BBC Blog Network

User Profile

GRIMUPNORTH77

Listed below are comments made by GRIMUPNORTH77 between Thursday, 26th November 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (7 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Appetite for fat cat taxes? 5:46pm on 30 Nov 2009 #50 - the bankers are blamed because they created a mirage of wealth over the last 10 years (in part they were able to do this due to poor regulation).

The bankers personally benefitted massively from this mirage of wealth (as admittedly did many other people) but bankers disproportionately through very large bonuses (we're talking City Bankers here mainly).

When the mirage was uncovered the banks were effectively bankrupt but the (our) Government saved them because the effects of their mismanagement were too horrendous to allow to happen.

Now the (our) Government needs to find the taxes and spending cuts to re fill the hole in the UK balance sheet left by the bank bail outs.

Surely you would agree that the bankers (who are still rewarding themselves bonuses which are now being created by profits on money movements caused purely by QE in some cases) should have to pay a disproportionate part of those tax rises??

At the moment both the Tories and Labour seem to be warming the general population up to the prospect of tax rises and spending cuts without any special aim at the good folf of the City?

Would you like to declare if you have a vested interest?
Appetite for fat cat taxes? 5:37pm on 30 Nov 2009 How about a 20% Bankers and Retired Bankers Mansions Tax payable on any home owned by any banker worth more than £500k or where the banker earns more than £100k/year on whatever home they live in regardless of value.

The justification - without the UK tax system they would not have job and they need to help out where they can.

The justification for The Lib Dems - surely the ultimate vote winner!!

In fact this could be expanded to also include Bankers and Retired Bankers Income Tax - a higher rate of 75% on all income over £100,000.

Also how about 30% VAT on pin striped suits - Fat Cat VAT - catchy?
Dubai: Wholly avoidable crisis 2:33pm on 30 Nov 2009 Wholly Avoidable Crisis.

I think what the article says is this crisis could have been avoided if someone (Abu Dhabi) had simply stumped up $66 BILLION ($66,000,000,000) or announced they were about to.

Mr Peston - I think over the last 18 months you, along with many others, have forgotten just how much money that is.

At the same time people are being refused treatments on the NHS for liver and bowel cancer which will lengthen lives because they are too expensive - the total budget for the NHS is £100 billion per year (the Dubai bail out required translates to about £40 billion so 40% of the annual NHS budget).

What is more important - skyscrapers in Dubai or 40% of the NHS budget?

PS Please no smart answers like it depends whether it is the 40% spent on quangos and Admin or the 60% spent on patient care!
Dubai: Wholly avoidable crisis 1:50pm on 30 Nov 2009 Surely one of the problems for the market now must be that the next time there is bad news and the govt has to get involved in some way we won't know how much they are not telling us due to the secret RBS/Lloyds loans that we were not told about for fear that we could not handle the truth.

How much more 'truth' do we not know about?

In fact I thought directors of listed companies had obligations to the Stock Market to disclose events that may affect their share prices?
Dubai: Just a sideshow? 4:31pm on 27 Nov 2009 posts 10,11 and 18 - money trail.

UK citizens pay taxes some of which are paid to Royal Family.

Royal family have QE2 built with some of that money.

QE2 comes to end of useful life and is sold to Nakheel Construction (proceeds to UK govt? or Royal Family).

RBS loans money to Nakheel Construction which is secured by assets including QE2.

RBS gets into financial difficulties and UK govt bail out using UK citizens tax money.

If Nakheel Construction goes bust presumably UK citizens (through UK govt ownership of RBS) will then own 80% of something that we paid for in the first place!
Dubai: Just a sideshow? 4:04pm on 27 Nov 2009 I have said this before but the people who control the prices are the people who get the bonuses - so what would you do in their position with their pay structure.

Say you are rewarded for above average growth in valuation and say average growth is 2.5% a year and for simplicity in this example I ignore compounding the figures.

In example 1 - no bonus for any of the 5 years.

Yr1,2,3,4 & 5 - the shares, property, pension fund whatever grew by 2.5% a year and was 12.5% higher at end of 5 years.

In example 2 - mega bonuses in years 1,2,3 & 4 and nothing in year 5.

Yr 1,2,3 & 4 growth of 5% a year followed by a drop in value of 7.5% and was 12.5% higher at end of 5 years.

This is what is happening - the market is being manipulated by the people who control it for their own gain while we watch on.

In actual fact what happens is that markets do overall grow by slightly more than they would simply due to human nature because in years 1 to 4 in my example the growth tends to fuel higher numbers but when it gets to year 5 the drop off is slightly less than it should be simply because prices are 'sticky' downwards.
Dubai: Just a sideshow? 2:38pm on 27 Nov 2009 'Especially since it is Nakheel Construction that has asked for a standstill, not the whole of Dubai World.'

So are you stating that your 'reporting' yesterday was a bit lightweight and knee jerk and you had not ascertained all the facts?

Surely if there was not a big problem Dubai World would just have given the money to Nakheel on the assumption this is just one part of Dubai World (the actual relationship is not explained in the article?)
Dubai not too big to fail? 11:25am on 27 Nov 2009 #129 - yep - that about sums it up - the global exposure is colossal and the City of London has been the epicentre of all the lending - a masterplan for disaster now exaggerated by the government trying to save - is it possible to save them again - and again - and again?? I wonder........

If we had let collapse I think 'money' would have collapsed as a system - if this had happened things would have been desperate across the world but at least we would all have been in it together - in writing this I do understand that no money would have led to an initial meltdown of society as we know it eg how would anyone buy anything but perhaps in 5 years something better might be reborn?? Out of adversity etc etc
Dubai not too big to fail? 6:45pm on 26 Nov 2009 Is it possible that the system used around the world for exchange known as 'money' is unsustainable? far fetched I know but it seems like the 'value' of money has been put into question and if money has no value then pension funds are truly worthless - perhaps I've just been reading this blog too much lately!!
Winners and losers 09:24am on 26 Nov 2009 Hmmmmmmmmmm..........................

For there is trouble brewing in the playground of the rich and famous. Dubai World, the UAE government property development firm has asked for a standstill on its debt obligations for 6 months. It is due to pay back $4bn on an Islamic bond come Dec 14th. The price of insuring UAE government debt rose from 287bp to 420bp on the belief that a default could be on the cards. Were this to happen real estate around the world would feel the effects while banks would once again be looking for help to get rid of swathes of toxic debt. Another equity and world market apocalypse in other words.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

GRIMUPNORTH77