for the bankers.
So there you have it. What did the Labour government do to the bankers for nearly bringing the country to its knees? Bugger all. At least they brought in a 3 billion plus tax of the banks which they were looking to extend to make it a yearly event.
What did Cameron and Cleggie do? Well Clause 1 in their coalition agreement document in May was "detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector"
What has happened since? Bugger all apart from a bank levy that is expected to bring in ?1.25 bn a year. So considering this is substantially less than what Labour levied and if you take into account the Tories measures to reduce corporation tax, the bankers are quids in. Cameron stated yesterday that he was not going to interfere in bank bonuses.
Are we surprised? No. But as the Tory led government carries on redistributing money from the poor to the rich, if the Lib Dems dont discover their backbone (no sign yet) its going to be a long 5 years playmates.
Cheers
D
Cameron and Cleggie bend over....
Re: Cameron and Cleggie bend over....
David
Do you not know that the bankers bonuses will be taxed at over 50%, as most of them are already earning ?100k +.
So if the banks give out bonuses of ? 7 billion (which is one figure put out there by the papers) then the tax man will get ? 3.5 billion.
That ? 3.5 billion might even pay for the MPs expenses this year.
Do you not know that the bankers bonuses will be taxed at over 50%, as most of them are already earning ?100k +.
So if the banks give out bonuses of ? 7 billion (which is one figure put out there by the papers) then the tax man will get ? 3.5 billion.
That ? 3.5 billion might even pay for the MPs expenses this year.
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Cameron and Cleggie bend over....
DJ, in thr grand scale of things the heads of the banks and people like Green, Branson and the bosses of Glaxo, Shell, BP, Centrica and two or three other mega corps have far more clout than any chancellor. If Ozzy was too harsh on the banks they could retaliate by hiking interest on government borrowing and that would hurt all of us. High bonuses are morally wrong but these boys will spend a fair chunk and hopefully keep British businesses like luxury goods makers in healthy profit.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Bernard....
"Do you not know that the bankers bonuses will be taxed at over 50%, as most of them are already earning ?100k +."
I know how big a part in the overall tax take, the banking industry plays. And your remarks are true about any extremely well paid person.
However what is different about the banking industry is that it was the workers in the "casino" part of the banking sector who tend to get these huge bonuses that brought the global financial system to the point of collapse.
This resulted in the UK taxpayer forking out ?800 billion in bailouts and further money to underwrite future losses. Two years on and the banks are carrying on as if nothing has happened with huge bonuses whereas the public sector workers and those in the private sector who depend on public sector spend are taking huge cuts and job losses even though they had absolutely no part in the global recession being created.
If that is fair and progressive (two very frequently used words in the current government) I'm Kylie Minogue.
Cheers
D
I know how big a part in the overall tax take, the banking industry plays. And your remarks are true about any extremely well paid person.
However what is different about the banking industry is that it was the workers in the "casino" part of the banking sector who tend to get these huge bonuses that brought the global financial system to the point of collapse.
This resulted in the UK taxpayer forking out ?800 billion in bailouts and further money to underwrite future losses. Two years on and the banks are carrying on as if nothing has happened with huge bonuses whereas the public sector workers and those in the private sector who depend on public sector spend are taking huge cuts and job losses even though they had absolutely no part in the global recession being created.
If that is fair and progressive (two very frequently used words in the current government) I'm Kylie Minogue.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Arginald
"DJ, in thr grand scale of things the heads of the banks and people like Green, Branson and the bosses of Glaxo, Shell, BP, Centrica and two or three other mega corps have far more clout than any chancellor."
Agreed. In that case best not to have it as point 1 in the government's coalition agreement that they are going to bring forward "robust plans on dealing with bankers' bonuses".
"If Ozzy was too harsh on the banks they could retaliate by hiking interest on government borrowing and that would hurt all of us"
Too harsh? No-one could accuse the government of that. In effect, they have given the banks an enormous tax cut in the sense that the Labour government introduced a levy that brought in over ?3 billion and the Tory/Lib Dem one is estimated to bring in ?1.25 billion a year. In addition the current government has announced substantial cuts in corporation tax. In short, the government have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reflect the fact that the global recession was caused by casino banking and that whilst bankers carry on as if nothing has happened the rest of us who inhabit the world of the average wage get shafted.
If the government had at least shown the merest sign of a backbone by actually giving the banking sector an overall tax increase then the banking sector could hardly have moaned about that in the light of what is happening in other sectors.
Cheers
D
Agreed. In that case best not to have it as point 1 in the government's coalition agreement that they are going to bring forward "robust plans on dealing with bankers' bonuses".
