Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Free bank shares for all
Nick Clegg suggests that when the state owned banks are sold the shares should be distributed to the 45 million on the electoral register.
Cam anyone disagree with this?
The people most to gain from this include large families.
Would a fairer way to distribute the shares to a household?. Having just completed a census this would prove very efficient and make sure the shares are distributed fairly.
Cam anyone disagree with this?
The people most to gain from this include large families.
Would a fairer way to distribute the shares to a household?. Having just completed a census this would prove very efficient and make sure the shares are distributed fairly.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It cost each of us a fortune to buy these banks. How can the shares be FREE?
The Banks are not in a saleable condition yet so the shares are worthless.
// Even he admits the Treasury must be paid back first – before any giveaway – for using taxpayers billions to save these losers from the knackers’ yard. That would require 74p per share at Lloyds, compared to its current price of 47p, and 51p at RBS, currently trading at 39p. Northern Rock, needless to say, is off the radar. //
http://blogs.telegrap...eaway-is-a-sick-joke/
And then their is the fact that lots of shareholders lost 9 tenths of their money when these Banks went tits up. Should they not be compensated first?
And the £1000 figure is made up. It is impossible to say at the moment what the amount will be.
If an offer sounds unbelievable, it probably is.
Good to see the re-election bribes arriving early though.
The Banks are not in a saleable condition yet so the shares are worthless.
// Even he admits the Treasury must be paid back first – before any giveaway – for using taxpayers billions to save these losers from the knackers’ yard. That would require 74p per share at Lloyds, compared to its current price of 47p, and 51p at RBS, currently trading at 39p. Northern Rock, needless to say, is off the radar. //
http://blogs.telegrap...eaway-is-a-sick-joke/
And then their is the fact that lots of shareholders lost 9 tenths of their money when these Banks went tits up. Should they not be compensated first?
And the £1000 figure is made up. It is impossible to say at the moment what the amount will be.
If an offer sounds unbelievable, it probably is.
Good to see the re-election bribes arriving early though.
-- answer removed --
There is also a difference between being a state owned Bank and one that is bailed out. LTSB for example is not a tate owned bank and indeed they had their arm twisted by Grondo to take on the duffer.
The fairest way is for the Banks to repay the money(which is qute feasible eventualy so long as we dont tie their hands behind their backs in our jealous rage) and an amount paid into the Treasury to be offset agains tax.
Any other method woudl reward those who didnt pay eg benefit scroungers. A simple mechanism needs to be put in place for those who were in work at the time but not when the 'reward' is paid out.
The fairest way is for the Banks to repay the money(which is qute feasible eventualy so long as we dont tie their hands behind their backs in our jealous rage) and an amount paid into the Treasury to be offset agains tax.
Any other method woudl reward those who didnt pay eg benefit scroungers. A simple mechanism needs to be put in place for those who were in work at the time but not when the 'reward' is paid out.
If they want to return the money to the people who paid it out , us the taxpayers, then it should be done through t he tax system by increasing the personal allowance.
If they just intend to give us all a £1000 voucher then all the immigrants legal and illegal will benefit ,as will all the benefit scroungers who never pay tax.
It's a stupid, ill thought out Liberal idea which would cost a fortune to carry out.
If they just intend to give us all a £1000 voucher then all the immigrants legal and illegal will benefit ,as will all the benefit scroungers who never pay tax.
It's a stupid, ill thought out Liberal idea which would cost a fortune to carry out.
//If they just intend to give us all a £1000 voucher then all the immigrants legal and illegal will benefit ,as will all the benefit scroungers who never pay tax//
Thats the worrying thing Modeller. That's why I thought using the census data to target households instead of individuals to give the shares. Not perfect I know!
Thats the worrying thing Modeller. That's why I thought using the census data to target households instead of individuals to give the shares. Not perfect I know!
Trouble is rov just because the are on the electoral roll or on a census doesn't mean they are tax payers, who are the only people who should be entitled to a hand out. And there are all those in prison ? Would they qualify ?
How about all the immigrants who have a family abroad . And the ex-pats and Non-Doms where do they stand . They have the vote and many would be on the census data.
What percentage of our population actually pay tax I've seen figures from 20 to 40 per cent.
I know the Liberals are a woolly lot but I did think Clegg was a bit more pragmatic.
How about all the immigrants who have a family abroad . And the ex-pats and Non-Doms where do they stand . They have the vote and many would be on the census data.
What percentage of our population actually pay tax I've seen figures from 20 to 40 per cent.
I know the Liberals are a woolly lot but I did think Clegg was a bit more pragmatic.
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.