Jump to content


Labour call for Bankers windfall tax to be re-introduced

Recommended Posts

Doesn't anyone ever consider blaming those people that borrowed money who couldn't afford to pay it back, and subsequently didn't pay it back (while the rest of us honour our debts), for the mess we are in?

 

They are a minor factor.

 

There is an explanation of all the factors here:

 

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

 

Primary responsibility rests with the Banks, Mortgage lenders and with Governments for repealing the Keynesian protections put in place after the Wall street crash to protect from moral hazard in banking.

 

Pay it back? How dare you suggest people be responsible for themselves!

 

I suspect they have lost their homes.. they have more than been held to account.

 

Something that cannot be said so readily of the banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are a minor factor.

 

There is an explanation of all the factors here:

 

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

 

Primary responsibility rests with the Banks, Mortgage lenders and with Governments for repealing the Keynesian protections put in place after the Wall street crash to protect from moral hazard in banking.

 

 

 

I suspect they have lost their homes.. they have more than been held to account.

 

Something that cannot be said so readily of the banks.

 

Ahhh wikipedia. the source of knowledge from people such as some of the contributors on SF - deluded and prejudiced.

 

Although having read the article I stand by what I said before. The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back.

 

And they haven't lost their homes. They couldn't afford those homes in the first place, so didn't deserve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if you have put the right link up, because your article says:

 

"But the level of this grant is 11% lower than the equivalent funding for the previous year.

 

And the protection around children's centre funding has been removed in a shake-up of budgets"

 

The money is not still available, the inevitable consequence of this is:

 

"Of those who had an indication of what their budgets for 2011-12 would be, 86% said they were expecting reductions.

 

The charities said if the findings of the survey were replicated across all centres in England, it would lead to about 250 closures and 2,000 providing a reduced service."

 

Nope, its the right link. I was trying to prove a point that these claims are made by ignorant people based on their fears and rehashed by the media and people like you to make them look like facts.

 

Here's another typical claim:

 

It comes after the BBC News website reported claims that at least one children's centre was likely to close in every local authority area in England.

 

Who made these claims?

Why did BBC News report this?

Are there any facts other than scaremongering, just like you and Wednesday1 peddle?

(And incidentally go quiet when presented with the facts and hide for a week or two until the thread drops down the lists and you start another one?)

 

 

The key bits in that link are:

 

Children's minister Sarah Teather said there was enough money available to maintain existing children's centres

 

She added that the new Early Intervention Grant gave local authorities the freedom to make the best decisions for the families in their areas.

 

The government shouldn't have to force councils to spend only Surestart money on Surestart services.

 

If they're not responsible enough to manage their budget and feel the need to take money from Surestart for other things that's not the government's problem.

 

Or would you prefer all local councils to have any autonomy taken away from them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back.

 

Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it?

 

The banks generally didn't do the lending directly to the bad payers.

 

However, as the wiki report says, a lot of the lending issue is related to fraud. The right questions are answered, but the forms filled in fraudulently.

 

But even then, it's down to people who knew they couldn't/wouldn't be able to pay it back. Why are they not responsible for their actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? "

 

Banks enjoyed a lucrative get out clause - securitization - and could simply sell on the debt to any investor prepared to take on the risk. Credit rating agencies erroneously downplayed this risk encouraging more subprime selling, more selling on and with everybody getting a transaction fee the cash rolled in, until it didn't.

 

They we bailed them out to start the whole jolly merry go round again

 

Hoorah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why are they not responsible for their actions? "

 

They are irresponsible in much the same way that a lucre crazed mortgage seller bedazzled by securitization is irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1)

 

2) I think many people are now realising they made a huge mistake in placing their trust in two partys' who are both as guilty of misleading the electorate in their manifestos as each other.

 

Arguably true, but we haven't had the opportunity to judge how far from their stated intentions the Labour party would have strayed had they won the election or managed to fix a coalition with the Libdems.

 

You know in your heart they all play the same game. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it?

 

I don't know. The governments have been telling the banks that they need to lend more. Surely it should be a commercial decission by the banks based on risk. I don't think I would be too happy if someone told me who I should lend money to, particularly as the banks lost so much lending to folk who couldn't pay it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although having read the article I stand by what I said before. The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back.

 

A lot of people would have blindly followed what the experts told them, to take a mortgage on a great introductory rate, that they could afford. Maybe it was naive to think they would endlessly be able to remortgage as the introductory offers ended, but that is what the lenders were advising if not pushing them into!

 

I'm not saying the people who borrowed more than they can afford are totally faultless, but it can't all be put on the lowly borrower. The lender/broker/re-seller would have been trusted enough to believe the advice been given was sound, or they wouldn't be buying through them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually quite simple, Blair and Brown encouraged the banks because thay wanted London to be the global centre for financial services. Bankers could do no wrong.

 

It was a relatively easy way for this country to be prosperous and meant that the Labour party could avoid doing what it feared most, investing in manufacturing, for that would mean the return of what they feared most, resurgent unions and the socialist left.

 

So the spivs of the labour party in common with the spivs of the city got together, a mating of rodents if ever there was one. The Labour government are to blame they were complicit in the cons being perpetrated by the bankers.

 

It is no use bleating on about Cameron and Clegg, they have inherited a poisoned chalice, the cupboard is bare, its a dead parrot, THERE IS NO MONEY. LABOUR SPENT IT ALL.

 

 

The Labour Party, THEY ALWAYS LEAVE YOU SKINT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its actually quite simple, Blair and Brown encouraged the banks because thay wanted London to be the global centre for financial services. Bankers could do no wrong.

 

It was a relatively easy way for this country to be prosperous and meant that the Labour party could avoid doing what it feared most, investing in manufacturing, for that would mean the return of what they feared most, resurgent unions and the socialist left.So the spivs of the labour party in common with the spivs of the city got together, a mating of rodents if ever there was one. The Labour government are to blame they were complicit in the cons being perpetrated by the bankers.

 

It is no use bleating on about Cameron and Clegg, they have inherited a poisoned chalice, the cupboard is bare, its a dead parrot, THERE IS NO MONEY. LABOUR SPENT IT ALL.

 

 

The Labour Party, THEY ALWAYS LEAVE YOU SKINT

 

 

What total claptrap. We all know who was responsible for destroying the manufacturing base of this country.

 

As soon as the ConDems were elected one of the first things they did was to cancel the Forgemasters loan, out of spite or was it a Tory initiation test for Nick?

 

As for who is responsible for the Credit Crunch, remember what Mervyn King

the Govenor of The Bank of England said recently:

 

'The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it'.

"Now is the period when the cost is being paid, I'm surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.