Una Climbing

[Rob 3,152]

99% of bankers don't have a clue about what? It can't be interest rates because they would be drawn from the general population of homeowners. I think people get too hung up on this banker thing and need to take a bit more responsibility for their own lives. Damian's comment about heads in the sand is entirely appropriate.

Interesting program on the box tonight about the super rich. The one thing that struck me about the many statistics thrown around is how these are nasty people and are sucking money away from the poor. The truth is though that even if you deprived the people holding the top 50% of the entire wealth of the world and divided it up, it would still only equate to a windfall of less than 20K per head amongst the other 99% of the world's population, which whilst offering the citizens of third world countries a huge boost in living conditions, would do nothing to address what I feel is the main problem of western society which appears to be economic inactivity in too many cases - the monetary sum involved being less than some already receive in benefits each year.

[bagerap 706]

It's probable that most people would be happy if the super rich and the multi nationals (both human and corporate) paid tax. Much in the way that the "little people" are obliged to do.

[Rob 3,152]

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns.

As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

[Paulus 1,975]

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns.

As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

Completely agree, twas ever thus

Edited January 9, 2015 by Paulus

[DaveG38 405]

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns.

As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

Completely agree with this. But to add one other point - in the case of those who have 'made it' i.e. started out with nothing and become extremely rich (Alan Sugar (?) and one of the men in the programme last night who started out in a caravan) it's highly unlikely that they gained their wealth by sitting around on their backsides doing nothing. In my limited expereince these people have had to both work hard for it and take considerable risks to accumulate it. In which case they deserve the success and good luck to them.

[Peckris 579]

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns.

As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

It's actually politicians perpetuating the status quo through a combination of inertia and vested interests. The classic example of this is the land tax issue which has been kicked around for more than a century. More than one analyst has calculated that if land was valued and taxed according to (1) its location and therefore the services invested in it (the City of Westminster being the ultimate example) and (2) its yield towards the 'common good', no-one would have to pay income tax or National Insurance (and possibly VAT). Individuals working in offices would pay a tax on their home, but less than they pay currently in tax/NI, farmers would pay proportionately very little in relation to their land ownership as their land is productive. In contrast, 'buy to let' landlords, the Duke of Westminster, the Duchy of Cornwall, etc etc, would at last pay their fair share towards the society they live in and to some extent sponge off. The overall income from land to the Treasury would be greater than the current haul from taxation, but no politician will ever preside over its implementation. Why? Vested interests. That's where the true power lies. (And let's hear no more about people on benefits - all they do is provide headlines to help sell copies of The Daily Mail, and to boost Channel 5's viewing figures. They have no real power).

[Michael-Roo 781]

Well said Chris.

[jacinbox 36]

Here's someone who knows how the abcs of Economics. Nice one Peckris

[declanwmagee 122]

Hear hear Chris! I'm sure we're all tired of hearing the powerless getting the blame.

[Rob 3,152]

It's rather a case of the politicians screwing up the system in the first place. In the case of individuals, they have wealth which they are able to move around the world utilising the various tax breaks on offer which works because they have sufficient amounts of spare capital to play with. Corporates in the same way use the systems set up by governments to maximise their returns - That's the job of a company's board of directors, to trade within the law, be solvent and maximise the returns for shareholders. Though it should be noted that there tends to be insufficient shareholder pressure to reign in their personal ambitions and returns.

As an individual, you will move your capital around and park savings in an account which gives a higher rate of return. Same principle. I very much doubt that we have any members who fall within the top 1% of wealthy people on this planet, but if we do, I don't begrudge them their wealth, nor would wish to apply a different set of rules just because they have more than I do. Anyone complaining that they don't pay tax should also cash in their ISAs and put the capital into a taxable account. People will never be equal across the board. There will always be the haves and the have nots, only the defining parameters change with the system. As long as someone's wealth has been earned by legal means, then that's reasonably theirs.

