Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
You talk like someone with £1b in assets has £1b sat in the bank.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
on my wish list paul.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, have you read the thread: good news, the real economy is doing well, by Barry?
In it he quotes that British businesses are collectively sitting on £750 billion of cash..and yes he did write ...cash, not assets!
So either Barry and I are both wrong, or what?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - Paul is spot on. Once again you are suggesting that the government steals private money to pay the debts government irresponsibility has incurred with no idea for the consequences of that. Incidentally - doing what you suggests would barely touch the deficit and would stll require a massive curtailing of government spending. The deficit is not the same as debt.
Yes, business are sitting on a pile of cash. These are their reserves and are not to be stolen by an oppressive dictatorial government. This money is there for a reason, a hedge and protection against what could go wrong and forms a significant pot of money that can be invested to grow businesses when confidence returns.
Incidentally - businesses have been doing what everyone individually should do, build up a 'rainy day' pot of cash for emergencies. It is good to see that they have done this because it offers some protection and security for the people employed by them as well as the business owners. This money will be invested in realisable low risk assets to a large extent.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry
you have some explaining to do to Paul Scotchie, and indeed to the whole Forum, as to how the £750 billion of cash British businesses are sitting in is ..erm ...cash. In the other thread you did not write: assets.
I know the difference between cash and assets - assets that are valued (nominally valued) in cash.
And that the amount of cash in circulation is much lower than the (nominal) value of assets in circulation.
And I know too that shares are only nominally worth what they say on the FTSE 200, Cac, Dax etc., until someone starts selling shares off and they plummet in value within half an hour...
I know all this, Barry, as far as it is humanely comprehensible (at some point no-one understands the whole gobbledegook of assets and their value in cash).
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
and that persons ass- ets are just that,and whats the intrest rates on those ass-ets,3 to 4% i bet.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Well, Brian, if shares collapsed by, say, 10% in a year, one is hardly going to get 4% interest on them, not!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander.
Cash is an asset and can be held in a number of ways by a business. Fixed term deposits, easy access, structured cash deposits etc etc etc.
I do suggest that you do not get into hair splitting on the terms used in investment, you cannot win - it is my business.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
You do have some very strange ideas on economics Alexander....!!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW' Post.
Gary I am the one saying that there is no 'fair' definition of 'fair' - what is fair to one person is unfair to another.
My Reply.
Because you say "there is no 'fair' definition of 'fair". That does not make it a fact.
post.
I consider it grossly unfair that I have to work hard, pay £17k in tax for that money to be given to others to sit on their fat backsides doing nothing through the excessive benefits being paid.
reply.
I consider it grossly unfair that parents of disabled children have lost their respite care, while MPs Gold Plated pensions increase, thanks to huge taxpayer subsidies.
post
As for greed - without to impulse to gain, accumulate and improve your circumstances we would still be in the Stone Age. This is one of the basic drivers in life. It is what helps turn small businesses into big businesses with all the wealth and employment they provide. It is why people start businesses. It is why people (most people) work.
reply.
I 100% totally agree with you. What we agree on, is above the normal bounds of the dictates of basic survival and comfort, displayed by everyone mentioned in my post.
What we disagree on is that Greed is far beyond the dictates of normal life and basic survival and comfort.
post.
If it was just about having what is needed for 'basic survival and comfort' then we should all give up working and be looked after by the benefits system.
reply.
You continue to be obsessed with the minority on benefits. The majority on benefits are genuine claimants and they are fighting for 'basic survival and comfort'
post.
Basic comforts are not enough for me and, I suspect, most people. If it was just about that then there would be a lot more unemployed around among those who manufacture and sell high value quality products.
Reply.
Again I agree, why should you settle for basic comforts, why should anyone? Basic comforts are not enough for our disabled, ill or elderly but most of them have no other choice.
post.
Life would be so boring if we all adopted your idea of what life should be all about. Thankfully the human race is varied and different.
reply.
There you go with your insults again. My life or what I do in my life, is far from boring.
post.
I will tell you something else. It is no business of yours, or indeed mine, what other people are paid unless we are paying the bill through our taxes or as business owners.
reply.
I assume you are referring to the fact that I am on benefits and not paying income tax. If so, are you saying I should have no say in matters that affect my family?
post.
Define fraud - obtaining goods or services through deceit. It is a matter of the law. I have never condoned law breaking.
reply.
Not you personally but your occupation is full of double standards and is entwined with deceit. When funds have been set aside in some fund or other, in the name of siblings and then those siblings do receive those funds, then that is deceit and probably against the law. That and other types of tax evasion are, in my opinion, just as corrupt as benefit fraud and probably more widespread.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul Scotchie, your posts 39, 41 and 49 seem to be questioning something which I wrote, but which Barry fully confirms!
As I mentioned, if I got it wrong when using the words cash/assets, then so did Barry.
