Britain. Ruled by the banks for the banks.

[spanna]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

cue the the bankers elite core to say we as a country need these greedy capitalists.

Yes I am aware if we let them leave there would be a gap in tax income, but the entire financial sector wouldnt be gone, retail banking would remain, its just the investment side I want either gone or severely legislated and taxed.

That storyville documentary where there is a economy based on people betting on defaults and the like makes me sick to the stomach. The US and UK financial success always based on house prices and investment bankers and we now know why governments fight so hard to keep the housing market up.

So how much tax income will that lose and where would you like the cuts to start as we will have to reduce our spending to match the loss

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

cue the the bankers elite core to say we as a country need these greedy capitalists.

Yes I am aware if we let them leave there would be a gap in tax income, but the entire financial sector wouldnt be gone, retail banking would remain, its just the investment side I want either gone or severely legislated and taxed.

That storyville documentary where there is a economy based on people betting on defaults and the like makes me sick to the stomach. The US and UK financial success always based on house prices and investment bankers and we now know why governments fight so hard to keep the housing market up.

If by "bankers elite core", you mean those who don't have a one-sided view on the subject*, and want to consider the implications of any drastic proposals on the overall economy, count me in as a member of the "bankers elite core".

*but who do think that the bankers shafted the world economy due to the disconnect between risk and reward, but that they were also supported in this by governments who deregulated too far and by consumers who spent too much without thinking through who was going to have to eventually pay for this cornucopia of consumer goods and housing.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by spanna

So how much tax income will that lose and where would you like the cuts to start as we will have to reduce our spending to match the loss

I would increase taxes to make up the shortfall, not necessarily 100% of it but since its only 11% of tax intake it wouldnt take a huge amount of increases to make it up.

I am not one of those who thinks cuts are the only ways to make up shortfalls.

---------- Post added at 09:33 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

If by "bankers elite core", you mean those who don't have a one-sided view on the subject*, and want to consider the implications of any drastic proposals on the overall economy, count me in as a member of the "bankers elite core".

*but who do think that the bankers shafted the world economy due to the disconnect between risk and reward, but that they were also supported in this by governments who deregulated too far and by consumers who spent too much without thinking through who was going to have to eventually pay for this cornucopia of consumer goods and housing.

The overall implications on our economy by this financial sector is huge, far bigger than 11%.

Also the shareholder mentality I moan about a lot, a lot of shares are owned by financial institutes so its they who have also pushed the growth at any price mentality as well. The damage to society is huge by these financial companies.

Its sad you cant see they have simply got too big.

£54 billion is a lot of extra taxes - 12% of the total UK tax revenue.

Would you be willing to pay an additional 12% in Income Tax, NI, VAT, etc?

btw, you are making an incorrect assumption about not seeing that the banks have got too big, but I don't agree with your proposal cutting them off at the knees - I think they need more regulation, and as I have said before frequently, more connect between risk and reward (and you appear to be conflating hedge funds and stockbrokers with investment banks).

[Chrysalis]

yeah I would pay it.

Its hardly going to bankrupt me.

NI and income tax that is.

The entire 11% wouldnt be lost, thats a figure buffed up.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yeah I would pay it.

Its hardly going to bankrupt me.

NI and income tax that is.

The entire 11% wouldnt be lost, thats a figure buffed up.

You may not like the system and without doubt if looked at. warts and all it does leave a lot to be desired.

The fact remains that it is the global method of operating within the global financial system and until and if another system is created, a country is either a player or potentially relegating themselves towards third world status.

The problem is that the workings of micro and macro finance is multi faceted and to look at one element in isolation to the whole is a distortion which can lead to simplistic answers but with complicated unintended consequences.

Our high street banks tried to elevate themselves from already, in some instances, major global players to mega players and made mistakes for which we will all have to pay. A simplistic answer would be to bring back the restrictions of Glass-Steagall which may or may not happen but cannot happen until the complexity of cross banking debt is resolved. Progressively they have to have their balance sheets rebuilt so that at some point a separation between retail and speculative banking would be possible but not whilst the retail sector is still entwined. It might take years or decades but we have to grim and bear it or we could all go down with the banks.

As for the news articles and the film. It is so easy to point out what is wrong, what went wrong and how but what does that achieve beyond causing angst among those innocently affected. The solutions may be long, complicated and painful but within a global system that is dependent on initiatives from the source it is pointless having the public getting all hot under the collar about something they cannot comprehend and potentially demanding unilateral decisions. Luddite like demands from those who do not understand serves no purpose and whether they like it or not we live in a globalised world from which an opt out is not really an option.

[spanna]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yeah I would pay it.

Its hardly going to bankrupt me.

NI and income tax that is.

The entire 11% wouldnt be lost, thats a figure buffed up.

I'm glad you can afford it - not everyone else can

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

cue the the bankers elite core to say we as a country need these greedy capitalists.

Yes I am aware if we let them leave there would be a gap in tax income, but the entire financial sector wouldnt be gone, retail banking would remain, its just the investment side I want either gone or severely legislated and taxed.

Do you really think they'll leave, perhaps I'm being silly but I just can't see them uping sticks and leaving London for some Malayan backwater and more importantly I can't see their families being to impressed either, next time one of these banks threatens it I think we should say "see you then" and see what happens, if they go we can always do a u turn and cave into what ever demands they have to keep the others like we do now.

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Do you really think they'll leave, perhaps I'm being silly but I just can't see them uping sticks and leaving London for some Malayan backwater and more importantly I can't see their families being to impressed either, next time one of these banks threatens it I think we should say "see you then" and see what happens, if they go we can always do a u turn and cave into what ever demands they have to keep the others like we do now.

Not perhaps the usually most sought place for answers but Wikipedia gives a reasonable insight into London's position in global Forex trading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market

If anyone can stand the tedium of reading all the way through it will become obvious that in that particular field we are the major player of first resort. However the EU wants us to apply unilaterally on their behalf and for their benefit a Tobin tax which as it would be unilateral would instantly kill the flow through London and divert all London's business to another major centre with the most likely beneficiary being the USA.

Even after Cameron's NO they still think they can get us through some other loophole and force a tax on anything with a Euro cross. I think they might try and we will have to fight that corner via the courts because one of the largest traded contracts is the Euro\Dollar.

I fail to understand the mixed messages which have come from Merkel and Sarkosy. At one point they saw the tax as a boost to Europe. At another point they desired to stem the supposed volatility of the Euro crosses by taxing transactions but failed to realise that only London came even remotely within their remit. At yet another point they pointed to the fact that London transacts 60% of Europe's financial transactions and thought that as we are not within the Euro it is inappropriate.

They have swung from envious money seekers to blame allocators and the City is the target. They talk as though the Tobin tax is either potentially bountiful or protectionist. On both counts they are wrong. Trade in London would transfer out to the USA which thwarts Tobin tax benefits and any attempt at protectionism would be thwarted thousands of miles away.

As the question posed was would the banks leave. Don't think so but the business would with 100% certainty. The Wikipedia gives the major players but there are plenty more and for sure they have a presence in all of the listed countries involved in that particular type of trade. The American branches could most probably triple their throughput and take all the business from the UK leaving the UK branches to shrink down to deal with whatever was left.

Like it or loath it the City of London is one institutional base we have of great global significance which if destroyed by the pointlessness of envious European eyes would leave us a lot poorer and Europe no richer. I can see no other purpose in Merkel and Sarkosy's demands other than to insist on something which was destructive and to which we could not agree. It was a take the exit door card by people bereft of ideas on how to sort out their own problems and a damaging political manoeuvre within a federalist political agenda.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by spanna

I'm glad you can afford it - not everyone else can

Well I am hardly rich and I am below the official average income level. However I keep my living costs down, and have very few luxuries.

Paying an extra 11% tax wouldnt be nice but I could deal with it.

Its not the case of been able to afford its more a case of willingness to pay it.

Remember income tax levels are historically "very" low.

If someone doesnt want to pay for something the easiest thing to say is "I cant afford it".

---------- Post added at 06:30 ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Do you really think they'll leave, perhaps I'm being silly but I just can't see them uping sticks and leaving London for some Malayan backwater and more importantly I can't see their families being to impressed either, next time one of these banks threatens it I think we should say "see you then" and see what happens, if they go we can always do a u turn and cave into what ever demands they have to keep the others like we do now.

I think they will moan and groan like they usually do.

Whether or not they would eventually leave if their moaning got them nowhere, I have no idea as the government always backs down.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Well I am hardly rich and I am below the official average income level. However I keep my living costs down, and have very few luxuries.

Paying an extra 11% tax wouldnt be nice but I could deal with it.

Its not the case of been able to afford its more a case of willingness to pay it.

Remember income tax levels are historically "very" low.

If someone doesnt want to pay for something the easiest thing to say is "I cant afford it".

---------- Post added at 06:30 ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 ----------



I think they will moan and groan like they usually do.

Whether or not they would eventually leave if their moaning got them nowhere, I have no idea as the government always backs down.

This info from the Guardian shows the total tax receipts as a percentage of GDP for the last 45 years, and it has been fairly stable since the early 90s (around 38% +/- 2%), and we are now back at almost the same level as in 1990.

Guardian

[Chrysalis]

How far are we away from 1970s income tax levels.

and you keep quoting total tax, I mean income tax.

how mich do the elite pay in tax compared to historically. very low.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

How far are we away from 1970s income tax levels.

and you keep quoting total tax, I mean income tax.

how mich do the elite pay in tax compared to historically. very low.

Radio Times description of programme shown a couple of weeks ago.

Your Money and How They Spend It
Wednesday 30 November 9:00pm - 10:00pm BBC2
2/2
A programme about tax? From start to finish? Yes, and the wonder is, it's far from dull; in fact it's graphic, grown-up and enlightening about the political pressures and dilemmas for the people who make the nation's sums add up. Part of the problem, explains Nick Robinson, is that everyone thinks the rich should pay more tax, but no one considers themselves rich (as he proves by asking people at a race meeting). He illustrates how more than half of all income tax revenue comes from the top ten per cent of earners. And did you think your National Insurance revenue went to health care and pensions? Wrong!

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

How far are we away from 1970s income tax levels.

and you keep quoting total tax, I mean income tax.

how mich do the elite pay in tax compared to historically. very low.

Hugh is insisting on total tax because the level of one individual tax in the system is irrelevant when it's not the only tax you pay.

Gordon Brown rearranged tax levels precisely for the benefit of easily fooled persons such as yourself, who would look at their income tax bill and believe the lie that they were better off simply because less was being taken off them at the point where they earned it.

Ultimately it is individuals who pay taxes, directly or indirectly, as %ages of earning or spending or indirectly through the effect of taxes on shop shelf prices.

Those who are able to see further than the end of their own noses, however, understand that Gordon's smoke-and-mirrors approach to the tax system did not make joe public better off.

[Chrysalis]

I never said I am better off, I said income tax levels are historically low.

The shift in tax policy was partially for stealth but also to shift the burden from one part of society to another.

All types of tax are not equal to each other.

20billion of VAT tax is not the same type of burden as 20billion of income tax.