WORK ANOTHER YEAR?

[Fittster]

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]

And lets look what's happening.

John Wright, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses said: "Bank lending is an issue our members have been raising with us for some time, with small businesses having problems getting access to loans or overdrafts and being charged over the odds for new or existing finance.

"Levels of small business lending have now risen since this time last year, and money is trickling through to small firms, but lending is still nowhere near pre-recession levels. The government's Enterprise Finance Guarantee has had an impact on increasing lending, after a slow start at the beginning of the year.

"However, our main concern now is the cost of finance. We want to see the record low interest rates passed on to small businesses

---

-Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): How many households have received assistance under the mortgage rescue scheme and homeowner mortgage support scheme. [277605]


2 Jun 2009 : Column 153

The Minister for Housing (Margaret Beckett): Our objective is to ensure that repossession is always the last resort. The mortgage rescue scheme and homeowner mortgage support scheme are just part of a comprehensive package of measures that we have put in place to assist families at risk of losing their homes. The MRS has been operational across the country since 1 January 2009. Since its launch, local authorities have reported that more than 1,000 households each month have come forward and received guidance on what support may be best for their circumstances. Seventy-seven households are in the final stages of receiving assistance and have had repossession action against them frozen by their lenders. Two households have so far completed the Government mortgage-to-rent process, whereby a registered social landlord has agreed to purchase their property and enabled them to remain in their own home as tenants. We expect many more households to be helped in this way in the coming months.

---

---

Britain and America won a battle to stop "unenforceable" new rules to cap bankers' bonuses yesterday as G20 nations struggled to agree on how to keep the global economy on course for recovery.

---

I can't find any example of a non-exec being forced on a bailed out bank.

---

The fundamental problem is banks now know that whatever risk they take the government will step in a bail them out. If you're to big to fail, you're to big full stop.

I don't care what private businesses do or how they reward their staff but if they get it wrong the should be allowed to go bust, pure and simple.

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 7th October 14:20

[Podie]

Fittster said:

I don't care what private businesses do or how they reward their staff but if they get it wrong the should be allowed to go bust, pure and simple.

There was a suggestion that as RBS was so large (circa three times the size of Lehmans) that a third of the worlds payments would have stopped. No salary payments, savings disappeared, bills go unpaid and on a scale that would make NR seem irrelevant... still think it's a good idea?

Edited by Podie on Wednesday 7th October 15:27

[Fittster]

Podie said:

Fittster said:

I don't care what private businesses do or how they reward their staff but if they get it wrong the should be allowed to go bust, pure and simple.

There was a suggestion that as RBS was so large (circa three times the size of Lehmans) that a third of the worlds payments would have stopped. No salary payments, savings disappeared, bills go unpaid and on a scale that would make NR seem irrelevant... still think it's a good idea?

Yes. The idea that other banks wouldn't have quickly taken its place is silly. Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world. Banks should be allowed to fail, almost 100 have gone bust in the states this year.

If you think that a bank is to large to be allowed to fail, should for example Barclays be split into 2 parts an investment bank and high street bank?

[Podie]

Fittster said:

Podie said:

Fittster said:

I don't care what private businesses do or how they reward their staff but if they get it wrong the should be allowed to go bust, pure and simple.

There was a suggestion that as RBS was so large (circa three times the size of Lehmans) that a third of the worlds payments would have stopped. No salary payments, savings disappeared, bills go unpaid and on a scale that would make NR seem irrelevant... still think it's a good idea?

Yes. The idea that other banks wouldn't have quickly taken its place is silly. Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world. Banks should be allowed to fail, almost 100 have gone bust in the states this year.

If you think that a bank is to large to be allowed to fail, should for example Barclays be split into 2 parts an investment bank and high street bank?

Blimey. Guess we differ on that then.

If a bank is too large to fail, should it be split? IMO, yes.

[JagLover]

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

[esselte]

JagLover said:

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

Corpulent feline preservation being an unwanted side effect.. ?

[Fittster]

JagLover said:

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

A. If banks must be saved to preserve a functioning economy, why have almost 100 been allowed to fail in the states this year? If some banks that have got their risk management all wrong go pop others will quickly consume their market share.

