Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Why don't we have state banks divided into retail and investment which every citizen and company is legally obliged to use for all banking . This way there'd be no more tax avoidance or evasion as every single banking transaction would be recorded so no one or company could hide their wealth. What's the downside?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 146
|
By:
No more laundering of drug money either
|
|
By:
Or rogue traders fiddling Libor etc, straight to jug for anyone doing anything like this and very easy to identify too.
|
|
By:
The state is generally inefficient at running industries.
Why should i have to bank with a state bank? People should be free to choose who they bank with? If you start by telling people where to bank where does it end? You must shop at the national supermarket? You must buy clothes at the national clothes shop? It is a terrible idea and a step towards totalitarianism. You might need the state to tell you what to do but I can think for myself thank you. |
|
By:
No reason why the state couldn't manage banking , it's all people whether they privately or publicly employed. No reason at all why state banking would mean people being told what supermarket to shop at. It was private banks that got us into this mess so they certainly have proved themselves incompetent at best criminal at worse . Do you realise how much money was given to them to bail them out while the bankers who robbed us all haven't had to pay any of their ill gotten gains back?
|
|
By:
Civil servants working the markets backed by public money?
That's even worse than what we've got now, which is about to end in a few years Nationalisation of the banks would be a step too far for a even a left wing Labour administration. It would never happen. |
|
By:
Trillions apparently. Trillions of cash in the pocket of incompetent dishonest financiers which we now have to pay back to the creditors.China has state bank and it's them we owe so much too thanks to the incompetence of our private bankers.
|
|
By:
I'm sure the state bank could employ the bankers who now work in the private sector Dr Crippen. The competent honest ones that is.
|
|
By:
it will be a small state bank then.
|
|
By:
just like it would be a small government if only 'honest honourabe' MPs were in it.
|
|
By:
If the state is so good at investments, we could convert all the public sector pensions to a defined contribution with a generous 7% employer contribution.
That way the state can invest this in all the infrastructure & construction too create growth. The public sector workers will be happy as they will be reassured that the state bankers will do a good job and their pension pot will increase. So a win win situation - everybody happy. |
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk
|
|
By:
I'd much rather the state had mortgages over our land and property than private banks. And obviously all profits would go back to the state bank. The private mortgagees have enormously raised the price of our land and housing and now own so many of us.
|
|
By:
How did the UK bank bail outs cost Trillions? The entire UK debt is about 1 trillion.
|
|
By:
It's on some separate balence sheet isn't it? Some notion that they'll pay us back one day? How much do you think the bank bailout cost?
|
|
By:
Mighty Whites what do you think about Gove's plan for schools to be run for profit but free at the point of use? Where will these private companies get their profits from?
|
|
By:
didn't realise Gove had a plan for schools to be run for profit? Do you have a link?
The academy programme introduced by the last labour government and continued by the coalition has allowed academy chains to emerge who i suspect make handsome profits from the current situation. There is a lot of money in education. If you kept school budgets the same and allowed parents to choose the school they wanted (say through vouchers) then I suspect profits could easily be made whilst at the same time improving educational attainment standards. |
|
By:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-revealed--tory-plan-for-firms-to-run-schools-for-profit-8445066.html
|
|
By:
All those profits come from the state coffers though don't they. This idea that all people are motivated solely by profit and if they're not there's something lacking in them is dangerous nonsense imo. Plenty of other motivators as well as money.
|
|
By:
This govt is givng millions to private companies to make unemployed people's lives a misery for eg, they don't help them get work its all just a scam that we the tax payer are paying for.
|
|
By:
They're doing similar with the NHS all justified by this myth of the profit motive.
|
|
By:
Anyway state banks, anymore for anymore?
|
|
By:
anymore for anymore?
Yep you could answer the question I asked. Where did this "trillions" figure come from? Is it something you have made up? Where did the government get this "trillions of pounds" from. Did somebody lend it to them. |
|
By:
No I didn't make it up I read it somewhere. How much money was pumped into the banks following the crash to your knowledge? In total ? And in the UK?
What do you think is the downside of state banking? |
|
By:
It is a think tank proposal not a government policy it may become one in time.
