UK government considering windfall tax on banks

Heh, I'm all for it. . . .

Fran said:

I'm all for it too, in principal. But unless it's the bank's actual business profits that are being taxed and ONLY the business profits, and not just the government reclaiming its (and therefore our) own money, I don't see what gain the Treasury stands to make.

Click to expand...

But if the government is simply reclaiming its money, why does that bother you??

Fran said:

The grandstanding about it bothers me. Why not just quietly take our money back? Why not just take it and chalk it down as a loan repayment instead of making it a national news issue?

Click to expand...

slow news week...

typically means they want to hide something embarrassing

Fran said:

The grandstanding about it bothers me. Why not just quietly take our money back? Why not just take it and chalk it down as a loan repayment instead of making it a national news issue?

The banks are bitching about it, of course, but that doesn't bother me in the least. They made their bed and all that. If a banker gets 90% taxed (I'm not suggesting that's the actual figure I don't think it's been decided yet) on his or her £1million bonus I'm not losing any sleep over it. The government making a big deal out of doing what it's supposed to do and reclaim our money just seems to my old, cynical head like old, cynical electioneering and nothing more. So they can say 'We've been tough on the bankers!'. But it seems the Conservatives are supporting the idea, which is political death to any Labour government. At least it used to be...

Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's politics, but somewhere within that term, they're doing the right thing. If they kept it quiet, they'd be accused of hiding something, too imho. . . .

I suppose it would have been better if the government bailed them out and they lost money?

If you believe in Capitalism, you believe in profit
If you don't believe in profits, you're not a Capitalist.

Fran said:

Right, okay, I'm not the world's brightest financial brain, but if the UK government is going to impose a windfall tax on banks which have been bailed out by UK taxpayers, aren't they just taking our money back? Or if they're going to windfall tax the big bonuses, aren't they paid for with British taxpayers' money in the first place? So what is the actual net gain from this exercise, other than the government trying to make itself look big? My brain hurts...

Click to expand...

What you perhaps inadvertently illustrate by these questions is the point that banks don't actually create any wealth. They manufacture nothing, produce nothing, do nothing other than facilitate the movement of capital and credit from Point A to Point B, skimming along the way as much value from such transactions as they can, using every mechanism for obfuscation and deception that they can manage. In the biological world, an organism that operates in this fashion is called a "parasite". I'm not sure what the proper treatment for this politico-economic situation is, but it is useful to recognize the issue for what it is.

My father, a young man during the 1930s Depression, detested banks and bankers with a visceral hatred rivaled only by his hatred for snakes and spiders. I didn't really understand it as a child, but I do now.

When's the last time you saw a poor banker, except for an incarcerated one?

caw

Well said, blacbird. A concise and accurate description of the modern banking system, as created by FedGov and implemented by the Federal Reserve. In the days of honest money, at least banks acted as a store of value and deserved some paltry sum for performing as such.

However, since you can substitute "government" for "banks" in that explanation without changing one additional word, I wonder why you don't feel the same way about it?

At least the banks have to compete against each other. At least I get good service at my bank.
The government has no competitor. L

Don said:

ALBATROSS.

Click to expand...

caw

I don't believe in myths like the albatross around one's neck...

or Santa Claus...

or the Easter Bunny...

or a benevolent government.

Those who do are welcome to their beliefs, of course.

ETA: Then again, if you were comparing government to a dead, decaying, stinking mass of garbage strung around our collective necks by those who assume authority, you may be onto something.

Fran said:

Well, that's undoubtably true. I'd personally still prefer a quiet, efficient government to a noisy useless one, and as it stands I think we're stuck with noisy and useless. On both sides. Mix in a media that's not far off rabid and my preference is lumbering towards hopeless.

Click to expand...

I keep telling you, we need to shoot them all. I'm off to storm Parliament, you coming?

Less pitchforks, more booze. Last one to the Member's Bar is a rotten banana

ETA: I'd prefer if the Government stopped being all wussy and told the banks they ain't getting their bonuses until they've paid back the taxpayer.

I am not holding my breath

IdiotsRUs said:

ETA: I'd prefer if the Government stopped being all wussy and told the bankERs they ain't getting OUT OF THE SCRUBS until they've paid back the taxpayer.

Click to expand...

With a little tweak, we have my view.

Priene said:

With a little tweak, we have my view.

Click to expand...

Oh I like it.

Gregg said:

I suppose it would have been better if the government bailed them out and they lost money?

If you believe in Capitalism, you believe in profit
If you don't believe in profits, you're not a Capitalist.

Click to expand...

If the government needed to bail them out to prevent the bank from going bankrupt, it means there was no profit. There should have been no performance bonus paid to the CEO either.