Double dippers, Doom-mongers wrong again Options

[Bloggo]

Darling put a 50 percent tax rate on bonuses they pay their staff above 25,000 at the end of 2009 to prevent the traditional bank hogfest of Xmas bonuses.

Yes, but that is not a cap as Mr Garvie would have us believe. They can still walk away with a million, tax paid.

[Jayjay]

Yes, but that is not a cap as Mr Garvie would have us believe. They can still walk away with a million, tax paid.

Yes that is true. The tax rate was an short term measure until the situation could be debated and lasted until April of this year. I think, under EU rules, it is illegal to block the bonuses and the only alternative is order a high level of taxation.

[Richard Garvie]

Hold on, weren't the Tories telling Labour to regulate the banks less up until 2008? Why did they suddenly change their tune?

I believe Labour should have done more on the banks, but to think any other party would have done any less than bail out the bank they are kidding themselves. The Government bought equity in the banks and kept them going. We will now make a decent profit. The fact is that the Coalition are doing nothing to penalise the banks, they've done less than what Labour did. So even though I'm new to Labour, I will defend their record against what we have seen so far from the Tories. All the Tories have done is hurt the lower and middle income families.

[blackdog]

The banks should have been allowed to go bust. If you think that allowing the banks to go bust would have lost us our savings (what are they?) then you must also think anyone with a mortgage would have had that written off too.

You haven't got much idea about bankruptcy have you? No mortgages would be written off - they would be assets to be shared out among the creditors - which would include the savers whose money went down the drain.

[dannyboy]

You haven't got much idea about bankruptcy have you? No mortgages would be written off - they would be assets to be shared out among the creditors - which would include the savers whose money went down the drain.

I was being sarcastic to Mr G.

Of course your creditors are your assets.

[Bloggo]

Hold on, weren't the Tories telling Labour to regulate the banks less up until 2008? Why did they suddenly change their tune?

Were they, where is your evidence for this statement And while your are at it please supply the evidence for your statement that Darling imposed a cap on bankers bonuses.

I believe Labour should have done more on the banks, but to think any other party would have done any less than bail out the bank they are kidding themselves. The Government bought equity in the banks and kept them going.

No, what the labour government did was to allow the banks to run the country into the buffers and now ordinary people are picking up the tab.

We will now make a decent profit. The fact is that the Coalition are doing nothing to penalise the banks, they've done less than what Labour did. So even though I'm new to Labour, I will defend their record against what we have seen so far from the Tories. All the Tories have done is hurt the lower and middle income families.

The Tories have been in power a few months. Labour had 13 years and left us nearly bankrupt. I don't see much to be proud of.
Although you have not been in the labour party for long you clearly have developed the loathsome skill that typified it, Spin.
I wish that ALL of you politicians would put the country first and not your petty party politics.

[Iommi]

The Tories have been in power a few months. Labour had 13 years and left us nearly bankrupt. I don't see much to be proud of. Although you have not been in the labour party for long you clearly have developed the loathsome skill that typified it, Spin.
I wish that ALL of you politicians would put the country first and not your petty party politics.

I don't see any evidence that things would have been any different if the Tories had been in power for the last 5 years.

[Bloggo]

I don't see any evidence that things would have been any different if the Tories had been in power for the last 5 years.

Well, who knows? As you would not see any evidence since they were not in power.

[dannyboy]

I don't see any evidence that things would have been any different if the Tories had been in power for the last 5 years.

Of course not.

Politics is now a farce where two sets of self agrandising, trumped up self centred busy bodies get on the band waggon to feather their own nests whilst at the same time ensuring the corporate gravy train steams on full speed ahead. Keep the population occupied with trival, but sensational non-events ( banning hunting with hounds, dangerous dogs, 24hr drinking etc etc ), never answer a question directly, be ready to to support what you were first against and stuff your pockets & ego to the max.

[Iommi]

Well, who knows? As you would not see any evidence since they were not in power.

I think you would see evidence. The Tories gave no notice for the impending bank crisis.

[Bloggo]

Of course not.

Politics is now a farce where two sets of self agrandising, trumped up self centred busy bodies get on the band waggon to feather their own nests whilst at the same time ensuring the corporate gravy train steams on full speed ahead. Keep the population occupied with trival, but sensational non-events ( banning hunting with hounds, dangerous dogs, 24hr drinking etc etc ), never answer a question directly, be ready to to support what you were first against and stuff your pockets & ego to the max.

Well I would not have put it quite like that but I would agree that today's politicians of any colour don't seem to represent me and perhaps they never have. Afterall do individuals really matter to them?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I'm just waiting for Mr Garvie to start blaming Thatcher!

[Jayjay]

Of course not.

Politics is now a farce where two sets of self agrandising, trumped up self centred busy bodies get on the band waggon to feather their own nests whilst at the same time ensuring the corporate gravy train steams on full speed ahead. Keep the population occupied with trival, but sensational non-events ( banning hunting with hounds, dangerous dogs, 24hr drinking etc etc ), never answer a question directly, be ready to to support what you were first against and stuff your pockets & ego to the max.

