Tax cuts lead to the richer paying more?

[Deleted member 13294]

"It was idiotic and down right illegal practices that got the banks into trouble". As follows:

Five major banks in America have been sued successfully for illegal foreclosure practices.

HSBC fined £640 million for allowing drugs cartels to launder billions of pounds through its branches.

Barclays fined £290 million for rigging LIBOR interest rates. But didn't have to pay a further £573 million fine because they blew the whistle on the Euribor cartel.

RBS fined £391 million for rigging Euribor and Yen Libor.

UBS has paid the largest penalty so far - fined £917 million for manipulating rates.

Good list.

Which of these contributed to the 2008 credit crunch and required taxpayer support of banks?

 

[Deleted member 293381]

Good list.

Which of these contributed to the 2008 credit crunch and required taxpayer support of banks?

I love this forum - this is what I posted earlier in answer to a question:

"The amount supporting the bailed-out banks amounts to a total of £124 billion since December 2009. Also, the government offered £332 billion in guarantees and indemnities which haven't actually been paid out, but were available to shore up the failing bank system. Of the £124 billion, RBS received £45.8 billion, Lloyds £20.5 billion, Northern Rock a total of £23 billion, Bradford and Bingley £8.5 billion and a further £26 billion went on 'loans to support deposit'."

Sidicks comment was "That's rubbish for a start...".

... And now you are asking the same question. Do you want the same rubbish reply?

 

[IronGiant]

ooh, yes please



^ Not a serious request

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Yes Alan, it is why I love this forum too.

You did post that, but it was not the answer to the question I am asking.

In discussing the support for the banks from the taxpayer, Sve state that a number of idiotic and illegal acts were carried out that got the banks into trouble.

He (and you) have not been able to answer which idiotic and illegal acts these were.

So you can post your "rubbish" answer again, but it doesn't answer my question.

 

[Sve]

Yes Alan, it is why I love this forum too.

You did post that, but it was not the answer to the question I am asking.

In discussing the support for the banks from the taxpayer, Sve state that a number of idiotic and illegal acts were carried out that got the banks into trouble.

He (and you) have not been able to answer which idiotic and illegal acts these were.

So you can post your "rubbish" answer again, but it doesn't answer my question.

Idiotic, lending 6x times salary is pure stupidity of the highest order. LIBOR was been rigged before the crash, and as people have been charged I make that illegal.

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Idiotic, lending 6x times salary is pure stupidity of the highest order. LIBOR was been rigged before the crash, and as people have been charged I make that illegal.

Which idiotic AND illegal acts got the banks into trouble leading to them needing taxpayer support?

Lending 6x salary is NOT illegal.

LIBOR fines were imposed from 2012 onwards and were not in any way related to the need for taxpayer support.

Try again. Or admit you can't back up your absurd original comment.

 

[Sve]

Which idiotic AND illegal acts got the banks into trouble leading to them needing taxpayer support?

Lending 6x salary is NOT illegal.

LIBOR fines were imposed from 2012 onwards and were not in any way related to the need for taxpayer support.

Try again. Or admit you can't back up your absurd original comment.

I suggest you read it again, lending 6 x salary is idiotic. Did I say LIBOR was related to the crash, it was going on before the crash.

 

[Deleted member 293381]

Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory?

 

[IronGiant]

I think we are stuck in the Doldrums, Alan. Perhaps we can return in a day or two and see if things have moved on

 

[Deleted member 13294]

I suggest you read it again, lending 6 x salary is idiotic. Did I say LIBOR was related to the crash, it was going on before the crash.

I have agreed, lending 6 x salary is idiotic. But not illegal.

You previously quoted LIBOR as illegal. As you seem to have now agreed it was not related to the crash, that rules it out as one of the idiotic and illegal practices you referred to as leading to the banks getting in trouble and requiring taxpayer support.

So I will try again - which practices were you referring to?

 

[sidicks]

I love this forum - this is what I posted earlier in answer to a question:

"The amount supporting the bailed-out banks amounts to a total of £124 billion since December 2009. Also, the government offered £332 billion in guarantees and indemnities which haven't actually been paid out, but were available to shore up the failing bank system. Of the £124 billion, RBS received £45.8 billion, Lloyds £20.5 billion, Northern Rock a total of £23 billion, Bradford and Bingley £8.5 billion and a further £26 billion went on 'loans to support deposit'."

Sidicks comment was "That's rubbish for a start...".

... And now you are asking the same question. Do you want the same rubbish reply?

As you well know Alan, the above numbers were the bailouts in 2009, the majority of which have been repaid. The interest cost on the outstanding amounts is therefore much lower than you claim.

Further, you (deliberately) ignore all the fees paid by banks to offset this interest cost.

