WORK ANOTHER YEAR?

[Fittster]

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

[FNG]

Targarama said:

FNG said:

gary11 said:

Targarama said:

Have you been living in a cave? Did you really think you'll be able to get a state pension at 65? (unless you're close to that now of course...).

Also, remember this is the official retirement age - there is nothing to stop you saving up and retiring early. You just won't get their part of the pension.

Fair reply it (the state pension) doesnt really help anyone much especially me but just as a sum most of havent half given the goverment a lot of money over the years,my post reading it back isnt clear my fustration is rather the hypocrasiy shown by giving the banks squillions immediately and the telling the public that the 50p a day the pension will be worth isnt going to be forthcoming for another year!
Without being petty it really is immoral!

Well, given you know who's got us into this mess, you know what to do come polling day

You know what? I'm not that sure the Conservatives would have done a much better job at it. That doesn't mean I'm Labour supporter btw!

Gordon was complicit by removing further regulation from the banks in 2000 and by removing interest rate policy from the BoE.

He knew what was happening in the City and encouraged it, cos the extra tax revenues meant he could create lots more Labour-tending public sector jobs. This is the guy who lauded the City for their innovative thinking and forward vision, taking Britain forward as a major financial force (while they paid lots of lovely tax into his black-hole social engineering projects).

He spent every penny he could get his hands on in boom years - little wonder we are so badly placed come the inevitable bust.

Tories historically have erred towards smaller government, fewer public sector employees, more incentives for business to prosper rather than flounder in red tape and H&S legislation, and set money aside for the lean times. Or repaid what the previous Labour administration borrowed.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they would have acted differently had they been elected in 2005 and I firmly believe we wouldn't be up st street now had they been in power for the last 4 years.

[Podie]

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

[gary11]

Podie said:

gary11 said:

Podie said:

Wish it was so st I had a Porsche...

her her f**k O** I work hard and have paid my taxes any way its only an old one almost scrappage!

You, me and plenty of others on this site have worked bloody hard all their lives.

Your original post indicates that you're expecting a state pension - is this really the case, or have you opened a private pension as well?

As I said its more the priciple than the money for me ,I have made my own provision as I never have had any faith in the government providing for me in old..er age LOL

[Podie]

gary11 said:

I have made my own provision as I never have had any faith in the government providing for me in old..er age LOL

Likewise!

[esselte]

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

Where can we read about these restraints..if the banks break them surely it's too late 'cos they already have the cash?

[Targarama]

FNG said:

Targarama said:

FNG said:

gary11 said:

Targarama said:

Have you been living in a cave? Did you really think you'll be able to get a state pension at 65? (unless you're close to that now of course...).

Also, remember this is the official retirement age - there is nothing to stop you saving up and retiring early. You just won't get their part of the pension.

Fair reply it (the state pension) doesnt really help anyone much especially me but just as a sum most of havent half given the goverment a lot of money over the years,my post reading it back isnt clear my fustration is rather the hypocrasiy shown by giving the banks squillions immediately and the telling the public that the 50p a day the pension will be worth isnt going to be forthcoming for another year!
Without being petty it really is immoral!

Well, given you know who's got us into this mess, you know what to do come polling day

You know what? I'm not that sure the Conservatives would have done a much better job at it. That doesn't mean I'm Labour supporter btw!

Gordon was complicit by removing further regulation from the banks in 2000 and by removing interest rate policy from the BoE.

He knew what was happening in the City and encouraged it, cos the extra tax revenues meant he could create lots more Labour-tending public sector jobs. This is the guy who lauded the City for their innovative thinking and forward vision, taking Britain forward as a major financial force (while they paid lots of lovely tax into his black-hole social engineering projects).

He spent every penny he could get his hands on in boom years - little wonder we are so badly placed come the inevitable bust.

Tories historically have erred towards smaller government, fewer public sector employees, more incentives for business to prosper rather than flounder in red tape and H&S legislation, and set money aside for the lean times. Or repaid what the previous Labour administration borrowed.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they would have acted differently had they been elected in 2005 and I firmly believe we wouldn't be up st street now had they been in power for the last 4 years.

Fair enough. But apart from the amount of debt we're in things would probably have been similar - we catch whatever the Americans catch.

I agree that Labour spending on useless st is crazy and I look forward to this being cleaned up (but that doesn't happen overnight). I see a period of discontent coming while the public service unions fight pay freezes (while the rest of us in private sector lose our jobs).

[Fittster]

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

So post a link which details the constraints they are placed under.

[gary11]

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

We will see Podie your trust in the honesty of politicians and bankers is heartwarming,regardless of banter it makes no odds our daily read we all get shafted with the same stick eh!

I did read in a daily rag the proposed bonus cap on bankers is soooo easy to sidestep its scary!
They have had the money and still aint lending it!

Edited by gary11 on Wednesday 7th October 13:26

[Targarama]

Podie said:

gary11 said:

I have made my own provision as I never have had any faith in the government providing for me in old..er age LOL

Likewise!

The trouble is, unless you've got cash under your mattress then your nestegg is affected. Stocks, shares, pension funds, ISAs or whatever are all hurting. (These things seem to hit us periodically, next time round I'm buying gold at the start of the crash.)

[gary11]

Targarama said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

I have made my own provision as I never have had any faith in the government providing for me in old..er age LOL

Likewise!

The trouble is, unless you've got cash under your mattress then your nestegg is affected. Stocks, shares, pension funds, ISAs or whatever are all hurting. (These things seem to hit us periodically, next time round I'm buying gold at the start of the crash.)

Or property which is cheap.....at the moment!

[theaxe]

esselte said:

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

Where can we read about these restraints..if the banks break them surely it's too late 'cos they already have the cash?

Here for example, specifically:

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY

147. The Government has agreed with those banks supported by public funds through the recapitalisation scheme a range of commitments. It will require them to:

• maintain over the next three years, the availability and active marketing of competitively-priced lending to homeowners and to small businesses at 2007 levels;
• support schemes to help people struggling with mortgage payments to stay in their homes and support the expansion of financial capability initiatives;
• address the remuneration of senior executives—both for 2008 (when the Government expects no cash bonuses to be paid to board members) and for remuneration policy going forward (where incentive schemes will be reviewed and linked to long-term value creation, taking account of risk; and restrict the potential for rewards for failure);
• allow the Government to agree with boards the appointment of new independent non-executive directors; and
• restrict the payment of dividends.[308]

[esselte]

theaxe said:

esselte said:

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

Where can we read about these restraints..if the banks break them surely it's too late 'cos they already have the cash?

Here for example, specifically:

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY

147. The Government has agreed with those banks supported by public funds through the recapitalisation scheme a range of commitments. It will require them to:

• maintain over the next three years, the availability and active marketing of competitively-priced lending to homeowners and to small businesses at 2007 levels;
• support schemes to help people struggling with mortgage payments to stay in their homes and support the expansion of financial capability initiatives;
• address the remuneration of senior executives—both for 2008 (when the Government expects no cash bonuses to be paid to board members) and for remuneration policy going forward (where incentive schemes will be reviewed and linked to long-term value creation, taking account of risk; and restrict the potential for rewards for failure);
• allow the Government to agree with boards the appointment of new independent non-executive directors; and
• restrict the payment of dividends.[308]

What happens if they don't?

[theaxe]

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation
- Variation or cancellation of a firm's permission to undertake regulated business (which would upset the shareholders somewhat).

[esselte]

theaxe said:

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation
- Variation or cancellation of a firm's permission to undertake regulated business (which would upset the shareholders somewhat).

Have these powers changed since before the "problems"?

[Podie]

esselte said:

theaxe said:

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation
- Variation or cancellation of a firm's permission to undertake regulated business (which would upset the shareholders somewhat).

Have these powers changed since before the "problems"?

esselte, is Google broken at your end..?

[gary11]

esselte said:

theaxe said:

esselte said:

Podie said:

Fittster said:

Podie said:

gary11 said:

The banks have recieved billions with no restraint or condition.

That's so far beyond the truth, I don't even know where to start with that one...

Have they recieved billions? Y/N

Were there any restriants placed on the future behaviour? Y/N

Yes, they've received money, but if you believe there were no restraints on future behaviour, you're a fool, a Daily Mail reader or both.

Where can we read about these restraints..if the banks break them surely it's too late 'cos they already have the cash?

Here for example, specifically:

CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY

147. The Government has agreed with those banks supported by public funds through the recapitalisation scheme a range of commitments. It will require them to:

• maintain over the next three years, the availability and active marketing of competitively-priced lending to homeowners and to small businesses at 2007 levels;
• support schemes to help people struggling with mortgage payments to stay in their homes and support the expansion of financial capability initiatives;
• address the remuneration of senior executives—both for 2008 (when the Government expects no cash bonuses to be paid to board members) and for remuneration policy going forward (where incentive schemes will be reviewed and linked to long-term value creation, taking account of risk; and restrict the potential for rewards for failure);
• allow the Government to agree with boards the appointment of new independent non-executive directors; and
• restrict the payment of dividends.[308]

What happens if they don't?

They have saved i think 5 families from eviction and have still earned large bonuses and are not lending money, though do look at deals but dont fund them and are "calling in" lots of buisnesses that cant pay off their borrowings but have large equity.
bds anyone trusting them is as silly as any sun reader LOL

[Einion Yrth]

theaxe said:

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation

Which they presumably pay with our money, as well as lending our money to us at interest.
{mode = sarcastic} Well, I'm convinced. {/mode}

[esselte]

Podie said:

esselte said:

theaxe said:

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation
- Variation or cancellation of a firm's permission to undertake regulated business (which would upset the shareholders somewhat).

Have these powers changed since before the "problems"?

esselte, is Google broken at your end..?

That'd be boring,I prefer interrogation conversation...

Edited by esselte on Wednesday 7th October 14:00

[gary11]

coyft said:

theaxe said:

esselte said:

What happens if they don't?

The FSA has powers including:

- Imposing fines
- Forced payment of compensation
- Variation or cancellation of a firm's permission to undertake regulated business (which would upset the shareholders somewhat).

The FSA has no power over the banks, neither do the Government. The Government are printing money secured against this countries future earnings (our taxes), lending it to the banks at 0.5% who in turn are lending it back to us at a minimum of 3%. Not a bad business to be in, limitless funds, near to zero cost and a 300% margin.

A slight improvement on lending money you dont have (nicked from some pension or hedge fund lol)to people who cant afford to pay it back!

Be rocky when the rate goes back up1

Edited by gary11 on Wednesday 7th October 14:04