Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2019 21:53:40 GMT 1
While I am on the board, I may as well say this.
It gets my goat when we say how people aren't poor because they have a telly, or a mobile phone.
With the volunteer work I do the telly is donated or a very cheap second hand job from say Reviive.
The mobile phone usually a cheap pay as you go, because it's cheaper than a land line and people need to be contactable for any work that comes a long in their zero hour contract.
So, you know.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 26, 2019 21:55:04 GMT 1
Really? I can only talk from my experiences, but I hear similar to below from other companies. In the last 9 years, we've taken on 23 apprentices, 21 completed their apprenticeship, 9 are still with us and 5 of those are now in senior positions. Two of these have progressed through the ranks in just the last 3 years. We offer continual training and fund further education and courses for those that want to, across the whole business, because I'm a firm believer in supporting my team to better themselves. Of the 12 that left us, it was either because we didn't have a full time position available, or a good opportunity presented itself elsewhere that they could progress quicker. I have had other employees who have left and started their own businesses, which are now successful, again in the last three years. I only have admiration for anyone willing to try, and will never stand in their way. As Henry Ford once said Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently. My first business venture failed at the beginning of the nineties and I worked for others for a while....really hated it and spent a lot of time exploring options before I embarked on the next business. There will always be opportunities for innovation and niche's in any market place. And as I said before, if you really want to improve your lot, re-skilling at night school or registering for online courses make this much easier than it used to be. We only live once, so try to make the best of it I'm with you on this. Labour however would rather everyone had equal regardless of the effort you put in. Most people doing manual, low skilled, low paid work would much rather do something better paid, more interesting and more rewarding, but are afraid to take a risk. I don't about anyone else, but I have had to find work wherever it was available, when you have kids, mortgage, everyday bills and little emergencies like needing the brakes done on the car you are less likely to be in a position to take risks. I was stuck in a dead end job for nearly 12 years until I decided that enough was enough, no matter how hard I worked it was people whose faces fitted better than mine that got the promotions. When I started my current job I immediately felt more valued, I was allowed time off to go on a forklift instructor course and they helped me financially. I have a certain amount of loyalty to my employer now, my only loyalty for 12 years was to keeping a roof over myself and my family.
I am glad that some people can and do take risks, but please don't look down on those that can't take a risk with their families wellbeing.
Martin, I have to ask, why do seem to think that low acheivement is only down to lack of effort? Go and stay in a hotel in any major city and the chambermaids are probably on close to minimum wage, yet your room will usually be clean. Go into any care home in the country and see the care workers on the same wages and most of them will be doing their very best for the people they care for. Go into any bar in town and the barstaff are only getting the bare minimum, but most will serve you with a smile. These people and many more are putting in a lot of effort. Now you may well look down on those jobs, but if everyone had all the good, well paid, enjoyable jobs who is going to do the jobs described or a plethora of other low paid, demeaning, dead end jobs. Someone has got to do them. Don't those people deserve a real living wage?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Nov 27, 2019 1:44:10 GMT 1
I'm with you on this. Labour however would rather everyone had equal regardless of the effort you put in. Most people doing manual, low skilled, low paid work would much rather do something better paid, more interesting and more rewarding, but are afraid to take a risk. I don't about anyone else, but I have had to find work wherever it was available, when you have kids, mortgage, everyday bills and little emergencies like needing the brakes done on the car you are less likely to be in a position to take risks. I was stuck in a dead end job for nearly 12 years until I decided that enough was enough, no matter how hard I worked it was people whose faces fitted better than mine that got the promotions. When I started my current job I immediately felt more valued, I was allowed time off to go on a forklift instructor course and they helped me financially. I have a certain amount of loyalty to my employer now, my only loyalty for 12 years was to keeping a roof over myself and my family.
I am glad that some people can and do take risks, but please don't look down on those that can't take a risk with their families wellbeing.
