Northern Rock A certain loss for the Taxpayer What now?
Discussion
At the time of the collapse in 2008 I was actually walking past the que of 1000 investors in Colmnore Row Birmingham trying to get 5their money out of Northern Rock.
Then the Chancellor and the Government decided to ruin the country rather than the investors and bailed out Northern Rock at huge expense to the taxpayer.
And then within a few` months` all the other banks fell into the same mess and once again the taxpayer picked up the bill.
Now I think this is turning into an absolute disaster which we repeated with huge losses time after time.
THE TAPAYER SHOULD BE REPAID IN FULL OTHERWISE WE ARE SUBSIDISING THE BANKING INDUSTRY.
Banks will go on paying dividends and huge bonuses AND NEVER REPAY THE HUGE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT AND HUGE LOSS TO THE TAXPAYER.
This is tantamount to legalised fraud on a monumental scale.
What does everyone else think?
Then the Chancellor and the Government decided to ruin the country rather than the investors and bailed out Northern Rock at huge expense to the taxpayer.
And then within a few` months` all the other banks fell into the same mess and once again the taxpayer picked up the bill.
Now I think this is turning into an absolute disaster which we repeated with huge losses time after time.
THE TAPAYER SHOULD BE REPAID IN FULL OTHERWISE WE ARE SUBSIDISING THE BANKING INDUSTRY.
Banks will go on paying dividends and huge bonuses AND NEVER REPAY THE HUGE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT AND HUGE LOSS TO THE TAXPAYER.
This is tantamount to legalised fraud on a monumental scale.
What does everyone else think?
paulrockliffe said:
I think the full story was that the government would retain ownership of various loans that are profitable nd would see a profit when they're paid off.
Yep, that's certainly what the BBC reporter said on the news tonight. In fact he said it would be 'very profitable for the tax payer' (sic).hesnotthemessiah said:
Yep, that's certainly what the BBC reporter said on the news tonight. In fact he said it would be 'very profitable for the tax payer' (sic).
Well it's selling the good bank and keeping the bad bank ie low quality debt. You could make a profit you could make a loss.
Last time I checked the govt role was to run the country not to invest and make profits. Look where that dangerous game came from with councils investing in Iceland!!! Still don't get that one as council tax went up year on year yet they had billions in savings in iceland!!
Steffan said:
Then the Chancellor and the Government decided to ruin the country rather than the investors and bailed out Northern Rock at huge expense to the taxpayer.
Not true.Only a small part of our financial problems are due to the bank bailout cost.
IIRC the government bought shares in the banks and lent (not gave) them money and made additional funds available up to a very large number to ensure liquidity most of which was never used.
The bank's share holders, who own the banks, have taken an absolute hammering so they have not got away without losing anything.
How much it actually costs us will be apparent when the shares are all sold off and the money is paid back. Does anyone know the expected result?
cymtriks said:
Steffan said:
Then the Chancellor and the Government decided to ruin the country rather than the investors and bailed out Northern Rock at huge expense to the taxpayer.
Not true.Only a small part of our financial problems are due to the bank bailout cost.
IIRC the government bought shares in the banks and lent (not gave) them money and made additional funds available up to a very large number to ensure liquidity most of which was never used.
The bank's share holders, who own the banks, have taken an absolute hammering so they have not got away without losing anything.
How much it actually costs us will be apparent when the shares are all sold off and the money is paid back. Does anyone know the expected result?
The law of unintended consequences in Politics is the problem.
I am quite certain every Politician would prefer to do the right thing. In reality they cannot as a group organise a piss up in the proverbial and blunder from mistake to mistake..
These are not season hardened businessmen who have learnt their trade in the cut and thrust of business. These are privileged aristocrats (EG Tony Blair, Hilary Benn, David Cameron, George Osbourne, to name but four not to mention Nick Clegg etc none of whom have ever had a job in reality.
Public School to Oxbridge to political support staff or advertising agencies or public relation consultancies often in politics etc then to Politics without ever experiencing the hardship of real life.
They are clueless in the real word.
Brilliant with the autoque and a speech written by somebody else but useless in reality. Talk well acting like idiots.
Can anyone explain to me why we are allowing dividends to continue to be paid by insolvent Banks?
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Why on earth is the Taxpayer selling at a loss so that the buyers can make huge profits out of exactly the same businesses?
This is utter madness.
Why £4m a year?
That could be the going rate for that role - as such would you rather a far lesser experianced person in that role?
The salary is there to encourage good performance if it was much less then "meh" why bother.
Supply demand at the end of the day. You are talking about CEO's of some of the biggest banks in the World with vast sums and complex divisions to run.
Frankly you could make a bin man head of Tesco - might not be the best idea though
That could be the going rate for that role - as such would you rather a far lesser experianced person in that role?
The salary is there to encourage good performance if it was much less then "meh" why bother.
Supply demand at the end of the day. You are talking about CEO's of some of the biggest banks in the World with vast sums and complex divisions to run.
Frankly you could make a bin man head of Tesco - might not be the best idea though
Steffan said:
cymtriks said:
How much it actually costs us will be apparent when the shares are all sold off and the money is paid back. Does anyone know the expected result?
my answer is a huge amount which will burden the tapayers for 30+ years if in fact we are capable as a country of repaying this debt...In 1997 when Liarbore were elected public sector net debt stood at £352 billion and from there it took only 12 years to double
credit crunch explained
UK future of debt
You seem to have problems in the financial comprehension department, or a politically motivated bias, or both.
