Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by leicestersq

  1. The first thing that strikes me is.... what is so unreasonable about needing a £30k deposit? If you haven't got one, you probably have not been working long enough to demonstrate an earning history or you have the history but have demonstrated an inability to budget and save. Either way, you probably should not be buying a house yet!

    Perhaps soon, the problem with a £30,000 deposit will be that you get change. Not good for lenders.

  2. If the police could not prove a crime had been commited then the inland revenue should have taken up the case. He says he accumulated the £67,000 buying and selling military memorabilia, then at worst the IR should only take a percentage of it. No one is taxed 100% (yet)

    Have you noticed on the police TV shows how having a roll of cash is evidence of crime? So cash is crime. Even if its only a couple of grand.

    I wouldn't be suprised if the guy, who has an interest in military things, gets a weapon and exacts revenge on the police.

    This chap may well have made the money that way, selling military memorabilia. His tax receipts should concur with this statement, and then he should be allowed to keep his money. If they concur.

    As for only to have to pay the IR what is owed, that again makes no sense. It is like giving everyone a free go at tax evasion, if you get away with it, you only lose what you would have paid legally anyway. No, thats not right, you should pay what you owe, plus an extra punishment on top, to deter others from taking the same action. That may mean prison, or further fines, but tax evasion must be deterred.

    As for other posters who think it is ok to evade tax, I just despair. Do these people want the police to keep us safe, courts to give us recourse to the law when wronged, doctors and nurses to heal us when we are sick, roads to drive along, streetlights to keep us safe? Of course they do, and they want someone else to pay for it.

    Having seen some of the black economy from a safe distance, I have no hesistation in agreeing with this rule. Earn it, declare it, and you have nothing to worry about even if it is cash.

  3. Not talking specifically about this chap. I'm saying it's entirely possible that some people have saved large sums of money over extended periods of time simply by skimming off the shopping or something every month. These people can never prove where the money came from and clearly should give it all to the Goverment.

    The rest of your post is pure speculation. If the source of the money was obvious then they should have to prove it and convict him of something rather than simply steal his money.

    Thin end of the wedge when Goverments start behaving like this. Wait until they come for you one day. Everybody's broken a small law/not paid a bit of tax at some point in their life.

    Your post does pose a serious question. The problem is that the amount of cash that can be generated illegally is so huge that to allow it to go unchallenged threatens the state itself.

    We all hear things about how bad are government is, yet most of us have enough to eat, clothes to wear and somewhere to live. I wonder if the people who criticise all of this realise what they are saying.

    But if the government were to have to prove where every penny of cash came from when crooks deposit their ill gotten illegal and untaxed gains at the bank, then our government would collapse in short order, unable to raise tax from a legitimate sector that just cannot compete with the illegal sector. Think that would be a good idea? Maybe if you are mad.

    So just like an athlete has to be responsible for everything in their body when drug tested, the only way to control this illegal cash economy is to put the onus of proof on you the individual. This isnt a problem for you if you are legal.

    Problem for this guy though.

    Too right too.

  4. You might not think it fair enough when the Goverment come steal your stuff.

    Why would it be obvious from the records? What if you took £800 per month out of the cashpoint to live on and saved £200. How do you prove that? You can't so Goverment gets to steal your money.

    Chances are though that the bloke made this money from wheeling and dealing over many years and didn't pay tax. So what? Anybody who doesn't avoid tax at every possible opportunity is an idiot in my view given how much the Goverment take and what they spend it on.

    Your possible excuse doesnt make sense. £67000 at £200 a month. That would take 340 months or nearly 30 years. 30 years ago saving £200 a month would have been the preserve of the rich.

    And you admit that the chances are that this guy made his money by wheeling and dealing, and evading tax. I dont see how this person has a leg to stand on.

    It is a slippery slope evading tax. If one person gets away with it, soon we are all trying it on. If the government cant raise the tax it needs by being nice to us all, then it will eventually be superseded by a government that raises the necessary tax any way that it can. I dont want that sort of government.

    (I did get avoiding and evading mixed up earlier. I meant evading, which is illegal.)

  5. You'd think certainly think so, although by the time he'd paid fines and interest there might not be a lot left anyway.

    If you've been building a cash/gold hoard over say thirty years it seems to me it would be impossible to prove where it all came from. So bingo, Goverment gets to steal it.

    The lesson to be learned is to keep your money overseas. Our Goverment are a bunch of thieving thugs and cannot be trusted.

    If this person had been building this figure up over thirty years, as you say, there would be a lot of old redundant notes in the pile, backing up his claim.

    I wouldnt be surprised if this person was about 20 years old, driving flash cars, poor parents, and claiming income support. The police wont say of course, but I bet the source of this money is obvious.

  6. From the article:

    Det Con Phil Davies, financial investigator for the division, said: "The onus was on the respondent to provide a lawful origin of the cash found in his possession.

    "A legitimate source was not found and the cash was subsequently forfeited.

    "Specific criminal conduct need not be proved.

    Deeply alarming the way things are going in this country. I've read of a few similar incidents as well. It would appear the state can just seize your money at will now if you haven't kept it in a state approved location, ie. Bank.

    What if the guy had simply been saving a couple of hundred pounds a month (withdrawn from cashpoints) over the last thirty years?

    This country is seriously becoming a police state.

    Seems fair enough to me. When you earn money legally, you should declare it, so that you pay the neccesary tax on it. In so doing you will prove its origin.

    Reasons for not doing this are to avoid paying tax, which is illegal, or the activity that earned the money is illegal, for example drug dealing.

    So if you want to give into drug dealers and tax dodgers, criticise this law. If that chap really had withdrawn a £100 a week and put his money under the mattress after being in a well paid salaried job, that would have been obvious from the records.

