Osborne is now considering giving all taxpayers a £400 bung for the [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osbornes-rbs-exit-plan-400-share-gift-for-every-taxpayer-to-woo-voters-8497525.htmldisposal of RBS[/url in the lead up to the 2015 election.



Is he so shallow as to think the majority of people would accept £400 as a sweetener? Most will have paid way over that amount in increased VAT alone.



Instead of flogging off RBS at a knock-down price to his mates in the City and seeing as we've already socialised 81% of RBS: why not take the remaining 19% into public control and run RBS as a Citizens' Bank? It could then offer basic accounts to those who struggle to open an accout with the major banks, with ineterest rates reflecting a lack of massive bonuses to spiv bankers. They could take a look back at how other banks operated, like the Quaker principles of the original Barclays or that there Trustee Savings Bank f'ristance

So if those who struggle to open an account are offered credit at abnormally low interest rates, what do you think that will lead to and who will pick up the bill?

the question is are people shallow enough to vote for someone for £400?



really? to pay £400 vat would require a purchase of around £2,300. as vat went up by 2.5%, that £400 would require an additional spend of, what, £15k? so, £7.5k per year or just less that £150 a week. perhaps they're buying your super dooper fish/meat.

Are you arguing with him because your maths seems to prove his point and then some?

Basic bank accounts don't have a credit facility.

VAT was increased to 20% in January 2011 so that would be four years of paying an extra 2.5%. There would be no need for any additional spending to account for the £400 in VAT.



Those buying my excellent food need have no worries however, apart from our desserts, all the food I sell is zero rated.

Correct, my comment was aimed more at a bank paying interest on savings.



I am also convinced that if RBS was converted into a mutual "Peoples' Bank", it would attract not only those who struggle to find basic banking facilities but others may well shift their accounts to a more equitable banking operation.



Mind you, the established banks may lose out, so it's a guranteed non-starter

I'd rather just have the £400.

I doubt Osborne's little ruse is aimed at blue-boys like you

Thank you for proving you don't have a clue about this.

I see the legal money sharks have found a new angle on TV advertised money lending now - new to the screens today is an advert for one company who are "going back to the old way of money lending", sounds very benevolent, is pitched at those with bad credit ratings who can't even convince the sharks to lend to them at a couple of thousand percent p.a.



Its called "using a guarantor", "like in the old days of borrowing money", you simply get someone to stand guarantee that you'll repay the loan.



The cynic in me tells me that the sharks are rather disappointed that the sort of people who ring their 0800 numbers to borrow (relatively) small sums of money (and then again in a pyramid style multiple borrowing spiral) have such poor credit ratings that they won't take a punt on them - but if they can find someone who wouldn't have normally touched them with a bargepole to stand guarantor, well thats another trenche of the population they can suck into the web then.



I prefered it when all this stuff was done on the doorstep and not on TV, bringing it into your living room just winds you up between programmes these days.

Is this £400 for everybody in the country?



Have they costed how much of this is going to immigrants, Muslims, gypsies, gays? People in council estates?



Because the Daily Mail will soon cost it and print it on the front page.



Is it right that government should be giving so much money to their kind?