Finally, you fail to acknowledge that the money for RBS, Lloyds was not a loan but involved buying the company, so there is an asset there. Although the value of these shares has fallen since purchase, much of this fall is directly linked to reduced future dividend expectations as a direct result of government strategy on those banks, forcing them to sell assets and change strategy.

That doesn't fit the story though....

 

[sidicks]

I have agreed, lending 6 x salary is idiotic. But not illegal.

You previously quoted LIBOR as illegal. As you seem to have now agreed it was not related to the crash, that rules it out as one of the idiotic and illegal practices you referred to as leading to the banks getting in trouble and requiring taxpayer support.

So I will try again - which practices were you referring to?

Gee, are we still waiting for him to back down from his stupid claims (or provide evidence to support his assertions)...

 

[Deleted member 293381]

As you well know Alan, the above numbers were the bailouts in 2009, the majority of which have been repaid. The interest cost on the outstanding amounts is therefore much lower than you claim.

Further, you (deliberately) ignore all the fees paid by banks to offset this interest cost.

Finally, you fail to acknowledge that the money for RBS, Lloyds was not a loan but involved buying the company, so there is an asset there. Although the value of these shares has fallen since purchase, much of this fall is directly linked to reduced future dividend expectations as a direct result of government strategy on those banks, forcing them to sell assets and change strategy.

That doesn't fit the story though....

My information comes from various newspapers, not my claims at all.

I suggest you inform the media they are wrong. Who knows, the media might acknowledge your slick and stylish delivery and hold you up to be the font of all knowledge.

The story is not mine, I have no axe to grind and therefore no fitting required...

 

[sidicks]

My information comes from various newspapers, not my claims at all.

I suggest you inform the media they are wrong. Who knows, the media might acknowledge your slick and stylish delivery and hold you up to be the font of all knowledge.

The story is not mine, I have no axe to grind and therefore no fitting required...

But maybe you (your source) should acknowledge you are 3-4 years out of date??

 

[Deleted member 293381]

But maybe you (your source) should acknowledge you are 3-4 years out of date??

Your said in your post #300 those figures were rubbish, now you are saying the figures are out of date.

Well done, that's right. If your read my post #295 again I did say December 2009. So I do indeed acknowledge the figures given are historical in nature.

 

[fluxo]

I'm still waiting for just one idiotic and illegal practice to be named.

Money laundering?

 

[sidicks]

Your said in your post #300 those figures were rubbish, now you are saying the figures are out of date.

Well done, that's right. If your read my post #295 again I did say December 2009. So I do indeed acknowledge the figures given are historical in nature.

Given that we are in 2014, what's the point in quoting figures that are 5 years out of date and which only tell half the story....

 

[sidicks]

Money laundering?

1. Banks have not been found guilty of money laundering, but have been fined for (allegedly) not doing enough to prevent it. That's entirely different.
2. Regardless, how was this the cause of the crisis?

 

[fluxo]

1. Banks have not been found guilty of money laundering, but have been fined for (allegedly) not doing enough to prevent it.

Would the banks be in the habit of paying out billions in fines if there was no substance to the allegations?

That's entirely different.
2. Regardless, how was this the cause of the crisis?

It wasn't? Was that what you were after? Tedium has prevented me from reading many of your earlier posts.

 

[sidicks]

Would the banks be in the habit of paying out billions in fines if there was no substance to the allegations?

If only everything in life was so binary....

It wasn't? Was that what you were after? Tedium has prevented me from reading many of your earlier posts.

Had you read previous posts you might have answered the right question....

 

[fluxo]

Had you read previous posts you might have answered the right question....

Well, I read a few but then it got really really boring so I skipped to the end of the thread.

 

[sidicks]

Well, I read a few but then it got really really boring so I skipped to the end of the thread.

Maybe you should stick to comics?

 

[Deleted member 293381]

Given that we are in 2014, what's the point in quoting figures that are 5 years out of date and which only tell half the story....

The point? As I said before, it was in answer to a question (not Squiffy).

The figures quoted gave the full (to use your vernacular) 'story' and were relevant. I quite understand we are in 2014 and indeed that makes the figures I obtained from the media (to use your vernacular) 'out of date'.

However, the figures quoted were not (to use your vernacular) 'rubbish'.

 

[Deleted member 293381]

Maybe you should stick to comics?

Comics? That's an idea. Who knows, might expand and lift the mindset out and beyond into the great unknown.

You know - fire the imagination.

 

[sidicks]

However, the figures quoted were not (to use your vernacular) 'rubbish'.

You said:
"It costs taxpayers about £5 billion each year just to service the loans that the crisis incurred."

This is rubbish....