Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bogbrush

  1. I always think that these discussions end a little early; that is, people project forward to it all going tits up...... and then stop. What comes after, in the opinion of posters?
  2. You're quite correct; there isn't "a" market anyway, it's highly segmented by region, value, etc. Personally I can't really see a time when it all crashes because the government will always take inflation over asset collapse give that while the former is awful the latter crashes the whole thing.
  3. Web sales are irrelevent. Their problem is that they started selling their brand in supermarkets years ago. Bit by bit this is eroding the uniqueness of the shops, and if you look closely at their sales their own store sales are collapsing as the sales to Grocers expands. Trouble is, the grocers will squeeze them and their Own Store overheads will stay the same as sales decline. Some bright spark will probably respond by shutting stores, but then their unit development costs will blow up. If they carry on they'll just sell to Grocers but they have a business based on high margins and they simply won't be able to survive selling on that basis alone. It's a massive strategic error made well before this guy was in charge, and one they could maybe reverse only if they went private.
  4. My own pet hate is the plant & machinery allowances system. Basically, if you spend a load of money on plant you can only write off a portion of it each year against taxable profit (20%). What this means is that £1m spent on running costs is entirely allowed against profit for the first year, but a business doing what is really needed and investing to be competitive only gets to write off 20% of the cost on a reducing balance basis. I would only allow the same total deduction, I'd just let it all happen in year 1 (the year it is all spent anyway), same as if it was spent on materials or wages. It's not as if the profits of the machinery providing company are taxed on the same deferred basis! It's a straightforward disincentive to invest, or an incentive to stay inefficient, if you like. Yet we need World Class manufacturing. Mad. And reducing Corp Tax while increasing this allowance is a double whammy disincentive.
  5. I get the article, but amusing as it is, it's misplaced. It's a great tragedy but greatly extended life spans are proving to be a catastrophe.
  6. I learned a while back that the reason many people argue with Injin is only about time. In the long run he's right; what can be fudged through in the short term eventually disintegrates if it is based on principles of totalitarianism and violence. It might takes decades but it conspicuously fails to provide the promised answer eventually, whereas he's saying it's failing from day one because it's on bad principles.
  7. I'm trying not to look at this from a personal or ethics point of view, just trying to be logical about it; keeping a very disabled child alive doesn't materially affect demographics so for me it's basic kindness to provide help to such a person, if I denied that I think it would damage me. The problem is that extending life span for most of us without extending the length of time a person can take care of themselves just has no good ending whatever way you look at it. And even then we'd need to find a bigger planet.
  8. Policy made from personal interest is never any good. You know my solution is right. I equally know why nobody will promote it.
  9. The problem is obvious and the solution even more so, but unpalatable. Heath care extends lives. This causes overpopulation, so they restricted birth rates. But that leads to disasterous demographics. The only solution for for people to return to breeding fast, but to have aggressive death rates. Wars aren't the answer as they kill off the young. The answer is for life expetancy to fall. Coincidentally, the cost of health care is becoming crazy. So the solution is to cut healthcare, have people die younger and let the World pass across to the young and vigorous promptly, as it should.
  10. Nobody seems to mention he used the exact quote on David Milliband. Is that supposed to have been sexist too?
  11. It's all about attempts to engineer society to the states vision. As usual some people don't feel like playing along. They have my sympathy.
  12. What is intended is neither here nor there; the question will be whether the letter of the law is complied with. As for the shot at the judges, those would be the same ones who found against the banks interests the other week over mis-selling? The endless conspiracy theories on here don't help the arguments. The "weasel words" as you called them are what was written as law. The politicians don't even draft the legislation, that's done by Civil servants including the Revenue; the problem is that it's an unequal battle because those drafting them put up the legislation and it's for others (who being far higher paid Barristers who are cleverer than the drafters) to find the holes. The reason these gaps exist is because the more the state makes rules the more it creates loopholes. For instance, EBTs arise because the state wants people to make this kind of provision and gives allowances to incentivise; these guys just find ways to implement the incentives without having to execute all the things the drafters wanted them to. Remove all tax advantage to have pensions and all this will disappear. Try to tie it up in more and more complex legislation and guess what will happen. It is not possible to legislate then cry foul because someone identifies gaps in what you've legislated. As for your last question, Osborne made announcements in November which carry weight in law because they amount to clarification of the meaning of the legislation and which effectively closed off EBTs and the like for this kind of activity.
  13. Indeed; and the public has been completely softened up on the topic to now cheer for anything which can be made to sound like "making people pay their share". Yesterday this included a Council charging people for taking a client for a training run through a park in London, and people were phoning in cheering it on.
  14. You're wrong about this. It's about the law. Legislation goes into force and it is the requirement of individuals and companies to comply with it. These systems are entirely legal and the problem for the Revenue is that the legislation didn't allow for what they did. EBTs are now no longer effective because the government has changed the law. Where they are borderline (in aprticular the use of assets) there is negotiation simply because the Revenue don't have the force of law to impose a solution.
  15. This is now law in many areas; in particular, discrimination. If accused you cannot turn up and require the prosecution to make a case, you have to turn up and prove you are not. Staggering not just that this happens but that so many are unaware and even worse, many people think it's fair enough.
  16. Well there isn't any such thing as public money, all wealth is created by real people. The state just takes ot off the people who create it.
  17. I think the more you get the higher your sights get set, so basically you are never happy.
  18. Yeah, I'm all for people realising that money isn't the key to happiness....... except the way things are set up it's pretty [email protected] without it. If you can't do basic things without an admission ticket everywhere them I'm afraid it is necessary. If they really mean this then they'll be scrapping planning laws, abolishing regulations over access to market and so on and leaving people to choose whether to spend a life contemplating whatever, or chasing after things - whatever turns them on. Won't happen of course. The only thing on this thread I'd take issue with is suggesting that people numbing their brains with Sky and Strongbow is in any way a modern phenomenon. Bread and Circuses to placate the masses are not a recent invention.
  19. The big argument of the left during last year was that, faced with the complete failure of the NuLab project, they fell back onto "they are all the same". Now that the Coalition are doing some stuff of course this has been switched to "we had it fixed and now they are doing bad stuff". The poster you're replying to is a year late.
  20. No, I'm in favour of good promises and finite means of excgange. My disagreement with yourself has always been over your glee that fiat will fall over and make your gold useful when in fact the downsides will overwhelm any expected uses for it.
  21. Revenge of the Beeb. If I were Cameron I'd be thinking on that I have lots of time to rip that thing to pieces.
  22. That's not true at all. Currency can be issued without the government spending it into existence.
  23. People making promises to each other, plus finite trustworthy means of exchange.
  • 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.