Martin, I have to ask, why do seem to think that low acheivement is only down to lack of effort? Go and stay in a hotel in any major city and the chambermaids are probably on close to minimum wage, yet your room will usually be clean. Go into any care home in the country and see the care workers on the same wages and most of them will be doing their very best for the people they care for. Go into any bar in town and the barstaff are only getting the bare minimum, but most will serve you with a smile. These people and many more are putting in a lot of effort. Now you may well look down on those jobs, but if everyone had all the good, well paid, enjoyable jobs who is going to do the jobs described or a plethora of other low paid, demeaning, dead end jobs. Someone has got to do them. Don't those people deserve a real living wage?
I've never said low achievement is down to a lack of effort. What I hate is the fact people who have risks and done well for themselves, or inherited wealth from a relative that has done well for themselves are seen by Labour as people to milk more and and more tax out of. Corbyn trying to drop the inheritance tax is absurd, should be scrapped all together.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Nov 27, 2019 10:20:03 GMT 1
Martinshrew suggests inheritance tax should be scr@pped altogether. That's probably too radical, but how much does it bring in? Do the rich simply employ inheritance tax planners to minimise it? Should people be able to leave the homes they worked for without tax implications? Go down that avenue and should people have to use the money from their home to fund their care if they need it while still alive?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Nov 27, 2019 16:42:08 GMT 1
Martinshrew suggests inheritance tax should be scr@pped altogether. That's probably too radical, but how much does it bring in? Do the rich simply employ inheritance tax planners to minimise it? Should people be able to leave the homes they worked for without tax implications? Go down that avenue and should people have to use the money from their home to fund their care if they need it while still alive? Scrapping completely might be a touch extreme, but why should someone who has built wealth and paid taxes on that wealth then pay taxes again when passing it down to loved ones? I think it's totally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Nov 27, 2019 17:09:39 GMT 1
The idea is to prevent entrenched wealth preventing social mobility; wealth snowballs whereas all the compound interest in the world on £0 is still £0.
Take property as an example; inheritance is already a lot of people's main hope to be a homeowner. A lot more people still get help with a deposit from family (I know I did).
It's already very hard to envisage someone simply saving to own a home in most of the southern half of the country. It's not hard to envisage a world where the link between work and property ownership breaks completely.
Lack of inheritance tax exacerbates that. If you could pass your assets on tax free, the price of them would sky rocket more than it already has (just look at how many celebrities started buying up farmland when there was a similar break on that). Some properties would potentially never change hands outside of families. A tax liability on things like property at least means that some of it has to go back in circulation.
I say this as someone planning to leave a paid off property to my kids and someone who stands to inherit half of a very valuable property. If my sister and I have to sell that eventually to cover the tax bill it will be a wrench but we'll still come off a low 6 figure sum better off each. I think we'll manage.
The other thing to bear in mind is that property especially has rocketed in value but this is completely untaxed, unearned income. The house I grew up in (which I'm referring to above) was bought for about £30k in the early 80s. Even allowing for inflation and a fair bit of money spent on it, its value has grown way out of proportion with anything else.
Most sensible people accept that it's not unreasonable for people who've benefited from the great property boom of the late 20th/early 21st century just by happening to be born at the right time to kick some back, particularly when we're facing the prospect of a subsequent generation where homeownership is no longer for the majority having to somehow be housed when they're too frail to work any longer.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 28, 2019 8:01:16 GMT 1
Most people doing manual, low skilled, low paid work would much rather do something better paid, more interesting and more rewarding, but are afraid to take a risk. I don't about anyone else, but I have had to find work wherever it was available, when you have kids, mortgage, everyday bills and little emergencies like needing the brakes done on the car you are less likely to be in a position to take risks. I was stuck in a dead end job for nearly 12 years until I decided that enough was enough, no matter how hard I worked it was people whose faces fitted better than mine that got the promotions. When I started my current job I immediately felt more valued, I was allowed time off to go on a forklift instructor course and they helped me financially. I have a certain amount of loyalty to my employer now, my only loyalty for 12 years was to keeping a roof over myself and my family.
I am glad that some people can and do take risks, but please don't look down on those that can't take a risk with their families wellbeing.
