America refuse bail out

[tbourner]

So if the govt have to bail out more banks in the future, using revenue raised from taxes, don't you think there's the possibility that taxes on us will have to be increased to ensure we still have the NHS, schools, police etc, etc? Our net pay will be eaten into a little more each time taxes are increased to pay for the increasing debt of the nation.

 

Of course it's our money!

What I said earlier:

If taxes go up in future because of this then so be it, but that's a different issue and would result in the government taking the blame for not sorting it in a different way, but going around saying "Why do we have to pay out to save the banks" is stupid because we're not having to pay out anything!!!

[Gazboy]

You're missing something.

 

It was ours when we were given our gross pay, then we PAID taxes to the government (who we elected) for the purpose of paying to run the country. We have no more say in it as it's NOT OUR MONEY any more, it's been given to the government, it is the governments money, made up of taxes, they decide what to spend it on, it doesn't belong to us any more!!!!!!

Get it now?

 

Jesus Trev!

 

Joe Bloke earns £20k, he has a car, mortgage, pays his bills and goes to church etc. If for 2008 his entire tax burden is £10k which goes towards civil infrastructure, health-care, social welfare, defence and education. None is earmarked for saving financial institutions, never mind 40% of it. Somehow HMG need to find that 40% for the rest of their responsibilities so next year if the FI's tank Joe Bloke will be paying more tax.

[tbourner]

I give up.

[Mike]

Sometimes I think you'd be happier living under a dictatorship Trev, of course it's 'our money'.

 

Agreed the government have control of it, but they take it from us and use it for various things. We still have a say in what those things are. That's how democracy works.

 

If Taxes go up as a result of the government having to bail out financial institutions, then this is being taken out of 'your money'. Of course you're not physically writing a cheque and sending it in, but it is taken out of your earnings.

 

..and you should start reading The Daily Mail if you don't already(!) it's right up your street.

[b_have]

I give up.

 

Rightly so

[tbourner]

I'm sure it isn't, same crap that's spouted from all papers no doubt.

 

Look, right now, today, the gov pay several billion pounds to companies to sort them out, I personally don't pay anything towards it, my monthly expenditure stays the same, so I'm not spending my money on it.

 

Next year, my tax goes up, I complain and say why the hell has my tax gone up so much.

Gov: "Cos we had to help out those companies last year."

Me: "That's your stupid fault."

Gov: "Tough, live with it."

Then we all get annoyed, fair enough, we moan that the gov aren't doing a good job etc. That's THEN not now, as of NOW the 'taxpayers' aren't paying to fix the problem, the government are, they're deciding to spend from their limited pot of money to sort something out, nothing to do with 'our' money.

 

I'm just saying the media word things in such a way to stir up the public, and it's not necessary.

[Mike]

Where did the government get that money from?

 

..and when they do bail them out and you have no NHS (OK, I'll go extreme) what then?

[tbourner]

Where did the government get that money from?[/QUOTe]

From our tax payments.

 

..and when they do bail them out and you have no NHS (OK, I'll go extreme) what then?

We'll all be very annoyed and moan that they've done a sh1tty job. So what? It's still not our money.

[Mike]

From our tax payments.

 

It's still not our money.

 

[tbourner]

 

It WAS our money.

[stevie_b]

I think what Trev is getting at is that it's not an immediate effect. When our govt bails out a bank, taxes don't rise next week.

 

But Trev, as others are saying: that money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is us taxpayers. The effect can take time to filter down to us, but filter it will. Either taxes would go up, or expenditure in other areas (e.g. schools, NHS, defence) would go down, or a combination of the two.

[Scooter]

civil infrastructure, health-care, social welfare, defence and education. None is earmarked for saving financial institutions, never mind 40% of it.

 

this is the thing all areas of spend you can justify, not everyone agrees or is happy with what its spent on but thats life/tax...........

 

...........to me its not immediately obvious what the justification is for these bail outs, its often quoted that it would be far worse if they didn't do it but no one really goes into the detail of 'worse'

[tbourner]

I think what Trev is getting at is that it's not an immediate effect. When our govt bails out a bank, taxes don't rise next week.

 

Sort of, but not only that, it's the fact that tax rises in the future are a decision of the government, based on their previous work, and we will judge them on that at the time. The fact that we might have to pay more tax in future or we might be worse off in some other way is pretty irrelevant right now, it's a different issue to whether or not the government should use their money to bail out the banks.

