15 billion more what a joke

setmefree

Old Mc Banker had a bank E, I, E, I ,O
But soon his shares wern't worth a w _ _ k
E,I,E,I,O
With a drop share here and a drop share there
Here a drop there a drop everywhere a drop drop
Old Mc Banker had a bank
His shares wern't worth a w _ _ k


On top of mount Banky where nobody goes
There sits a fat banker just picking his nose
He's looking quite worried, his stash aint that high
because of stupid investments,he's starting to cry
along came his savour,and said how much would you like
he replied about 15 billion, and a get away bike

Old banker hubbard come out of that cupboard
the tax payer will give you a loan
they don't really mind
coz they really are kind
and you've taken all that they own

The grand old banker of york
he had ten thousand men
and if he had the energy
he would have them all again

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

red_bertie

:rolleyes: Where does he find this seemingly limitless supply of money? If it has always been there [contingency?] why hasn't it been used more effectively before now. To equip soldiers in Iraq, etc. If the money has to be paid back with interest, how long is that going to take? and where does it go. I'm trying to understand the bigger picture, so probably this a naieve post.:o

RB

setmefree

You aint being naieve at all, i dare say there are millions of others asking the same, i just watched a reporter asking Brown what he is gonna do to secure faith back amongst his own party and the general public,he side tracked straight away and quoted that the rest of the world are in the same position, he always quoted the rest of the world when he was asked about rising food prices.

jamesd

red bertie, the money is not being spent as it would be if it was used to equip soldiers in Iraq. It's being lent out, usually for terms of one to three months, and has to be repaid with interest.

It's just like a secured on your house American Express card being used for cash advances. You can borrow the money but you have to repay it in six weeks and pay interest for the time you had it. And if you don't, Amex gets your house.

The reason these are regularly being announced is that some of the deals have been for one month or three months before they expire. So a new deal is needed a month or three later.

There are also regular shorter term lending deals, for a week or overnight.

The big news about the latest 15 billion loan offer was that banks only bid for 1% more than was available. That's not what you'd expect if they were suffering from a dire shortage of cash and desperate for money.

Yet the three month bank to bank LIBOR lending rate is still higher than base rate. There's been speculation that it's artificially high because banks don't really use it for much money raising, mostly as a mortgage benchmark value.

Since there was so little demand for the latest batch of loans the thing to wonder is who actually needs the money and why aren't they getting it. Maybe the banks who can go to the Bank of England are refusing to lend it out to others who can't.

ShelfStacker_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Some are better off, some are worse off but the lower paid are not worse off by the amounts being quoted in the media because of the increase in personal allowances (especially for over 65s) and tax credits etc.

I'm 19. I earn about 12k a year. Even with the new personal allowances, I'm worse off than last year, if only by about a fiver a month though. Even if I lived on my own, I would be ineligible for Working Tax Credit (let's not even get into the hornets nest of living on my own... basically, I can't afford to.)

The media are not entirely to blame, people are worse off, by and large; my colleagues, most if not all of whom earn less than 15k, will be hit hard. It's not fair for a supposedly democratic socialist government to tax the people who can least afford it harder.

ShelfStacker_3

Also, setmefree is barking up a very wrong tree which looks suspiciously like a rolled up Daily Mail. As dunstonh says, the money is to be paid back with interest, meaning that the Treasury (not "the taxpayer") might well make a profit off the deal, but has little chance of making a loss.

"The taxpayer" isn't just pouring money down a hole. The money will be repaid, and let's face it, if Northern Rock had gone bust that wouldn't have been the end of it. The billions of pounds is a small price to pay to stop the UK's banking system going kaput.

johnmoney05

ShelfStacker wrote: »

Also, setmefree is barking up a very wrong tree which looks suspiciously like a rolled up Daily Mail. As dunstonh says, the money is to be paid back with interest, meaning that the Treasury (not "the taxpayer") might well make a profit off the deal, but has little chance of making a loss.

"The taxpayer" isn't just pouring money down a hole. The money will be repaid, and let's face it, if Northern Rock had gone bust that wouldn't have been the end of it. The billions of pounds is a small price to pay to stop the UK's banking system going kaput.

So when the money being paid back plus interest, will we get back the 10p tax? How about plus interest? Sounds like government helping us a big favour to save our money. Well done.

dunstonh

ShelfStacker wrote: »

I'm 19. I earn about 12k a year. Even with the new personal allowances, I'm worse off than last year, if only by about a fiver a month though. Even if I lived on my own, I would be ineligible for Working Tax Credit (let's not even get into the hornets nest of living on my own... basically, I can't afford to.)

The media are not entirely to blame, people are worse off, by and large; my colleagues, most if not all of whom earn less than 15k, will be hit hard. It's not fair for a supposedly democratic socialist government to tax the people who can least afford it harder.

All very fair comments but what a few observations....

1 - you are 19 years old and 12k isnt bad at 19. Why should you get a break over anyone else? (being said partly as devils advocate)

2 - what about all the previous budgets where the low paid have come out better off. You get one budget that slightly reverses it and all hell breaks lose.

3 - it was over 12 months ago when this was announced. No real opposition given from the other parties and Labour MPs cheered it on. Now its flavour of the month in the media, you get all these comments. Why not 12 months ago?

ShelfStacker_3

I work full time for 12k, £6.10 an hour. Not too far from minimum wage; I don't think I should get more than anyone else, however I do believe that it should be the people that earn more who get taxed more, as is generally considered fair. I also don't believe that people living on their own shouldn't get Working Tax Credit until they're 25; this makes no sense whatsoever.

The reversal is a bad thing because it takes from the very people who could in fact do with a further reduction in taxation and gives to the people who have no need for it; the graph in the 2008 Budget thread illustrates this very plainly. Why should higher earners be taxed less when by definition they are least in need of lower taxes!

Believe me, I have opposed this for longer than the media have cottoned onto it, it's plainly unfair. And the media are not just stirring up dissent in this, they've shown considerable cowardice; if they had spoken up earlier, we might have got a reversal, we might have had serious questions asked about why the government was moving towards a more regressive taxation scheme. But... no.

thor

Isn't it funny how the Daily Mail brigade are suddenly up in arms about lower paid workers. Perhaps they should be advocating a raising of the minimum wage by £1 an hour to show solidarity with their comrades?