Voters to be given free banking shares
Discussion
Justayellowbadge said:
Mojocvh said:
Kermit power said:
Lardydah said:
I'm not saying it will happen (infact, it probably won't) but surely this would have a positive impact on the economy?
I imagine the majority in receipt of such shares would liquidate them and head straight down to Argos/William Hill/Wetherspoons? (as long as they don't all book holidays to Spain!)
I don't have time to get the actual figures, so will make some assumptions...I imagine the majority in receipt of such shares would liquidate them and head straight down to Argos/William Hill/Wetherspoons? (as long as they don't all book holidays to Spain!)
1. There are 40 million voters in the UK.
2. Of those, 30 million were taxpayers at the time of the bailout.
3. The profit when the bank shares are sold is £50Bn.
By the above, each voter would receive £1,250 in profits. The UK deficit, however, would still include that £50Bn on the books. This would fall to taxpayers, rather than voters, to the tune of £1,667 each.
Or, to put it another way, every taxpayer will get stung for £417 to give some free money to non-taxpayers who didn't invest in the bailout in the first place.
How can that possibly be good for the economy?
Kermit power said:
The government spent something like £850Bn on the bailout, so I was assuming a theoretical selling price of £900Bn to give the profit of £50Bn.
I believe that guarantees to the extent of £850bn were provided, but that is very different that spending £850bn...
Sidicks
Kermit power said:
No, I have factored that in. I specifically said the profit on the shares rather than the total sale price. The government spent something like £850Bn on the bailout, so I was assuming a theoretical selling price of £900Bn to give the profit of £50Bn.
By helping the economy I mean give people some money to spend, which might help stimulate growth if they actually spend it. I didn't mean it would be fair on tax payers/reduce the defecit/reduce the debt.
sidicks said:
Kermit power said:
The government spent something like £850Bn on the bailout, so I was assuming a theoretical selling price of £900Bn to give the profit of £50Bn.
I believe that guarantees to the extent of £850bn were provided, but that is very different that spending £850bn...Sidicks
anonymous said:
[redacted]
True - the only benefit I can see to this idea is that handing everybody a chunk of the profit would prove to them that a profit was made out of the exercise.I'd rather that it were used to reduce the deficit - and if it does get handed back to the public, I'd rather it were done through an income tax rebate.
Kermit power said:
If the money you're spending was given to you from tax revenues in the first place, then I don't see that it really counts as you paying tax, does it? You're just deciding where to give back some of the money that proper taxpayers gave you in the first place.
I'm only pointing out in a slightly pedantic way that income tax is only one source of tax, and if you mean "income tax payers" you should say so.Once you get into the morality of different sorts of contributions it all gets a bit complicated. There are lots of ways to contribute to society, and paying income tax is only one of them (albeit an important one).
For instance, what about a retired person living off savings? What about an entrepreneur taking no salary and living off capital gains?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I can't see the problem. The money was taken out of our pockets by labour to bail out the banks. No-one ever actually expected to be paid back did they? As far as I can see it you have two options - get nothing or get some shares back. Of course it's not just about the value, it's about social engineering rather like allowing people to buy their council houses was. It will be interesting to see what effect it has if it happens.HundredthIdiot said:
I'm only pointing out in a slightly pedantic way that income tax is only one source of tax, and if you mean "income tax payers" you should say so.
Once you get into the morality of different sorts of contributions it all gets a bit complicated. There are lots of ways to contribute to society, and paying income tax is only one of them (albeit an important one).
For instance, what about a retired person living off savings? What about an entrepreneur taking no salary and living off capital gains?
OK, extend the definition to direct taxpayers, and we're done.Once you get into the morality of different sorts of contributions it all gets a bit complicated. There are lots of ways to contribute to society, and paying income tax is only one of them (albeit an important one).
For instance, what about a retired person living off savings? What about an entrepreneur taking no salary and living off capital gains?
And even if it did happen, the government would spend 101% of the distributable sum on the various legal and financial advisors to set up the issue and some Capita/Serco-type ineptitude to adninister it.
The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
V8mate said:
And even if it did happen, the government would spend 101% of the distributable sum on the various legal and financial advisors to set up the issue and some Capita/Serco-type ineptitude to adninister it.
The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
Stop talking sense! It will never catch on.The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
V8mate said:
And even if it did happen, the government would spend 101% of the distributable sum on the various legal and financial advisors to set up the issue and some Capita/Serco-type ineptitude to adninister it.
The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
You simply wouldn't make it as a leader of an irrelevant political party. Sorry.The government should simply hang on to the shares until they're worth a few bob and then give the tax codes a tweak for a year or two. That way, everyone who works for a living benefits with the low paid benefitting proportionately more.
sharpfocus said:
miniman said:
XJ40 said:
Just pay off the deficit will you Clegg, don't mess us about with this.
How does one pay off a deficit? 
miniman said:
XJ40 said:
Just pay off the deficit will you Clegg, don't mess us about with this.
How does one pay off a deficit? I'm sure you can see the point I'm making, I think the taxpayer would be better off in the long game if any funds raised were used towards the national debt, the country and thus we would save in excess of the amount through reduced interest payments.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff