Death of deep mined coal in Britain.
Comments
-
Still nobody has explained to me why privately owned mines or steel plants that are deeply loss making should benpropped up indefinitely using out tax dollars - over other industries that are in similar situations.Banks may be regulated, many industries are but they cannot fail, can they and who would pick up that tab? the industry or the tax payer?
i see the commons business select committee says Gov didnt do enough to save and prop up steel industry as other countries did, no doubt another report in new year will say similar about deep mined coal perhaps?
Failed to heed warnings of crisis in steel industry
failed to do anything at eu level re chinese dumping of steel, Osbourne could;nt see as covered in chinese xxxx
failed to keep factories and skills in uk.
no doubt had this industry be based in berkshire, things would have been v different, this gov isnt fit to be called a Government.
I explained why action was needed on the banks but you dont seem to understand the nature of the stress tests. Not only have the banks had to materially increase their share capital, they have also had to de-risk substantially so the risk of a repeat is substantially reduced and the cost of doing this has been borne by the banks themselves / their shareholders.
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall.
Havent read anyone saying that mines or steel works should be propped up indefinately and you know that BUT short term subsidy to see them through hard times or mitigate mass unemplyment? why not?
Stress tests? to force the banks to to behave in a more responsibly way, some thing they did not do and you boast this is being done by themselves and their shareholders ??? wooo weeee arent they good :roll:
Banks regardless of the forced sep of retail and investment, are still too big to fail and regulation may not protect the tax payer from bailing them out and they know it too..... as we ll all see again, come bonus season....
0 -
You cannot have service industries if no one has any money.
.
You can.
We're part of a global economy now, not a national one.
If someone half way around the world is making your clothes and their bosses are paying you to do their accounts, what's the problem?0 -
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall.
Let's clear up a few things.
Firstly, the walls between high street and investment banks were dismantled under Thatcher & Regan. So IBs could lean on the deposits & loans the high street banks had on their books etc. That is just one of the reasons big banks are considered 'too big to fail'.
Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say Lehman failed without knock on effects. In fact, that was the single biggest event that caused the 'credit crunch' which in turn sent the global economy into recession. There is so much interconnectedness in the financial system that any major institution failure, high street or otherwise, is a major issue.
That those firms cannot 'fail' without bringing down the industry and its economy is a failure that gets put at the door of regulators and successive governments. You cannot have a 'free market' industry that enjoys the spoils of a free market when they cannot fail in a sustainable manner.
There's huge moral hazard in the way the industry works, and they rely on their opaqueness to maintain their advantage.
So it's legitimate for people to bemoan the inconsistency of government policy towards white collar industries and blue collar.0 -
And Stevo, you're saying how much banks pay in tax?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-banks-tax-exclusive-idUKKBN0U51XH20151222n recent months, the seven investment and corporate banks operating in London reported figures showing they paid a combined $31 million (£21 million) in corporation tax in 2014. Between them the banks generated revenues of $31 billion in the UK, profits of $5.3 billion and employed 33,000 staff.0 -
And Stevo, you're saying how much banks pay in tax?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-banks-tax-exclusive-idUKKBN0U51XH20151222n recent months, the seven investment and corporate banks operating in London reported figures showing they paid a combined $31 million (£21 million) in corporation tax in 2014. Between them the banks generated revenues of $31 billion in the UK, profits of $5.3 billion and employed 33,000 staff.
Stop nicking my type, we both spotted this about the same time but posted in diferent threads
i m wondering how Steve will defend this level of tax avoidance......... ?0 -
And Stevo, you're saying how much banks pay in tax?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-banks-tax-exclusive-idUKKBN0U51XH20151222n recent months, the seven investment and corporate banks operating in London reported figures showing they paid a combined $31 million (£21 million) in corporation tax in 2014. Between them the banks generated revenues of $31 billion in the UK, profits of $5.3 billion and employed 33,000 staff.
Stop nicking my type, we both spotted this about the same time but posted in diferent threads
i m wondering how Steve will defend this level of tax avoidance......... ?
Something about they either do it here and pay $31m to the UK or they do it somewhere else and pay 0 to the UK.
Which of course is in effect a subsidy
. 0 -
As I said, is the solution that everyone becomes London accountants?You cannot have service industries if no one has any money.
.
You can.
We're part of a global economy now, not a national one.
If someone half way around the world is making your clothes and their bosses are paying you to do their accounts, what's the problem?
That is impossible and unsustainable.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
a bit like Steve0s assertion that we can all improve and better our selves, well, no we all cant and it implies that a cleaner, hospital porter or road sweeper are not of value or respect.0
-
And Stevo, you're saying how much banks pay in tax?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-banks-tax-exclusive-idUKKBN0U51XH20151222n recent months, the seven investment and corporate banks operating in London reported figures showing they paid a combined $31 million (£21 million) in corporation tax in 2014. Between them the banks generated revenues of $31 billion in the UK, profits of $5.3 billion and employed 33,000 staff.
Don't know if those numbers are correct or not however it would seem to be limited to only 7 FI's. There are significantly more FI's in London all employing a considerable number of personnel. How much tax is paid p.a. by those employees ? Multiple billions is the answer. All of that goes to the exchequer for the subsidy of just about everything else in the UK.0 -
See my reply in the other thread Rick. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as you have demonstrated before in matters of taxAnd Stevo, you're saying how much banks pay in tax?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-banks-tax-exclusive-idUKKBN0U51XH20151222n recent months, the seven investment and corporate banks operating in London reported figures showing they paid a combined $31 million (£21 million) in corporation tax in 2014. Between them the banks generated revenues of $31 billion in the UK, profits of $5.3 billion and employed 33,000 staff. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Oh dear, you still dont quite get it. I already explained the effect of tax losses and the existence of other significant taxes.You argue they pay a lot of tax.
As a proportion of revenue and profit they don't.
Have a look at the link to the report I posted. Corporation tax is one of 20 odd taxes borne by business and banks pay way more in bank levy, irrecoverable VAT, business rated and employers NI. Try looking at the percentage of all taxes as a percentage of profit for a start."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well yes lets do that.
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall.
Let's clear up a few things.
Firstly, the walls between high street and investment banks were dismantled under Thatcher & Regan. So IBs could lean on the deposits & loans the high street banks had on their books etc. That is just one of the reasons big banks are considered 'too big to fail'.
Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say Lehman failed without knock on effects. In fact, that was the single biggest event that caused the 'credit crunch' which in turn sent the global economy into recession. There is so much interconnectedness in the financial system that any major institution failure, high street or otherwise, is a major issue.
That those firms cannot 'fail' without bringing down the industry and its economy is a failure that gets put at the door of regulators and successive governments. You cannot have a 'free market' industry that enjoys the spoils of a free market when they cannot fail in a sustainable manner.
There's huge moral hazard in the way the industry works, and they rely on their opaqueness to maintain their advantage.
So it's legitimate for people to bemoan the inconsistency of government policy towards white collar industries and blue collar.
None of the thanks in the BoE stress tests have anywhere near the level of risky activities that thy used to and all have dignificantly increased capital as a buffer. As said before, the capital increases and sheddi g of higger risk/higher return activities is something that has been done at the banks/shareholders expense and has drastically changed the risks to the economy, public etc since 2007/8. To try to claim that its the same is either misguided or simply lazy lefty banker bashing.
Also knowing the degree of regulation in that industry and the taxes that impact the sector but not others (banking lecpvy, irrecoverable VAT), its hard to see based on the facts that they get preferential treatment at all. Its more perception.
Specifically on the banks in question that mamba mentioned:
Barclays - closed down majority of investment banking ops after Bob Diamonds departure.
HSBC - actively reducing their risk weighted assets per the BoE report.
Lloyds - no significant investment banking activies now
RBS - same as Lloyds.
Nationwide - has been low risk for some time having started life as a building society.
Santander - not strong in investment banking. Apparently trying to build some capability in Asia
Std Chartered - not a retail bank so public not materially at risk
So what specifically concern you about which banks now?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh dear, you still dont quite get it. I already explained the effect of tax losses and the existence of other significant taxes.You argue they pay a lot of tax.
