I have hear today that they are pressing for a hefty "Robin Hood Tax" (quote) on the banks. The figures, depending on which source you listen to, is between £30Bn and £40Bn!
DUUUUURR!!!
These people are so commercially unaware!
I'm convinced that their mission is to destroy the country.
I find it highly amusing that Ed. Milliband only won the leadership contest because he's the darling of the paymasters of the Labour party - the unions.
If you saw Dispatches on Ch4 tonight, you would have got a flavour of how they support their loyal female members.
Socialist ideology has some merits, but in the real world it can never ever work.
It just amazes me how people think it might!
Could be amusing to see the Government tax RBS profits given that it owns 80% of RBS anyway 😀
You're confusing the Unions with the European Union - or is it the ConDems?
I'm sure Cameron is planning a tax on his mates in the banks.
Hard to see how a 0.5% tax on certain transactions will damage the industry......
The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on banks, hedge funds and other finance institutions that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.It can start as low as 0.005 per cent – and average 0.05 per cent . But when levied on the billions of pounds sloshing round the global finance system every day through transactions such as foreign exchange, derivatives trading and share deals, it can raise hundreds of billions of pounds every year.
Idiot Unions! I have hear today that they are pressing for a hefty "Robin Hood Tax" (quote) on the banks.
Gosh, that's very worrying Spongebob .......... do you know whether the Con-Lib government has agreed yet ?
a 0.5% tax on the capital value of a trade will put a halt to massive volumes of trades that make marginal returns. if the 0.5% was applied to capital gains on trades then no problem. But they're not the same thing.
This then opens the question about the "social function" of fast paced marginal trades since they dont actually provide the hedging or liquidity function that capitalists like me consider as being the most important part of financial market activity. They are simply short term gamble trades and Id be happy for them to be made substantially less viable by a tax.
Unions could have a constructive place to play in modern UK workplaces and politics, but they are partly stuck in the past and partly out for all they can get for themselves like the bankers. Thatcher should have crushed them a bit harder ;-), or the could modernise properly
I'm convinced that their mission is to destroy the country.
Yeah, but let's be honest; you're hardly rational, objective and particularly well informed when it comes to this sort of thing, are you? I'm only going by your previous track record btw.
I dare say the likes of TJ and Ernie will be along to enlighten you shortly.
In the meantime, how about some nice music?
EDIT Oh there's Ernie. I din't see he'd arrived, as I was busy choosing some nice music.
More like idiot Spongebob - sounds as though you're the one who needs educating..........'destroy the country'(who's country?) - discuss ; 'socialist ideology has some merits but in the real world it can never ever work' - which socialist ideology ('oh, they're all the same') and how well does capitalism work for 90% of the real world population?
Be specific, avoid stereotypes, and think out of the box (or perhaps cage in your case).
I'm convinced that their mission is to destroy the country.
Sorry are you talking about the banks?
Can and worms comes to mind! Or general flame in the direction of the op?
Al Quaeda?
none of you lot give a **** about people
I do Kev. 🙁
none of you lot give a **** about me.
Too f##king right ................ the Tories are back in.
It's dog eat dog now mate.
yeh, I know you do mate, some lovely people on here, some boring shite mind.
Boring, from the horses mouth.....
What music did you choose elfin? Linky not working on I phone (capitalist piece of technology)? Was it something mellow?
Shall we have some music instead of all this boring politics shite?
[url=
it was Henry Purcell's 'Funeral March for Queen Mary' actually, as used in 'A Clockwork Orange'.[/url]
Twice now elfin! Capitalist I phone wants me to pay to listen via I tunes obviously!
Ah, in't it because iPhone don't do Flash? In't there a YouTube app?
capitalist piece of technology to be sure
well considering the bank collapse wiped how many billions off the value of all our pensions among other things
it would be nice of them to try and contribute toward cleaning up their mess
No you have to do it like this now Kev innit?
You do need skilz dem though.
You guys are spoiling Spongebob's thread..............bugger off and start your own thread if you want to listen to your poncy music 👿
The geezer's trying to have a rant about the unions.
......what are going to destroy our country.
Flash-Saviour Of The Universe.
Nice, see what you did there. 😆
I've found some YouTube vids'll play, others won't; not sure why, I guess not everythings been coded for H.265 yet.
ernie, what would you be doing without the internet? just asking. I'd be going to sleep with a nice dog.
yes by cunningly electing the leader of the opposition ..It is a genius plan and as well thought out as the OP's post
Dont know how to do that you tube thing can you post up Paranoid ?
I agree it is outrageous to make the people who got us in this sh1t, who we baled out with our money, actually contribute to the sh1t we are in. Surely the only sensible approach to this is to encourage them to lend and cut public services.
kimbers - Member
well considering the bank collapse wiped how many billions off the value of all our pensions among other thingsit would be nice of them to try and contribute toward cleaning up their mess
The best way of doing that would be to allow them to get on and generate the sort of profits they were generating before? The share price would rise (good for the pension schemes) and the government would get even more money back off them (over and above the £30Bn they are going to get for not [i]actually[/i] handing over any of the tax-payers money).
Junkyard - Member
who we baled out with our money,
How much of [i]our[/i] money was used? Who got it? Where did it go?
The best way of doing that would be to allow them to get on and generate the sort of profits they were generating before?
I agree, but with the proviso that they are on a very tight leash this time.
So - we can agree that the FSA is one QUANGO which has to stay 🙂
You guys are spoiling Spongebob's thread
Yes but it's boring. It's the same shite every flipping day. Right-wingers having a pop at Unions/Lefites/Socialism etc, and the Lefties responding by having a pop at Capitalism/Greed/Selfishness/Thatcherism etc. I mean, come on, anyone with any sense ultimately knows the best solution is [b]Elfinism[/b], so I don't know why you all bother with the same old tired arguments. I mean, there are people on this thread who never appear on any thread unless it's got something to do with politics or the economy. Then it just descends into 'I'm cleverer than you ' bollocks. Which isn't really very clever, is it? Let's be honest.
There's a whole wonderful world of music, art and fun stuff out there, and you sit there arguing about faecal policies or the need for Anal Retention or some such rubbish. Jeeze.
See me in me pants n' ting...
[img] 
[/img]
How much of our money was used? LOTS *
Who got it? BANKS
Where did it go? BANKS
*The commitments include buying £76bn of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group; indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.
there are people on this thread who never appear on any thread unless it's got something to do with politics or the economy. Then it just descends into 'I'm cleverer than you ' bollocks. Which isn't really very clever, is it? Let's be honest.
Pleads guilty and awaits the justice of Elfinism
the dog's tagen over
Junkyard - Member
Which is estimated to make around £30Bn profit for HMG.*The commitments include buying £76bn of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group;
indemnifying the Bank of England against losses incurred in providing more than £200bn of liquidity support; guaranteeing up to £250bn of wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity; providing £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford and Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and insurance cover of over £280bn for bank assets.
Read what you wrote. How much money did the Government [i]actually[/i] outlay??
Oooh, I love a good music thread:
That Toni Basil's let herself go hasn't she?
idiot unions...
Unions could have a constructive place to play in modern UK workplaces and politics, but they are partly stuck in the past
I think it's certain people's thinking who are stuck in the past when it comes to unions. The light touch regulated financial sector has just recently(but some have conveniently forgotten) brought this country to it's knee's in a way that unions could never ever hope to achieve.
Perhaps it's time for some union style laws to be brought in to keep the financial sector in check? It worked against the unions after all.
Then it just descends into 'I'm cleverer than you ' bollocks. Which isn't really very clever, is it?
yes it is, because we are. Now take your mockney somewhere else. 😉
No it's not because you're not.
'Mockney'? 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
Can I just ask if the Unions will use death rays or star charms to destroy the country?
more likely an air [I]strike[/i]
Ha! Good one!