"If Ozzy was too harsh on the banks they could retaliate by hiking interest on government borrowing and that would hurt all of us"
Too harsh? No-one could accuse the government of that. In effect, they have given the banks an enormous tax cut in the sense that the Labour government introduced a levy that brought in over ?3 billion and the Tory/Lib Dem one is estimated to bring in ?1.25 billion a year. In addition the current government has announced substantial cuts in corporation tax. In short, the government have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reflect the fact that the global recession was caused by casino banking and that whilst bankers carry on as if nothing has happened the rest of us who inhabit the world of the average wage get shafted.
If the government had at least shown the merest sign of a backbone by actually giving the banking sector an overall tax increase then the banking sector could hardly have moaned about that in the light of what is happening in other sectors.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Yawnfuck - the Tory narrative
"We wouldn't even need to have this debate and be grabbing a paltry 3 billion if Labour hadn't wasted 10's of billions year after year continuing to borrow when the economy was booming, we should have a massive surplus on standby now ready to kick start the economy with HUGE tax cuts but Labour spent it all."
I am familiar with the Tory narrative which you outline here. As is everyone who drifts into a deep sleep for 30 secs when any Tory?Lib Dem minister speaks whilst the "Of course we wouldnt have to do this if the Labour government hadnt left us in this dreadful mess" etc etc. is mentioned robot-like.
However the Tory narrative is clearly nonsense.
If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008 when Lehmans collapsed? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time? Could it be because things were not actually that bad?
It is a question of fact that Britain entered this financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country.
Some will say that Labour, nevertheless, bore some particular responsibility ? if not for the crisis itself then for Britain's exposure to it, not least through Brown's indulgence of the City and light-touch regulation of finance. Some can say that ? but not the Tories. The only problem they had with Brown's deregulation is that there wasn't more of it. One small reminder: Cameron endorsed John Redwood's 2007 report on competitiveness which declared that there was "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision ? this just as the contagion of sub-prime mortgages was about to take down the world banking system.
Which brings us to the real source of the deficit: the colossal borrowing Labour had to undertake in order to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy. The party has to insist that it wasn't spending for the hell of it or because it was incontinent with the public's cash. It had to pump money into the economy to prevent a recession turning into a depression, to prevent the spiralling unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies that had accompanied previous downturns, to stop the banks collapsing.
Cheers
D
I am familiar with the Tory narrative which you outline here. As is everyone who drifts into a deep sleep for 30 secs when any Tory?Lib Dem minister speaks whilst the "Of course we wouldnt have to do this if the Labour government hadnt left us in this dreadful mess" etc etc. is mentioned robot-like.
However the Tory narrative is clearly nonsense.
If Labour's spending was so wildly out of control, why did the Tories promise to match their plans, pound for pound, all the way until November 2008 when Lehmans collapsed? Why didn't Osborne and Cameron howl in protest at the time? Could it be because things were not actually that bad?
It is a question of fact that Britain entered this financial crisis with low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any large G7 country.
Some will say that Labour, nevertheless, bore some particular responsibility ? if not for the crisis itself then for Britain's exposure to it, not least through Brown's indulgence of the City and light-touch regulation of finance. Some can say that ? but not the Tories. The only problem they had with Brown's deregulation is that there wasn't more of it. One small reminder: Cameron endorsed John Redwood's 2007 report on competitiveness which declared that there was "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision ? this just as the contagion of sub-prime mortgages was about to take down the world banking system.
Which brings us to the real source of the deficit: the colossal borrowing Labour had to undertake in order to prevent the crash of 2008 engulfing the entire economy. The party has to insist that it wasn't spending for the hell of it or because it was incontinent with the public's cash. It had to pump money into the economy to prevent a recession turning into a depression, to prevent the spiralling unemployment, house repossessions and bankruptcies that had accompanied previous downturns, to stop the banks collapsing.
Cheers
D
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Yawnfuck - the Tory narrative
You miss the point.
The point is that:
1. the spending was not out of control under the Labour government. In fact it was less of a problem than in the majority of Thatchers years in power.
2. if you adapted your spending to take into account the possible, imminent collapse of the world financial system and subsequent worst global recession for nearly a century for every year you were in power, government would be paralysed in terms of spending.
3. the Tory policy of blaming everything on Labour is factually incorrect, dishonest and providing cover to their ideological driven policy of smashing the public sector.
Thats the point
Cheers
D
The point is that:
1. the spending was not out of control under the Labour government. In fact it was less of a problem than in the majority of Thatchers years in power.
2. if you adapted your spending to take into account the possible, imminent collapse of the world financial system and subsequent worst global recession for nearly a century for every year you were in power, government would be paralysed in terms of spending.
3. the Tory policy of blaming everything on Labour is factually incorrect, dishonest and providing cover to their ideological driven policy of smashing the public sector.
Thats the point
Cheers
D