Voters to be given free banking shares

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[sinizter]

Publicity and posturing.

It will never happen.

[sussexjob]

Yawn, another u-turn on the way.

[V88Dicky]

Why every voter? Is every voter a tax-payer?

Or have some voters never payed a penny in tax?


Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

[louiebaby]

V88Dicky said:

Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

True, but certainly more difficult to work.

If we could trust them to use the money efficiently, I'd prefer the government just took the cash and got on with it. (But now is not the right time to sell the shares anyway.)

[Kermit power]

V88Dicky said:

Why every voter? Is every voter a tax-payer?

Or have some voters never payed a penny in tax?


Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

Absolutely this.

If I invested in a business in the private sector, I wouldn't expect to see the benefits equally shared with other people who hadn't invested in the first place. Why should I have to put up with this happening over the bank shares?

[elster]

Clegg can urge all he likes for a Soundbyte.

However the bank is for sale to raise funds, not to be a free giveaway so Cleggy can get a bit of popularity.

[tomw2000]

Kermit power said:

V88Dicky said:

Why every voter? Is every voter a tax-payer?

Or have some voters never payed a penny in tax?


Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

Absolutely this.

If I invested in a business in the private sector, I wouldn't expect to see the benefits equally shared with other people who hadn't invested in the first place. Why should I have to put up with this happening over the bank shares?

Agree. For every £1 paid in Income Tax tax payers get 1 bank share.


Job's a good 'un.

[Lardydah]

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!)

[Kermit power]

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...

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?

[XJ40]

Just pay off the deficit will you Clegg, don't mess us about with this.

[HundredthIdiot]

V88Dicky said:

Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

Every time you buy something you pay tax.

[Use Psychology]

i think an appropriately sized tax rebate for all tax payers would be fairer.

[Use Psychology]

sinizter said:

Publicity and posturing.

It will never happen.

something like it probably should though.

[Kermit power]

HundredthIdiot said:

V88Dicky said:

Tax-payers should be given free banking shares, not just anyone on the fking electoral role!

Every time you buy something you pay tax.

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.

[Mojocvh]

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...

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?

Excellent reasoning KP

[Otispunkmeyer]

XJ40 said:

Just pay off the deficit will you Clegg, don't mess us about with this.

Agree

Dont give a penny back to the us the tax payers, just please put it to effective use clearing some of the deficit. It makes sense to do that. Though if it did happen, I see no reason to cash the shares in pronto. No doubt the banks will be getting stronger and stronger than ever over the next couple of years (seeing how little has changed) until the next bubble. The key will be to cash in just before the skyscraper of cards comes crashing down again.

[Justayellowbadge]

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...

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?

Excellent reasoning KP

Would be, save for the tiny wrinkle that what is being proposed is that voters would get the profit on the shares once they are over and above that which the government paid, not the entire share.

[hidetheelephants]

Am I the only one who thinks this is just a wheeze to shovel cash in the direction of whichever Square Mile companies are picked to handle the share juggling? It sounds like a pointless and cynical bit of vote buying with added cash-in for the 'friends in the city'. Terrible idea; utter waste of time and I hope it gets shot down in flames.

[Caulkhead]

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...

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?

Excellent reasoning KP

Would be, save for the tiny wrinkle that what is being proposed is that voters would get the profit on the shares once they are over and above that which the government paid, not the entire share.

Indeed, the article makes the 'floor price' element crystal clear.

Personally I'm all for it.