Sorry mate, I don't mean to make it personal. And good luck with your business. I've also started my own business and I've worked for the NHS for 15 years, so I see it from both sides. The shares from the banks though are extremely unlikely to ever recoup what UK taxpayers paid out to rescue the banks though, that is just a cold hard economic fact. Not only do the share prices have to almost double in price (for banks like RBS) but the financing of the lending the Govt needed to bail them out will be eamet by the taxpayer for decades to come. I don't think the Govt should have just let the banks fail, they couldn't, otherwise thousands of businesses would have gone to the wall and millions of £ of depositors money would have disappeared too, but like Smirnoff said, they should have used the opportunity to impose proper regulation on banking (1) to ensure that it doesn't happen again (2) to ensure that banks operate fairly (they are still being pulled up for mis-selling and mis-leading customers) (3) They should have put a cap on bankers salaries and bonuses (4) They should have levied a charge on banking profits (1% was mooted) to pay into the Treasury. It also irks on me (you may have noticed) that the resulting huge slash on public spending caused directly by the hole in the economy that banks caused is now being blamed on immigrants, unemployed, disabled and basically the disenfranchised and powerless. That stinks and is a very poor attempt to shift blame away from those who caused it.
The bankers ****ed up the economy of this country and the taxpayers had to bail out the banks.The bankers still pay themselves millions in bonuses but it is the poor,sick and disabled who are continually blamed for the recession.The tories have said they still need to find £12bn in cuts and one of the thing they are looking to tax is DLA/PIP.There is something wrong with a society when the government is looking to tax someone's mobility vehicle.I will go further and say if DLA/PIP is taxed then nobody will be able to have a mobility car because the cost of the car is paid direct to Mobility Operations.Most cars leased through mobility are paid for by the full amount of DLA/PIP.
Thought this would be relevant: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eholders-hit-Government-closes-loopholes.html Kellogs which makes over 600 million quid in Britain, pays zero corporate tax.....****ing immigrants eh? These damn American corporations come to the British shores, and take the people's money, and don't give anything back!
£80bn in unpaid tax is missing from our economy because of rich corporate CEOs These are people on £2-3m salaries plus bonuses and whose businesses turnover multi millions each year. They are the ones who can afford to pay it and yet the working class man gets hammered left, right and centre and suffers because of cuts to public services. If I tried to dodge my tax I'd be thrown in prison but these rich ****ers and friends of the Tories get away scott free, whilst opportunists like UKIP stir up divisions and blame immigrants / unemployed / Disabled etc for the problems.
It isn't a cold hard economic fact as far as I'm concerned! The share price has risen above the bailout price in four separate months since the bailout, so it's already been proven the bank can recover beyond that share price. Fact. Then if you look at the historic share price data the business only needs to recover to a small fraction of it's previous success to hit the bailout share price. Going all the way back to the 80s (haven't checked further) the share price has maintained a level well beyond the level we need the bank to recover to. The bank has also cut a huge amount of bad debt and posted an 100% rise in profits for the first six months of 2014. The bank will get back over the share price we need and the government will turn a profit on the share price. Lloyds has already recovered beyond the point the taxpayer can return a profit. You may disagree but that's my analysis using the available figures. (The interest on the borrowing is a different argument and is effected by external factors, my point was that on the share price we will turn a profit). I agree with you that it should of been an opportunity for real change within the banking industry and agree to points (1) and (2). I disagree on point (3) and can understand some of the arguments against point (4) though feel it could have been a good idea. And for your final paragraph I think people need to remember the banks made big mistakes, so did the labour government who made some serious errors in the running of the country (the Tory opposition weren't offering up anything better) and there needs to be a level of personal and corporate responsibility from all of those more than happy to stack up borrowing beyond there means. It wasn't a clear cut blame the bankers situation, it was a global situation compounded by poor legislative decisions and personal choice. The responsibility should be shared, though it shouldn't be forgotten the role the bankers played in the collapse.
