bankocracy: ruled by the banks, for the banks.

[BadFish]

If the statistics don't support the arguments for the City's pre-eminence, the public don't either. In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks in Britain were well run, according to the British Social Attitudes survey. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.

Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[BadFish]

What depresses me (other than David Cameron) is the absolute lack of an alternative to this government.

I love this from the comments.

It's like being in a service station on the M6, the only food available is from KFC, Wimpy or Macdonalds and that there is no edible alternative. So you resign yourself to a greasy, sweaty, depressing (accidental Cameron analogy I promise) meal.

Come on milliband, balls, labour, give us a f***ing salad! Please.

 

[butchy]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

 

[BadFish]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

I guess your response puts you firmly in the 19% that think the banks are well run.

The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn,

The finance sector employs 1m people in Britain. Chuck in the lawyers, the PRs and the smaller fry that swim in its wake and you are up to a grand total of 1.5m. Even in its current state of emaciation, manufacturing employs 2m people.

Well this is what the research for the article suggests but I am interested to read alternative statistics. This is of course not mentioning the billions spent of bailing them out over the last few years.

 

[Gwylan]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

There's someone who couldn't be bothered to read the article. Just to spell it out...

"The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn, it's still only getting on for half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that the widget-makers of the Midlands paid for Tony Blair's welfarism. But that would be a much less picturesque description.

Even in the best of times, the finance sector hasn't paid anything like as much to the state as the state has had to pay for them since the great crash. According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in "direct upfront financing" to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn. Seen that way the City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

Twit. Read the article.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

Is the revenue from the city higher or lower than the bailout given to the banks and the loss on your savings when inflation goes hyper when the start printing money to cover the loss

 

[DJ Leon]

Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city.

Yes, I do. Do you realise the amount of tax they DON'T collect from the city?

 

[beorhthelm]

I guess your response puts you firmly in the 19% that think the banks are well run.

you know it doesnt mean you have to think the banks are "well run" to acknowledge the aggregate input they have to the economy. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter how we've got here or if you like it, if as the article put it the City is the last engine firing in the economy, you need to keep it firing.



actually i find the article has an odd angle. if you take it at face value it implys manufacturing is having more input in tax and employment to the economy. thats great, so lets not hear any more about the destroyed manufacturing base then. and we shouldnt really be so nasty to the banker as they are 80% retail operations for the UK, so no more banker bashing.

 

[DIRK STEELE]

The comments section of the Guardian is a complete joke. Do you realise the amount of tax revenue HMRC collect from the city. The number of jobs that it creates. It is in the public interest for the City to be healthy, whether you like it or not.

Yeh but... if the banks are bankrupt then the benefits are false. The jobs are false. And the tax revenue is therefore nothing.

 

[Cosmic Joker]

actually i find the article has an odd angle. if you take it at face value it implys manufacturing is having more input in tax and employment to the economy. thats great, so lets not hear any more about the destroyed manufacturing base then. and we shouldnt really be so nasty to the banker as they are 80% retail operations for the UK, so no more banker bashing.

The thing is, from the previous paragraph to the tax revenue comparison it seems that analysis is based only on corporation tax and does not include income tax by people employed in either industry. Also even if manufacturing in 2002-08 was still contributing more tax than widely acknowledged it doesn't mean that that still isn't a lot less than if there was still as much British industry as existed say 20 years prior to that or as still exists in Germany, so perhaps "shrunken" instead of "destroyed"?

Also the banking as 80% retail is based on headcount not value in terms of turnover, profit or tax contribution. None of which takes away from that it is the investment banking industry in the UK,USA and elsewhere and their lax regulatory regime from Governments who are responsible for the financial crash, although retail banking was of course heavily involved in lending more money to many home-buyers and consumers than they could afford to pay back. And Governments are also to be held to account for letting the financial industry and other corporations so easily avoid paying more tax than they have to finance their spending.