Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
New banking scam
Quote by flower411Someone has, but.....
I heard another Conservative policy today and I have to say it`s confused the hell out of me !!!!
They are proposing that when the banks are making money again tax payers should be offered the shares currently owned by the government, at a reduced price.
Now, I thought we as tax payers already owned the banks so letting us buy shares at any price just means we would be paying twice !!!
Have I got the wrong end of the stick again ??
Think about it.
If the shares are sold at full market value, over five to seven years, all the money will go back into the Treasury to be used for the benefit of the whole country.
If they're sold off at a discount to those who have enough money to buy them then the benefit will be divided unequally between the treasury, which will benefit all of us, and the people who've got enough spare money to buy the shares, who'll be getting them for less than they're worth. So people who have no money to buy shares with will get less benefit from the Tory scheme than people who have.
Tell Sid, it's a ripoff.
Quote by awaymanSomeone has, but.....
I heard another Conservative policy today and I have to say it`s confused the hell out of me !!!!
They are proposing that when the banks are making money again tax payers should be offered the shares currently owned by the government, at a reduced price.
Now, I thought we as tax payers already owned the banks so letting us buy shares at any price just means we would be paying twice !!!
Have I got the wrong end of the stick again ??
Think about it.
If the shares are sold at full market value, over five to seven years, all the money will go back into the Treasury to be used for the benefit of the whole country.
If they're sold off at a discount to those who have enough money to buy them then the benefit will be divided unequally between the treasury, which will benefit all of us, and the people who've got enough spare money to buy the shares, who'll be getting them for less than they're worth. So people who have no money to buy shares with will get less benefit from the Tory scheme than people who have.
Tell Sid, it's a ripoff.
I find myself in agreement with this reply. At first a tear comes to the eye as you think of all the poor taxpayers (like me and thousands of others) sharing in future bank bonus payments - then the reality kicks in, it's a cheap deal for those with spare cash to invest (probably traditional Tories in the main) leaving "GB Ltd." poorer by selling it's bank shares off at less than value.
Plim :mad:
Sex God
Politicians trying to buy votes ????never!!!
Quote by awaymanSomeone has, but.....
I heard another Conservative policy today and I have to say it`s confused the hell out of me !!!!
They are proposing that when the banks are making money again tax payers should be offered the shares currently owned by the government, at a reduced price.
Now, I thought we as tax payers already owned the banks so letting us buy shares at any price just means we would be paying twice !!!
Have I got the wrong end of the stick again ??
Think about it.
If the shares are sold at full market value, over five to seven years, all the money will go back into the Treasury to be used for the benefit of the whole country.
If they're sold off at a discount to those who have enough money to buy them then the benefit will be divided unequally between the treasury, which will benefit all of us, and the people who've got enough spare money to buy the shares, who'll be getting them for less than they're worth. So people who have no money to buy shares with will get less benefit from the Tory scheme than people who have.
Tell Sid, it's a ripoff.
So I take it you won't be investing in it on principle then?
From what I have read about it, the plans are still being drawn up but it is expected that people will be offered shares worth between a few hundred and a few thousand pounds at a discounted price.
Shares would be offered through the Isa scheme and cheaper deals would be offered to young people and families on low incomes. There could also be special discounts for parents saving for their children.
It doesn't sound as if it's a Tory get rich quick scheme for their mates, rather more of a vote buying scheme, as Staggers suggests.
Quote by Max777Someone has, but.....
I heard another Conservative policy today and I have to say it`s confused the hell out of me !!!!
They are proposing that when the banks are making money again tax payers should be offered the shares currently owned by the government, at a reduced price.
Now, I thought we as tax payers already owned the banks so letting us buy shares at any price just means we would be paying twice !!!
Have I got the wrong end of the stick again ??
Think about it.
If the shares are sold at full market value, over five to seven years, all the money will go back into the Treasury to be used for the benefit of the whole country.
If they're sold off at a discount to those who have enough money to buy them then the benefit will be divided unequally between the treasury, which will benefit all of us, and the people who've got enough spare money to buy the shares, who'll be getting them for less than they're worth. So people who have no money to buy shares with will get less benefit from the Tory scheme than people who have.
