justthisbloke

Doesn't make any sense to me. I know a (little bit) about trusts but I cannot fathom that FAQ. If you own a house (say, it could actually be anything; money, shares, art, etc) you can draw up a deed of trust to separate beneficial and legal interest. An example would be when you want your daughter to live securely in a nice flat but don't want her to sell it and spend the cash on whores and coke. You would retain the legal interest and assign her the beneficial interest (the right to live there etc). You don't need to tell the Land Registry - everyone's interests are captured in the trust deed. So the owner of an asset can assign the beneficial interest to a third party. Fine. But can the owner of a liability assign it? I feckin doubt it.

Can someone explain the scheme in simple terms (as far as can be guessed)? What is transferring to the LTD? If the individual is receiving rent still, then it's not the beneficial ownership. Unless it is the beneficial ownership but then the LTD pays the individual the rent who then pays the lender. In which case, where's the gain? In fact, as pointed out above, you'd lose the BTL tax exemption. But the difference between tax treatment of individuals and LTDs is only significant where there's debt involved. I simply can't see how debt can be transferred to a LTD from an individual without the lender's formal agreement. Can anyone explain? Subsidiary Q: however it "works" (or more likely doesn't), will the BTL-er have to tick the "I've taken used a tax avoidance scheme" box on their SA return?

He does come across as a bit of a **** but both he and the quacks should feel free to parade and placard. But it does look a battle between different styles of entitlement, doesn't it?

Who was lending BHS money and seeing it flow out as dividends? And why? What's the logic? Isn't this exactly the reason that commercial loans carry covenants - to prevent this sort of looting? What went wrong?

Exactly. The cheap labour immigrants issue is a problem with the benefits system not one of EU membership.

Wasn't Greenies' mega-divi a long time ago, though? 2005-ish so prob over a decade ago and before he sold the biz to the new lot of willing buyers?

Why no popularity seeking kneejerk call for nationalisation from the lefties as per Tata? What's the difference?

Er, yes. If they're still open on Monday, I'd get shot of 'em as soon as they open the doors. Vouchers will be worthless if they go TU.

Actually, I have no idea as to the market price of tights! I just thought an exclamation about any expenditure in clothes was de rigueur on HPC!

£5.50!

or, "rent a man a fishing rod (that you've bought with a high leverage loan) and you can sit back and live off the fish that he catches[1]" [1] subject to interest rates, tax changes, rod rental voids, etc.

It can't be done can it? Not without all parties agreeing, anyway. There's no guarantor. I'm after advice for a relative, if anyone's been here before. Cheers.

I think so. And before that, you may remember "Death Cigarettes" - a brand that flickered in and out of existence in the 90s.

Article in the Socialist Worker (it might been the Guardian, actually - easily confused) today. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/14/dwp-punishing-low-paid-full-time-workers-under-new-benefits-rule Cites full timers being sanctioned and includes lots of quotes along the lines of "I've got a job - why should I have to go to the job centre?".

The second one was the point at which having children was noticeable from my POV. With one, Mrs JTB just got on with it and I barely noticed. With two knocking around the house (with only a one year gap) I suddenly had to get involved!

No deduction here either. Which casts doubt on the entire exercise. If I make no more contributions, I'll get £117 - an unknown deduction. Not much help in financial planning even if you believe the system won't change over the next 20 years.

The man is a walking joke. Good call to report him to the returning officer. BTW, the letter you have on your blog includes your (presumably) name. You may or may not care.

I've been investigating a long standing local councillor recently - in particular, digging into his company XXX Investments that he listed on his register of interests. Turns out the fecker is loaded to the gunwhales with leveraged BTLs in Swansea - and some really grotty places judging by Streetview and Zoopla (as legal charges are held at Companies House, all the mortgage details and addresses are on record).

I googled and found this

Lived frugally. Saved and invested like a *******. Bought[1] for cash. Quit work and am living the FIRE dream. Also worked hard - but never worried about losing a job. In fact, I think this helped my career (and therefore my income, and therefore my savings) as I never had to ****-lick an insane boss or toe some obviously insane party line. People valued my ability to say "that's a feckin stupid idea". [1] Yeah, I know. I'm going to lose money. But as I'm not leveraged, I can afford it.

(Going well off thread - I may start a new one on OT) I've been a bit coy about my status so far. I've described myself as taking a career break or being on sabbatical rather than declaring myself "retired" (I'm only in the second half of my forties). I've yet to work out what to put on "official" forms that want an occupation. So far, I've used "gardener", "cyclist", and "investor". Mrs JTB won't let me use "vagabond", or "libertine".

Welcome aboard the bail-out-early boat! I'm a few months in and loving it. I'll bet there's more financially independent posters on this board of "anarchist numbskulls" than there are on 118.

Can someone explain to me how the contracted out impact is supposed to work? I've googled but come away pretty confused.

Speaking as someone who's not going to win any "best kept house and garden" prizes, I'd say the test should be politeness and reasonableness rather than the height of the lawn. I backed out of buying somewhere recently (a pretty ideal rural plot with pp and lovely views) because I had a word with a local copper I know. The plot has one neighbour who is well known to them and is a generally unlikeable character. A narrow escape, I think. His garden was pristine.

Quite. I find the current social trend (although maybe it's just a media trend, or a social media trend) to see tax paying as unquestionably morally wholesome and to pillory companies and individuals who legitimately pay less tax than they voluntarily could. Whether one is morally wholesome can only be judged by what one does with their power (money is, of course, distilled power). Handing your power/money to a third party to spend and wield is, at best, an abdication of one's moral responsibility - even if that third party is called HMG. And when that third party has a long track record of immoral use of power[1], it worse than an abdication - it's a facilitation of immorality. [1] For example; loading generations to come with debt, creating welfare structures that incentive behaviours damaging to individuals and communities, allowing and encouraging environmental destruction, etc etc. And that's before you get to government waste, politicians pocket lining, or launching wars (of invasion or simply against personal freedoms).