[extendor]

What a pointless arguement about who's money. The gov will spend a massive amount of money on the WRONG thing and that will mean when they dont have money to spend on the RIGHT thing WE (taxpayer and service user) will pay the cost.

 

Its plainly sh1tty and I for one dont think the government should bail them out. I never saw any of the bonus they paid themselves being shared out with me or you. They should stew in their own poo.

[Pixelfill]

I understand the point that Trev is making. It was our money that we paid to the government for their service. In return we expect them to run our country as they see fit (granted I don't always agree with their decisions)

 

Imagine you buy a telephone service, then find out that BT are spending all your money (that you paid to them) on something not directly related to supplying a phone service. you still get your phone service so can't complain about what they are spending your money on. However next year you receive a price increase - because of all the investment they've done in the cabling. you will still get your service but have to pay more for it - then you can complain.

 

next year we can complain about the tax increases, however until then (unless they close any schools or hospitals - or heaven forbid pull out of a pointless war) we can't complain.

 

Mike

[Gaz6002]

I don't read papers. Why?

 

 

Because you really aren't too qualified to answer if you don't understand how government funding works

[tbourner]

Because you really aren't too qualified to answer if you don't understand how government funding works

Tell me where I'm going wrong?

 

What a pointless arguement about who's money.

True. It was only a simple point I was trying to make!!

[Gazboy]

this is the thing all areas of spend you can justify, not everyone agrees or is happy with what its spent on but thats life/tax...........

 

...........to me its not immediately obvious what the justification is for these bail outs, its often quoted that it would be far worse if they didn't do it but no one really goes into the detail of 'worse'

 

 

It's a domino effect. Everybody has borrowed from everybody else, everyone owes something to someone, should a key player fall then they will take down several others. The ultimate end game is that creditors want all their money back which if you haven't got it could be a whole lot of trouble.

[grahamc]

Its simple...

 

You pay taxes for services that the government is supposed to render, IE. NHS, police, fire, etc.

 

You choose who is in power based on how they plan to give you the best service, for the least amount of money.

 

Now they are saying that they are going to spend all this money on something else, with pretty much no way of getting it back.

[extendor]

I run a business and have done for the best part of twenty years. If I was to tits up who would bail me out. However, when I get a debtor go tits up on me no one helps me out. Why is there one rule for the small average Guy and another rule for the big rich guy?

[Gazboy]

I run a business and have done for the best part of twenty years. If I was to tits up who would bail me out. However, when I get a debtor go tits up on me no one helps me out. Why is there one rule for the small average Guy and another rule for the big rich guy?

 

 

If you went tits up how many people would be affected?

[R3DG3CKO ROB]

Taxes are taxes, they will continue to rise. It's publicly funded money so whatever they do it'll have to be justified and eventually the tax payer will feel the pinch.

 

House prices will fall and people will end up with negative equity but they'll rise again eventually (I Hope)

 

Does anyone know how this will effect interest rates? Bank of England Base Rate as this is the real kicker... If interest rates increase people won't be able to pay their mortgages and then we have real problems...

[grahamc]

I run a business and have done for the best part of twenty years. If I was to tits up who would bail me out. However, when I get a debtor go tits up on me no one helps me out. Why is there one rule for the small average Guy and another rule for the big rich guy?

 

Those with the money make the rules!

[TTRickeh]

Taxes are taxes, they will continue to rise. It's publicly funded money so whatever they do it'll have to be justified and eventually the tax payer will feel the pinch.

 

House prices will fall and people will end up with negative equity but they'll rise again eventually (I Hope)

 

Does anyone know how this will effect interest rates? Bank of England Base Rate as this is the real kicker... If interest rates increase people won't be able to pay their mortgages and then we have real problems...

 

Surely they would decrease as it's hard enough trying to get credit for a house at the moment with lenders being a lot more scrupulous, plus an interest decrease would help encourage spending at a time where business' are feeling the pinch of customers with less money - meaning a reduced pressure to cost-cut by laying off staff which would've led to increased unemployment. No doubt it's a lot more complicated than that, just wanted to stick my oar in.

[Scooter]

its often quoted that it would be far worse if they didn't do it but no one really goes into the detail of 'worse'

 

it could be a whole lot of trouble.

 

oh thats cleared that up then