It's 'not fair' for housing benefit claimants to live in tax payer funded properties that many who work for a living could only 'dream of' [Oct 27 2010]. Hmm, well my dream is maybe a central london pad with a nice black door and maybe my own police officer outside, or I could have a country house in Buckinghamshire where I could play croquet on the back lawn. Of course I wouldn't pay a penny for this, even though I earn a very good living and am a millionaire, the tax payer can pick up the cost - after all we are all in this together.

[Iommi]

It's 'not fair' for housing benefit claimants to live in tax payer funded properties that many who work for a living could only 'dream of' [Oct 27 2010]. Hmm, well my dream is maybe a central london pad with a nice black door and maybe my own police officer outside, or I could have a country house in Buckinghamshire where I could play croquet on the back lawn. Of course I wouldn't pay a penny for this, even though I earn a very good living and am a millionaire, the tax payer can pick up the cost - after all we are all in this together.

I don't really see your point here. One is not working and on benefits, the other is the PM of our country.

[Bloggo]

I think you would see evidence. The Tories gave no notice for the impending bank crisis.

That is true however if the Government in power did not know either or chose to not share the information that they had then it is unlikely that the Tories could have done anything to head off the oncoming crisis.

[Bloggo]

I don't really see your point here. One is not working and on benefits, the other is the PM of our country.

I think what is being pointed to is that both some benefit claimers and those that govern us have the opportunity to live in better properties than those that actually pay tax to make it happen.

[Jayjay]

I don't really see your point here. One is not working and on benefits, the other is the PM of our country.

You can be working and on housing benefits you know and a great many familes are. For example 40 hours working on minimum wage would not cover your rent in Newbury, let alone London. With the rents capped working families will also be made homeless.

If the tax payer pays for your house, by default you are receiving a housing benefit. Downing Street, Chequers etc., and MP's second homes are paid for by us, the tax payer, even though many of these people are millionaire's. Housing benefit will be capped, so many areas of London and the south west will come above this capped figure, even though the claimants may be working. The only housing benefit wthat will not be capped is the housing of MP's.

If the governments gamble does not pay off and the private sector does not come up with new jobs, many people who are already unemployed and the newly redundant will have 12 months to get a non existant job that pays well above the minimum wage to avoid the situation of capping. Unemployment benefit is calculated at the minimum amount to live on to purchase food, fuel and essential goods, the rate for over 25's is £65.45 a week. If you are still unemployed after the 12 month period, housing benefit will be tied to 30% of market rate in the area. On an income of £65 a week you could not make up the shortfall.

Housing benefit claimants between 25-35 who live on their own will have their rents capped at £250 a month for a single bedroom property. I am not aware of anywhere in Newbury where you can a one bedroom flat for £250 a month.

It will also impact on people made redundant who have mortgages, mortgage interest support now capped at 3.63%.

[Ozzy]

The banks are set to pay £2.5 billion in tax a year by 2012 under the new levy suggested by Cameron and co.

I think the levy replaces the Labour one-off bonus tax which raised over £2 billion, so it's not all that different.

How they intend to apply a UK Tax law to an overseas bank will be interesting and more to the point the proposed cut in corporation tax means they might actually come out with more cash.

But of course George and his merry men think this is all 'fair'. The richest 1,000 people in Britain have £336 billion and they are getting richer all the time—their wealth rose by £77 ­billion last year.

The problem here is that the governments (past and present) are somewhat scared of the banks and to make matters worse the banks themselves know they are holding all the cards.

The government doesn't want to upset them in case they take their ball away and go and play with someone else.

They're not scared of the ones who suffer though. What's the worst they will do - rattle a comment or two off on a local forum?

[blackdog]

I'm just waiting for Mr Garvie to start blaming Thatcher!

Why not? Surely it was her government that deregulated banking, which eventually lead to the current crisis. Subsequent PMs/Chancellors of both hues failed to recognise the problem and hence must share the blame.

Monetarism got us into this mess, Keynesianism (is that the right word?) has just about got us out of it through the wonderfully named 'quantitive easing' - the monetarists are now back in power. Thatcher had billions worth of state assets to sell in order to kick start the economy, there's not much left for Cameron to sell off. I wonder where we go next?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

Why not? Surely it was her government that deregulated banking, which eventually lead to the current crisis. Subsequent PMs/Chancellors of both hues failed to recognise the problem and hence must share the blame.

Monetarism got us into this mess, Keynesianism (is that the right word?) has just about got us out of it through the wonderfully named 'quantitive easing' - the monetarists are now back in power. Thatcher had billions worth of state assets to sell in order to kick start the economy, there's not much left for Cameron to sell off. I wonder where we go next?

If we are going to blame Thatcher I'll go further back...
I blame Clement Atlee myself. He started the Financial juggernaut and benefits system that is the Welfare state and was elected over one of the greatest leaders this Country has ever know, Mr Winston Churchill. Let's see a few people not being able to afford SKY TV / Playstations / HD Telly / Family holiday's if they are not working...