If a private company could run a school and make a profit whilst providing an outstanding level of education which was free at the point of delivery do you think this would be a bad thing? 40% of schools in this country are deemed satisfactory (now requires improvement) and some are inadequate - in special measures notice to improve etc. These schools are damaging the life chances of the children they teach. If a private provider could step in and do better at no greater cost to the tax payer then surely that has to be a good thing. They would deserve to take a reward for their achievements. Under the present system successful heads become super heads and are paid substantially more. The think tank makes two main recommendations * Allowing profit-making companies to run state schools, which would still be free at the point of use * More state-school pupils to be taught in mixed-age classes and not allowed to move up a year until they attain certain standards I don't disagree with either. |
|
By:
well, quite obviously, if anyone has any money to deposit, unless it was earned by selling exports, that money has been abstracted from the national wealth, so of course it should be deposited with the State Bank so that it can be re-invested in the State.
i find it amusing to read comments like: The state is generally inefficient at running industries. how would you define 'efficent'? For example, if a cartel of energy providers or train operators pay massive dividends to its shareholders, but the citizens it supplies can't afford to keep their homes warm or travel to work, is it efficient or inefficient? |
|
By:
All the profits these private companies make is state money isn't it? I don't agree that private companies who cream off taxpayers money are better at running things than anyone else and at least with the state running things any 'profits' go back into state coffers .
Anyway we can discuss the school plans on another thread if you'd like to start one , this thread is for state banks am waiting for Mexico's views and wouldn't want to put him off. |
|
By:
Was an article in guardian over a year ago, claiming cost was 10s of billions - say £40bn. May have come down a bit since then.
Same article claimed "total cost" ie. Not direct bail out cost was about 15% of GDP. How can the government borrow trillions to give to the bank but not be trillions in debt? |
|
By:
All the profits these private companies make is state money isn't it?
The state has no money. It spends the money it takes from the people in taxation or borrows. this may help you marie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvz8tg4MVpA |
|
By:
because the government does not "own" the fruits of my labor and to do this would need the democratic support of its citizens, which it would not get because it is totalitarian crapola.
people enjoy having banks that fight to offer the best deal. dont like paying 8.9%, go to the one charging 5.9%. it was government that bailed out the foolish property investors 2005 to 2008 NOT the banks. it is that raping us every single day. lets have the government offer gambling, and just have the tote, not betfair, and all the rest. lets not have O2, Vodafone, Virgin, Tmobile, Talk Talk, lets have British Telecom monopoly circa 1975 and see the price and service we get. lets not have ryanair, virgin, easyjet, fly2be lets just have British Airways monopoly circa 1975 and see if we can fly to Amsterdam for $30 return. a single bank, i bet that would offer fantastic service. it does not have any credibility and i suggest you upgrade. |
|
By:
gus could you give an example of anything the government do well?
Anything they take over and make better? We have the cheapest energy prices in Europe. |
|
By:
This is from the guardian in March 2011 mexico just put it other thread: Since 2007 the UK has committed to spending £1.162 trillion at various points on bailing out the banks. This figure has however fluctuated wildly during the period and by March 2011 it was £456.33bn. That total outstanding support was equivalent to 31% of GDP in March.
What do you think about the idea of state banking mexico? |
|
By:
it is not the banks fault receiving the money, it is the governments fault to give it to them.
to reward this stupidity by letting them run the entire financial system is rewarding kants like Bush and Brown, and i call them thieves and clowns. |
|
By:
So where will these private companies get their profits from then Mighty? The magic faraawy tree or the taxpayer?
|
|
By:
Mussolini would have called them facists.
At least Obama came with some hope and change. What would the Goldman sachs gang done without him. |
|
By:
Ronnie no one is suggesting nationalisation of anything (on this thread)bar the banks. What say you, what's the down side?
|
|
By:
Individual citizens.
The government has no money. |
|
By:
that there will be no competition, and prices will go up, service will go down.
have you called HMRC? imagine that being the bank and you want a $2,000 loan to buy a car, or want to sell your ISA. |
|
By:
There's a shopping street about half-a-mile long, 15 minutes away from my flat that has 3 branches of Santander within 100 yards of each other (if you stand in the doorway of any one of 'em you can see the other 2) + Bank of Scotland + Lloyds + Clydesdale (2) + Barclays + (approx)6 Building Societies and 3 Retailer Banks (Tesco, M&S, Virgin) banks.
Now I'm all in favour of providing job opportunites etc., but is that really an efficient way to manage the common wealth? |
|
By:
the upside you proclaim is that it can tax you more efficiently.
that might be true, i dont know. |