B. The great depression, wasn't called the great depression in 1929, maybe we are already in a second great depression.

[Podie]

Fittster said:

JagLover said:

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

A. If banks must be saved to preserve a functioning economy, why have almost 100 been allowed to fail in the states this year? If some banks that have got their risk management all wrong go pop others will quickly consume their market share.

Look at the size of those banks though - none are on the scale of RBS. It's like saying the one man coffee shop round the corner has gone bust, but we can still get coffee from Starbucks...

[JagLover]

Fittster said:

B. The great depression, wasn't called the great depression in 1929, maybe we are already in a second great depression.

True enough

But we might be in a great, great, depression, without a banking system.

[LeoSayer]

ninja-lewis said:

The State Pension is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.

Worse than that is the unfunded public sector pensions.

[rypt]

Podie said:

Fittster said:

JagLover said:

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

A. If banks must be saved to preserve a functioning economy, why have almost 100 been allowed to fail in the states this year? If some banks that have got their risk management all wrong go pop others will quickly consume their market share.

Look at the size of those banks though - none are on the scale of RBS. It's like saying the one man coffee shop round the corner has gone bust, but we can still get coffee from Starbucks...

So perhaps we should have regulated before hand to ensure banks have enough reserves to weather the storm, and equally any bailouts should have been with interests rates that are above what the banks charge the person, so that we aren't giving them cheap money but rather money that we will make a hefty profit on once they sort themselves out.

[gary11]

rypt said:

Podie said:

Fittster said:

JagLover said:

Fittster said:

Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world.

Yes little impact....except nearly entering a second great depression of course.

The banks were saved not to preserve city 'fat cats', but to preserve a functioning economy.

A. If banks must be saved to preserve a functioning economy, why have almost 100 been allowed to fail in the states this year? If some banks that have got their risk management all wrong go pop others will quickly consume their market share.

Look at the size of those banks though - none are on the scale of RBS. It's like saying the one man coffee shop round the corner has gone bust, but we can still get coffee from Starbucks...

So perhaps we should have regulated before hand to ensure banks have enough reserves to weather the storm, and equally any bailouts should have been with interests rates that are above what the banks charge the person, so that we aren't giving them cheap money but rather money that we will make a hefty profit on once they sort themselves out.

So a bit like a sub prime bank...the iffier they are the more interest they charge or we charge....hang on whos charging who.....what security can they offer as we already own them...what a mess!
A full circle almost, the ethos of the reccession!

Edited by gary11 on Thursday 8th October 08:43

[Tiggsy]

gary11 said:

They reckon that we have to work another year of our lives before we are entitled to the drippings presented as reward for a LIFETIME of toil (well for some of us) called a pension.

This is the trouble with the this country.......the gov pension is not when you have to retire....unless you have done NOTHING about saving for retirement and need the state to support your old wrinkly backside. IMO they should just do away with it completely and have a (proper) means tested pension for those who really need it.

Anyway thinking "oh, i have to work another year now" needs to look at their TV....if its over 32" and/or flat - they have their priorities wrong and deserve to work till 70

[anonymous-user]

I'm quite surprised at the number of people who seem to have little or no financial plan for retirement. Many seem to think that they'll be OK because they'll downsize or the tooth fairy will give them some cash.

Anyone having to rely on a state pension is in a terrible position.

[sleep envy]

Fittster said:

Yes. The idea that other banks wouldn't have quickly taken its place is silly. Look how little impact the failure of lemon brothers had on the real world. Banks should be allowed to fail, almost 100 have gone bust in the states this year.