Jesus Christ! Why have you drugged their unions!? (sorry that should be onions)
For me the tobin trax is a good idae ass stonder says.
Its about making mariginal trades that do nothing but gerente commisions unprofitable adn to reduce currency speculations.
Its such a low level that it will do nothing to alter the basic structure and functions of the backs but will stop manipulation of the markets to generate commisions.
http://lexicon.ft.com/term.asp?t=Tobin-tax
altho Tobiun himself recanted its an idea that is considered useful by many - on the left and the right.
😆more likely an air strike
Although mother nature in the form of an Icelandic volcano did a better job. Useless unions.
Druidh what point are you trying to make here? Did we bale the sector out or not? What is the point debating how many hundreds of billions it has costs so far and how many oit may costs overall . Can we just agree it was a lot -at least the size of the defecit so far?
junkyard - druids point is it hasnt cost much at all. The big numbers bandied about are only security figures - ie guarntees. They do not represent cash cost to the tax payer unless they are called upon. And as it unwinds the rate of default is turning out relatively modest all things considered. The actual cost to the taxpayer is a very small fraction of the numbers that are talked about. In the case of RBS, the work out will actually deliver a profit to the taxpayer.
The best way of doing that would be to allow them to get on and generate the sort of profits they were generating before?
You mean until the next crash happens?
Also, saying 'it hasn't cost us much at all' is a bit disingenuous. It shouldn't have cost us a penny, and hasn't the damage to the economy cost us?
I agree - I dont think there should have been any bank share purchases by the governement. But Im a "swivel eyed capitalist"* apparently so what do I know?
* according to the all knowing TJ
😯druids point is it hasnt cost much at all
Will save that quote for when we spend a few quid on benefits. So £100 billion is not that much? The fact we may one day make a profit on RBS.....is that an argument for nationlising industry from you 😉
How much would it have cost to rescue mining, the steel industry etc.
One rule for us one rule for them clearly. Why did we have to pay for the banks but not for manufacturing?
Junkyard - all the governemnt have done is swap one asset (the capcity to issue £100bn of debt in the future) with another asset £100+bn of shares in banks that are currenlty worth somewhat more. It has "cost" nothing unless the asset value of the shares falls below the original purchase price - which given they were toilet when the govt bough tthem shoul dbe pretty unlikely, esp as both banks are returning to profitability and better valuation methodology.
... And as it unwinds the rate of default is turning out relatively modest all things considered.
see, that's what confuses me most about all this - crashing stock markets, disappearing corporations, not because they've suddenly become so worthless but because a few thousand people in banks react like a flock of starlings to any stimulus. Massive swings that serve no purpose that I can see other than to allow their own buying and selling to make margins.
so we did not actually pay for the shares then no money changed hands tell me more. How can I invest in a company like this - that is without it costing me anything.
EDIT?: it is disingenious in the extreme to suggest that the banking crisis has cost us very little. Clearly it has brought the country to its knees it is why we need to cut public services etc
One of the reasons for the basle III capital adequacy requirements is to creat a buffer of liquid capital to prevent asset markets getting bound up which in turn increases the volatility of pricing.
Its worth remembering that at some point its quite feasible to have a spike fall in a a share price where as little as £100 of shares were traded but in theory can wipe £bns off the "valuation" of the company until another trade at a more reasonble price comes along.
It works in the other direction too - when Porsche suddenly became the most valuable company in the world - twas very funny.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,587247,00.html
JY - the government bought shares. They now own shares greater in value than the amount spent on them. The taxpayer now owns assets greater than the value of the obligation to pay interest on the loans the govenrment will have taken to acquire the shares. It has "cost" us nothing in terms of national wealth. The government also underwrote some assets held by other banks - unless those assets cristalise in value at a loss (some will but by no means 100% of the asset value being guaranteed as some of the papers would make you believe by the way they write about it) that too wont cost us a great deal as capital values recover over the medium term - utterly toxic assets were not guarnateed. Finally the government issued bonds at a depressed value to assist in liquidity, that arguable too wont have cost us anything as it was a money supply issue not a government expenditure one. I dont see why you need to be so obtuse about it. The structural deficit which really is an ongoing cost to the government is a much bigger problem.
