Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Goat

Members
  • Posts

    8,164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Goat

  1. Why? What's the point of scrapping the PA then giving it back in CI and supplementary benefits? How does this differ from what we have today? If CI's going to make a difference it needs to be a substitute for all benefits and therefore needs to be sufficient to provide a basic subsistence level of income. My guess is about £6,000 p/a is the absolute minimum necessary to live off for an adult, maybe £4,000 for a dependent child.
  2. Really? I don't think I've ever seen that raised as an objection on any of the numerous CI threads we've had over the years; except as strawman set up for demolition. Perhaps you could provide a link to the many raising this objection.
  3. I can think of two right off the bat:
  4. The JRF paper in the OP is (after a brief skim) an uncosted, poorly thought through pile of garbage. Is it possible to design a system that could provide a subsistence standard of living without breaking the bank? Maybe. But as I've said before you either accept this represents a massive loss for poor families to fund a tax give-away to the rich or you fiddle around with extra allowances and tax charges until no-one is either better or worse off, at which point you're not arguing for a CI anymore.
  5. "Non-debt money" is the other pseudo-economic garbage term we usually see in threds like these.
  6. Not this old chestnut again; the last big thread that I remember: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/194199-citizens-income-financing/page-5 My basic conclusion is that it could work but it amounts to a massive cut in benefits for low income families to fund a tax giveaway for higher earners. Unless people are willing to accept that it's a non-runner.
  7. The purpose of the second home allowance is to allow them to live both in London and in their constituency, unless I'm very much mistaken London MP's don't qualify for the allowance for obvious reasons.
  8. The ECB certainly has the power to cut off liquidity support for the Greek banks, indeed they've already cut them out of the main system and are forcing them to use the emergency scheme. If/when ECB cuts them out entirely they are de facto no longer in the Euro. They'll have no ability to settle transactions with other non-greek banks so they might still call their currency "the euro" but it'll be a completely different Euro that can't be used outside of Greece. The other point is that the banks would collapse without government recapitalisation, which could only happen if the Greek government could issue their own currency, which they can't in the Euro. A good article on the problem: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11417315/How-the-ECB-could-finally-pull-the-trigger-on-a-Grexit.html ECB research paper concludes that the Euro is forever. SHOCK HORROR!!!!!!!!
  9. Physical cash only represents a small proportion of the money supply. Euro bank notes all carry an issuer identification code in the serial number (Y for Greece), if the Greeks wanted to keep printing the ECB could just void all of these notes. Of course if the Greeks wanted to they could change the serial number to indicate that it's a German note but at that point they've moved into outright counterfeiting. ECB could respond by changing the design of the note, capital controls on Greece etc; I'm sure they'd find some way to stop them.
  10. I'm not 100% on top of the detail and perhaps "target 2" was the wrong phrase to use. The point is that the Greek banks are reliant upon the ECB for liquidity support in the order of many billions and are allowed to use Greek government bonds as collateral for these loans. The moment the Greeks default the ECB will cut off liquidity support, the banks will collapse and the only way the Greeks could rescue them would be to recapitalise them in a new currency.
  11. The moment Greece defaults the ECB will cut their banks out of the "Target 2" banking system at which point, like it or not, the Greeks are out of the Euro.
  12. Hardly an alternative to a (reasonably) free and fair independent press. In any event, who is actually going to search those blogs out?
  13. 2008/09 just happened to be the first chart I saw, I'm surprised the proportions have changed so much. Presumably a lot of this represents the effects of the recession, since 2008/09 predates the 45/50% tax bands and the higher rate threshold has come down from £37,400 (2009/10) to £31,865. I'm not sure how posting earlier figures "suits my agenda" since the later figures are in fact worse and would imply a higher rate tax charge of 160% with basic rate at 80%.
  14. Cuts both ways though. The BBC provides a vast online newspaper funded by a compulsory public levy thus undercutting the private sector newspapers. The guardian receives a large annual subsidy in the form of public sector job advertisments that gives it an element of independence from commercial advertisers. It's hard to see either of them being willing to criticise their own vested interests. The way this is going sooner or later the only media content out there is going to be the state approved narrative, I'm not sure this is a good thing.
  15. These are the proportions for 2008/09, I doubt they've changed significantly: Income tax = 29% so realistically higher rate would need to be ITRO 130%, basic rate maybe 75%. In reality I'd say our income tax receipts are pretty much maxed out anyway.
  16. Not quite correct. Assuming that RA is resident non-domiciled he'll be taxable on the remittance basis, i.e. all money that he brings into the country will be subject to UK income tax. I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the tax on this is going to be far, far more that the £30,000 charge (although very small as a % of his worldwide income).
  17. It's the same thing really, leaving the Euro is a de-facto defaut and defaulting inevitably leads to leaving the Euro.
  18. Corruption is more than just a jigsaw piece, it's an absolutely fundamental barrier to economic growth. Without reasonably sound property rights there's very little incentive to start a business and even less to risk capital. Can you imagine trying to start a business in Russia today? First off all of your profits will get extorted by corrupt officals; secondly, if by some miracle you do make a success of it, you'll either get thrown in jail by a better connected rival or someone will "offer" to buy your business for a pittance or will have you chucked in jail and then pick up the business in a corrupt deal anyway. Who is going to start a business in that climate? Frankly anyone who could make it work is going to have the sense to start up in a more friendly jurisdiction.
  19. The real problem the Greeks have is the whole country is corrupt, very difficult to grow an economy in that environment.
  20. Personally I think the fears of deflation (within the UK) are overblown. If the drivers of it are a glut of oil and food I can't see how this is going to affect anyone's puchasing decisions. I'm also doubtful about this idea of delaying purchases anyway. If people are going to buy stuff using loans and credit cards charging 12%+ interest per annum are they really going to delay in the hope that it'll be 1% cheaper this time next year, I think not.
  21. I'd say quite a lot of BTLers are going to be higher rate taxpayers so that is £1,800 tax per annum. Now multiply that by say 5 years, stick on a 25% penalty plus a few years interest and I reckon you're up to about £12,000. Most inspectors would be pretty pleased with a £12,000 IMO, particularly from an easy win like that. Anyway, your OP was that you could avoid the tax by using a good accountant, what you're actually proposing is outright evasion.
×
×
  • 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.