Martin, I have to ask, why do seem to think that low acheivement is only down to lack of effort? Go and stay in a hotel in any major city and the chambermaids are probably on close to minimum wage, yet your room will usually be clean. Go into any care home in the country and see the care workers on the same wages and most of them will be doing their very best for the people they care for. Go into any bar in town and the barstaff are only getting the bare minimum, but most will serve you with a smile. These people and many more are putting in a lot of effort. Now you may well look down on those jobs, but if everyone had all the good, well paid, enjoyable jobs who is going to do the jobs described or a plethora of other low paid, demeaning, dead end jobs. Someone has got to do them. Don't those people deserve a real living wage?
I've never said low achievement is down to a lack of effort. What I hate is the fact people who have risks and done well for themselves, or inherited wealth from a relative that has done well for themselves are seen by Labour as people to milk more and and more tax out of. Corbyn trying to drop the inheritance tax is absurd, should be scr@pped all together. Frankwellshrew has answered the inheritance tax question much better than I could, but my question to you was don't those people doing vital jobs such as healthcare or farm labouring, important service jobs like bar staff or hotel cleaners and low skilled factory workers deserve a REAL living wage? Changing the name of minimum wage to living wage doesn't alter the fact that it is the bare minimum legal recompence for doing a job that is just as important to the economy as that of skilled or qualified staff and is in many cases a lot bloody harder physically.
I don't know about you, but I certainly won't be able to do my job to the same standard in 12 and half years (when I hit my retirement age), it's hard enough now and the Tories want to add another 3 years on top. Now if the Duke of Westminster were to pay inheritance tax on the £9b+ that was left to him then maybe we could all retire a bit earlier, but unfortunately (or fortunately for him) the family have everything tied up in trusts. I can't afford to go through all the legal rigmarole of putting everything I own into trusts and neither can the vast majority of people in the country, so when I shuffle off this mortal coil my kids will have to pay tax on anything I have left. I accept that, I don't particularly like it as it was brought in to affect the very rich and the threshold hasn't kept pace with property values, meaning that even a modest house in the south east or a decent sized house in Shropshire would likely be included.
I know I keep banging on about this, but without taxes society would not be able to function, there would be no police, no NHS, no schools, no roads, no rail, no armed forces and no society as we know it. It is for these reasons that I am happy to pay my taxes, it would be nice if the very wealthy paid theirs too, because without the things mentioned above they would not be able to be very rich in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 28, 2019 8:22:03 GMT 1
Oh. Just to add. The very rich seem to be mainly in favour of Brexit and want it done as soon as possible. I wonder if the EU tax avoidance laws coming in January have any bearing on their choice.
Makes you think.
Now those rules aren't likely to affect anyone on this board, but how many of us have off shore bank accounts and access to teams of lawyers and accountants?
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Nov 28, 2019 15:20:12 GMT 1
Oh. Just to add. The very rich seem to be mainly in favour of Brexit and want it done as soon as possible. I wonder if the EU tax avoidance laws coming in January have any bearing on their choice.
Makes you think.
Now those rules aren't likely to affect anyone on this board, but how many of us have off shore bank accounts and access to teams of lawyers and accountants?
I believe the majority of any changes are already in place. The parts not in place seem to relate to large companies rather then individuals. So sorry everyone and I thought it was us leavers who are the gullible ones😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 16:23:20 GMT 1
Oh. Just to add. The very rich seem to be mainly in favour of Brexit and want it done as soon as possible. I wonder if the EU tax avoidance laws coming in January have any bearing on their choice.
Makes you think.
Now those rules aren't likely to affect anyone on this board, but how many of us have off shore bank accounts and access to teams of lawyers and accountants?
I believe the majority of any changes are already in place. The parts not in place seem to relate to large companies rather then individuals. So sorry everyone and I thought it was us leavers who are the gullible ones😁 Do these large companies include, the vanished, Jacob Rees Mogg who continually excuses his Cayman Islands involvment the-inconvenient-truth.com/watch-jacob-rees-mogg-oppose-eu-tax-polices/
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Dec 1, 2019 18:06:58 GMT 1
When we hear about trade negotiations and the possibility of no deal again in the summer, let's remember the "let's just get Brexit done" phrase Johnson trots out at every opportunity during this election campaign. His interviews are dreadful - he just gives his speech attacking Corbyn regardless of the question.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Dec 1, 2019 18:26:52 GMT 1
Oh. Just to add. The very rich seem to be mainly in favour of Brexit and want it done as soon as possible. I wonder if the EU tax avoidance laws coming in January have any bearing on their choice.
