Your industry has been fighting against progressive regulation for too long, always threatening to move abroad if something is passed. I'm sick of the industry holding the rest of the country hostage, it held it hostage in the last recession and I've no doubt it will in the future. Let's focus on putting money into our hi-tec industrial sector, car industry and so on, not this self-important industry.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
I don't disagree with that sentiment, but change doesn't happen overnight. Everyone knows that. The reason this industry is able to make demands is that Labour gave it the power to do so, banking and finance makes up 8% of the UK economy, it is the single largest in this country.
Lax regulation by the FSA led to this situation, and it's dismantling will lead the industry out. Again it takes time and there are parts of the public sector who are resisting this change, most banks and bankers would prefer to have the Bank in charge of regulation, but there are a lot of people in the civil service establishment who don't want to give the Bank power because it takes it out of their hands.
You want to focus money on high tech and other manufacturing industries, but without any capital to do it there won't be any boom in these sectors. Without taxes from the city where will the government get the money to invest in these industries.
It's better to effect the changes slowly, keep the banks onside and use the significant taxes generated by them to spend money on capital investment in these industries and tax incentives for companies to come to the UK or for entrepreneurs to found new companies here.
The UK finance industry is the goose that lays the golden eggs, why kill it by imposing a tax to save the Euro, something we have no stake in? It makes little to no sense.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
No, the government bailed out RBS and BoS. My employer received no such bail out monies. We had to eat our losses and a lot of people lost their jobs as a result and half the board have been sacked or retired.
It wouldn't even be banks or bankers that lose out from this move, whether you like it or not people and institutions would move to other countries and the government would lose the tax income. As a result the people who lose out are the 750,000 government employees who are paid with the tax money earned from the City. The nurses, teachers, doctors and police officers who we all depend on would lose their jobs while just 200,000 people would move out of London and the surrounding areas.
You may be happy but there are many government employees and private sector employees looking very worried right now that this tax will mean deeper cuts in spending and much higher taxes. All of this for what? Ideological punishment? Can't you see how destructive it would be?
Also, no one has ever tried to introduce progressive regulatory changes in Britain. Gordon Brown deregulated the industry so very much and business from around the world poured into the City and other parts of the UK. Our financial sector grew very much at the expense of Paris and a little of Frankfurt and New York. That's what all this EU regulation/tax is about, an assault on the City and the UK, nothing else.
The problem I have with many of the arguments you make is that you try and make things seem really black and white, like you have all of the facts. Where did you pull the 200,000 number from? How do you know that this tax would kill the industry?
It looks like you're pulling figures from your arse and surrounding it with hyperbole. The tax isn't unjust "punishment", it's the industry's way of repaying the debt it owes to the country.
It looks like you're pulling figures from your arse and surrounding it with hyperbole. The tax isn't unjust "punishment", it's the industry's way of repaying the debt it owes to the country.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Around 200,000 people work in the financial sector in the UK in non branch positions. These are the positions that would move abroad. This tax would kill the industry because I personally have been sounded out about a move to Switzerland if a tax is introduced. Most people have. Why would our bank pay 0.5% transaction fee for trades and investments that could just as easily be made in another country? It is an industry killer, I think the only banks left would be RBS, Northern Rock and Lloyds and since none of these are high yield or have decent investment banking arms the City would be dead.
Also the tax wouldn't be used to 'repay the debt owed' it would be used to prop up the Euro. The debt owed will be repaid when the government sells its stake back to the markets. It's an investment after all.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree mate.
zomgbbqftw said:Around 200,000 people work in the financial sector in the UK in non branch positions. These are the positions that would move abroad. This tax would kill the industry because I personally have been sounded out about a move to Switzerland if a tax is introduced. Most people have. Why would our bank pay 0.5% transaction fee for trades and investments that could just as easily be made in another country? It is an industry killer, I think the only banks left would be RBS, Northern Rock and Lloyds and since none of these are high yield or have decent investment banking arms the City would be dead.
