reply to post by spacedonk
That’s all well and good but it would be wrong to hope for any great impact on the cuts; the spending deficit last year was around £145bn*1, of
this around £95bn is structural. The cuts are being made to bring this figure down and a short term budget increase would not change the need to
reduce overall spending for the long term. The money could have an impact on the national debt but as this stands at ~£900bn*2 it wouldn’t be much
of an impact.
The report (p3, “Option One: A Conventional Reprivatisation)*3 makes a decent argument for why simply selling the government’s shares would not
bring in much of a profit and could potentially result in a loss. If your aim is to recoup the cost of the bailout then the CPS’ plan offers a
pretty good way of doing that; under their plans the government would get the cost of the bailout back as anything under the floor price will go to
the government, they will also get an additional 18% in capital gains tax (of those that don’t sell early) and the tax payer will get the profit
over and above the floor price, minus capital gains, that they otherwise would not get if the govt simply floated the shares they hold.
I understand the sentiment behind the negativity in this thread but it seems o me that you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. If at the
end of the day this approach brings in more money for both government and taxpaying individuals then isn't it the prudent thing to do.
That’s not to mention the fact that it would make the public (not the government) the majority shareholder in RBS, if you wanted to do something
about bonuses and low lending levels then this would provide a massive tool to achieve those ends.
This scheme is not without problems or valid criticism but I don’t think the ones mentioned in this thread are particularly major ones.
Some criticism I just don’t buy, like the idea that this will quash all the negative feeling towards and scrutiny of the banks; the British are a
cynical lot, in my opinion to their detriment, and I think the general reaction to this would be “about time” and nothing more. I don't believe
we'll see a call to deregulate the banks again or anything of the sort.
The idea that it’s not enough is again being petty; it’s more than you would otherwise get. It may be a bad apology but it’s better than a cold
It won’t change anyone’s tax band; any gains will be subject to capital gains and not income tax. Only dividends could affect someone’s income
tax band but the amount that people would be getting would be relatively tiny, so unless you’re earning £39,851 then it’s not really going to
This is nothing like the right to buy; council houses were a resource that the government needed and would continue to need. The government does not
need to maintain ownership of the banks and will re-privatise Lloyds and RBS (and other assets) regardless, the only question is how they do that.
reply to post by Freeborn
Do you think we should keep Lloyds, RBS and the others as national banks?
edit on 17-5-2011 by Mike_A because: (no reason given)