Makes you think.
Now those rules aren't likely to affect anyone on this board, but how many of us have off shore bank accounts and access to teams of lawyers and accountants?
I believe the majority of any changes are already in place. The parts not in place seem to relate to large companies rather then individuals. So sorry everyone and I thought it was us leavers who are the gullible ones😁 Do you think that companies that don't pay UK tax on UK profits should be allowed to to tender for contracts paid for by UK taxes?
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 2, 2019 15:34:16 GMT 1
When we hear about trade negotiations and the possibility of no deal again in the summer, let's remember the "let's just get Brexit done" phrase Johnson trots out at every opportunity during this election campaign. His interviews are dreadful - he just gives his speech attacking Corbyn regardless of the question. Not really true though is it. Corbyn himself fails to answer questions, over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 2, 2019 16:59:50 GMT 1
When we hear about trade negotiations and the possibility of no deal again in the summer, let's remember the "let's just get Brexit done" phrase Johnson trots out at every opportunity during this election campaign. His interviews are dreadful - he just gives his speech attacking Corbyn regardless of the question. Not really true though is it. Corbyn himself fails to answer questions, over and over again. Can't see why Corbyn not saying Leave or Remain is a problem? One party wants to drag us out, one party wants to push us back in, one party wants to give the people the chance to decide - that's the party for me.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Dec 2, 2019 17:07:50 GMT 1
Not really true though is it. Corbyn himself fails to answer questions, over and over again. Can't see why Corbyn not saying Leave or Remain is a problem? One party wants to drag us out, one party wants to push us back in, one party wants to give the people the chance to decide - that's the party for me. You'd like to think most voters would want to know what the leader thinks. It's a classic "sit on the fence", don't pick a side and hope not to put off leavers or remainers, it looks as though it might put of decent numbers of both. Like you say, it's clear which party wants to leave and it's clear which party wants to remain, nobody knows what Labour wants, probably including themselves.
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on Dec 4, 2019 16:58:09 GMT 1
When we hear about trade negotiations and the possibility of no deal again in the summer, let's remember the "let's just get Brexit done" phrase Johnson trots out at every opportunity during this election campaign. His interviews are dreadful - he just gives his speech attacking Corbyn regardless of the question. Not really true though is it. Corbyn himself fails to answer questions, over and over again. ironic that your reply totally ignores the comment on boris in favour of an attack on Corbyn
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on Dec 4, 2019 17:02:35 GMT 1
Can't see why Corbyn not saying Leave or Remain is a problem? One party wants to drag us out, one party wants to push us back in, one party wants to give the people the chance to decide - that's the party for me. You'd like to think most voters would want to know what the leader thinks. It's a classic "sit on the fence", don't pick a side and hope not to put off leavers or remainers, it looks as though it might put of decent numbers of both. Like you say, it's clear which party wants to leave and it's clear which party wants to remain, nobody knows what Labour wants, probably including themselves.
everyone knows he's for leaving, and has been for years. His effort to remain neutral is to ensure there can be no complaints on either side (like brexiteers accusing May of not getting brexit done because she was a remainer, and yet boris failed too) if he is charged with running the 2nd ref. His stance is clear - if there is to be brexit, it must come with the protection of workers and standards at the foremost, which is why he'll have to renegotiate. His personal position becomes somewhat irrelevant given the way the Labour party policy is decided. It's utterly disingenuous to claim labour's position is unclear. What on earth are you having issues with when the pledge is renegotiate within 6 months, hold a referendum, implement the result? Where's the difficulty?