Also the tax wouldn't be used to 'repay the debt owed' it would be used to prop up the Euro. The debt owed will be repaid when the government sells its stake back to the markets. It's an investment after all.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree mate.
I didn't know you were the entire industry?!
Listen, I believe that if you swanned off to your little chalet in Switzerland, someone new would replace you. A good deal is a good deal even with tax.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
I meant that to mean if someone as junior as me has been sounded out to move then most people will have been.
You misunderstand the nature of this tax I think, it is so easy to avoid by just ignoring London or the EU exist there won't be a financial industry anymore. The same profits that investment banks make can be made outside of London very, very easily. Sure retail banks wouldn't move but there isn't really any money in retail banking. Not on the scale of what the City makes. It's the hedgies and investment banks which London has that other cities don't have and it's these that would move losing the jobs and taxes.
The reason these banks exist here and in New York is that there is lax regulation and lax taxing of their activities, but it really can be done anywhere in the world. This business isn't unique to London or the UK, if no one does it here, it just won't happen. It's not like retail or consumer industry where a producer or retailer leaves and another comes back with a new business model to replace them. It's a completely non-traditional model.
Like I said mate, agree to disagree.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Meadows said:
They have no money, there's a leadership crisis and noone votes for them. Dead.
killer_clank
Member
Meadows said:
Terrible. They lost a shit ton of their councillors in May, and Nick Griffin only managed to just stay leader in an election they had.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eader-BNP-just-9-votes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Oh god the comments on that article...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Me neither, nothing personal.
I think there was talk the BNP would do well out of the looting, but after Starkey's intervention and the deaths of the Asian lads the looting hasn't had the effect they wanted.
I'm surprised that Nick Griffin hasn't been all over the place talking about harsh sentencing and whatnot, but it could be because they are almost bankrupt and a lot of their members defected to the EDL.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Good news on the deficit, public sector net borrowing for the month of July was just £0.02bn vs £3.5bn July 2010. Government current spending is down for the first time and the rate of growth in social security and interest payments has slowed significantly.
Also the bank balance sheet tax brought in £660m for the three months of April to July and that means around £2.4bn in bank taxes this year. The cost of the banking intervention has also gone down by around £5bn in the year just passed from £119bn to £114bn as the nationalised banks make profits and take their borrowing of government books and onto private books. The bad news is that it looks like the government just booked £35bn worth of direct exposure to PIIGS economies and I expect a one time write down is now expected. Stupid RBS/BoS.
Also the bank balance sheet tax brought in £660m for the three months of April to July and that means around £2.4bn in bank taxes this year. The cost of the banking intervention has also gone down by around £5bn in the year just passed from £119bn to £114bn as the nationalised banks make profits and take their borrowing of government books and onto private books. The bad news is that it looks like the government just booked £35bn worth of direct exposure to PIIGS economies and I expect a one time write down is now expected. Stupid RBS/BoS.
Hey zomg, you've heard about RBS banning its account holders from using other banks' cash machines and starting to charge monthly/annual fees for their accounts, right? What's your opinion on that, considering that they're (at least theoretically) owned by the very people they're trying to fleece with these new charges? Smacks to me of gross ingratitude.
Also, FTSE 100 below 5000 again, and worse than last week too. Never a good thing to see.
Also, FTSE 100 below 5000 again, and worse than last week too. Never a good thing to see.
Dambrosi said:
The FTSE and Dow are just on a little rollercoaster right now, not a bad sign per se more a sign of uncertainness.
Fact is it would stabilise it even if it's not great news, say another (shallow, short) recession, it would then creep up and stay around 5500 as the markets can say "at least we know now".
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Dambrosi said:
It's pretty stupid, but I don't think it will fly as account holders will just close up and head for Barclays or HSBC. They are trying to monetise checking accounts which in this country and in the US is extremely difficult to do. On the continent annual charges for checking accounts and debit cards are quite normal, my gf who is Swiss pays about £90 a year for each facility, but that has been a part of their system for a very long time and people just accept it.
Also, newer banks like Metro Bank are offering much better service than RBS so expect a lot of their business to head over that way.
On the market falls - it's all really driven by uncertainty. Like Steve said, if the governments around the world just came out and said, 'yes, we are going to have a short recessionary period, but we think it will pass soon', there would be some initial shock, but the certainty would send markets upwards after those initial losses.
Basically investors are bailing out of equity markets wholesale and investing in sovereign debt from safe countries (UK, US, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan) and some commodities. Lower returns but they are guaranteed.
Meadows said:
The guy is a clown, does anyone take what he says seriously any more? For a start the banks weren't "underwritten" by the tax payer its just that Gordon Brown decided to bail them out.
Why do we have to drive any industry out of the UK especially one that makes so much cash from outside the UK?
Meatpuppet
Member
Zenith said:
Doesn't the banking sector account for ~10% of UK tax revenues?
Zenith said:
Garbage, everytime a banker gets a £1m bonus half that goes to the treasury for a start, then there's corporation tax and the new banking levy that gets paid on top, i'm sure its massive contribution and of course a lot of it comes from outside the UK boosting our economy.
I don't see why we cant have a successful banking industry and do other things as well! I'm sure some of you would be happy if everyone worked in the public sector but its the private sector that pays for the public sector and if you tax and regulate it to death it becomes uncompetitive shrinks and the hole thing falls apart.
J Tourettes
Banned
Rourkey said:
The banks need more regulation, it was the loosening of regs that helped cause the current mess.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
What really pisses me off is the huge amount of debate over banking-related taxes, yet the oil industry got a surprise tax during the last budget without any debate or precaution. I hate to be that guy, but a lot of the banking jobs are based in south-east England, while Britain's oil industry is largely based in north-east Scotland. Take from that what you will.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Rourkey said:
And "recovering" banks still making huge profits can't?
J Tourettes said:
I agree, I worked in the Pension industry at the time Gordon Brown handed it's regulation over to the FSA who were completely incompetent, its no surprise to me the FSA couldn't get their heads round the complex transactions that go on in banks.
For me the people who have really got away with what's happened are the banks auditors!
I have no issue with a banker who makes a bank £30m getting a couple of million bonus, i'd expect the same in his shoes and infact they should be cheered because with the bonus they get they'll probably pay as much tax from that bonus as the people discussing it in this thread do in their lifetimes..
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
Cant what? They have their own equivalent tax the bank levy, they didn't complain about it unlike the oil industry who did threaten to close fields etc.
I have friends who work in the oil industry all over the globe (actually they are one family!) and they tell me no where in the world does it cost more than $40 a barrel to get the oil out of the ground and that includes the tar sands in Canada, so if they are creaming of $100+ a barrel and then letting the refiners and pump stations take a pittance i'm sure they can pay some bonus tax because 2 years ago they were getting half that for exactly the same stuff, which remember is infact our country's dwindiling natural resources not their's.
killer_clank
Member
Looks like Scotland will become the first part of the UK to legalise same-sex marriage:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/09/02114626
Long overdue, hopefully the rest of the UK follows suit.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/09/02114626
Long overdue, hopefully the rest of the UK follows suit.
killer_clank
Member
This is interesting. The Scottish Conservatives are having a leadership election, and if one of the candidates wins, he's promising to disband the party entirely, and replace them with a new independent party, given how completely toxic the brand is.
Intriguing indeed. IIRC Murdo Fraser is a proponent of fiscal independence as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ottish-Conservative-Party-set-to-disband.html
Intriguing indeed. IIRC Murdo Fraser is a proponent of fiscal independence as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ottish-Conservative-Party-set-to-disband.html
killer_clank
Member
Biggzy said:
6 feet under.
Surely the Lib Dems will just return to their former mediocrity? It's not as if they were ever front-runners, they just got lucky because people really couldn't stand another Labour government.
Conservatives have the next election in the bag. I think the next few will go....
