

If you look at this link,

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/paye-and-corporate-tax-receipts-from-the-banking-sector-2013

then you can break down the tax receipts from banking in recent years in a variety of ways. From 2005/6 to 2012/13, the sum take by the treasury is £170 billion pounds.

As this sheet shows,

http://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/

although "guarantee commitments" of over £1tr were mentioned (which is the same as adding up all of Aviva's potential payouts if every policy claims the maximum), the actual cash outlay was £133bn. The current maximum amount guaranteed is £26bn. Against that, the government own £24bn of RBS at present.

That same document suggests a total cost of £5bn for the bailout. The banks have paid that in tax twice over already this year.

It's not disingenous to leave the tax side out at all. All profitable companies pay taxes, even Starbucks pays VAT, PAYE, Employers' NI etc.

There was a genuine cost to the bailouts. What you don't include in your sums, and something which everyone likes to ignore, is that there was a genuine cost to borrowing that £133,000,000,000: that cost is across the whole of the public debt as the extra debt will push up yields across the whole of the debt, not just on the marginal borrowing.

There is also a cost to the people that can't find work or housing because all that public debt has crowded out private borrowing.

Let's not go down the road of pretending that bankers are doing anyone a favour because it's bulldust. Just because you drink the Kool Aid doesn't make you right.

Bantex_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a bit of a conundrum though, isn't it?

If the collection of bankers is quite so intelligent, why was it that the lowly taxpayer had to run in behind them to pull their pants up?

Sort of demonstrates how clever the bankers were. They took the risks and got the rewards when it went well. When it went wrong others were forced to pick up the tab. That is pretty clever trick to pull off.

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Considering the paragraphs above and your apparent need to throw insults around should someone question you, what's the point?

The point? The point is that you throw the insult "stupid" around, and yet seem a fair bit below average in that respect yourself. If you don't want to counter that, then that's fine, but don't you dare try to question the intelligence of others again and expect to be taken seriously.

BillJones

Generali wrote: »

It's not disingenous to leave the tax side out at all. All profitable companies pay taxes, even Starbucks pays VAT, PAYE, Employers' NI etc.

If you want to compare the cost and benefits of a given sector, then of course you need to consider both sides of the equation.

Graham_Devon

BillJones wrote: »

The point? The point is that you throw the insult "stupid" around, and yet seem a fair bit below average in that respect yourself. If you don't want to counter that, then that's fine, but don't you dare try to question the intelligence of others again and expect to be taken seriously.

With ones intelligence as superior as it is, I would assume that it hasn't escaped your attention that I have not once mentioned the word "stupid" nor insulted anyone.

But hey, how dare I question you? :undecided