Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

bogbrush

Members
  • Posts

    6,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bogbrush

  1. You don't know the value they've gone in at and you haven't addressed the fact that the fund will simply come back calling if the asset can't yield the cash to cover its obligations, short of speculating that the bank will go bust, which is impossible given you believe they have governments by the balls to safegyuard them. If they're worth nothing how is that going to damage pensioners, given they can keep coming back to the bank? And if they were, what's the object of disposing of these assets given they won't be marked down short of that day and so wouldn't impair any payouts anyway?
  2. If the bank has obligations then no amount of shimmying will get them out of it because the fund has an appetite and it'll be back if these assetscan't produce the cash the fund needs to pay pensions. I still don't see quite how this shafts pensioners. The Pension fund isn't going away. The Trustees have exposure far greater than Directors.
  3. Are there any treatments you would deny on the NHS, bearing in mind that a compelling story could be made for pretty much anything (e.g. Someone needs their daughters ears shortening because her schoolfirends were upsetting her and she threatened to hang herself) ? If so, why?
  4. I don't overlook that at all, but it doesn't adversely affect the Pension fund either way.
  5. 100% Agree. In neither case is there a problem because if the stuff is supposed to close the funding gap but doesn't they'll just be back with their hands out later. And it's not like the can will be kicked down the road forever as they need actual cash to pay pensions.
  6. Well Pensions need cash, not just book value. And unless the company vanishes the interested party remains.
  7. Which makes me think this has to be a non-story; if these assets have been put in to increase funding but fail then the Trustees will simply have their hands out for more. If the fund has "invested" in them then the Trustees will have to sort it or they'll find themselves in trouble. Their exposure is much greater than Directors or Managers.
  8. Yep, plus exposes the Trustees to extreme sanction if it goes wrong.
  9. If true then the Trustees either have a claim or would be in trouble. The duties on Trustees are far more onerous than on directors.
  10. naked shorting seems to overcome all objections (despite being the most frowned upon) because it's merely a promise to do something in the future. It's a problem isn't it? Who should be able to prevent us from making promises?
  11. Not exactly my point, to be more precise I was saying that most people enter into a loan content to receive back tokens of equivalent value to those lent. Even if it's the default it's easily altered by consent. That said, pretty hard to have to go off and track down those pesky pieces of paper when repayment day comes round. I any case, isn't the paper just representative of a promise, and if the promise is identical then can't you discharge that with different but equally valid representations of promise? Well I can't argue with that.
  12. Most people would agree that they expected equivalent value pound notes back. Sure, if you want to stipulate that you get the same bits of paper then that's fine but it sounds to me like a contract detail that should be nailed down before agreement rather than a universal default. Sure, if it's a unique item you loan like a car it's got to be the same one, but cash is a token of exchange anyway isn't it? It'll certainly kill 99% of the contracts for loan as I can't see the point of borrowing if you're going to have to recover the exact bits of paper from whoever you paid them to for whatever purpose you borrowed in the first place.
  13. Are you struggling to empathically process your feelings? Actually, she didn't get that from her degree, she just watched way too much Star Trek: The Next Generation and thought that a half-Betazoid Ships Counsellor with a great figure in a really tight costume sounded like a cool thing to be.
  14. I'm no fan of the system at all, it's based on fraud, but I would like to see what people think a PM would do to not be categorised as a friend/lackey/placeman of the "banksters" that doesn't instantly crash the economy. It seems to me that if any of us were actually in the hot seat and we sat with our advisors, telling us that yes it's a load of [email protected] but that actually if we just crash the banking system we'll basically fold as a recognisable country overnight we might also try to find ways to keep our heads above water while trying to take the edge off the problem, and pray for time/something to turn up. Hell, we might even try to subtely get the message across that the easy times are done and we might have to get a bit more self-reliant. This forum is pretty full of people who have absolute certainty over what is wrong and how corrupt people are so I just wanted to spin it round and get on a positive footing for once, and listen to viable solutions.
  15. Not a reason to fine people who bought their home with their taxed earnings. Cable is a fool who stumbled upon some truths a long time ago and made a reputation without fully understanding what he was on about. He has shown this ever since by talking non-stop gibberish.
  16. They must be taken and shared with the masses.
  17. Mandelson has so come to love his image that even if he could buy it outright he'd happily allow it to be swathed in mystery and release oblique statements like that.
  18. No, the value you refer to is in the state regulation of restriction and therefore not intrinsic to the land itself. If you want to redistribute the wealth just remove the restriction elsewhere, then everyone can have a mansion for the construction cost alone. Ah but that simply opens up access to the opportunity to create wealth (which I what I always try to endorse) rather than just pinching someone else's doesn't it? Maybe that's what distinguishes our position, or maybe not. Perhaps you could say which side of that divide you're on.
  19. I don't follow this; tax on alcohol is not a tax on capital. What I do understand is that you don't "have" to penalise anything, indeed it is nobodies business to penalise anothers capital. If I acquire all the pounds in the country and store them in my cellar it doesn't stop anyone carrying on their own business or creating any wealth. I may miss an opportunity to participate, that is the only cost.
  20. I can't disagree with you that we tax labour apallingly while leaving an uncreated yet privatised store of wealth unusable for the common good, my problem is that 99% of HPCers (you appear to be in the 1%) use the concept to appeal for wealth fining.
  21. I can't think of him without bringing to mind the mockery in Farages voice every time he refers to him.
  22. Taxing a house is not taxing the land. The house is added value and belongs to the wealth creator under any of the well-rehearsed arguments I've seen on here.
  23. See, this is pretty much a typical HPC position: * "for now it's on top of...." Yeah, sure, it'll replace income when the state no longer needs the money... yeah, in your dreams... can anyone seriously believe that time ever arrives? * tax on interest is irrelevent, it's tax on principal that's the issue here. So what if it's available for lending? It belongs to someone. They own it. * ditto CGT on a painting, that's not tax on the principal and only kicks in on sale. You're confusing taxes on profit with tax on principal. * and lets sidestep the key moral problem of taking someones house of them (in bits) by invoking the miniscule fringe of big flats off Hyde Park owned by shadowy evil people. As always on HPC, an appeal to jealously/fear of the tiny minority is the figleaf to take stuff off people. Why not just say "I want your stuff"? As I keep saying, until discussion in this country turns to how to create wealth rather than how to pinch it off someone else there's no hope.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.