    If you can think of a way in which this money might have been accrued and declared legally, I would be interested to hear about it.

  7. Benefits account for about 20% of government spending - approx £120 billion. Consider the effect on the wider economy if it was withdrawn.

    Saw this and had to laugh.

    If this benefit were withdrawn, then I would say that taxes could be reduced, other things being equal, but £120 billion a year. That would leave more money in the pockets of those producing.

    I suspect that a very high proportion of benefit recipients would then migrate into the world of work. Net output of the economy would increase, we would all be a lot better off in aggregate.

    The only downside is that those who really do need the benefits (probably fewer than we think), would end up in truly great poverty.

    What we need is some sort of machine that can identify those who are truly in need.

  8. Probably for Kirsty and similar folks there should be a shortened website Twit.com !

    My nominations include

    Harriet Harperson

    Ed Balls

    Ed Miilbland

    David Milibland

    All climate change numpties - King Canute springs to mind with this lot

    Jonathan Ross

    Who would you nominate?

    I think you are being very unjust to King Canute. I understand that he ordered the waves to retreat, knowing that they wouldnt, and used that a demonstration to his subjects of the limits of his power.

    Perhaps some of our current leaders might try and recognise the limits of their power, stop interfering in the markets, and let bad banks go bust and house prices come down to affordable levels.

    And how come Golden Gordon didnt make it into your list?

  9. Lets hope for the sake of contract law that the banks win this case.

    The terms of the contract seemed pretty clear. If your house goes up a huge amount in value, you were going to have to pay the banks a lot of money. That is what they signed up to, it was clear what they were doing. Now they have to honour their contract.

    The banks are not always evil like the press sometimes try and make out. Sure, they want to make a profit for their shareholders, but that is fair if they offer products that people want and understand. The banks take a risk. Sometimes they lose, when someone cant pay back for example. This time they have won and are due a lot of money if the seller sells, or they have at least for the time being, future price falls excepted.

    The principle here is important. If people can get out of contracts that they dont like just because the counter-party is an "evil bank", then banking in this country, and the service it provides, would cease to exist.

    That cant be right. I for one would like the opportunity to borrow money under certain circumstances. Who would lend money to me if I could go to the courts and duck my obligations in the contract?

  10. What happens is if you raise taxes too much, people dont pay.

    Earning money in the black economy isnt an easy option. You cant put the money into the banking system easily, you are not protected so well against crime, and if they catch you earning without paying taxes, they can put you in jail.

    That said, you reach a point in the white economy when sticking to the rules is no longer worthwhile either. If too many people start leaving the white economy to go into the black economy, tax receipts plunge, and the government has a problem. At that point it either has to improve tax collection techniques, or cut spending and tax levels to make it more worthwhile to move people back into the white economy.

    The authorities know this. They will probably tax as much as they can. But if too many businesses start leaving the UK, and people start working for cash, taxes and government spending would fall, at least if the government was sensible.

    In some countries they are not. The tax gap is plugged by printing money, some people live with perpetual inflation, which is a type of stealth tax. Even the effect of that is limited, go too far, like Zimbabwe, and the Government loses the ability to control the economy through monetary issuance.

  11. Just wanted to know what people really think about how market prices are moving in Bristol.

    It seems to me that they are moving down, but at a glacial pace. I would guess that the slashing of interest rates means that downward pressure on prices is limited to the restriction of bank credit, and rising unemployment.

    If interest rates were to rise, then we might also see some forced selling from those who have overstretched themselves, and also further retrenchment and conservatism from the banks in their lending policies.

    Until then it seems to me that the glacier moves only slowly down the mountain.

  12. Until this week I was not that convnced that there had been signs of any substantial movement in or near S.Brist asking prices at the ftb end.

    Now however I have noticed some welcome signs of significant reductions in the area at least at the lower end of the market.

    I believe it was in 2000 that i saw a 2 bed flat selling in ST. Annes for 76000. I believe these went up to 125000. Now I know of one of these 2 bedders on for 94000 asking, presumably it will go for 80something if it goes at all. Therefore it is not inconcievable that the lower end of the market will eventually unwind down to 2000 prices or below given that it is still early days.

    Also in that area I have noticed a 2 bed semi on for 104000.

    Hartcliffe and Knowle west :ph34r: asking prices have only been modestly trimed if at all, still no sign of a "crash" really in that area as far as I can see.

    Southville and Bedminster maybe 10 % down from the insane peak as far as i can see. Those areas could remain relatively resiliant. Tell me im wrong and make me very happy.

    You have to expect that as builders loose their jobs there is going to be a lot of casualties in some parts of south Bristol.

    I was offered a house in Knowle West for £50000. I had to turn it down. I'd want a lot more money than that to take a house in Knowle West.

  13. Going cap in hand to the IMF should do it.

    I am not so sure that there will be a sudden and total Gilts strike, but the current situation looks to me as if it is one where the Bank of England / Government may no longer be able to control market rates of interest.

    Normally what happens is the Bank of England sets their Base Rate. It is difficult to find out exactly who charges whom this particular rate of interest, the BofE dont like to say, but I think it is the rate of Interest paid to commercial banks on the cash that they deposit with the Bank of England. (Anyone care to correct me over this?).

    In more normal times, this rate of interest is accepted by the market, and all rates are linked to this rate in some way, with riskier loans attracting a higher rate of interest.

    But now I am looking at the Gilts market. That is the real place that Interest Rates are determined. If buyers of Gilts start refusing to buy unless the Government drop the price of Gilts, then interest rates are going to rise irrespective of what the Base Rate is. If that happens, I think we are in unchartered territory. Setting Interest Rates is a tool to manage the economy, lose control of it, and the remaining tools may not be enough to allow you to achieve your required objective.

    So watch the Gilts market.

  • 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.