Not according to the National Audit Office it isn't The shares in RBS were purchased for £46 billion and as at 31 March 2014 had a market value of £28 billion, a total decrease in value of £18 billion. The shares in Lloyds were purchased for £20bn. Some of the shares in Lloyds were sold in September 2013 and March 2014. The sales raised a total of £7.4 billion and reduced the taxpayers’ shareholding from 39 per cent to 25 per cent. The money needed to buy the shares was provided by longer-term funding in the form of Gilts, government bonds on which interest is payable. If this cost of financing is taken into account, the result of the sales is a combined shortfall of £530 million
It is a fact. The share price has gone above the bailout share price in four different months since the bailout. Ergo it has already been proven the bank can recover to that level. The current share price isn't above the bailout price, I haven't said it is. But what im saying is a fact and the data is readily available. The share price of RBS has gone above the bailout price already, on four different occasions. Fact. As for the interest argument, as I've said there are external factors that influence the cost of borrowing which are nothing to do with the bailout. My argument was at first and still remains that we will see a profit on the share price of the bailout and we will.
Surely the share price should be well above the original price taking into account inflation.How long is it since the banks were bailed out and the share price has only reached the bail out price in 4 months
If that's the case then why have the national audit office published figures that state that the RBS shares are worth £18bn less today than when they were purchased in 2007 ? As for 'external factors' that influence the cost of borrowing, you will find that the biggest factor was the crooked bankers whose greed forced the Govt to borrow huge amounts at interest (which we will be paying back for decades) to bail them out.
So if the shares are worth £18bn less today than when the Govt bought them, how does that represent a good deal for UK taxpayers ?
Like I said the share price has on four separate occasions reached a profitable level for the taxpayer. It isn't currently at a profitable level for the taxpayer, hence we aren't selling off the shares. They will be sold when the shares are at a reasonable level, therefor turning a profit on share price for the taxpayer, like the Lloyds shares only began being sold after breaching the bailout price. If I buy a house for 100k and it loses value over the next couple of years to 70k but I don't sell it until another couple of years later it's worth 120k then I've made a profit on my initial investment due to when I sold the asset.
Simply put, no. Inflation doesn't automatically raise share prices and dependant on other factors inflation can lead to a loss of value in shares. It's a far more complicated situation than simply inflation = higher share prices.
Where did I say anything about inflation raising share prices ? I would expect share prices to at least keep up with inflation for the simple fact that I expect my pension to at least keep up with inflation every year.If the money I have invested in my pension scheme doesn't at least keep up with inflation what was the point in investing in a pension scheme in the first place,i may as well just have kept my money in a current account.
You said because of inflation you thought the share price should be much higher. I was just pointing out it's not quite that simple. Also I doubt your pension is tied up in one business, the risk will be spread across a portfolio. The share price of all individual businesses won't necessarily keep up with inflation.
The bottom line is that the RBS shares are worth £18bn less than when the Govt were forced to buy them. Saying that they will achieve a higher accumulative value 'one day' is hugely speculative. Also the cost of borrowing the money to buy them in the first place is another huge hole in Taxpayers purse.
Haven't been on here in a while due to new job and some seriously long hours as well as a house move. With one eye on Arsenal's progress in the league while I'm in this life transition. Reading this fantastic thread, I do agree with Piskie in that how can you ignore the most obvious damage done to the country by the corrupt bankers and tax dodging institutions yet blame immigrants who have contributed more to the UK's development than corrupt financial institutions. Lack of jobs and opportunity breeds resentment, it's only the lazy ****er who will blame johnny foreigner for this instead of looking internally. Before the crash of 2008 nobody was blaming immigration. It was clearly financial regulators and corrupt bankers that were being targeted. But hey Osborne and Co bailed out their golfing buddies and made them untouchable so who is next in line to take the ****? Aah immigrants, a much easier target and perfect fodder for the inherent lazy mind. Tadaa cue the popularity and rise of the dustbin party, EDL and any other pseudo pro British movement.