Tell Sid, it's a ripoff.
So I take it you won't be investing in it on principle then?
From what I have read about it, the plans are still being drawn up but it is expected that people will be offered shares worth between a few hundred and a few thousand pounds at a discounted price.
Shares would be offered through the Isa scheme and cheaper deals would be offered to young people and families on low incomes. There could also be special discounts for parents saving for their children.
It doesn't sound as if it's a Tory get rich quick scheme for their mates, rather more of a vote buying scheme, as Staggers suggests.
Principles aren't a dirty concept Max.
Any time you sell something you exclude people who don't have the money. It's like the old joke about the Ritz hotel - anyone can eat there, so long as they can afford the bill.
Quote by Max777Someone has, but.....
I heard another Conservative policy today and I have to say it`s confused the hell out of me !!!!
They are proposing that when the banks are making money again tax payers should be offered the shares currently owned by the government, at a reduced price.
Now, I thought we as tax payers already owned the banks so letting us buy shares at any price just means we would be paying twice !!!
Have I got the wrong end of the stick again ??
Think about it.
If the shares are sold at full market value, over five to seven years, all the money will go back into the Treasury to be used for the benefit of the whole country.
If they're sold off at a discount to those who have enough money to buy them then the benefit will be divided unequally between the treasury, which will benefit all of us, and the people who've got enough spare money to buy the shares, who'll be getting them for less than they're worth. So people who have no money to buy shares with will get less benefit from the Tory scheme than people who have.
Tell Sid, it's a ripoff.
So I take it you won't be investing in it on principle then?
From what I have read about it, the plans are still being drawn up but it is expected that people will be offered shares worth between a few hundred and a few thousand pounds at a discounted price.
Shares would be offered through the Isa scheme and cheaper deals would be offered to young people and families on low incomes. There could also be special discounts for parents saving for their children.
It doesn't sound as if it's a Tory get rich quick scheme for their mates, rather more of a vote buying scheme, as Staggers suggests.
The thoughts of Plim:
But purchase of shares is not something for the lower income groups whereas all taxpayers have contributed to the bank bail out (I know that it could be argued that higher tax payers had paid more). Regarding purchases of investments for children, these should in general be more broad based to give a spread rather than in one particular organisation and that's only for any excess over safe fixed interest e.g. in the Building Society.
Not sure if the idea will appeal to voters or not to be honest. :dunno:
Plim
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
Quote by Anotherjimbo
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Quote by awayman
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Quote by Max777
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
Quote by Anotherjimbo
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
Actually it stopped short of full ownership, that is in the sense of Nationalisation. This appeared weakness on the Government's part, but to be honest, it would probably have been unacceptable to some international investors.
I think the Banks with State money should be broken up and the good bits sold off quickly to get money back for the taxpayer. To be frank there wasn't a lot wrong with Nat West, till the RBofS took advantage of their weakness after the failed merger with Legal and General (an insurer) - which, incidently failed due to interference of the Monopoly people (a Government Agency).
Plim :sad:
Quote by awayman
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
Quote by Max777
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
Like MP's
I am a lot more bothered by the banks total greed with regard to bonuses they will pay themselves to be honest.
Whatever this Government did or not do with regards to the banks, we won't see any benefit even if the shares were sold for twenty times what they are worth.
What I do know is that come what may we will all suffer because of it.
It will be an excuse for years to come for whatever Government is in power, to use this as an excuse to cut public services.
It is a no win situation for Joe the taxpayer.
Whatever this Government did or not do with regards to the banks, we won't see any benefit even if the shares were sold for twenty times what they are worth.
What I do know is that come what may we will all suffer because of it.
It will be an excuse for years to come for whatever Government is in power, to use this as an excuse to cut public services.
It is a no win situation for Joe the taxpayer.
I like this idea quite a lot ... why ?
When Good Ole' Gordy used MY tax to bail the banks out, I had no say in the matter, and what's worse - I'll be paying it back for the next decade too.