|
|
|
Post by grandpaphil on Dec 5, 2019 14:21:15 GMT 1
Caught ‘The Boris’ on tv this morning and am sure he is beginning to sound more like his puppet-master Mr R-M than ever. Must admit I originally thought that it was a ‘found’ episode of Blackadder Goes Forth with a ‘rousing’ speech by Lieutenant George about the joy and benefits of going ‘over the top’ to victory.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 5, 2019 16:05:37 GMT 1
Martinshrew suggests inheritance tax should be scr@pped altogether. That's probably too radical, but how much does it bring in? Do the rich simply employ inheritance tax planners to minimise it? Should people be able to leave the homes they worked for without tax implications? Go down that avenue and should people have to use the money from their home to fund their care if they need it while still alive? Scr@pping completely might be a touch extreme, but why should someone who has built wealth and paid taxes on that wealth then pay taxes again when passing it down to loved ones? I think it's totally wrong. Most people's wealth is tied up in their home, the value of which has built up tax free because they lived in it. It's also worth remembering that there's no capital gains tax on death, which means that buy to let properties and share investment portfolios, for example, suffer no tax on their growth in value if they're owned at the date of death. Why is it totally wrong for such assets to be taxed? Put it another way, why shouldn't they be taxed? Why do we tax working people who are creating wealth more heavily than those who are living off, or simply sitting on, existing wealth? That doesn't seem either fair or economically or socially efficient to me. Just to be clear, this is not a political point I'm making. I'm not advocating higher taxes as such, just a restructuring of who gets taxed, where and by how much in order to produce the same amount of revenue.
|
|
shrewinspain
Midland League Division Two
Grumpy old retired git
Posts: 125
|
Post by shrewinspain on Dec 8, 2019 17:42:31 GMT 1
To all the Brexit supporting Board members; I wish that only you would reap the rewards of the madness that is about to unfold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 22:55:05 GMT 1
Scr@pping completely might be a touch extreme, but why should someone who has built wealth and paid taxes on that wealth then pay taxes again when passing it down to loved ones? I think it's totally wrong. Most people's wealth is tied up in their home, the value of which has built up tax free because they lived in it. It's also worth remembering that there's no capital gains tax on death, which means that buy to let properties and share investment portfolios, for example, suffer no tax on their growth in value if they're owned at the date of death. Why is it totally wrong for such assets to be taxed? Put it another way, why shouldn't they be taxed? Why do we tax working people who are creating wealth more heavily than those who are living off, or simply sitting on, existing wealth? That doesn't seem either fair or economically or socially efficient to me. Just to be clear, this is not a political point I'm making. I'm not advocating higher taxes as such, just a restructuring of who gets taxed, where and by how much in order to produce the same amount of revenue. That is totally incorrect... the only property you dont pay capital gains tax on is your main residence. Other properties you get to pay CGT on.... Oh and you do not get tax relief of the mortgage anymore so you pay tax on 100% of the rental income.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 9, 2019 2:50:11 GMT 1
Most people's wealth is tied up in their home, the value of which has built up tax free because they lived in it. It's also worth remembering that there's no capital gains tax on death, which means that buy to let properties and share investment portfolios, for example, suffer no tax on their growth in value if they're owned at the date of death. Why is it totally wrong for such assets to be taxed? Put it another way, why shouldn't they be taxed? Why do we tax working people who are creating wealth more heavily than those who are living off, or simply sitting on, existing wealth? That doesn't seem either fair or economically or socially efficient to me. Just to be clear, this is not a political point I'm making. I'm not advocating higher taxes as such, just a restructuring of who gets taxed, where and by how much in order to produce the same amount of revenue. That is totally incorrect... the only property you dont pay capital gains tax on is your main residence. Other properties you get to pay CGT on.... Oh and you do not get tax relief of the mortgage anymore so you pay tax on 100% of the rental income. From 2020/21 tax relief will be restricted to basic rate tax irrespective of the marginal rate of income tax you pay on your rental income. Capital gains is not payable on death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 10:03:23 GMT 1
That is totally incorrect... the only property you dont pay capital gains tax on is your main residence. Other properties you get to pay CGT on.... Oh and you do not get tax relief of the mortgage anymore so you pay tax on 100% of the rental income. From 2020/21 tax relief will be restricted to basic rate tax irrespective of the marginal rate of income tax you pay on your rental income. Capital gains is not payable on death. Maybe on death, but then there is no gain to pay tax on is there? And to dispel myths that buying BTL is a easy tax free way of making money.... every house purchased for BTL has 3% Stamp duty above the basic rate paid on the whole purchase price... so BTL properties are not the cash cow people seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 9, 2019 11:04:51 GMT 1
From 2020/21 tax relief will be restricted to basic rate tax irrespective of the marginal rate of income tax you pay on your rental income. Capital gains is not payable on death. Maybe on death, but then there is no gain to pay tax on is there? And to dispel myths that buying BTL is a easy tax free way of making money.... every house purchased for BTL has 3% Stamp duty above the basic rate paid on the whole purchase price... so BTL properties are not the cash cow people seem to think. There usually is a gain on the purchase price, but it is ignored and the value rebased to the probate valuation. This is one area where the Conservative Party has actually taken notice of experts and taken steps to take the heat and the irrational exuberance out of the BTL market. On the macroeconomic level this is a leveraged market and so would seriously unwind when sentiment turned. On the indvidual level property is an illiquid asset and the yields are lower than the headline rate. If you are a small investor put your money into a range of collectives and ETFs allocated according to to an inverse of their standard deviation and rebased to 1. Avoid commercial property exposure because it is also illquid (see recent news). Avoid exposure to resources and precious metals - they are costs of productions and/or do not yield an income. And do that for an annual charge of less than 0.3% And then get on with your life. Unless. that is, the appeal of owning and renting out a property goes beyond the monetary return.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 9, 2019 14:19:24 GMT 1
Most people's wealth is tied up in their home, the value of which has built up tax free because they lived in it. It's also worth remembering that there's no capital gains tax on death, which means that buy to let properties and share investment portfolios, for example, suffer no tax on their growth in value if they're owned at the date of death. Why is it totally wrong for such assets to be taxed? Put it another way, why shouldn't they be taxed? Why do we tax working people who are creating wealth more heavily than those who are living off, or simply sitting on, existing wealth? That doesn't seem either fair or economically or socially efficient to me. Just to be clear, this is not a political point I'm making. I'm not advocating higher taxes as such, just a restructuring of who gets taxed, where and by how much in order to produce the same amount of revenue. That is totally incorrect... the only property you dont pay capital gains tax on is your main residence. Other properties you get to pay CGT on.... Oh and you do not get tax relief of the mortgage anymore so you pay tax on 100% of the rental income. Nice of you to suggest that I'm "totally incorrect" and even nicer for Sean to correct you. I said that BTL properties (and indeed any asset) suffer no CGT on death and that's totally correct. Odd that you think there is no gain on death. There is no taxable gain but the property is usually worth more then than it cost and I think that's what most people would call a gain, isn't it? And, as we were discussing inheritance tax, the question of income tax relief wasn't relevant although, as Sean also pointed out, you do still get basic rate tax relief on BTL loan interest, so you were wrong to say there was none. In fact, if you have a loan on a furnished holiday let property, you'll still get tax relief at the highest rate on the interest. Have a word with your accountant and feel free to tell me any of the above is wrong. [It isn't. ]
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Dec 9, 2019 15:20:47 GMT 1
To all the Brexit supporting Board members; I wish that only you would reap the rewards of the madness that is about to unfold. If only we could - let's just imagine tis time next year when we are about to crash out with a "no deal". What % of the following 10 likely day to day events do you think we will be experiencing: 1. Terrorism / unrest emanating from Northern Ireland as the prospect of a hard border looms
2. Jimmy Krankie stirring unrest north of the border holding an "advisory" referendum without the consent of the UK parliament
3. Deterioration in value of the pound making anything and everything more expensive
4. UK share prices fall causing pension scheme deficits and increased employer contributions
5. Interest rates rise as Govt borrowing becomes more difficult
6. House prices start to fall as buyers run for cover