As a proportion of revenue and profit they don't.
Have a look at the link to the report I posted. Corporation tax is one of 20 odd taxes borne by business and banks pay way more in bank levy, irrecoverable VAT, business rated and employers NI. Try looking at the percentage of all taxes as a percentage of profit for a start.
Bank levy is the cost banks have for being systematically important and "too big to fail" and ultimately an attempt to recoup some of the social cost they caused.
So I don't buy that that should be taken into account when looking at the level of corporate tax they pay. They pay very little corporate tax. All firms pay VAT, NI etc.
Ultimately the headline numbers are low.
Your local corner shop will pay a higher actual tax rate then a large corporate and that's not right.0 -
I was mainly correcting you tbh.
Well yes lets do that.
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall.
Let's clear up a few things.
Firstly, the walls between high street and investment banks were dismantled under Thatcher & Regan. So IBs could lean on the deposits & loans the high street banks had on their books etc. That is just one of the reasons big banks are considered 'too big to fail'.
Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say Lehman failed without knock on effects. In fact, that was the single biggest event that caused the 'credit crunch' which in turn sent the global economy into recession. There is so much interconnectedness in the financial system that any major institution failure, high street or otherwise, is a major issue.
That those firms cannot 'fail' without bringing down the industry and its economy is a failure that gets put at the door of regulators and successive governments. You cannot have a 'free market' industry that enjoys the spoils of a free market when they cannot fail in a sustainable manner.
There's huge moral hazard in the way the industry works, and they rely on their opaqueness to maintain their advantage.
So it's legitimate for people to bemoan the inconsistency of government policy towards white collar industries and blue collar.
None of the thanks in the BoE stress tests have anywhere near the level of risky activities that thy used to and all have dignificantly increased capital as a buffer. As said before, the capital increases and sheddi g of higger risk/higher return activities is something that has been done at the banks/shareholders expense and has drastically changed the risks to the economy, public etc since 2007/8. To try to claim that its the same is either misguided or simply lazy lefty banker bashing.
Also knowing the degree of regulation in that industry and the taxes that impact the sector but not others (banking lecpvy, irrecoverable VAT), its hard to see based on the facts that they get preferential treatment at all. Its more perception.
Specifically on the banks in question that mamba mentioned:
Barclays - closed down majority of investment banking ops after Bob Diamonds departure.
HSBC - actively reducing their risk weighted assets per the BoE report.
Lloyds - no significant investment banking activies now
RBS - same as Lloyds.
Nationwide - has been low risk for some time having started life as a building society.
Santander - not strong in investment banking. Apparently trying to build some capability in Asia
Std Chartered - not a retail bank so public not materially at risk
So what specifically concern you about which banks now?
You said IBs and retail are separate when they're not.
You said banks can fail without knock on effects. Everything we've seen says otherwise.
The moral hazard still exists. That's a concern. Banks are still "too big to fail"
Lehman passed all the stress tests before they went under. So did HBOS.0 -
Quite a timely news report.
JP Morgan paid no corporation tax for 2013-14.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35166460
Now some will say this is fair given the tax laws but the problem for the man in the street is straightforward.
At that time:-
"Number of code staff in the UK in 2013: 121 (compared to 115 in 2012).
Average salary (fixed remuneration) paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $721k (£471k). Down from $749k in 2012.
Average non-stock (cash) bonus paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $879k (£574k). Down from $1m in 2012.
Average value of restricted stock bonus paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $3.4m (£2.2m) (based on current share price)."
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/159654/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-structure-and-level-of-salaries-and-bonuses-at-goldman-sachs-jpmorgan-citigroup-and-merrill-lynch-international/
The seems to be awfully high renumeration for a company that cannot make any profit.
All in it together?
Aye, right!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
i think your last paragraph should be put in the bin alongside:
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"0 -
Too many companies/corps pay nowhere near the %age of corporation tax that they should in GB.
