You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > biggest poppulation & biggest debt
January 29 2022 1.10pm

biggest poppulation & biggest debt

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

 

View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 29 Dec 17 5.00pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550

You do realise that the Government made a profit on selling the Lloyds shares...don't you!?

I repeat my point above. The Government did not and therefore there is nothing to 'realise'. Please use facts instead of the sound bites fed to us all by the media.

I recommend the NAO July report.

This link is also interesting

[Link]

Another really crucial point is what would the Government have done with the money had it not bailed out the Banks. We missed out on a generation of investment.

I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do, in all probability needs must. But it has affected us way more than people realise.

Edited by Mapletree (29 Dec 2017 5.02pm)

Edited by Mapletree (29 Dec 2017 5.04pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View chris123's Profile chris123 Flag hove actually 29 Dec 17 5.25pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

I repeat my point above. The Government did not and therefore there is nothing to 'realise'. Please use facts instead of the sound bites fed to us all by the media.

I recommend the NAO July report.

This link is also interesting

[Link]

Another really crucial point is what would the Government have done with the money had it not bailed out the Banks. We missed out on a generation of investment.

I am not saying it was the wrong thing to do, in all probability needs must. But it has affected us way more than people realise.

Edited by Mapletree (29 Dec 2017 5.02pm)

Edited by Mapletree (29 Dec 2017 5.04pm)

Except Lyons is talking about Lloyds and the NAO report is about RBS.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 Dec 17 5.31pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


It's not just about population but population increase can only make everything worse.

No.4 is a stretch.

I think its kind of a true state, that between 1980 and 2010 we had governments that effectively kept cutting tax, as a means of winning elections - and fundamentally filled that revenue gap by either privatisation, cuts to government services and stealth taxes.

If you make cuts to public services, you get worse public services - as increasingly what's accessible become less, and more fees are levied - and in the end people end up paying extra.

The problem of increased migration in and of itself isn't a problem for public services, if those services are funded accordingly. A consequence of tax cuts is that you have less funded public services, coping with greater population.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 Dec 17 5.36pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Bailing out the banks was the best of a bad deal. The alternative was to let the banks go bust. I assume that Labour would have protected small savers up to about 75 / 85k. However
- Any individual with savings over the threshold would have lost the lot.
- Any investors / share holders / bond holders would have lost the lot meaning the markets losing confidence in the UK.
- Thousands of ordinary people who work for high street banks would have been laid off through no fault of their own. I worked at Barclays HQ for 3 years the average salary of the folks on the tills outside of London was 16k hardly big money.
- Thousands more people would have lost their jobs indirectly. There are many jobs in Canary Wharf which are only there because of the bankers e.g. shops.
- Thousands of businesses would be in jeopardy. The liquidator's only concern is to get back as much money as they can. Business loans would have been called in companies and people with cash flow problems would not get any leeway.
- Unemployment would go up and the economy would take a hit as less tax money to spend.
- Because the economy is tanking the Chancellor would need to borrow money from the markets to pay the increased benefits bill. Guess what? The markets are made up of the very investors the government knocked. They are not going to want to lend money and if they do they will demand a high rate of interest. I saw this when Argentina knocked the American banks in the 1980's. It killed their economy and of course the ordinary folk suffer.

I could go on as I have previously stated I wasn't happy bailing the banks out. At least this way we could borrow money at a low rate of interest and to some extent the governments (Labour and Tory) have managed the economy. As for getting our money back we will eventually and there is an argument that says the banks should be taxed more to compensate for the grief they caused.

Bailing out the banks was a non-question - it had to happen. What I disagree with is the easy with which it was delivered, and the gentle ease with which banks have found their way out.

The UK should have become major shareholders of those banks (if not majority shareholders) and retain those assets indefinitely - effectively part nationalising the industry and maintaining a significant influence over the future of that industry.

Given the amount put in, to save those banks going to the wall, the state should have taken up to 49% shareownership of them.

Also when it came to 'profit' on the money thrown in, it should have been in the region of 20% plus sum for the banks to free themselves of government ownership.

We were far to lenient for a capitalist economic entity lending that amount of money, to prop up a failing business.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (29 Dec 2017 5.38pm)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Dec 17 5.59pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I think its kind of a true state, that between 1980 and 2010 we had governments that effectively kept cutting tax, as a means of winning elections - and fundamentally filled that revenue gap by either privatisation, cuts to government services and stealth taxes.

If you make cuts to public services, you get worse public services - as increasingly what's accessible become less, and more fees are levied - and in the end people end up paying extra.

The problem of increased migration in and of itself isn't a problem for public services, if those services are funded accordingly. A consequence of tax cuts is that you have less funded public services, coping with greater population.

There is no doubt that all governments use tax to gain favour. However, more population means more funding required and no one ever wants to pay more tax when it comes to it, especially those moaning about 'austerity'.
It's too easy to say that the so called financial benefits of immigration are not being passed on to public services. Too much tax will damage the economy further.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 29 Dec 17 7.01pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by chris123

Except Lyons is talking about Lloyds and the NAO report is about RBS.

NAO Report:

''Q: Did the support achieve value for money for the taxpayer?
We reported in 2009 that “if the support measures had not been put in place, the scale of the economic and social costs if one or more major UK banks had collapsed is difficult to envision. The support provided to the banks was therefore justified, but the final cost to the taxpayer of the support will not be known for a number of years.”

We have also produced a series of more focused evaluative reports on the value for money achieved by individual parts of the support schemes. Whilst we believe that the overall support package was justified, these reports look at individual aspects of the support. They include:

The first sale of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland (July 2017)
The £13 billion sale of former Northern Rock assets (July 2016)
The first sale of shares in Lloyds banking group (December 2013)
The creation and sale of Northern Rock plc (May 2012)
Stewardship of the wholly-owned banks: buy-back of subordinated debt (March 2011)
HM Treasury: The Asset Protection Scheme (December 2010)
HM Treasury: The nationalisation of Northern Rock (March 2009)
We will continue to update Parliament on the status of the support schemes and major transactions, where appropriate.''

The Channel 4 report is slightly more up to date.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 29 Dec 17 7.10pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There is no doubt that all governments use tax to gain favour. However, more population means more funding required and no one ever wants to pay more tax when it comes to it, especially those moaning about 'austerity'.
It's too easy to say that the so called financial benefits of immigration are not being passed on to public services. Too much tax will damage the economy further.


Yes they do.
[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View chris123's Profile chris123 Flag hove actually 29 Dec 17 7.14pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

NAO Report:

''Q: Did the support achieve value for money for the taxpayer?
We reported in 2009 that “if the support measures had not been put in place, the scale of the economic and social costs if one or more major UK banks had collapsed is difficult to envision. The support provided to the banks was therefore justified, but the final cost to the taxpayer of the support will not be known for a number of years.”

We have also produced a series of more focused evaluative reports on the value for money achieved by individual parts of the support schemes. Whilst we believe that the overall support package was justified, these reports look at individual aspects of the support. They include:

The first sale of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland (July 2017)
The £13 billion sale of former Northern Rock assets (July 2016)
The first sale of shares in Lloyds banking group (December 2013)
The creation and sale of Northern Rock plc (May 2012)
Stewardship of the wholly-owned banks: buy-back of subordinated debt (March 2011)
HM Treasury: The Asset Protection Scheme (December 2010)
HM Treasury: The nationalisation of Northern Rock (March 2009)
We will continue to update Parliament on the status of the support schemes and major transactions, where appropriate.''

The Channel 4 report is slightly more up to date.

The July report you mention is about RBS - that was the only point I was making.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 29 Dec 17 7.14pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset


Yes they do.
[Link]

I think that is a too specific point as in practical sense it cannot be ring fenced just for NHS at the front end.
There are many facets of the NHS so who decides which has priority.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 29 Dec 17 7.19pm

Originally posted by cryrst

I think that is a too specific point as in practical sense it cannot be ring fenced just for NHS at the front end.
There are many facets of the NHS so who decides which has priority.

I waz just responding to a no one wants to pay more tax comment.
Many people would if it were of benefit.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Dec 17 7.57pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset


Yes they do.
[Link]

What, all those people suffering under Tory cuts?

People always say they are willing to pay more until they go to the voting booth.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 29 Dec 17 10.04pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by nickgusset

I waz just responding to a no one wants to pay more tax comment.
Many people would if it were of benefit.

To who though.
Not you . Not me.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > biggest poppulation & biggest debt