If you think that a bank is to large to be allowed to fail, should for example Barclays be split into 2 parts an investment bank and high street bank?

the bank wasn't allowed to fail to teach them a lesson - the US Tresury wouldn't sanction the sale to Lloyds to buy their investment arm without taking on other parts of the bank that were toxic

Lloyds didn't want to take on the toxic loans so on the Sunday evening before LB hit the wall they pulled out

Monday morning the bank goes bankrupt, all hell breaks loose and Lloyds pick up the pieces they wanted at a fraction of the cost two weeks later. Nomura then step in an pick up the sections that they were interested in, again at a fraction of the cost that they initially offered

It was the failure of the US govt to relent their demand that the bank be sold as a whole entity which ultimately caused massive problems.

the banks that have gone to the wall are so small it's insgnificant - they have been absorbed by the bigger players

there is no way the UK or US will allow another LB to happen

[Podie]

sleep envy said:

stuff

banks are evil

[sleep envy]

gary11 said:

So a bit like a sub prime bank...the iffier they are the more interest they charge or we charge....hang on whos charging who.....what security can they offer as we already own them...what a mess!
A full circle almost, the ethos of the reccession!

it's blatantly obvious this topic of conversation has gone well past your comfort zone as you're spouting tosh

to bring it back to your initial rant, AFAIC the day I receive my state pension has nothing to do with the day I retire - fail to provide for yourself in your later years whilst you can is your own problem

my mind isn't made up about the age I want to retire - I initally thought 50 would be a good age and I was making provision for that but having been made redundant in June and not having worked since I'm starting to change my minad and believe, for me at least, it's far too soon

[gary11]

sleep envy said:

gary11 said:

So a bit like a sub prime bank...the iffier they are the more interest they charge or we charge....hang on whos charging who.....what security can they offer as we already own them...what a mess!
A full circle almost, the ethos of the reccession!

it's blatantly obvious this topic of conversation has gone well past your comfort zone as you're spouting tosh

to bring it back to your initial rant, AFAIC the day I receive my state pension has nothing to do with the day I retire - fail to provide for yourself in your later years whilst you can is your own problem

my mind isn't made up about the age I want to retire - I initally thought 50 would be a good age and I was making provision for that but having been made redundant in June and not having worked since I'm starting to change my minad and believe, for me at least, it's far too soon

OH OK Sorry,luckily I have my own income so the state pension is not the be all and end all,I used the subprime analagy for my own reason as it has parralels with my own buisiness I dont mind you thinking Im stupid!
I was able to retire last year as Im not so silly at 45 but carry on!
Its not the money that made me rant its the principle and the overtaxation that the middle income people of this country wont be able to shake off,and yet again the goalpost have moved,I dont see or hear anything from the blue corner to make me think any recent stealth taxes will be abolished just the implimentation of more!
Good luck in your search for work hope you make up your mind soon about when you want to retire!

Edited by gary11 on Thursday 8th October 14:00

[sleep envy]

gary11 said:

OH OK Sorry,luckily I have my own income so the state pension is not the be all and end all,I used the subprime analagy for my own reason as it has parralels with my own buisiness I dont mind you thinking Im stupid!
I was able to retire last year as Im not so silly at 45 but carry on!
Its not the money that made me rant its the principle and the overtaxation that the middle income people of this country wont be able to shake off,and yet again the goalpost have moved,I dont see or hear anything from the blue corner to make me think any recent stealth taxes will be abolished just the implimentation of more!
Good luck in your search for work hope you make up your mind soon about when you want to retire!

I didn't say you were stupid, FYI I justsaid you are posting on a discussion which had progressed to a topic which you clearly have little knowledge about.

I'm pleased that you've managed to retire and hope you don't find it as boring as my parents do.

Sadly the pot is empty so there's only 2 ways to deal with it, stop shelling out or put more in - personally I don't have a problem with it as they can't keep funding the state when tax revenue has fallen through the floor.

It isn't a cut that hurts me but there are a number of restrictions in public spending which have. I, like everyone else, will have to grin and bear it through the tough timesalthough saying that I fear we'll be back in the same position in 20 years or so - the public soon forget about living within their means.

Btw, there's been plenty said from the blue corner this week about this topic.

[RichBurley]

Work another year? Not likely. On average, people start work much later now, what with offering tin pot degrees at tin pot universities. Oh, and tin pot further educashun courses to hide the fact that kids know nothing suitable for the working environment at 16, 17 or 18 years of age. So retiring at 66 still means that the average working life will be shorter than before, and the population is still aging.

It's hardly a big deal...