Dress it up however you like, they're avoiding tax. The shortfall and more is taken up by the masses and they pay the price not only in the pay they recieve but also in the services government (should) provide;and the(unneccessary) cuts will continue until they go beyond hurting but those at the top and their ilk!!!!!!Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Define what they should pay Frank. Is it what the law says or some arbtrary amount determined by you?Too many companies/corps pay nowhere near the %age of corporation tax that they should in GB.
Dress it up however you like, they're avoiding tax. The shortfall and more is taken up by the masses and they pay the price not only in the pay they recieve but also in the services government (should) provide;and the(unneccessary) cuts will continue until they go beyond hurting but those at the top and their ilk!!!!!!
Then take a look at what corporates contribute in tax - links posted by me either in this thread or the other one. You will find your view is not borne out by the facts. At all. In fact I might just say its leftiebollox
Too many self appointed amateur tax judges in here with no proper basis for their views, just bias and misconception. My campaign to re-educate continues...."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No you're not. Read my posts properly.
I was mainly correcting you tbh.
Well yes lets do that.
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall.
Let's clear up a few things.
Firstly, the walls between high street and investment banks were dismantled under Thatcher & Regan. So IBs could lean on the deposits & loans the high street banks had on their books etc. That is just one of the reasons big banks are considered 'too big to fail'.
Secondly, I don't think it's fair to say Lehman failed without knock on effects. In fact, that was the single biggest event that caused the 'credit crunch' which in turn sent the global economy into recession. There is so much interconnectedness in the financial system that any major institution failure, high street or otherwise, is a major issue.
That those firms cannot 'fail' without bringing down the industry and its economy is a failure that gets put at the door of regulators and successive governments. You cannot have a 'free market' industry that enjoys the spoils of a free market when they cannot fail in a sustainable manner.
There's huge moral hazard in the way the industry works, and they rely on their opaqueness to maintain their advantage.
So it's legitimate for people to bemoan the inconsistency of government policy towards white collar industries and blue collar.
None of the thanks in the BoE stress tests have anywhere near the level of risky activities that thy used to and all have dignificantly increased capital as a buffer. As said before, the capital increases and sheddi g of higger risk/higher return activities is something that has been done at the banks/shareholders expense and has drastically changed the risks to the economy, public etc since 2007/8. To try to claim that its the same is either misguided or simply lazy lefty banker bashing.
Also knowing the degree of regulation in that industry and the taxes that impact the sector but not others (banking lecpvy, irrecoverable VAT), its hard to see based on the facts that they get preferential treatment at all. Its more perception.
Specifically on the banks in question that mamba mentioned:
Barclays - closed down majority of investment banking ops after Bob Diamonds departure.
HSBC - actively reducing their risk weighted assets per the BoE report.
Lloyds - no significant investment banking activies now
RBS - same as Lloyds.
Nationwide - has been low risk for some time having started life as a building society.
Santander - not strong in investment banking. Apparently trying to build some capability in Asia
Std Chartered - not a retail bank so public not materially at risk
So what specifically concern you about which banks now?
You said IBs and retail are separate when they're not.
You said banks can fail without knock on effects. Everything we've seen says otherwise.
The moral hazard still exists. That's a concern. Banks are still "too big to fail"
Lehman passed all the stress tests before they went under. So did HBOS.
Well aware that retail and investment banking are not separated. Just that retail banks investment banki g activities are much lower now and hence less risky.
Did not say banks could not fail with no consequences. Just for thise with no retail activity there is lessmimpact on the public directly. Any big corporate failure has consequences.
Stress tests and capital requirements/risk weightings are more stringent now than they were. They will never eliminate all risk but back in the real world its about risk management, not some theoretical ideal situation where everything is risk free. Its the sort of thing that you get more pragmatic about these things with experience
Unfortu ately the leftie bias against banks will always be there, whatever happens. Pity, because it is one of the business sectors where the UK is a world leader."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Spot of clarification needed.Quite a timely news report.
JP Morgan paid no corporation tax for 2013-14.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35166460
Now some will say this is fair given the tax laws but the problem for the man in the street is straightforward.
