Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

TGP

Members
  • Content Count

    1,057
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TGP

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran
  1. Not even going to offer an explanation why FFS ? If there is there anything wrong with the analysis I have presented on this thread, I'd like to hear what it is. No, it's much more realistic to measure it in grams of yellow metal. Thats the ticket ! Ever try to buy your groceries at the supermarket in grams of gold ? Yours, TGP
  2. Is that link from the same site that was running with "Germany pulls from Euro's, re-intoroduces DM, this Friday" story ? I tell you what, show me the DM..... and I'll beleive their latest wheeze. Yours, TGP
  3. Thats true. Perhaps a lot more people are consuming (i.e. actuually using up) the commodity. Perhaps a lot LESS of the commodity is being produced. In both circumstances people may speculate on an upward trend in prices without it being a bubble. Crucially, for gold however, there is no such fundamental driving the increase in price..... only sentiment that the price will continue increasing..... that is pretty much the definition of bubble. Yes, there is. But there is NOT investment in every speculation ! So, you can say "Buying gold to make watches is BOTH investment and speculation"..
  4. No it isn't. What he described there is "speculation" the act of purchasing an item in the hope it will rise in value and you can sell it at the higher value. You are speculating that the value will rise. That is different from investment. Investment is purchasing an item in the hope that by combining it with other items (chiefly labour and raw materials) you can create NEW items that you will sell in the hope that the new items created cover the cost of the investment. Buying gold to hold is speculation. Buying gold in order to build gold watches from it and sell the watches is investment.
  5. No. But a) No-one is printing "as much money as they like" only limited amounts of money The consequence of that is a little inflation, not a state collapse. And it's NOT your next door neighbour telling you it's a "new paradigm" you have to fear. Frankly your next door neighbour wouldn't know what a paradigm was if one bit him on the a*se...... it's the market guru's saying it's a "new paradigm" (like your Jim Sinclair) you have to watch out for, while your next door neighbour tells you he's "bought a bit of gold as it seems like I good idea, doesn't it ?" Frankly, I can see both hap
  6. AH, So we're at the part of the Gold Bubble where you are having it patiently explained to you that it's a "new paradigm". You have SEEN the most famous graph on this site haven't you ? Can I hear the first threads of the cable snapping ? Lol. Yours, TGP
  7. Whats the line ? "Many estate agents are perfectly honest and upstanding people. Unfortunately, the majority of estate agents get the rest of us a bad name". Yours, TGP
  8. Well, you can include some kind of "insurance premium" for risk of failure in the yearly cost of avoidance to cover that. Not neccessarily a formal insurance contract, but some kind of "reserve fund" equivalent. The question would then be "Are you saying the costs of avoidance + insurance premium are higgher than 25% of income" ? They aren't......certainly not with the uber-rich you are talking about due to their far lower marginal costs of avoidance. The guy trying to avoid 20k down at an income of £120k, he has very high marginal costs. So maybe there you could get him to drop avoidance
  9. Oh, I see...... you are proposing that....... Taxes remain as they are. 40% from 40k 50% from 150k Then they go DOWN to 25% from £300k onwards. Lol. Thats even MORE ludicrous than what I THOUGHT you were proposing. The people you are proposing cutting are the ones with the HIGHEST incentive to ignore your tax cut, and the LOWEST marginal costs of doing so. The amount of people who would "come in from the cold" and stop avoiding is next to 0. So..... You expect a man earning £100m ...... to say "I will pay £25m in tax, even though for the cost of £5m I could avoid all of it, leaving me
  10. Lol, It just so happens that I am arguing that cutting my taxes will raise more money. This is pure pragmatism. I haven't done any sums. I have no idea if it WILL raise revenues. But cut my taxes.....out of pragmatism. Whatsmore (because someone just did them) I now know that WHEN YOU DO THE SUMS they show that revenue would go down, even in ludicrously optimistic scenarios, and by a very large amount (roughly 20% or so of all current IT revenue) nevertheless I must recommend OUT OF PURE PRAGMATISM you should cut my taxes in order to increase revenues. Message Ends. Yours, TGP
  11. No, TGP does get it........ BogBursh is making up off the top of his head, with no evidentary backup, and in the face of all historical evidence, the idea that "If only they'd drop all our tax rates to 25% we'd all stop avoiding and the govt. would earn more". That would be fine....... if even on your ludicrous assumptions the sums added up. Look......The 40% tax rate and above provides 66% of Income tax revenue. So, dropping it to 25% would drop fully 27.5% of all current income tax revenue (if no one extra paid up). Right ? We've lost 27.5% of total revenue from the people "actually paying
  12. And I'm saying you don't have to "win" in so far as "stop all avoidance"...... All you have to do is stop £1.01 worth of avoidance for every £1.00 you spend closing loopholes/auditing compliance/fighting avoidance. Of course you can never completely win.... but you CAN generate more revenue as long as the equation remains >£1.00 of additional revenue for each £1.00 of costs spent. (particularly as, a fair chunk of each £1 of costs will come straight back as tax revenue too !). No. I don't think we can do that. But we don't need to ALWAYS beat the barrister. All the government needs t
  13. And the soution to THEM is to close the loopholes/do more audits...... NOT to lower the tax rate to 25% IF (as you stated at the start) you need more tax coming in. By lowering the rate... you lose ALL the tax from the "non-avoiders" and probably (given you've just reduced the tax rate 40%) don't recoup enough from the avoiders to replace it. OTOH... if you legislate to close the loopholes and do more audits..... you KEEP the money from the "non avoiders" and add to that additional money as you squeeze out some "avoiders". Your idea of lowering the rate to lower avoidance and so get more t
  14. Lol, What evidently self-serving b*llocks. Fact is.... the laffer curve isn't steep enough at 50%, your argument doesn't fly. From this years HMRC report ..... link Add in the effect of gradually eroding the personal income tax allowance for people earning more than £100,000 and there is a big increase in the tax take, especially for those at the top end of the scale. Whereas last year higher-rate payers handed over £84bn in income tax to the Revenue (56% of the total), the combined higher and additional rate payers are predicted to pay a total of £92.7bn this year. That is £9bn more th
  15. The issue isn't people having a single note. That major issue is that, with the 500E notes.... you can stuff about £20,000 in a fag packet. That makes money very easily smugglable in very high quantities. You average holidaymaker would not be discombobulated at all by taking his 2000E in 20x100 notes instead of 4x500, in fact he'd probably prefer it seeing as it would be easier to spend. It's the guy who needs to smuggle £50k accross the border.... who could previously do that in his inside jacket pocket.... but who now needs to find 5x the space to stuff the notes in that is put out. It
×
×
  • 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.