7. Boris constantly asked why the trade deals aren’t done yet
8. Ardent leavers denying ever wanting to leave
9. Tax changes proposed to attract .coms, billionaires and other "foreign investment"
10. Tory commitments on increased spending on policing, healthcare, broadband, pot holes, "the North", etc shelved because of the "financial headwinds"; but taxes cut for the rich to help stimulate investment
Project fear my arse; show me one economist, or trade body, saying that Brexit will bring anything good to the UK as a whole. Pure self interest from a few , myopic patriotism from those trying to relive the 1950s, stupidity and xenophobia. We will end up an even more divided society of haves and have nots.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Dec 17, 2019 10:51:16 GMT 1
I think Gauke has called it right. The trade negotiations will fail to be completed on time and we will have the worst exit possible - this is how Boris is keeping the ERG nutters on side. Yes, sadly it's pretty clear that a Tory government will result in a No Deal Brexit during 2020. The deadline for completion of a trade deal is December 2020 but in reality it is July 2020, the chances of a trade deal being done by then are so small that they can be almost completely discounted as a possibility. The path to a No Deal Brexit is to be enshrined in UK law.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Dec 17, 2019 21:05:31 GMT 1
Maybe on death, but then there is no gain to pay tax on is there? And to dispel myths that buying BTL is a easy tax free way of making money.... every house purchased for BTL has 3% Stamp duty above the basic rate paid on the whole purchase price... so BTL properties are not the cash cow people seem to think. There usually is a gain on the purchase price, but it is ignored and the value rebased to the probate valuation. This is one area where the Conservative Party has actually taken notice of experts and taken steps to take the heat and the irrational exuberance out of the BTL market. On the macroeconomic level this is a leveraged market and so would seriously unwind when sentiment turned. On the indvidual level property is an illiquid asset and the yields are lower than the headline rate. If you are a small investor put your money into a range of collectives and ETFs allocated according to to an inverse of their standard deviation and rebased to 1. Avoid commercial property exposure because it is also illquid (see recent news). Avoid exposure to resources and precious metals - they are costs of productions and/or do not yield an income. And do that for an annual charge of less than 0.3% And then get on with your life. Unless. that is, the appeal of owning and renting out a property goes beyond the monetary return. Absolutely no idea what "according to an inverse of their standard deviation and rebased to 1" means. Haven't gone near ETFs, seem too flavour of the month. Think I will just stick with Merchants Trust and maybe EDIN, who have gone a bit off track recently, and other Investment Trusts, plus NRR and Mitchells and Butler. Cheers.
|
|
shrewinspain
Midland League Division Two
Grumpy old retired git
Posts: 125
|
Post by shrewinspain on Dec 18, 2019 8:05:35 GMT 1
To all the Brexit supporting Board members; I wish that only you would reap the rewards of the madness that is about to unfold. If only we could - let's just imagine tis time next year when we are about to crash out with a "no deal". What % of the following 10 likely day to day events do you think we will be experiencing: 1. Terrorism / unrest emanating from Northern Ireland as the prospect of a hard border looms
2. Jimmy Krankie stirring unrest north of the border holding an "advisory" referendum without the consent of the UK parliament
3. Deterioration in value of the pound making anything and everything more expensive
4. UK share prices fall causing pension scheme deficits and increased employer contributions
5. Interest rates rise as Govt borrowing becomes more difficult
6. House prices start to fall as buyers run for cover
7. Boris constantly asked why the trade deals aren’t done yet
8. Ardent leavers denying ever wanting to leave
9. Tax changes proposed to attract .coms, billionaires and other "foreign investment"
10. Tory commitments on increased spending on policing, healthcare, broadband, pot holes, "the North", etc shelved because of the "financial headwinds"; but taxes cut for the rich to help stimulate investment
Project fear my arse; show me one economist, or trade body, saying that Brexit will bring anything good to the UK as a whole. Pure self interest from a few , myopic patriotism from those trying to relive the 1950s, stupidity and xenophobia. We will end up an even more divided society of haves and have nots.
Add to that list Downie, Salop 27, et al blaming the EU, remoaners, and anyone else they can think of for everything going tits up. I’m sure that Demonic Cummings will help them out with some great sound bites to shift the blame as well which they can latch on to to make it someone else’s fault.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Dec 21, 2019 14:44:37 GMT 1
|
|