The Dude talks to UK Uncut on Twitter.

are @ disonest or stupid? Barclays this time. which didn’t need a bail-out and which pays a lot of tax.

the entire banking system would have collapsed if it wan’t for the bail. And no they don’t pay a lot of tax.

Question: does the laffer curve mean anything to you. Is there a point at which you stop regarding “business” as a piggy bank?

2007/2008 Financial sector collapse knocked 6% out of GDP, caused a 1 trillion black hole which we are paying the price

Barclays didn’t take the Bail-out. It went to shareholders. Are you dishonest or ignorant?

I didn’t say they did, I said the entire banking industry exists because of the tax payer.

all business exist “because of the tax-payer” because he’s also a consumer. Barclays didn’t take bail-out, so why picket them?

just shows how concentrated wealth is in this country. not right that we should be so dependent on a tiny groups of people

Question: Do you pay more tax than you legally owe? if not you’re a rancid hypocrite.
waaaa! someone has more than me! waaaaaa! You’re a child.

No i pay the tax that is taken out of my pay. I don’t employ a small army of accountants to try and get me out of it.
So you think that Barclays, a major international retail & investment bank should just PAYE without using accountants?
I think Barclays should not have an entire division in their HQ coming up with elaborate means to pay less and less tax

You do agree businesses which make a loss should be able to set that loss against future year’s tax on profits don’t you?

I think the law can be changed to stop the Banks avoiding tax, especially as they have a debt to the public sector
they’re not “avoiding tax”. Barclays is carrying forward losses, something ALL grown-up tax regimes allow.

no this should be changed for the banks. They have a debt to society, they do avoid tax, they have an entire division to do it, with hundreds of subsidiaries in tax havens.

You really are ignorant, aren’t you. How is retrospective taxation different from theft?

because the entire banking industry is being support with 1 trillion of our money and I want it back

with plans to start selling off the RBS stake, you will, soon.

you fail to remember in 2009 that secret papers we leaked to the press showing Barclays secret division.

You mean a big international bank seeks to minimise taxes, and you’re expecting me to be 1) surprised & 2) outraged? Meh…
well we are, you arn’t. We have differing concerns. Which is why this conversation is utterly pointless.
You didn’t answer the question: Do you think business should be allowed to bring forward losses. If not, why not?

I did, you didn’t read it. No the banks should not be able to because they have a 1 trillion debt to society

The Government BOUGHT a stake + loans, which will be paid back on (ha!) Privatisation of Lloyds & RBS (which you support? No?)

but other banks like Barclays benefited through that bail-out so need to pay up too. We will never agree!

Yes. There is a bankers’ put. Which needs to be adressed by regulation, but confiscatory, retrospective taxation is not the answer. Do you even know what ‘Bankers’ put’ means?

there is just no point arguing with those who misunderstand the basics. Sorry.
17 replies
  1. Henry Crun
    Henry Crun says:

    How did Barclays benefit from the bailout exactly. If memory serves, they went off to the ME and got some rich Arabs to "invest" some cash.

    UKUNcut really are unbelievably stupid. They don't understand which banks were bailed out (Gordon's mates and constituents) nor do they understand the tax laws regarding offsetting of losses against future profit.

  2. startledcod
    startledcod says:

    I'm guessing that a large number of the UK Uncunt troops smoke and that the majority roll there own (or is this an unfair stereotyping). If they have purchased personally imported rolling tobacco i.e. from anyone other than a proper retailer then they are part of the largest tax evasion in this country. Paid anyone cash to avoid VAT? No me neither ………


    Socialism, it NEVER works.

  3. Starship Fighter
    Starship Fighter says:

    Wow. Just… Wow. I remember now why I try and actively avoid debate with these people, both online and in the real world. "Yeahbut…yeahbut…yeahbut"
    "you're wrong. And this is why…"

    Being a mostly student and radical Marxist movement I suppose it would be foolish to expect anything approaching intellectual rigour…

  4. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    For those that understand about being able to offset losses against future profits, no explaination is necessary.

    For UK Uncut, no explaination is possible.

    They are idiots.

  5. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    You nailed it with the someone has more than me line. It's a group of lazy pricks that feel they are entitled to other people's money. I.e. The labour party's indoctrination has succeeded (about the only thing those useless tests ever succeeded at)

  6. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    And I'm so fed up with telling people that while banks (very broadly) caused the recession, the labour arseholes ran the economy in such a way (ie. No saving for a rainy day) that it couldn't withstand a recession.

  7. bloke in spain
    bloke in spain says:

    Personally know anyone who supports UKUncnut?
    Go round & superglu their front door shut.
    Do it tonite.


  8. James Tyler
    James Tyler says:

    Whilst my sympathies are with you, I find myself shaking my head to you, and nodding at the idiot you were arguing with.

    Some facts.

    1) In 2008, the leading auditing firms advised the government that if the took a (laissez faire) attitude (and left the market to do its stuff), they could not certify the major banks (including Barclays) as going concerns.

    2) In wave one of the crisis, Barclays found itself (even having missed the stupidity of ABN Amro) as insolvent. The were caught short of funds in a way that would have sunk a normal/real business. Which business can bail itself out on anything remotely like the terms offered to ALL the banks by the BoE or Fed?

    3) The banking system was able to immediately start using state aid (the funding windows).

    4) Later on all the banks, including Barclays, used the special liquidity scheme, which allowed them to exchange all the shit assets they had in return for liquidity (cash). Which business can do that when they are in trouble. Without this, Barclays WOULD BE BANKRUPT.

    6) Barclays stuck its neck out to buy cheap bits of Lehman's. Sure, but do you really think those bits would have been worth anything at all without the trillions of US$ thrown at the entire banking system by the Fed and by the use of the TARP, amongst other bailouts?

    6) Interest rates are set at 0.5%, (who else can borrow at this rate?!?!?) whilst inflation surges up towards 5%. The only reason this is happening is to bail the banks out (in a business I am involved in, we can only borrow at base plus 5%). Barclays partakes of this state subsidy.

    6) We are all getting poorer because of this huge, opaque bail out of one section of the economy by the rest of us. Salary going up? No. Shopping basket going through the roof? Why yes. This is a clear debasement of the currency. Think who loses – the prudent saver, the wage earner, those who have large savings… and who benefits? Banking and government…

    This is not free market capitalism. This is the very very very worst type of state medling and crony capitalism.

    Finance capitalism is not the same as free market capitalism.
    Banking in it's current form can only exist because the rest of us are willing to give a free subsidy to stop it collpasing from its very own contradictions.

    (Please don't confuse this rant with anything else that the economically illiterate morons at UK uncut advocate – I advocate FREE markets, not state subsidised markets, so would never support Tobin taxes, stupid attacks on markets per se and so on).

  9. David G
    David G says:

    My grandfather always said 'Never argue with stupid people – they drag you down to their level and beat you on experience'

  10. Malcolm Bracken
    Malcolm Bracken says:

    James, If you read my other posts on the subject, you'll see the banker's put and over-regulation allow the big boys to take too many risks.

    However if I'm to back a business which merely responds to the incentives idiot government put in its way, vs a bunch of whiny children who want to loot private business, I'll go with the former!

  11. Eggrock
    Eggrock says:

    I've been out with UK Uncut. I can't argue specifically about Barclays, but the general point of UK Uncut is that the government is giving breaks to big business whilst telling everyone else there's no money. I think this is fundamentally wrong.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply to FrankC Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *