Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Boom Boom

New Members
  • Posts

    1,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Boom Boom

  1. So you're saying I shouldn't be able to find an example in which the 1st example exists if the 2nd exists in the same market ? I'm pretty certain I can.
  2. The technical details are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson
  3. Because for most people selling their time to an employer is the only way they will earn a reliable income, the kind of thing required to pay a mortgage, put food on the table, and meet other fixed costs. Your solution seems to be that millions more people chance their arm on Ebay using capital they don't have to setup business there. It's not a serious solution is it?
  4. Whilst we wait for this utopia to emerge, what do we do to deal with the material needs that are not met of those unable to find work? A post work future is coming, but the transition is going to be very painful.
  5. It is inevitable, and it will creep up the skills ladder, in the same way outsourcing has done. We either grasp the nettle and decide as a society how we deal with this reality, or we pretend it isn't happening and continue to spit poison at those currently below the water level in terms of the value they provide over an automated system. I fear it will be the same story as with outsourcing, it will only be recognised as a problem when cozy middle class professions are at threat,
  6. As wonderpup mentioned on the CI thread, there seems to be an incongruity at work here. On the one hand the unemployed are told they must find gainful employment to support themselves, and on the other business wants incentives that will lead to more people becoming unemployed. Society can't have it both ways, you can't chide the unemployed for failing to find work, and then promote an agenda that seeks to remove opportunities for them to work from the economy.
  7. It seems perverse to me that businesses should be incentivised to make people unemployed.
  8. I know they've licensed some technology, but not from Intel. The other IP relevant to the design is long since expired.
  9. Which is more useful to society? 1. A company employing 100 people and making 50 million profit a year 2. The same company reducing its staffing numbers to 10, but making 100 million a year.
  10. So a company engaged in a process of automation, replacing their staff base with various pieces of expensive equipment, is going to be incentivised further to do so.
  11. It's a cleanroom design, any IP required is already licensed.
  12. The sale of capex isn't profit, it's them just getting the money back they paid for it. If you're saying the sale of any capex will be counted as profit, this is going to be a major disincentive to upgrade equipment Britain has a great engineering heritage too, but we sold it for a piece of the globalist pie. Again, children being poisoned by the idea that nobody really has any genuine concern for them, not even their parents, that it's all just mislabelled self-interest is in my opinion damaging. Is Bogbrush junior schooled in such views? It's possible in most cases, but with Injin the man and his arguments are inseparable. In all his time posting here I've never seen him express anything other than this anti state viewpoint. I've never seen him mention even in passing his interests, what he does, where he lives, or anything about his upbringing. It's possible to be more lenient of someone's rhetorical output when it can be viewed in the context of their background. The lack of any context makes him appear as a zealot and fanatic.
  13. Sure there is. Capex spend, write down, sell on at break even or profit. So a company with 100 million profit makes 100 million capex spend and writes down the tax liability. The following year the company sells the equipment and gets the money back and spends on capex. So basically a company could perfectly legally manipulate their tax liability down to nothing year after year. Germany has survived as a manufacturing powerhouse thanks to its unions. Had the businesses had their way wages would have been pushed down to compete with global players and skills would have been lost in Germany, making the argument for outsourcing even easier. In this regard the UK is now past the point of no return. I don't see how exposure to Injin would ameliorate damage. Telling children that nobody really cares for them, and that the only rules by which they should be bound are those they create for themselves, isn't sound therapy in my view. The ideological divide here, and the animus that exist between those on either side of it, drives discussion. We can start over, but I can't promise we won't end daggers drawn again.
  14. 1. Depends on the business. For businesses that are capex heavy it could be a real boon. 2. So this even obviates having to fiddle. Buy machinery, write down, flip it. Lovely jubbly. Can't do that with opex,so invalidates point 1. 3. This is the only upside to your proposal. More investment, quite likely, but our manufacturing base hasn't vanished offshore for want of tax incentives. No amount of write down is going to offset the difference in the cost of human labour. I think the upside would be incredibly marginal, and the downside enormous. I'm convinced Injin is some recluse eeking out an existence on benefits, whilst using an Internet alter ego to decry them.
  15. Yep, I've no doubt a 100% capex write off would dramatically increase capex expenditure claimed in accounts, not sure how much of it would be genuine though. It's just going to make it even easier for businesses to fiddle tax liability down to whatever they feel like paying. What taper do you propose for liability in the event of the equipment being sold? You proposal as it stand just means that a lot of high paid accountants would be out of a job because fiddling tax liability would be pathetically trivial. Nobody would need to bother with complex loopholes, shifting profits through numerous tax regimes, and so on. As for Injin, nonsense that fits in with you particular ideological outlook is still nonsense. How you can take someone seriously that thinks his little dreamland would work perfectly because nobody would ever act destructively, it's shockingly naive.
  16. Still sipping that Injin brand kool-aid I see. Injin was ignored by me as it is pointless to converse with someone that denies the existent if land itself. As for corporate identity, you're being pedantic, in a business with one majority holder and no shareholders, monies paid in tax that would have gone into your pocket go to the taxman.
  17. The issue is what you are advocating would facilitate even greater abuses of the allowance than already exist. I refuse to believe you don't see this, so can only assume its more self-serving nonsense of arguing for a lower tax liability for those that need it least.
  18. I just find it quite telling that this thread appears after the CI thread, in which yourself and others prescribe very different motivational factors for those of means and those of very limited means. Now comes this self admitted rant, in which once again you seek special treatment, or more accurately even more special treatment, given that PAYE tax payers are already at a massive disadvantage to people paying tax from business profits.
  19. He can't see it. He's too drunk on his own perceived magnificence.
  20. Ohh audited, really? That foolproof method of determining financial reality. I can slip the accountant a brown envelope and get any fantasy I desire signed off
  21. What you seem to be arguing for, but are doing so in a roundabout way because you know you'll get shot down in flames, is that businesses should basically be allowed to simply send the IR a piece of paper declaring the profit made. No supporting documents, no accounts, taken at face value, and tax liability calculated on that basis. You state 'I'm not after any special favours', which is the universal cry of those in actually asking for special consideration, as indeed you are.
  22. One can speak the truth yet still do so hubristically, as you aptly demonstrated.
  23. This thread is a perfect example of how those of means seek exceptions be made to further ingrain their advantage. I can see it now if Bogbrush san got his way, Bogbrush industries would mysteriously suffer a precipitous decline in profit, and engage in a massive amount of capex spending.
×
×
  • 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.