It has been proposed that the way to privatise the banks is to give the shares out equally to all 46 million UK voters as opposed to selling them off to the highest bidders.
This plan drawn up by the corporate finance firm Portman Capital Partners, has received the endorsement of the co-chair of the LibDem Treasury policy committee Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West.
This would put about £900 in the form of 1,450 shares in each voters pocket.
This plan, said Mr Williams in a 'Centre Forum' think tank pamphlet, 'would recoup the public's investment and allow the taxpayer to get the benefit from any increased value in the banks'.
He also told the BBC that it would result in every citizen having ' … the same rights as shareholders at the moment, so they'd have the rights to get the company annual report. They could turn up at the AGM'.
'What might happen, for instance, is there could be shareholder associations set up of citizens who own these shares, who will put pressure on the banks to change their behaviour.'
In the past where shares were given to say saver of de-mutualised building societies the shares were quickly sold with cars and holidays replacing them or personal debt being paid down. So anyone with visions of interested citizens crowding into AGMs may well prove to end up disappointed.
The other really big issue is the state of the electoral role. Given recent concerns over the voting registration system and the accuracy of the register as well as some of the voting fraud that has happened, it is not hard to picture some people getting more than just one share. We could well end up with more voters in the UK than the total population. Cue voting reform.
But the money would be better off in the hands of the people in one way or another. The government has a plan to reduce the deficit so extra measures to do it may not be needed. It will also stop ministers queueing up at the Treasury door with begging bowls to spend the money if the shares were sold by the government.
Then people can spend it how they want and help the economy at the same time.
So Sharon or Tracy with 3 kids each by 6 different fathers and who haven't done a day's work between them ever and draw more than in benefits than I earn deserve a share do they?
I reckon only those who have had the 50% top rate of income tax inflicted on them to make up for the fiscal hole left by Labour actually deserve a share.
And what about those who've had inflation inflicted on them by all of this? Or the worry or reality of redundancy? Or dashed hopes as mortgages get rationed? There are many losers, yes even benefits claimants who now effectively get less.
I guess my objection is about the way that politicians interchange the words "voters" and "taxpayers" as if they are one in the same. In reality, we only get one vote each regardless of how big or small our contribution to the national coffers or drain on them happens to be.
Taxpayers bought RBS but voters get the shares? It's redistribution worthy of a Liberal Democrat. Gordon Brown would be proud.
I suppose it all comes down to what people think is 'contributing' to society. Is it right that all we measure is the tax paid.
If we were to look at other aspects maybe servicemen who have seen action should be given ten times the shares and those that have been injured even more. But as they are relatively poorly paid they should, according to tax contribution argument, get less?
I agree with you point in principle but dislike your example.
Fighting foreign indurgencies is not my idea of contributing to British society.
Servicemen today have far better terms and conditions than the conscripts of WW2. It is a genuine and valid career choice that many young men take which helps them grow up, learn a trade and see the world. Please don't think I belittle the occupational hazzards involved for most of the last 20 years, but they do have a choice. And so do the politicians who support their deployment yet cut equipment and man power in all the armed services while ring fencing the NHS.
The bank shares should be disposed of by UKFI to maximise the return to the Country if and when market conditions allow. Personally I'd prefer to see these huge institutions broken up into their original trading brands and sold piecemeal.
I will agree that breaking these huge banking institutions up into smaller entities would be great, but with the current cost of meeting ever increasing regulation I wonder whether only the entities with huge resources can actually afford to make a profit.
As to troops I just chose them as I know a bit about that. But there are nurses and teachers etc who all choose to take lower paid jobs, they may not pay much tax (none in reality as it is just recycled money), but they do benefit society.
You seem to be saying that bank shares, if given out, should only go to those that have been wealthy enough to pay cash (tax) into the system. That leaves no room for other types of contribution and puts it lower than pure cash. If that's the case all the rich bankers (who paid tax in this country) will end up with a lot of the shares. Justice?
Why not just convert it all back into gold and build our reserves back up?…..its a start….
I am saying that that I disagree with the proposal.
I do think that the rate of pay is one measure by which we compare the value of different jobs. If a person (and I am such an example) chooses to take a lower paid position that they find more rewarding rather than push themselves to the limit and reap the financial rewards of doing so, they do contribute less than they could and are less deserving as a result.
I don't think the shares should be "given" to anyone but yes, those who are paying the most tax to fund the debt that bailed the banks should be most deserving if there was such a windfall
Returning to the military, if I may, a basic soldier only needs to be fit, willing and disciplined to do his job. Higher ranks are better paid because it takes a higher calibre of person to fill those positions.
Richard: I wouldn't want to swap my gold for RBS shares!
haha Phil….
The must be some way RBS could be swapped for Gold…or silver…..
Phil, there are people who throw themselves into charities and push themselves to their limit to get support. You are measuring everyone with a fiat currency yardstick, no money in the bank, no worth.
How about people who inherit wealth and never do a day's work but are taxed a lot just because they are wealthy by default? Do they deserve more shares than someone who works for the state and does overtime with no extra pay?
So let me get this straight – the government borrowed money to give to the banks and instead of taking it back to pay off the loan it is going to split it between every person equally. Just how thick is the UK collective if they let them get away with this?