Occupy London! Here we go again!

[gropingmantis]

How is that even possible? If everyone took more than they put in then erm......

Perhaps you have got more than you've put back in or will ever put back in but that just means some other poor sap i.e. me has to pay for it.

Not really Tax is not the government's sole source of income. If it was then they would be pretty screwed...more screwed.

 

[Dolph]

My point does have theoretical point, government tends be less efficient. It's funds
come from the tax payer, not it's customers with no real incentive to
really conserve money for the owners.


If private business gets bailed out every time they fail that removes some
incentives coming from failure. This is happening with banks.

But if the government isn't responsible for the consequences of regulatory failure, it removes their incentives to create good regulations. Our finance industries were never operating in a free market, there were lots and lots of regulations, ineffective ones that created a lot of moral hazard, but lots of regulations never the less.

 

[[TW]Fox]

How is that even possible?

I'm not saying its possible but you do seem to be assuming that income tax is the only form of governmental income? It is in theory possible for all private citizens to take out more than they personally put in because income tax and sales tax is not the only form of income.

 

[UK-AL05]

But if the government isn't responsible for the consequences of regulatory failure, it removes their incentives to create good regulations. Our finance industries were never operating in a free market, there were lots and lots of regulations, ineffective ones that created a lot of moral hazard, but lots of regulations never the less.

I never said anything about more or less regulation. I just disagree with government
interference(Left wing), especially with the peoples money. A lot of these protesters
are complaining about the bail outs. They are complaining about a left wing idea(Socialism).

But if we don't, because they are so central to economy, we are screwed.

I feel they will keep needing bailouts for a long time, until the
failure incentive is back.

 

[Firestar_3x]

I'm not saying its possible but you do seem to be assuming that income tax is the only form of governmental income? It is in theory possible for all private citizens to take out more than they personally put in because income tax and sales tax is not the only form of income.

I have no ideas of the numbers but income tax must make up a huge chunk of the governments income?

If we all took out more then we put into the system then government spending in other areas would have to be cut leading to an unsustainable situation?

 

[Kemik]

I'm not saying its possible but you do seem to be assuming that income tax is the only form of governmental income? It is in theory possible for all private citizens to take out more than they personally put in because income tax and sales tax is not the only form of income.

Corporation tax makes up about 10% of total government revenue.

It's safe to say almost all taxes are from the individual, either in spending or employment income.

 

[StriderX]

I have no ideas of the numbers but income tax must make up a huge chunk of the governments income?

If we all took out more then we put into the system then government spending in other areas would have to be cut leading to an unsustainable situation?

Depends how efficient the system is, with humans at the helm...not so much.

 

[Amp34]

The problem of course is that a bank, such as HBOS, is rather different to another private company, say a car company called Rover. When Rover failed, the customers lost warranty and the staff lost jobs.

The consequences of a bank that large failing were far, far higher for society as a whole, which is why the government supported it by purchasing shares.

I read an article the other day about the share prices of the "bailed out" banks. They are still significantly lower than the amount they were bought for (much to my suprise), not sure about the selling though, although it was supposed to start around now according to that article.

 

[UK-AL05]

I read an article the other day about the share prices of the "bailed out" banks. They are still significantly lower than the amount they were bought for (much to my suprise), not sure about the selling though, although it was supposed to start around now according to that article.

Argh, yes public money wasted...

 

[cheets64]

I mean if you idiots think the government has your best interests when the minister of the MoD was doing what he did, we have all heard about it, then corruption is still RIFE in the British government

 

[Kemik]

I read an article the other day about the share prices of the "bailed out" banks. They are still significantly lower than the amount they were bought for (much to my suprise), not sure about the selling though, although it was supposed to start around now according to that article.

I think it was aimed at around the 70-90p mark for Lloyds if I remember correctly. That's much lower than the current values.

 

[Amp34]

While I agree, the banks were too important to let fail, shouldn't that mean such a vital service should be controlled and provided for by Government so that profits are properly reinvested and unnecessary risks aren't taken? The profit motive is fine when shareholders are aware of the risks associated with the investments the company is making, but when the company itself doesn't know what it's buying then you have to question if that management should be in place and how to combat that occurring on a level that could bring such a vital company down. The only problem with a nationalised service is competition drives up efficiency, something nationalisation prevents.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything. Go look up the history of Africa post colonisations to see how socialism "works". After reading about that recently the less government control the better!

 

[Kemik]

I mean if you idiots think the government has your best interests when the minister of the MoD was doing what he did, we have all heard about it, then corruption is still RIFE in the British government

Exactly. The best thing any decent Prime minister could do is get rid of the corruption and general rubbish such as the MoD procurement facilities getting themselves in to stupid contracts that cost a fortune to cancel. The thing that is costing us more than anything is the sheer amount of wastage on common sense expenditure. E.g. compare competitive prices would good terms. Demand results rather than allowing budget overspends for useless products all with the aim of protecting British jobs. British companies can produce decent goods but the current ones don't need to because their income streams are protected.

 

[Biohazard]

*yawn* at media black out. To get the headlines these days guys you need to riot, otherwise your just a foot note.

 

[Biohazard]

Taking state money(Taxing people), and giving to the banks is left wing idea, it's socialist. Banks readily accept this, despite the fact they are right wing.

In general they neither, when it suits them they are left, when it suits them they are right.

wot?

I think you will find people of the 'right' "giving" money to banks too.

 

[UK-AL05]

wot?

I think you will find people of the 'right' "giving" money to banks too.

Both are! Don't really have much choice. Margret thatcher let industry fail, but not banks?

Seems hypocritical.

I like margret thatcher(Prepares to be insulted), but to follow her policies to the logical conclusion and not to be hypocritical you would have to allow the banks to fail.

 

[Floogie]

Both are! Don't really have much choice. Margret thatcher let industry fail, but not banks?

Seems hypocritical.

I like margret thatcher(Prepares to be insulted), but to follow her policies to the logical conclusion and not to be hypocritical would have to allow the banks to fail.

You are so confused, I don't even know where to begin...

 

[cheets64]

Exactly. The best thing any decent Prime minister could do is get rid of the corruption and general rubbish such as the MoD procurement facilities getting themselves in to stupid contracts that cost a fortune to cancel. The thing that is costing us more than anything is the sheer amount of wastage on common sense expenditure. E.g. compare competitive prices would good terms. Demand results rather than allowing budget overspends for useless products all with the aim of protecting British jobs. British companies can produce decent goods but the current ones don't need to because their income streams are protected.

What is it 6 MoD ministers in 10 years yet THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO lives have been lost in Afghan. Just makes this Dr Fox crap even more of a joke, absolute power! If only he could step on an IED.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F.../OperationsInAfghanistanBritishFatalities.htm

RIP

 

[UK-AL05]

You are so confused, I don't even know where to begin...

Explain!

I seem to be getting a lot of "your wrong", but when they explain they completely fall apart.

She removed a lot of industry subsidies in the name of capitalism. In a way she is right. If can't support it's self, it should not exist.

Yet now we are subsiding the financial industry.

 

[Floogie]

Explain!

Maggie let heavy industry die as it was globally uncompetitive. Like all globalised developed economies we moved to a service industry and one highly specialised in finance (due to the Tories bumper deregulation in the 80's).

So you are comparing two different scenarios here. Heavy industry was on the way out so it didn't get saved. Finance on the other hand is a major source of our income and with that fact, no government is going to let it collapse or shrink to a significant degree.