It's actually politicians perpetuating the status quo through a combination of inertia and vested interests. The classic example of this is the land tax issue which has been kicked around for more than a century. More than one analyst has calculated that if land was valued and taxed according to (1) its location and therefore the services invested in it (the City of Westminster being the ultimate example) and (2) its yield towards the 'common good', no-one would have to pay income tax or National Insurance (and possibly VAT). Individuals working in offices would pay a tax on their home, but less than they pay currently in tax/NI, farmers would pay proportionately very little in relation to their land ownership as their land is productive. In contrast, 'buy to let' landlords, the Duke of Westminster, the Duchy of Cornwall, etc etc, would at last pay their fair share towards the society they live in and to some extent sponge off. The overall income from land to the Treasury would be greater than the current haul from taxation, but no politician will ever preside over its implementation. Why? Vested interests. That's where the true power lies. (And let's hear no more about people on benefits - all they do is provide headlines to help sell copies of The Daily Mail, and to boost Channel 5's viewing figures. They have no real power).

Based on points 1 & 2, the question of a land tax would be a very politically motivated and loaded topic. Obviously those in favour of a land tax already view buy to let landlords as not contributiong towards the common good, but since 2008 it is these same people who have held the housing market up in the country at large, apart from central London which is in a parallel universe. Income is taxed just as with any other business. Most people across Europe live in rented accommodation and are happy with it, so why should the same not apply to the UK? If that money wasn't invested in property it would most likely be in a building society - who would lend it out to people to buy the same houses. All buy to let does is bypass the bank funding system which in any case was very reluctant to lend money to anyone for a while.

Shortly after Northern Rock went under I approached the Halifax with a view to going halves on a buy to let. I wanted to borrow 30K which would obviously be secured against the property. No lending for buy to let property was the immediate response. In the same week, the same Halifax sent me a flyer inviting me to take out an unsecured loan of up to 25K for any purpose I wanted, including the holiday of my dreams. So I could borrow to p**s it against the wall but not to invest in an asset which could provide a return on investment. Brilliant. It's little wonder the country is in the current hole.

People buy to let because the return is far better than having money on deposit where rates are currently held artificially low. If the returns were better making buckets and spades instead of renting out properties, then people would start a bucket or spade manufacturing business. Higher interest rates could help to rebalance the economy in my view as the options for diversification would be expanded. The view that they are sponging off society is just another angle on the old chestnut of the have nots resenting success however it may come, though it is worth adding that many buy to let landlords are also 'little people' of which there are a few on this forum. If someone wins on the accumulator at the bookies it is pints all round; if someone reinvests all their income to build a successful business he is a capitalist exploiting the working class man, even if he stands to lose everything in the event of things going tits up. i.e. class warfare is alive and well.

On the question of benefits, few would argue against a safety net for a short term, but to be economically inactive when physically and mentally capable of working and thus on them permanently can not be the way forward.

[VickySilver 830]

Oh, can't we go more back to coins and the market and what may or may not be going on with the Bunhead market. There may in fact be only a few buyers at the top of the pyramid (at least as far as prices paid) with saturation point possibly reached even with nicer coins such as the proofs or '64s starting to lag a bit....??

[Rob 3,152]

Oh, can't we go more back to coins and the market and what may or may not be going on with the Bunhead market. There may in fact be only a few buyers at the top of the pyramid (at least as far as prices paid) with saturation point possibly reached even with nicer coins such as the proofs or '64s starting to lag a bit....??

I think this has been the case for a few months now, but isn't restricted to bunheads. There will always be a restricted number at the top of a pyramid, so 1 or 2 players cutting back must have an effect. When the best known pieces are struggling to take off, you know the end really is nigh - but we haven't got there yet.

[Prax 80]

Oh, can't we go more back to coins and the market and what may or may not be going on with the Bunhead market. There may in fact be only a few buyers at the top of the pyramid (at least as far as prices paid) with saturation point possibly reached even with nicer coins such as the proofs or '64s starting to lag a bit....??

I think this has been the case for a few months now, but isn't restricted to bunheads. There will always be a restricted number at the top of a pyramid, so 1 or 2 players cutting back must have an effect. When the best known pieces are struggling to take off, you know the end really is nigh - but we haven't got there yet.

Another point if I may add is that in Jun the pound was 1.74 to the dollar now it is 1.49. So that's like a 15% drop. All the good coins have been in the auctions in the States and naturally buyers for GB coins from this side of the pound are capping their high bids. Problem is the long term outlook for the dollar is bullish so interesting times ahead