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Labour
Some sort of coalition.
That's my 25 year prediction (thereabouts).
Conservatives have the next election in the bag. I think the next few will go....
Conservative
Labour
Conservative
Labour
Labour
Some sort of coalition.
That's my 25 year prediction (thereabouts).
Speedymanic
Banned
Sir Fragula said:
Nope and the riots/News Corp scandal have really damaged them. Add to this that the real cuts haven't impacted everywhere yet, but there are growing reports of longer waiting times in hospitals, anger from the police federation about cutting numbers, etc...
The next year or so will be very telling if they have the next election in the bag.
***
And what a surprise, the Health reforms 2.0 debate has begun and the room is virtually empty. :/
I just don't see any competition. Lib Dems are lame ducks and Labour have nothing going for them. It's a race between 3 hobbled one-legged horses.Sir Fragula said:
When the cuts kick in, I fully expect to be told that it's all Labours fault. Constantly. Whether that washes with the masses remains to be seen.Speedymanic said:
Speedymanic
Banned
SmokyDave said:
To be fair, it was the same last election...I can see a Labour/Lib Dem coalition next election.
SmokyDave said:
No doubt, but it is starting to wear thin. Can't really see it going across when police stations are closed or when NHS waiting lists go back to the levels they were before Labour came in.
Sir Fragula said:
- Deficit reduction is going relatively well
- Economy is doing TERRIBLY, especially with the Eurozone dying on its arse
- Libya went pretty well when all is said and done
- Still no terrorist attacks under them, in fact, they decreased the threat level
Not great but not terrible either. Then again, I fucking hate Labour.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
You guys are missing the upcoming constituency equalising bill which will put the Cons about 7-12 seats short of a majority vs 19 atm.
If (when, really) that bill passes and Labour's in built advantage in the system is eradicated they will be on around 225-235 seats vs 285-295 for Cons going into 2015 with 300 required for a majority (301 for Cons if Bercow is retained as Speaker, which is looking unlikely, I think Frank Field is a good shout).
Anyway, the next election is too far out to be making serious predictions about, my current thinking is a slim Con majority, but they will be split over many issues as the idiots on the Tory right will assert themselves after years of being ignored during the coalition and lead to Dave being hampered and going back to the public for a new right wing mandate or a leadership election he may not win.
If (when, really) that bill passes and Labour's in built advantage in the system is eradicated they will be on around 225-235 seats vs 285-295 for Cons going into 2015 with 300 required for a majority (301 for Cons if Bercow is retained as Speaker, which is looking unlikely, I think Frank Field is a good shout).
Anyway, the next election is too far out to be making serious predictions about, my current thinking is a slim Con majority, but they will be split over many issues as the idiots on the Tory right will assert themselves after years of being ignored during the coalition and lead to Dave being hampered and going back to the public for a new right wing mandate or a leadership election he may not win.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Biggzy said:
I'm not so sure about that. The LibDems may have lost support (and it may only be a short-term loss) among many of their traditional supporters, but after all there weren't enough of these traditional supporters to get them elected to anything anyway.
But they have made some gains: in electoral credibility in doing a sensible coalition deal, in credibility as a potential party of government, in pushing some policies through minority membership of a coalition - especially, if the Coalition manages to pull it off, getting lower earners out of the tax brackets altogether.
It is rather early to write them off, and they will have a broader prospective set of supporters next time round, though it remains to be seen how much of that they can turn into votes.
Sir Fragula said:
The chief one surely must be in their approach to deficit reduction - if it works. Besides that there's the free schools thing, the partial rolling back of the appalling erosions of civil liberties. the measure of this government though is surely going to be in the success or otherwise of deficit reduction rather than on specific policy initiatives.
Again too early to write them off.
Against both of these there's the question of whether Labour, come the next election, will have any credible policies. If they don't then it does rather leave the field open for the Tories and LibDems. Just because we may not like things that the current government is doing/might have been forced into doing doesn't mean there's space for much in the way of credible alternatives.