At that time:-
"Number of code staff in the UK in 2013: 121 (compared to 115 in 2012).
Average salary (fixed remuneration) paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $721k (£471k). Down from $749k in 2012.
Average non-stock (cash) bonus paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $879k (£574k). Down from $1m in 2012.
Average value of restricted stock bonus paid to each member of UK code staff in 2013: $3.4m (£2.2m) (based on current share price)."
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/159654/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-structure-and-level-of-salaries-and-bonuses-at-goldman-sachs-jpmorgan-citigroup-and-merrill-lynch-international/
The seems to be awfully high renumeration for a company that cannot make any profit.
All in it together?
Aye, right!
Remuneration is tax deductible so what impact do you expect that to have on taxable profits?
Of course, their pay and bonuses attracts income tax, employers NIC and employees NIC at overal, higher rates tan corporate tax so the overall tax take is higher than if they paid them less.
Also highly likely that the bank has tax losses brought forward from the GFC. Which coukd wel, wipe out any taxable profits in the above year. No tax planning involved.
You need to think these things through more carefully "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The point wasn't about tax revenue.Spot of clarification needed.
Remuneration is tax deductible so what impact do you expect that to have on taxable profits?
Of course, their pay and bonuses attracts income tax, employers NIC and employees NIC at overal, higher rates tan corporate tax so the overall tax take is higher than if they paid them less.
Also highly likely that the bank has tax losses brought forward from the GFC. Which coukd wel, wipe out any taxable profits in the above year. No tax planning involved.
You need to think these things through more carefully
It was one example of how one industry rewards sh!tty performance.
Twas ever so.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No you're not. Read my posts properly.
Well aware that retail and investment banking are not separated. Just that retail banks investment banki g activities are much lower now and hence less risky.
Did not say banks could not fail with no consequences. Just for thise with no retail activity there is lessmimpact on the public directly. Any big corporate failure has consequences.
Stress tests and capital requirements/risk weightings are more stringent now than they were. They will never eliminate all risk but back in the real world its about risk management, not some theoretical ideal situation where everything is risk free. Its the sort of thing that you get more pragmatic about these things with experience
Unfortu ately the leftie bias against banks will always be there, whatever happens. Pity, because it is one of the business sectors where the UK is a world leader.[/quote]
So why is the BOE persuing the almost totaly separation of the retail/investment arms if all is so hunky dory in Steve0 land? and these new rules will also apply to starter banks too, if the banks have pretty much stopped investment banking (your wrong again there) why all the focus on regulation?
this debate moved because of an almost total lack of support for coal and steel but as we can see, support for the financial sector, in which we lead the world.... really? is alive and kicking.
How you can defend the lack of tax they pay, by suggesting that "well their employees pay it instead" is beyond me. which in its self only something you belatedly acknowledged after i pointed out the 80bn inc PAYE tax collected , wonder why 0 -
Stevo, it's not left bias.
Investment banking has literally paid my bills for the past 5 years.
I literally spend my days speaking to Heads of retail banking and I used to spend my days in the previous 5 years speaking to business leaders in the Investment banks.
Trust me, from the stories I've heard, they haven't changed all that much. They still think the moral hazard remains (which means it does).
Bottom line is they got a subsidy and other industries didn't. You can argue all you want about the details of my corrections, but that's the crux of the issue, and you can't argue otherwise.0 -
Everything in our world today is about money and capital. That is why we as a species are ultimately f**ked.
When it comes to the day of reckoning I will be dead as will most, if not all on this forum.
I, however,will have died trying to prevent the capitalists bringing about this eventuality.
The world and it's environ is about care and consideration, not capital, in the long term.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
FTFY.Everything in our world today is about money and capital. That is why we as a species are ultimately f**ked.
When it comes to the day of reckoning I will be dead as will most, if not all on this forum.
I, however,will have died trying to prevent the capitalists bringing about this eventuality.
The world and it's environ should be about care and consideration, not capital, in the long term.
It is unfortunate that it has to be said in the first place.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No you're not. Read my posts properly.
Well aware that retail and investment banking are not separated. Just that retail banks investment banki g activities are much lower now and hence less risky.
Did not say banks could not fail with no consequences. Just for thise with no retail activity there is lessmimpact on the public directly. Any big corporate failure has consequences.
Stress tests and capital requirements/risk weightings are more stringent now than they were. They will never eliminate all risk but back in the real world its about risk management, not some theoretical ideal situation where everything is risk free. Its the sort of thing that you get more pragmatic about these things with experience
Unfortu ately the leftie bias against banks will always be there, whatever happens. Pity, because it is one of the business sectors where the UK is a world leader.
So why is the BOE persuing the almost totaly separation of the retail/investment arms if all is so hunky dory in Steve0 land? and these new rules will also apply to starter banks too, if the banks have pretty much stopped investment banking (your wrong again there) why all the focus on regulation?
this debate moved because of an almost total lack of support for coal and steel but as we can see, support for the financial sector, in which we lead the world.... really? is alive and kicking.
How you can defend the lack of tax they pay, by suggesting that "well their employees pay it instead" is beyond me. which in its self only something you belatedly acknowledged after i pointed out the 80bn inc PAYE tax collected , wonder why[/quote]
Stop talking rubbish and ignoring the facts mamba.
What separation are you talking about? Derisking is not the same thing, is it.
I gave you all the facts on what taxes are paid and those borne directly by the bamks/financial sector are substantial. Those collected by them are a direct result of their economic activity. Never tried to hide that split so point trying to claim that as a win. If there werent doing the activity, those taxes would not be collected. Think about it...
I've shown you the facts to demonstrate you are wrong on the contribution made by the financial sector. You can't even provide any evidence for your claim about tax avoidance by the banks, never mind refute the amount of tax paid
Please show me the evidence if you have it. Why would they want to shift profit out of the UK when out corporate rates are lower than most other countries? :roll:
This is the trouble trying to debate the subject with people who cant or dont want to understand the subject "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I can and will argue otherwise. I run a corporate treasury department and work with major banks as part of my job so need to be aware of risks. We would not put our money in the hands of any bank we felt represented a material risk of losing that money.Stevo, it's not left bias.
Investment banking has literally paid my bills for the past 5 years.
I literally spend my days speaking to Heads of retail banking and I used to spend my days in the previous 5 years speaking to business leaders in the Investment banks.
Trust me, from the stories I've heard, they haven't changed all that much. They still think the moral hazard remains (which means it does).
Bottom line is they got a subsidy and other industries didn't. You can argue all you want about the details of my corrections, but that's the crux of the issue, and you can't argue otherwise.
I am talking about the possibility of this repeating and the impact if it does. And have shown you evidence that it is not the same.
Many banks did not receive investment from the state. Much of the funding was loans, so repayable over time. The support was for those where the collapse would have caused major damage by causing panic/a run on other banks.
I know what you do for a living as you mentioned it before. But it doesnt make you a financial expert."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rubbish. Look at the link I provided on how much overall tax they pay. It is zubstantial and a signifiicant proportion of national income.
Oh dear, you still dont quite get it. I already explained the effect of tax losses and the existence of other significant taxes.You argue they pay a lot of tax.
As a proportion of revenue and profit they don't.
Have a look at the link to the report I posted. Corporation tax is one of 20 odd taxes borne by business and banks pay way more in bank levy, irrecoverable VAT, business rated and employers NI. Try looking at the percentage of all taxes as a percentage of profit for a start.
Bank levy is the cost banks have for being systematically important and "too big to fail" and ultimately an attempt to recoup some of the social cost they caused.
So I don't buy that that should be taken into account when looking at the level of corporate tax they pay. They pay very little corporate tax. All firms pay VAT, NI etc.
Ultimately the headline numbers are low.
Your local corner shop will pay a higher actual tax rate then a large corporate and that's not right.
Your view about the levy is just that, your view. It is still tax otherwise it wouldnt be in the report on total tax contribution "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yawn, another thread re-routed onto a "bash the bankers" topic.0
