This headline is pretty standard for the Mail. What I found surprising is that they were using the same figures and saying ‘per family’ on the BBC this morning. Don’t do it, BBC, it’s just what they want!
£40,000 per family? Now how did they work that out? Presumably by dividing the total sum by the number of families. But how do they define a family? It probably refers to dependent children being cared for by one or more adults, in which case HURRAY, I’m off the hook! I haven’t got any children, dependent or otherwise. I’ll be celebrating tonight! I meantersay, The Mail can be a bit misleading at times, but I’m sure they’ve got this right.
One thing: how does a single parent with several children living on benefit find the £40,000? Now there’s a scandal worth The Mail’s attention!
(Alright, I know The Mail isn’t the only news organisation to use this headline (the BBC said it as well) so perhaps they didn’t invent it this time. But it’s such a stupid and meaningless figure it was worth commenting on.
In any case, as I understood it, the actual amount that lands on the public purse rather depends upon what the Government gets for the bank shares it owns when it sells them, so all these per family, per tax payer, per whatever figures are meaningless anyway. A lot of people are being given sleepless nights for no reason other than to sell newspapers.)
What’s more, they did point out the small matter of the £850bn being the total potential exposure (should every underwritten loan, etc, not get repaid).
Given, therefore, the fact that the actual amount of cash handed over (to date) has been significantly lower than this, the mind boggles as to where the Fail get £40k per family (household?) from
That’s a stunning example of a totally false headline. Since most of that money hasn’t been handed over but is simply guarantees against defaulting debts (as flip says), there’s no way you can describe it as being “used”.
Since much of the money was lent to British families, even if they do default on their mortgages and other loans and the government has to spend the full $850 bn bailing the banks out, British families won’t actually lose $850 bn – they’ll see billions of pounds of debt they owe get written off, money they’ve already spent it on houses and cars and home furnishings and holidays! So their extra taxes will simply go to pay for things they’ve already bought.
“they did point out the small matter of the £850bn being the total potential exposure (should every underwritten loan, etc, not get repaid”
They never do, it’s just part of their standard politically loaded condescension.
Of course had this Labour Gov (having gotten into this mess by following the US/Anglo right-wing economic orthodoxy of low regulation & as free a financial market as possible) allowed the British financial system to collapse entirely, thanks to the ‘work’ of that private financial system (which it came within days of doing) you can bet like likes of the DM & their tory mates would be screaming the place down.
As would the rest of us.
The sorry fact is that the private financial sector has cost us all a hell of a lot in bailing them out.
If we have sense we will hold on to the shares and equities we the taxpayers now own and not sell them until they are worth a damned sight more than we paid for them, which is perfectly possible in a 5 – 10yr timespan and so long as we do not allow the torys to sell us all out cheap.
The bonus problem is simple.
Special wind-fall tax and tell them to go f*ck themselves, if they seriously imagine they are ‘worth’ so much globally then bon voyage.
Come a genuine day of reckoning I think that plenty of then would soon realise that a country has more ‘value’ than it’s comparative income tax rate.
The big issue now is whether or not the UK is going to be one of the handful that continue to allow those ridiculous bonuses.
Continental Europe by and large does not operate such a crazy economic system (and have not suffered the way the UK & the US taxpayers have).
So much for all those lectures about not following the UK/US economic model.
Wahay! As a singleton I don’t pay anything then!!
The astonishing thing is the complete lack of understanding of any element of the financial crisis by Mail ‘journalists’.
This headline is pretty standard for the Mail. What I found surprising is that they were using the same figures and saying ‘per family’ on the BBC this morning. Don’t do it, BBC, it’s just what they want!
Birdie???
Did I miss the memo about it being 1972 all over again?
£40,000 per family? Now how did they work that out? Presumably by dividing the total sum by the number of families. But how do they define a family? It probably refers to dependent children being cared for by one or more adults, in which case HURRAY, I’m off the hook! I haven’t got any children, dependent or otherwise. I’ll be celebrating tonight! I meantersay, The Mail can be a bit misleading at times, but I’m sure they’ve got this right.
One thing: how does a single parent with several children living on benefit find the £40,000? Now there’s a scandal worth The Mail’s attention!
(Alright, I know The Mail isn’t the only news organisation to use this headline (the BBC said it as well) so perhaps they didn’t invent it this time. But it’s such a stupid and meaningless figure it was worth commenting on.
In any case, as I understood it, the actual amount that lands on the public purse rather depends upon what the Government gets for the bank shares it owns when it sells them, so all these per family, per tax payer, per whatever figures are meaningless anyway. A lot of people are being given sleepless nights for no reason other than to sell newspapers.)
Interestingly the BBC actually quoted £5500
What’s more, they did point out the small matter of the £850bn being the total potential exposure (should every underwritten loan, etc, not get repaid).
Given, therefore, the fact that the actual amount of cash handed over (to date) has been significantly lower than this, the mind boggles as to where the Fail get £40k per family (household?) from
That’s a stunning example of a totally false headline. Since most of that money hasn’t been handed over but is simply guarantees against defaulting debts (as flip says), there’s no way you can describe it as being “used”.
Since much of the money was lent to British families, even if they do default on their mortgages and other loans and the government has to spend the full $850 bn bailing the banks out, British families won’t actually lose $850 bn – they’ll see billions of pounds of debt they owe get written off, money they’ve already spent it on houses and cars and home furnishings and holidays! So their extra taxes will simply go to pay for things they’ve already bought.
I’m sorry, but the plural of bonus is surely “bonii”.
/Alan Partridge
No, apparently it’s “boners”
Huh, huh.. huh,huh, snicker….
dead blonde corner looks a bit rough today.
Economic Fail
Where and when do I pay my £40 thousand?.
I don’t want to be in debt and on the “Mail’s” dark coloured list.
“they did point out the small matter of the £850bn being the total potential exposure (should every underwritten loan, etc, not get repaid”
They never do, it’s just part of their standard politically loaded condescension.
Of course had this Labour Gov (having gotten into this mess by following the US/Anglo right-wing economic orthodoxy of low regulation & as free a financial market as possible) allowed the British financial system to collapse entirely, thanks to the ‘work’ of that private financial system (which it came within days of doing) you can bet like likes of the DM & their tory mates would be screaming the place down.
As would the rest of us.
The sorry fact is that the private financial sector has cost us all a hell of a lot in bailing them out.
If we have sense we will hold on to the shares and equities we the taxpayers now own and not sell them until they are worth a damned sight more than we paid for them, which is perfectly possible in a 5 – 10yr timespan and so long as we do not allow the torys to sell us all out cheap.
The bonus problem is simple.
Special wind-fall tax and tell them to go f*ck themselves, if they seriously imagine they are ‘worth’ so much globally then bon voyage.
Come a genuine day of reckoning I think that plenty of then would soon realise that a country has more ‘value’ than it’s comparative income tax rate.
The big issue now is whether or not the UK is going to be one of the handful that continue to allow those ridiculous bonuses.
Continental Europe by and large does not operate such a crazy economic system (and have not suffered the way the UK & the US taxpayers have).
So much for all those lectures about not following the UK/US economic model.