Steffan said:
my answer is a huge amount which will burden the tapayers for 30+ years if in fact we are capable as a country of repaying this debt.
The law of unintended consequences in Politics is the problem.
I am quite certain every Politician would prefer to do the right thing. In reality they cannot as a group organise a piss up in the proverbial and blunder from mistake to mistake..
These are not season hardened businessmen who have learnt their trade in the cut and thrust of business. These are privileged aristocrats (EG Tony Blair, Hilary Benn, David Cameron, George Osbourne, to name but four not to mention Nick Clegg etc none of whom have ever had a job in reality.
Public School to Oxbridge to political support staff or advertising agencies or public relation consultancies often in politics etc then to Politics without ever experiencing the hardship of real life.
They are clueless in the real word.
Brilliant with the autoque and a speech written by somebody else but useless in reality. Talk well acting like idiots.
Can anyone explain to me why we are allowing dividends to continue to be paid by insolvent Banks?
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Why on earth is the Taxpayer selling at a loss so that the buyers can make huge profits out of exactly the same businesses?
This is utter madness.
This has been done to death on here - the net cost of the bailout will be negligible, certainly in comparison to the existing government debt, unfunded pensions etc etcThe law of unintended consequences in Politics is the problem.
I am quite certain every Politician would prefer to do the right thing. In reality they cannot as a group organise a piss up in the proverbial and blunder from mistake to mistake..
These are not season hardened businessmen who have learnt their trade in the cut and thrust of business. These are privileged aristocrats (EG Tony Blair, Hilary Benn, David Cameron, George Osbourne, to name but four not to mention Nick Clegg etc none of whom have ever had a job in reality.
Public School to Oxbridge to political support staff or advertising agencies or public relation consultancies often in politics etc then to Politics without ever experiencing the hardship of real life.
They are clueless in the real word.
Brilliant with the autoque and a speech written by somebody else but useless in reality. Talk well acting like idiots.
Can anyone explain to me why we are allowing dividends to continue to be paid by insolvent Banks?
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Why on earth is the Taxpayer selling at a loss so that the buyers can make huge profits out of exactly the same businesses?
This is utter madness.
Sidicks
Steffan said:
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Well yes, since you asked.I was asked to leave my previous job, to help out, because they thought that I could help them, and that I can make more for them than they are paying me.
Had they offered much less, I'd likely have not joined, and they believe that they'd have been worse off.
Do you think that they should have not employed me, and left the taxpayer worse off?
Or maybe you think that I should have been frogmarched from my previous job and made to work for minimum wage?
Steffan said:
sidicks said:
This has been done to death on here - the net cost of the bailout will be negligible, certainly in comparison to the existing government debt, unfunded pensions etc etc
Sidicks
Does that make everything all right then?Sidicks
speedyman said:
And will we all be saying they "sold Northern Rock at the bottom of the market" in a few years, just like Brown sold the gold. Seems that way to me. Tossers the lot of them.
Should the public be offered shares at preferential rates first ???
The target price is £1billions.Should the public be offered shares at preferential rates first ???
As for bottom of the market.... Greece hasnt defaulted yet so getting it sold pre that could be a better move than you flirt think
Welshbeef said:
speedyman said:
And will we all be saying they "sold Northern Rock at the bottom of the market" in a few years, just like Brown sold the gold. Seems that way to me. Tossers the lot of them.
Should the public be offered shares at preferential rates first ???
The target price is £1billions.Should the public be offered shares at preferential rates first ???
As for bottom of the market.... Greece hasnt defaulted yet so getting it sold pre that could be a better move than you flirt think
NorthernBoy said:
Steffan said:
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Well yes, since you asked.I was asked to leave my previous job, to help out, because they thought that I could help them, and that I can make more for them than they are paying me.
Had they offered much less, I'd likely have not joined, and they believe that they'd have been worse off.
Do you think that they should have not employed me, and left the taxpayer worse off?
Or maybe you think that I should have been frogmarched from my previous job and made to work for minimum wage?
It amazes me that everyone who whinge on about banking salaries cannot comprehend this extremely basic concept. We have existed in a free labour market for all of our lifetimes.
A corporation cannot irrelevantly decide to pay far below the going rate on a whim and expect to employ decent staff.
It is an absurd logic that has swept the nation and I can never comprehend how intelligent people keep trolleying the line out about reducing salaries.
blindswelledrat said:
NorthernBoy said:
Steffan said:
Can anyone tell me how we can allow the senior staff in these Banks to receive salaries and benefits EXCEEDING £4,000,000 A YEAR when the taxpayer is propping up these insolvent Banks without a penny in return?
Well yes, since you asked.I was asked to leave my previous job, to help out, because they thought that I could help them, and that I can make more for them than they are paying me.
Had they offered much less, I'd likely have not joined, and they believe that they'd have been worse off.
Do you think that they should have not employed me, and left the taxpayer worse off?
Or maybe you think that I should have been frogmarched from my previous job and made to work for minimum wage?
It amazes me that everyone who whinge on about banking salaries cannot comprehend this extremely basic concept. We have existed in a free labour market for all of our lifetimes.
A corporation cannot irrelevantly decide to pay far below the going rate on a whim and expect to employ decent staff.
It is an absurd logic that has swept the nation and I can never comprehend how intelligent people keep trolleying the line out about reducing salaries.
well said .... I am not in banking and even i get that basic fact!!!If the return to the company is greater than the wage package paid to the individual, then it is good value.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff