Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

bogbrush

Members
  • Posts

    6,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bogbrush

  1. But the point at stake is what the f*ck is wrong with organising your affairs within the law to minimise your tax bill?
  2. I say he should.But so should Merkel. Nobody is saying the Greeks should enter into new arrangements, they're just going to make them take the consequences of welching on the ones they've made. Sadly I think the Greeks have no outs here.
  3. Who cares? They just lack the balls to say what's obvious: the narrative has been dictated by rabble-rousing media & Millipede looking for a purpose.
  4. If you're entitled, why not?You suggesting we all decide to decline benefits and pay extra tax?
  5. Why not avoid tax? What are you supposed to do, go looking to pay as much as you can?
  6. Manufacturing grew, energy fell (and the impact of prices....?) I don't see the bad news here. Can those who are much more excited about finding it please point it out?
  7. What a load of garbage. Does nobody actually operate in business? There is no "manufacturing", there are "manufacturers" who are more than happy to grow their market share and profitability by outcompeting others. This is brilliant stuff; competition and efficiency are driving better value to consumers. If they don't do it everyone is up in arms about price shafting, when they do it, it's a failure of capitalism. As this process goes on some players will go by the wayside, the best will survive, niches will open up for new players who can grow, competition renews itself and the consumer wins. Same with retailers; models are declining, new models are supplanting them, businesses will go broke and others thrive, all driven by consumer choice. It's superb!!
  8. Well he's hardly going to suggest their exit will have no impact is he?Get on with it man, they're not going to give you money. Nobody's buying the act, just default and get on with it.
  9. And that's a choice? Why not include bringing World peace or killing nuns with bayonets?Anyway, your tax is being spent on interest on the debt run up some ending money the government didn't have. Like this.
  10. I think that's great you want to do that. The responsible thing would be to save up so you can arrange the time off without expecting someone else to pay you for your choices.
  11. Follow through with making a great solution that their predecessors failed to do. Really tell those guys, you know, make them put a fix that sorts all the problems.That there isn't one might present some difficulties, but that's the thing when you accept the burden of responsibility. I see they've moved on to claiming reparations from the Nazis. Hilarious. What about sueing the Persians while they're at it?
  12. I must admit I'm stumped. The guy who thought this up either; 1. Is a cynical sod who is just bribing people to vote for him. He's manipulative, rational and calculating. or 2. Is so detached from reality that he actually thinks young fathers are desperate to bond with their infants, would put these extra weeks to the purpose and would be hugely relieved at the higher allowance. They wouldn't treat it as time off with pay to use as they will. I don't like the first guy but I respect his mind. The second guy is nice, but stupid. On balance if I have to choose, I'd have the first guy in government, the second guy just isn't up to it.
  13. Replying to wonderpup; So without notes and coins there is no right of ownership? No, all there's needed is a contract. What I settled it with is incidental. It's like there's a system that you identify is fundamentally flawed but instead of contemplating the alternatives you want to endorse theft and all sorts of other messed up reactions that destroy incentives, contracts, that sort of thing. At what point would you just say "I know we're in deep to this system but you know it really doesn't work". Surely theft and the destruction of rational incentive to strive is a price too high to pay to hang on to a crap system? Especially when the only real beneficiaries are the type of people you claim to despise?
  14. If you're concerned that locking up the bits of paper will kill economic activity then I'd say you've taken the first steps towards embracing a free market in currency. After all, wealth is things and stuff, bits of paper are just agreed mediums of exchange. If they're not working use something else.Oh, they're not a shared resource either. Nobody can rationally possess the Earth or the atmosphere, but printed bits of paper or numbers on a screen, why not? Your redistributive ideas work great for about three days, at which point people wise up and one group decides that as you'll take their stuff from them they'll either hide it better or not bother, and the other decides that they'll wait around for more. To call it short sighted would be kind. As an solution to the problem they sound similar to inventing a supernatural omnipresent being to explain the Universe - quick and apparently easy, but fundamentally ridiculous.
  15. It's quite funny watching the pressure swing around. One day before the election the new govt had everything to promise, then they won and they can tour Europe to scare the crap out of everyone, now it's settling a bit and the pressure could be swinging back. Essentially, these guys HAVE to follow through. If they don't they'll be swinging from the lampposts. I think exit is inevitable, followed by Greek carnage. Nobody has any room left to avoid it.
  16. No easy way through now, even the new lot are asking for more loans now. Like more loans will help anything. Disaster to leave the Euro but actually it's just a disaster deferred from when they joined. I hate the European project, it will be enjoyable watching it collapse even though nobody will escape the short term pain. The funniest bit will be watching Germans see whatever currency they're using soar to the stratosphere. As an exporter there this will be most enjoyable.
  17. Hi Patfig! Nice to be remembered!I thought the site had lost momentum, plus I've been crazy busy in all sorts of ways. Still am really, I hope to God I don't get addicted again! I feel more strongly than ever that the problem isn't distributive mechanisms, it's about the ways that the rules tend towards causing unevenness to reinforce itself. All these are a State creations: - the ability of wealthy to take possession of the key finite resources and in so doing place a block on others getting reasonable use. - the massive restraints on people finding ways to look after themselves - the whole corporate legal fiction thing, and the ways it is backed by legislation to cement monopoly (eg patents) Every answer in terms of more rules, more taxes, more State redistributive tactics just deepens the problem. I don't underestimate the challenge because this perception of how the World must be has a vice-like hold on thinking.
  18. Not a problem if you don't allow naturally shared resources to be owned, unless you think locking up all the notes and coins can actually make the real World stop. Edit: if you do, then freedom to create rival means of exchange solves that neatly.
  19. Ok, so lets for a minute think that 'giving' it to the workers is the solution, what's the mechanism to do that without destroying incentives at the bottom to grow? Giving means taking, which means fines / taxes, which are conventionally used to disincentivise (that is why we tax cigarettes, alcohol, and want to tax fatty food, right? - I know, but suspend disbelief for a moment and take them at their word). Helicopter QE as you endorse is just a spectacular fail - great on paper for a day, but with consequences even worse for people the day after.The only answer is to broaden the facility to create wealth; that means seeking out restrictive rules and ownership concepts that support asset hoarding and roll them back. Let the rich get as rich as they can and keep it for themselves; let them buy as many palaces, yachts, toys as they want, but not land. Let the educated explore knowledge as far as they can but don't let them prohibit others from using all available learnings for themselves.
  20. Like I say, read all the post. You're tightly focussed on one narrow aspect and it makes you come up with the wrong problem.
  21. Read the whole post, I discussed distribution. I also described how to make wealth accumulation harmless - I mean, if the richest buy even more big yachts that's no harm is it?And you think with increasing productivity demand would remain static? I guess we still want the same number of cars as 1920 then? Obviously as things become cheaper to produce people will take more of them.
  22. Are these lame ideas still going around here? First of all is productivity. More productivity means more wealth, less heads towards destitution. It follows that mechanisms that develop greater productivity are to be encouraged, those that don't shouldn't. Second, supportive to the first but with a distinct purpose of its own, are barriers to entry. Higher barriers obstruct wealth distribution, lower ones encourage fluidity. Third, again supportive to the first two but also distinct, are rights to permanently own fundamental assets such as ideas and land. Removal of those rights prevents wealth accumulation (a good thing) becoming monopoly renting, State austerity or spending is immaterial. The State only misdirects capital and debating whether it should be doing this aggressively or even more aggressively (the purpose and assumption of the original post) is just stupid.
×
×
  • 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.