Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
kjw

George Osborne Spent More Than £20,000 Of Taxpayer Cash Fighting Eu Bankers' Bonus Cap

Recommended Posts

Are you a communist of some sort?

If the fact that I think an elected representative should represent the electorate as a whole rather than concentrating on the interests of a select few means I am **a communist of some sort**... then yes, guilty as charged :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fact that I think an elected representative should represent the electorate as a whole rather than concentrating on the interests of a select few means I am **a communist of some sort**... then yes, guilty as charged :P

Next you'll be wanting the poor to have the vote!

Unfortunately proles lack the cultural understanding to see Osborne is helping reward true wealth generators....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately proles lack the cultural understanding to see Osborne is helping reward true wealth generators....

This would certainly be Osborne's private view on the matter. The problem is that in order to generate that 'wealth' they have to generate a consequential amount of debt in the system- just as being in debt is no longer the fun filled ride it once was.

The reality that our most profitable industry is in the creation of complex IOU's- in a world already drowning in debt- is not that comforting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the fact that I think an elected representative should represent the electorate as a whole rather than concentrating on the interests of a select few means I am **a communist of some sort**... then yes, guilty as charged :P

big difference between corporatist , "quaker capitalist", and collectivist

please do bear in mind full blown marxist-leninist communism seeks to exacerbate the differences between haves and have nots.(reverse-psychology)

the present "governments" have not exactly done themselves any favours...they are walking straight into a trap...and with the present imbalances,they are going to pay a heavy price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
big difference between corporatist , "quaker capitalist", and collectivist

please do bear in mind full blown marxist-leninist communism seeks to exacerbate the differences between haves and have nots.(reverse-psychology)

Unlike crony capitalism which has created the largest gap between the have's and have not's since the great depression. So either neo liberal economics is the most brilliant marxist conspiracy the world has even seen- or it is exactly what it appears to be- an intellectual fig leaf that allows the wealth to trickle up instead of trickle down while maintaining the fiction that the exact opposite is taking place.

Pretending that the ongoing collapse of the free market into a vortex of corruption and fraud is the fault of some vast socialist conspiracy overlooks the far more obvious reason- that the financial sector is now so out of control that it is destroying the system upon which it feeds.

The only form of socialism that currently represents a threat to most of us is socialism for the rich- who have systematically shifted the losses of their speculations onto the backs of ordinary people while keeping all the gains.

Ironically both the capitalists and the socialists have a common enemy in the financial sector- because it is undermining both private enterprise and social welfare simultaneously.

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£20k is the upper rate of income tax (45%) on £45k of bonus

If fighting to continue to allow higher bonuses to be paid only costs £20k, I would say it is money well spent that will be repaid to the exchequer many times over by bankers that might otherwise have transferred to, say Singapore or HK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£20k is the upper rate of income tax (45%) on £45k of bonus

If fighting to continue to allow higher bonuses to be paid only costs £20k, I would say it is money well spent that will be repaid to the exchequer many times over by bankers that might otherwise have transferred to, say Singapore or HK.

So we receive some tax in return they banks get the tax back plus more in bailout money. ...let Singapore or he pick the tab up in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£20k is the upper rate of income tax (45%) on £45k of bonus

If fighting to continue to allow higher bonuses to be paid only costs £20k, I would say it is money well spent that will be repaid to the exchequer many times over by bankers that might otherwise have transferred to, say Singapore or HK.

On that basis you must think legalizing car theft and bank robbery so we can tax it is a good idea.

After all the gov would be raking tax in like no tomorrow if it did that would it not? So surely it must be a fabulous idea that we need to implement asap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we receive some tax in return they banks get the tax back plus more in bailout money. ...let Singapore or he pick the tab up in the future

I am differentiating between bank bail outs and from which dealing room a bank trading team chooses to operate. It is much harder for a bank to relocate in its entirety than it is for a trading team to up sticks.

I would prefer every banker working in London to stay in London on UK PAYE tax than to move somewhere else. Likewise if a bank is binning big earners, I would rather those based in the UK were at the back of the queue.

Remember that the bankers paying top whack tax here and spending their wages and bonuses here are helping the economy and generating wealth for the UK.

They are also the ones that are going to get stiffed by a big capital loss on their prime London housing in due course aren't they?

Whilst we wouldn't choose to start from here, given that we are, the £20k spent is OK by me. In the grand scheme of things associated with banks and politics, the sum is entirely inconsequential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that basis you must think legalizing car theft and bank robbery so we can tax it is a good idea.

After all the gov would be raking tax in like no tomorrow if it did that would it not? So surely it must be a fabulous idea that we need to implement asap?

I can't even begin to get my head round the logic you have employed to attempt to make that conclusion fly.

However, punitive taxation, effectively collected, might be more of a deterrent for car thieves than the current regime. Steal a car worth £10k and be relentlessly pursued into debtors prison for the 200% tax bill versus 'oh you must have had a tough childhood, have a holiday on the taxpayers bill'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't even begin to get my head round the logic you have employed to attempt to make that conclusion fly

The logic is clear if you start from the premise that an oversized banking sector is a liability rather than an asset. RBS looked like a fantastic national treasure until it nearly took down the country and needed a 45 billion taxpayer bailout.

RBS’s failure in October 2008 has imposed large costs on UK citizens. To

prevent collapse the government injected £45.5bn of equity capital: that stake

is now worth about £20bn.1

But this loss is only a small part of the cost

resulting from the financial crisis. The larger costs arise from the recession

which resulted from that crisis, within which RBS’s failure played a significant

role. That recession has caused unemployment for many, losses of income and

wealth for many more.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/rbs.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even begin to get my head round the logic you have employed to attempt to make that conclusion fly.

However, punitive taxation, effectively collected, might be more of a deterrent for car thieves than the current regime. Steal a car worth £10k and be relentlessly pursued into debtors prison for the 200% tax bill versus 'oh you must have had a tough childhood, have a holiday on the taxpayers bill'

No no you only tax them at 45%, similar to bankers bonuses. They need enough incentive to carry out libor/PPI/other frauds steal, and think of all the tax money that we'd gain. Following your logic what matters is the tax paid, so that is what we should do right? If not why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic is clear if you start from the premise that an oversized banking sector is a liability rather than an asset. RBS looked like a fantastic national treasure until it nearly took down the country and needed a 45 billion taxpayer bailout.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/rbs.pdf

Yes, but that is now a sunk cost. It can't be undone, however bad a decision it was.

My point is that another £20k (on the back of £45bn+++ sunk cost) is inconsequential and, if spending it keeps big earning bankers on a UK PAYE liable payroll who would otherwise move to another country, then it is money well spent.

I did say that in an ideal world, we wouldn't start from here, but here is where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically both the capitalists and the socialists have a common enemy in the financial sector- because it is undermining both private enterprise and social welfare simultaneously.

+1

See my sig, especially the David Korten quote

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no you only tax them at 45%, similar to bankers bonuses. They need enough incentive to carry out libor/PPI/other frauds steal, and think of all the tax money that we'd gain. Following your logic what matters is the tax paid, so that is what we should do right? If not why not?

If we are going down this road, then let's paint a bit more detail on it.

And do have in mind that I am in general agreement that here isn't a place that I would like to start from, but we are where we are. The banks have shafted the job, had a couple of trillion of the tax payer and are still around to tell the tale. Not good, but it can't be undone and we have to get the best from that mess somehow.

If there was a global organisation of car thieves, stealing cars all around the world that was prepared to pay 45% income tax on its activities, I would rather it was based here and paying that tax in the UK than in any other country. Given that cars are being stolen anyway (even though it is illegal), its as well to take the tax from the people doing the stealing, rather than let another country have the tax take.

In fact, if the organisation is based here and the thieves live here, there might be fewer cars stolen here than anywhere else, because they wouldn't want to steal each others' - in fact they would collude and share number plate details so that their car was guaranteed safe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are going down this road, then let's paint a bit more detail on it.

