Uk Nationalisation Of Banks

[ai_Droid]

Even more so now we have damaged our own credibility as an offshore centre by the way this is being handled.

 

Are you sure about that? I bet we're getting rather a lot of deposit transfers from Jersey and Guernsey currently.

[pongo]

I think HSBC is the only Bank on the Island that operates as a direct branch as opposed to

being in a separate company

 

I'm fairly certain they're an offshore exactly like all the others.

 

HSBC IOM

 

Safe as houses by all accounts. Last man standing.

 

Ahem. Er, I hope

[Mr Woo]

I think HSBC is the only Bank on the Island that operates as a direct branch as opposed to

being in a separate company

 

I'm fairly certain they're an offshore exactly like all the others.

 

HSBC IOM

 

Safe as houses by all accounts. Last man standing.

 

Ahem. Er, I hope

 

HSBC works in a different way to other banks on the Island. The bank that HSBC Island customers use isn't a subsidiary company and therefore isn't at risk of a lack of parental support, it'd be bailed out just like any of their branches in case of a run. The building next door to them, HSBC International Ltd, is an offshore subsidiary company that is only for offshore customer. I actually have this in writing. It's just my personal opinion but I don't think you could be safer than that at the moment unless you transfer your account to a NS&I account. But naturally I'm adding an "Ahem, I hope" disclaimer too.

[Sebrof]

Questions.

 

How many of you have a mortgage of over three times you annual earnings.

 

Will you be adversely affected by the removal of mortgage relieve next year.

 

Where do you get your information from? As I understand it they are trimming relief back not taking it away altogether.

ITS GOING

 

 

Questions.

 

How many of you have a mortgage of over three times you annual earnings.

 

The answers to this question will constitute a completely unrepresentative sample, and tell you nothing useful whatsoever.

 

Will you be adversely affected by the removal of mortgage relieve next year.

 

Every tax-payer who benefits from mortgage relief (note the spelling) will be adversely affected. How could it be otherwise?

 

Question.

 

What was the point of these apparently pointless questions? (Note the question mark, which by convention always follows a question.)

 

Could it possibly be that you yourself have an excessive mortgage, and have been unable to work out that the withdrawal of mortgage relief will cost you money?

 

S

No, have not got that problem, bought at the right time. But do you not think that the current crisis was caused by the so called know it all generation who bit off more than they can chew. Banks have been told lies by people declaring a higher income in order to get a mortgage (Panarama) now the banks want their money back, you cant blame them, can you?

 

Buy this week's Economist, and you'll learn much more about the financial crisis than you will from your normal rag, which is probably the Mail or the Sun.

 

But to precis a big subject:

 

Gordon Brown encouraged an unsustainable housing boom because it made it look as though he was doing a good job running the economy. He could, and should, have imposed restrictions on the reckless way in which some banks were forcing up prices by lending recklessly.

 

At the same time, he did nothing to curb other excesses in the banking system, such as peddling complex financial instruments which nobody understood, and encouraging massive risk-taking by the payment of extravagant bonuses.

 

Across the water, there was a similar abrogation of responsibility on the part of Greenspan and Bush, and similar banking malpractice.

 

90% of the whole crisis is attributable to recklessness by US and UK banks, and a failure of the authorities in both countries to control them. It has become a global problem, but it was mainly caused by just two countries (although the Icelanders were also punching above their weight).

 

The average borrower has no clue about what is going on, and will always borrow as much as he can. In the past, conservative bankers would have prevented over-borrowing; this crew has aided and abetted it.

 

Capitalism is the law of the jungle, and unfettered capitalism will always lead to disaster. That is why we have regulation and regulators. In the past ten years, they have totally failed to do their jobs.

 

By the way, G Brown set up the present regulatory system in the UK, which has so signally failed. In the past, the Bank of England regulated banks, and did a much better (though not perfect) job of it.

 

S

[pongo]

Gordon Brown ... unsustainable housing boom ... peddling complex financial instruments ... Greenspan and Bush ... banking malpractice ... regulatory system in the UK, which has so signally failed etc

 

100% agree with what you are saying. However - I also believe that a Tory govt would have done exactly the same ... as would a third term Clinton administration if that had been possible. Any govt which would have attempted to impose detailed regulation would have been accused of interfering with the sacred free market. And no govt could have survived without the support of the banking elites and the opinion makers.

 

It was an epoch during which ordinary people came to believe wild and unproven economic theories - eg that economic market forces were a natural evolutionary solution to nearly all problems. It was big finance, opposed to regulation, which had originally funded and propagated much of the pseudo research which had resulted in these ideologies becoming so widely accepted.

 

It was a time when the big finance houses were far too close to govts. As it went, Ex PM Blair ended up working for JP Morgan. His son went to Morgan Stanley - as did his an Blair Press Sec and also his former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Even our own ex CM ended up as Chair of the now defunct S&F.

 

See also, for example, the way in which the EU has been hysterically attacked and undermined in the British press for attempting to build a system based on regulation, agreement and law.

[Sebrof]

Gordon Brown ... unsustainable housing boom ... peddling complex financial instruments ... Greenspan and Bush ... banking malpractice ... regulatory system in the UK, which has so signally failed etc

 

100% agree with what you are saying. However - I also believe that a Tory govt would have done exactly the same ... as would a third term Clinton administration if that had been possible. Any govt which would have attempted to impose detailed regulation would have been accused of interfering with the sacred free market. And no govt could have survived without the support of the banking elites and the opinion makers.

 

It was an epoch during which ordinary people came to believe wild and unproven economic theories - eg that economic market forces were a natural evolutionary solution to nearly all problems. It was big finance, opposed to regulation, which had originally funded and propagated much of the pseudo research which had resulted in these ideologies becoming so widely accepted.

 

It was a time when the big finance houses were far too close to govts. As it went, Ex PM Blair ended up working for JP Morgan. His son went to Morgan Stanley - as did his an Blair Press Sec and also his former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Even our own ex CM ended up as Chair of the now defunct S&F.

 

See also, for example, the way in which the EU has been hysterically attacked and undermined in the British press for attempting to build a system based on regulation, agreement and law.

 

If there had been a Tory administration during this period, it would have been led by Kenneth Clarke. He is the only Conservative politician who commanded sufficient support in the country to have prevented the second Labour election victory. And it is my belief that Clarke, either as PM or as chancellor, would not have allowed the bubble to develop.

 

But otherwise I largely agree with you. The banks (like Microsoft) had bought enormous power and influence, and were much too powerful. But good regulators could and would have done more. Just as good bankers avoided the whole problem. Three cheers for HSBC and Standard.

 

S

[pongo]

I like Kenneth Clarke. His own party and the British papers hated him for supporting tighter EU integration. The idiot unionist wing of the Conservative Party and the anti europeans and the libertarians - would have probably split away if he had become leader. His rump Tory party could never have been elected. Which is a great pity really. Because it never happened we can imagine how good he would have been.

 

Although - even a week ago he was still basically speaking out in favour of the securitization of debt. Also - I believe he opposed the restrictions on short selling which were introduced (although I'm not 100% certain about that).

 

ETA: actually HSBC were involved - but they noticed the problem and got out early - at the time taking a big hit

[Moghrey Mie]

From the Independent UK newspaper, but you could also ask the taxman yourself.

 

The island's property market growth has been modest: prices have risen from 4 per cent to 7 per cent a year since 2000.

 

The new tax breaks for the super-rich have certainly not gone unnoticed by the island's not-so-super-rich, who have just been told that the Manx treasury is also to scrap tax relief on their mortgage and loan interest, a move affecting 14,000 people. This will boost the island's coffers by £11.6m - a helpful windfall for a government which will reportedly lose £20m when the zero rate of corporate tax kicks in.

 

Its totally wrong. They have killed loan interest relief not mortgage interest relief and there are no plans to remove mortgage interest relief. Knocking back the relief on limits was put out to consultation - but as i understood it it was to stop the buy-to-let wankers getting full tax relief on 3 mortgages and then living off the capital gains made from selling houses and thus living tax free at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

MIRAS was removed in UK years ago.

 

Mortgage interest relief should be allowed on one main property that you live in-not for several as over here.

 

The island is losing lots of tax through their present generous system.

[Sebrof]

From the Independent UK newspaper, but you could also ask the taxman yourself.

 

The island's property market growth has been modest: prices have risen from 4 per cent to 7 per cent a year since 2000.

 

The new tax breaks for the super-rich have certainly not gone unnoticed by the island's not-so-super-rich, who have just been told that the Manx treasury is also to scrap tax relief on their mortgage and loan interest, a move affecting 14,000 people. This will boost the island's coffers by £11.6m - a helpful windfall for a government which will reportedly lose £20m when the zero rate of corporate tax kicks in.

 

Its totally wrong. They have killed loan interest relief not mortgage interest relief and there are no plans to remove mortgage interest relief. Knocking back the relief on limits was put out to consultation - but as i understood it it was to stop the buy-to-let wankers getting full tax relief on 3 mortgages and then living off the capital gains made from selling houses and thus living tax free at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

MIRAS was removed in UK years ago.

 

Mortgage interest relief should be allowed on one main property that you live in-not for several as over here.

 

The island is losing lots of tax through their present generous system.

 

The problem with the Manx approach is that it is one-sided. Businesses are allowed to treat interest as a business expense, and therefore tax-allowable. But businesses pay tax on profits. Here, people are getting tax relief on interest, but not paying tax on their profits.

 

I am in favour of all property gains being taxed, but with the tax being rolled over if the proceeds from the sale of the main residence are re-invested in a new main residence.

 

S