The structural deficit which really is an ongoing cost to the government is a much bigger problem.
Isn't the structural deficit suddenly much more of a problem because of the recession caused by the banking crisis affecting government revenue?
You seem to be suggesting the banks haven't really done anything wrong or caused any problems at all. 😕
grum - not at all, theres plenty the banks have got wrong - specifically the mis-valuation of some assets. Shareholders should take the hit for losses in revaluation, and to a great extent they did. Illiquidity also ads to valuation problems (if you cant sell something, becuase there's no buyers with cash, the price continues to fall) so there's an issue with capital adequacy (internationally, not just UK) which needs to be addressed by Basle III.
The structural deficit explained for you:
Is it sturdy?The budget deficit measures the gap between tax receipts and public spending. This must be bridged through borrowing, which the Treasury predicts will hit £163bn this year.
The structural deficit is a more elusive concept, however.
It is the share of the budget deficit that would remain even after the economy recovers to its normal levels of output.
One big reason why the UK has seen such dramatic budget blowouts is we have seen a 6% crash in gross domestic product.
This hammers tax revenues and pushes up welfare payments.
In theory some of this deficit should disappear when the recession ends. But there is likely to be a residual, structural element that is driven by basic government profligacy.
Public spending commitments are simply outstripping the country's tax revenue-generating potential - even in good times.
The Treasury estimates the structural deficit will be 7.3% of GDP this year - out of a total deficit of 11.1%.
(the point about the structural deficit is that it's not a recession issue, but a permanent disjoint between revenue and planned expenditure)
I am being obtuse? You seem to be suggesting none of this is the banks fault and that we did not actually "DO" or pay anything to help them out at all. That we have made money out the banking crisis [ should we be thanking the bankers?
[url= http://www.****/news/article-1312241/Bank-chief-Mervyn-King-tells-TUC-We-let-economy-slip.html ]Here have an article from the Dail Mail with the schair of the B of E speaking about it That right wing enough for you?[/url]
EDIT I dont think anyone is arguing you can spend more than you earn ad infinitium but your figure show the recession,caused by the banks hit us at 7 % GDP and the other spending was fiscal stimulus in response to the downturn? It seems clear the banks are to blame now we are in this position we have to do somehting. The banks, now in profit, should help out. Does this seem reasonable to you ?Should we just make the public sector workers pay via unemployment?
You seem to be suggesting none of this is the banks fault
No I dont.
And if that's the level of your argument then Im not playing anymore.
Stoner - is there any future plan for the government to 'cash in' the public shares and assets? I assume at some point in the future UK plc should be due a giant payback.
Stoner, I agree about the VW story. When I heard about it I thought it was funny too, or more specifically, laughable.
Doesn't it seem pathetic to you that such blatantly ludicrous outcomes can result from a day's buying and selling (or more specifically some <unfair insult> gambling badly on price fluctuations and getting caught out)?
How can that system possibly help business (aside from it's own activities)?
I don't pretend to understand the markets but, to a large extent, I see the way they currently operate as an offensive joke. Shame it can't be regulated "properly".
Im not playing anymore
😆
That's probbly the most mature thing anyone's said on this thread!
yes - there's certainly no tory appetite to hold bank shares any longer than neccessary. They wont want to dump the shares in massive volumes on the open market with prior announcement, unlike some idiot did with our gold reserves. BUT Osborne has suggested releasing the shares to the public by subuscription at a discount. A review of banking and bank structures though means that it wont happen for a year or so now anyway. But id expect the UK govt to be disinvested of both holdings by the end of 2012.
Doesn't it seem pathetic to you that such blatantly ludicrous outcomes can result from a day's buying and selling
day to day volatility in market pricing of investments shouldnt be anything that actually concerns the vast majority of people. The fact it happens isnt actually a problem. In fact tax on share trades (stamp duty) and profits is what has kept the exchequer ticking over. Tobin tax takes it a step further.