If Cameron says, "OK, I'll give you a chance to get some of your money back" (buy cheaper shares and then either sell them or wait for a dividend), then I'm all for it.
At least he's given me a choice.
And.... if the banks continue to make obscene profits, as a shareholder, you get paid a share of that profit - excellent, I might offset some of the f*cking huge tax bill I know I'll get (to pay off the deficit Gordon 'Frown' generated). Oh, I'll also maybe use them to combat inflated prices (yup, check the RPI/CPI) because let's face it, I know I'm unlikely to get a pay rise for a while.
And..... before anyone else cries "Rich getting richer" - well no actually - it's TAXpayers being given a chance to offset the huge mess we now have as a legacy of a badly planned bank recovery with no thought of how to offset the deficit.
NB: The only other alternative is to stop spending on public services or TAX ME EVEN MORE.
When Good Ole' Gordy used MY tax to bail the banks out, I had no say in the matter, and what's worse - I'll be paying it back for the next decade too.
If Cameron says, "OK, I'll give you a chance to get some of your money back" (buy cheaper shares and then either sell them or wait for a dividend), then I'm all for it.
At least he's given me a choice.
And.... if the banks continue to make obscene profits, as a shareholder, you get paid a share of that profit - excellent, I might offset some of the f*cking huge tax bill I know I'll get (to pay off the deficit Gordon 'Frown' generated). Oh, I'll also maybe use them to combat inflated prices (yup, check the RPI/CPI) because let's face it, I know I'm unlikely to get a pay rise for a while.
And..... before anyone else cries "Rich getting richer" - well no actually - it's TAXpayers being given a chance to offset the huge mess we now have as a legacy of a badly planned bank recovery with no thought of how to offset the deficit.
NB: The only other alternative is to stop spending on public services or TAX ME EVEN MORE.
Quote by Max777
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
You appear to believe that when I said 'them' I was referring to banks. I wasn't. I was referring to the shares.
Quote by awayman
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
You appear to believe that when I said 'them' I was referring to banks. I wasn't. I was referring to the shares.
No, I realised you meant the shares......"we" still didn't buy them.
Quote by Max777
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
You appear to believe that when I said 'them' I was referring to banks. I wasn't. I was referring to the shares.
No, I realised you meant the shares......"we" still didn't buy them.
We got the shares in return for value; in what way is that not a purchase?
Quote by awayman
How I think it works....
The Government gives our money to the banks to bail them out. It's not a loan (because they can't pay it back) so the Government takes ownership of the bank, or most of it. We now own the bank.
But the Government needs to get "our" money back so later it sells the part of the bank it owns to anyone who wants to buy the shares and takes the money and pays it back into the Treasury where it originally was paid out from. We don't pay twice because only those who want to own the shares will buy them, and hopefully, at a price the Government makes a profit.
It sounds straightforward, (but have I missed something?)
that's fine as long as the shares are sold at full market value, not a discount.
Surely, as long as they are sold for as much as they cost, no taxpayers will have lost out? Anything more is a bonus, whether discounted or not.
Nope. We bought them when no-one else wanted them. People are losing their jobs this year because of the mess the bankers made. It would be betraying those people, and all the people who'll have worse services as a result of public spending cuts caused by the cost of bailing out the banks if we didn't maximize the value of those shares.
The government did not "buy" them, it took part ownership in return for bailing them out. I doubt the actual end numbers of the discounted shares divided by 60 million would be significant, certainly not as significant as the alleged £12 billion that the government gave away by reducing the VAT rate to 15%....an act that did nothing to stimulate the economy and benefited those with greater spending power.
You appear to believe that when I said 'them' I was referring to banks. I wasn't. I was referring to the shares.
No, I realised you meant the shares......"we" still didn't buy them.
We got the shares in return for value; in what way is that not a purchase?we ? the government committed tax revenue future and present to cover liabilities greater than the banks assets. buying the banks shares at value or asking price would not have covered those banks liabilities. the government has purchased debt/liabilities the sum total of which has yet to be discovered. the total debt will be in the trillions.
"we" did not buy shares either nor did her majesties government, nor the private central bank of england.
