Well, at least they're getting something
Well done to everyone who has donated something to the victims. Still it's a shame to see the scum who stole the money in the first place (the company's owners) getting away with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It's good they're getting something. I must say though, that the only reason they are getting anything is because the amount involved is relatively small. The fact that it's Christmas also worked in their favour.
Compare their plight to those who have lost their pensions savings when their companies went bust, etc etc. I didn't hear Ian McCartney (or any other Government minister, for that matter) calling for anyone to donate any money to those people, as happened in the Farepak case. It's always easier to solve the smaller problems.
The fact that some people stole/lost the Farepak money is not directly the fault of the Government, although one may make the point that if there were proper regulation of that industry, the Farepak case may well never have happened. I am more concerned about cases where the actions of the Government have caused people to lose money, and these people have then not been compensated, and left without redress. I am thinking of pensions policy, Railtrack shareholders, people like that. Not much sympathy for these people. In fact, in the case of Railtrack, there was open contempt, talk of 'grannies losing their blouses' etc. The Farepak case has been held out to be different. The subtext is that 'these people deserve our sympathy and help because they are ordinary working class people who only want to save for Christmas', ie not money-hungry capitalists investing in a pension or, Heaven forbid, shares.
That said, I am happy the Farepak people have got some of their money back. What happened to them was dreadful, and it will be good if the people responsible are called to account for their actions.
Bel (www.beltoday.com)
I think it's equally bad for the government or capitalists to take people's money. I think you're right about pensions.
However the Railtrack issue is different the share price/dividends were artifically inflated by the massive subsidies paid by the government from taxpayers money - money paid into a company that we used to own and that was sold off cheap by the Tories, a company that still couldnt survive without pumping in millions of pounds of our money. I don't think any compensation should go to railtrack shareholders because we already paid them twice over at least.
So a shareholder who buys shares in a company in good faith should be made to suffer because the Government changes its mind and pulls the plug?
People buy shares because they expect to make a reasonable return on them. They also know to expect risk. But the risk should be what is reasonable in the circumstances, and in no way does that, rather should that, include Government action.
How is anyone now supposed to trust the Government when next they invite us to invest in something?
Bel (www.beltoday.com)
Well Railtrack was brought back into public ownership because it was incapable of running the rail network efficiently. The shareholders paid the price for investing in a company that was unable to do the job it was paid handsomely to do. I don't see why my tax money should go to them a third time when hosptals are falling apart and the pension system is collapsing.
As for trusting politicans, well... you know what they say ;-)
Not a very popular view but I can't see from examination whho should pay teh farepack customers. The company they were investing in went under through poor management. The bank pulled the plug on it debt, as its right.
This happens all the time, as Bel says better than me. i am glad the charity in peoples hearts gave these people something, but at the heart of it is the way the market works. it has winners and losers to wish otherwise may seem kind-hearted but has never been shown to work anywhere in human history.
I just do not understand the Farepack collapse. Well, I have my suspicions, but if you're running a business whereby unpaid collectors collect and bank subscriptions for you every week and all you have to do is pocket the interest until it's time to out and buy and then distribute vouchers for various supermarkets and high-street shops, which I assume you buy at less than their face value, it shouldn't be that difficult to turn a profit.
Particularly when, as I understand it, the face value of the vouchers was always going to be less than what people paid in anyway, since you levied an administration charge on their savings.
I mean, once that's an established business I don't quite see how that can go so badly wrong, assuming you know how to do a cash-flow forecast, but...
I'll let Rob come back on this (on Monday, his wife is less understanding than mine!), but I know he was reading something about the bonuses the company's directors were pocketing.
Post a Comment