And do have in mind that I am in general agreement that here isn't a place that I would like to start from, but we are where we are. The banks have shafted the job, had a couple of trillion of the tax payer and are still around to tell the tale. Not good, but it can't be undone and we have to get the best from that mess somehow.

If there was a global organisation of car thieves, stealing cars all around the world that was prepared to pay 45% income tax on its activities, I would rather it was based here and paying that tax in the UK than in any other country. Given that cars are being stolen anyway (even though it is illegal), its as well to take the tax from the people doing the stealing, rather than let another country have the tax take.

In fact, if the organisation is based here and the thieves live here, there might be fewer cars stolen here than anywhere else, because they wouldn't want to steal each others' - in fact they would collude and share number plate details so that their car was guaranteed safe!

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. I would arrest the banking fraudsters car thieves and outlaw their activity.

By your reasoning columbia should legalize growing cocaine plants.

But they don't, they've realized that even if the criminals activities were legalized, the negativities to wider society would outweigh the cash they bring in.

The same applies to most of the activities of the square mile.

I've realized this, given the whole host of costs that the financial sector have imposed on society, via numerous frauds, money laundering, political and regulatory capture, financial dutch disease, brain drain, and not to mention knocking off 7% off GDP.

Why haven't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where we fundamentally disagree. I would arrest the banking fraudsters car thieves and outlaw their activity.

By your reasoning columbia should legalize growing cocaine plants.

But they don't, they've realized that even if the criminals activities were legalized, the negativities to wider society would outweigh the cash they bring in.

The same applies to most of the activities of the square mile.

I've realized this, given the whole host of costs that the financial sector have imposed on society, via numerous frauds, money laundering, political and regulatory capture, financial dutch disease, brain drain, and not to mention knocking off 7% off GDP.

Why haven't you?

Again I repeat that I wouldn't start from here. In fact I would have started down the route you suggest before bail outs.

That said, maybe I have realised the truth of the case you make and maybe I have also realised that the system is rigged against that view. In fact there were a couple of clues to that in 2008, including the already referred to £45n bailout. More such clues keep coming thick and fast. I have realised that the 'powers that be' are intent on keeping banking going, essentially in the same format. I have also realised that creates a number of profitable opportunities for me and for the UK economy. Why haven't you?

Anyway, starting from where we are, I stand by the view that spending another £20k (which really is an inconsequential sum in government terms) in an effort to keep bankers on UK PAYE liable payrolls is no bad thing, given the realistic alternative is that they will ply their trade from somewhere else if the UK's environment becomes less fiscally attractive to them in comparison.

Unless and until banking as an industry changes globally, that is where we are. You and I may dislike that, but the sum of our efforts to change it will be nil

Colombia wouldn't benefit from the legalisation of cocaine production unless the (majority of) the rest of the world went along with that and, thereby, created a legal market for cocaine.

Edited by JPJPJP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have also realised that creates a number of profitable opportunities for me and for the UK economy. Why haven't you?

For me the UK banking sector is like a brilliant but pyromaniac salesman who generates fantastic profits for a decade- then burns down the business.

At what point do the rebuilding costs in terms of both money and emotional stress make him a liability?

We survived the last banking crisis- can you guarantee we will survive the next? Judging by the increasingly high media profile of the FSCS deposit guarantee* scheme at least some people in government are getting a bit nervous about what may be coming down the pipe.

* And I call your attention to the fact that the word 'Guarantee' has been replaced in all cases by the word 'compensation'- which may be no more than evidence of a more literate copy writer at work- or may be born from a desire to create the extra political maneuvering room that using the term 'guarantee' tends to shut down.

By which I mean that if I get only half my money back I have still been 'compensated' in part for it's loss- whereas if I come up short by one penny then any 'guarantee' has in fact failed- a subtle distinction not worth making? The FSCS don't seem to share this sanguine view- otherwise they would not have expunged the term 'guarantee' from their lexicon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.