Crashes though are different and inevitable no matter, again, what rubbish some idiot from north of Hadrian's wall spouted.
banking reform wont even solve boom and bust either - every bust is followed by regulation designed to fix [i]that[/i] bust, not the next one which is inevitably unforeseen and almost by design cant be defined before the event.
ok, thanks.
can i ask another...
Why arn't banks forced to split high street & investment arms. That way if the high risk stuff went wrong the investment bank could be allowed to fall?
thats one of the options that the review is considering.
Some of the big banks though are threatening to take their investment arms off shore rather than have to sell off their retail activities though which would be a massive blow to the exchequer.
Couple of questions then Stoner, if I may ?
What proportion of sales is actually taxed?: These are terms I barely understand but... short-selling, derivatives, baskets rather than single stocks, direct trading between banks outside the stock markets etc ?
Could "they" calculate a variable levy based on volume of sales for a given stock (or market sector) to discourage bandwagonning whenever things start to move ?
..And why not have a Tobin tax (now I "know" what it is)?
On lunch pint, scared. Back in a bit
scaredy
No idea on volume of taxable trades - hmrc site may help you, but Stamp Duty is payable on share transactions. The thing is most city trades arent shares, but instead other investment types or contracts which arent covered - but would be by a Tobin Tax.
taxing by volume would be a very very bad thing. You dont want to make the market less liquid. Its bad enough with SDLT.
as I always sasy in these threads, if anyone is interested in undertanding a bit more about the money markets I highly recommend
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Money-Machine-How-City-Works/dp/0141042893/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1285686109&sr=8-1-fkmr0
[img] 
[/img]
Ive bought and lost it three times lending it to other people 😉
Very readable, kept up to date and gives a jargon free introduction to the machinations of financial markets.
Sad fact is the unions dont make the British economy anything. Big business etc etc helps drive the economy.
Why don't the Unions start thinking 'how can we help the country grow again'?
That isn't striking at BA either.
yes no company needs it employees recruitment is your calling I believe Hora 🙄
I find it highly amusing that Ed. Milliband only won the leadership contest because he's the darling of the paymasters of the Labour party - the unions.
PMSL - this coming from the supporter of a party so totally inept that they couldn't manage a creditable opposition to Bliar, and even when so ably assisted by Calamity Broon (I have outlawed boom and bust FFS) still could only manage to get power by teaming up with libdems.
spongebrain, if you could actually think for yourself, you'd give some frogspawn a run for it's money in a debating contest.
Stoner - MemberBut Im a "swivel eyed capitalist"* apparently so what do I know?
* according to the all knowing TJ
Not just TJ.
When I met you Stoner, I was struck by how remarkably simular you looked to this guy :
[img] 
[/img]
Whilst your bowler hat and business suit inspired an air of confidence, trustworthiness, and firm authority,
I couldn't help but feel a tinge of uncertainty when I looked into your eyes.
The correct phrase is "swivel eyed right wing loon" Think John Redwood
One of the banks who were taken over ( can't remember details) the investment arm made some billions profit. The few hundred folk who worked there wanted more than half as bonuses. - thats millions each.
That is one area that needs to be dealt with
iwas looking for the idiots union and now I found them
Some of the big banks though are threatening to take their investment arms off shore rather than have to sell off their retail activities though which would be a massive blow to the exchequer.
massive blow or not, if they want to go, let them. No more being held to ransom.
gives a jargon free introduction to the machinations of financial markets.
Hasn't helped you with your posts though 😉
Don't[banks already pay duty to her majesty on every trade?
Duty on every trade,
Liz is already paid.
Squeezing the banks?
Not too much, thanks,
I'm a capitalist pal, I'm afraid.
Yours,
D. Belstein
Find myself largely agreeing with you Stoner - I hope this doesn't make me a Tory!
Can't agree that Osborne won't find a way to completely screw up the sale of the various stakes though - I suspect that he will give them away to some tax-exiled drinking chums or something similar.