If he didn't, then neither did I!
Now does that ring some sense?
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
I agree with much of #44 .
The problem is that some of these businesses are not sitting on this cash, they are investing it abroad. The likes of British Gas are reaping huge profits out of its UK customer base and ploughing it into countries, like Australia and Asia.
Profit is a good thing and I am not saying they should be highly taxed but I am saying, if they have money to invest, then it should be invested in the same country as the source of that profit.
IE. boosting our economy not some other country, for the sake of more profit.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Gary -
Responses to some of your points below from #50 - some matters are just differences in our attitudes and I am not bothering to follow up on those but others do need a comment.
=====
post.
Life would be so boring if we all adopted your idea of what life should be all about. Thankfully the human race is varied and different.
reply.
There you go with your insults again. My life or what I do in my life, is far from boring.
Response:
How you can interpret that as an insult is astonishing and perhaps you should look to why you seem so excessively touchy. Is it the kind of problem we see from some others, one of comprehension? Read it carefully and consider exactly how that is worded. There is absolutely no insult to anyone there.
This perhaps explains a lot about you and your reactions. I have often been totally mystified by some of what you have said and the way you have responded to me. I have taken it as a defensive emotional reaction because you have not had the words or facts to provide a reasoned reply. This strange comment suggests more than that.
Then there is this:
=====
post.
I will tell you something else. It is no business of yours, or indeed mine, what other people are paid unless we are paying the bill through our taxes or as business owners.
reply.
I assume you are referring to the fact that I am on benefits and not paying income tax. If so, are you saying I should have no say in matters that affect my family?
Response:
Again a very strange interpretation. I have no knowledge of your circumstances and certainly was not directed at you and was a general point. The level of benefits and tax are a matter of public policy along with public sector wages on which we all have a right to involve ourselves in but what a private or publicly owned business pays anyone is a matter for the owners of that business.
Now this and you need to be careful here as you are running very close to the wind.
=====
post.
Define fraud - obtaining goods or services through deceit. It is a matter of the law. I have never condoned law breaking.
reply.
Not you personally but your occupation is full of double standards and is entwined with deceit. When funds have been set aside in some fund or other, in the name of siblings and then those siblings do receive those funds, then that is deceit and probably against the law. That and other types of tax evasion are, in my opinion, just as corrupt as benefit fraud and probably more widespread.
response:
From that I can only judge that you know nothing at all about my occupation. If you are suggesting that my profession is involved in illegal tax evasion then you must provide proof or apologise. Tax avoidance is legal and I and my profession most certainly do advise clients on avoiding tax as I actually have a duty of care to do so and would fall foul of my regulator if I did not do so.
There are problems with my profession - pension and endowment mis-selling to name two historical issues but some of us have moved on from that and changed our business models to fee based because of this and the rest of the profession are being forced to follow us by the end of this year. I am happy to discuss where it has gone wrong but you are so wide of the mark in your comments it is laughable.
#52
Gary - business investing abroad, as indeed individuals, form part of the UK overseas earnings and is essential to our economy. Think how often we complain about UK businesses being bought by foreign companies. The good news is that this is a two way street. You cannot have it both ways, think foreign companies buy our is bad and complain about ours buying overseas, unless you think the UK should do business in some kind of bubble away from the world. That would be a disaster for a trading nation.
Besides this is not what I was actually referring to, I was referring to cash reserves and cash based investments not equity assets. This is money held back pending investment which may be in the UK or abroad when it happens or to provide a cushion if needed.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Whichever way you say it Alexander - you want to companies to be 'taxed' 75% of what they have in the bank, you forget that it is actually cash that pays people wages or buys stocks or actually runs the businesses....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Boots the chemist paid 3% UK tax in 2011
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, even Barry has acknowledged that I refer to private, and not company, assets.
Where have I ever suggested confiscating company assets?
I know there may be at times an unclear line between what is company and what is private, but experts would work this out.
But taking away company assets is not something I have ever advocated, just for the record.
You will find, dear Paul, that the relationship of this idea is to the Public Debt of £1 trillion. Although I haven't got the exact figures, the interest the British State pays each year on the Public Debt may be around £70 billion!
To reduce this Public Debt significantly - without harming companies - would ultimately save us tens of billions of pounds a year just in interest.
Calculating an average, every British resident citizen would have to pay around £20.000 to annul the Public Debt. Of-course one can't expect most people to foot the bill, but the super-rich could pay up something from their PRIVATE (not compoany) assets.
Claro?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander what you are saying is utter rubbish in that distinction. Ultimately company assets and private assets are one in the same, the theft of one impacts on the other. What absurd twists and turns you make to defend the undefendable.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Thankfully the world doesn't depend on Alexander's financial knowledge
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry W, what you are saying here, as in many other posts on this subject when you have expressed your totally false statements, is utter and complete rubbish.
And by that I mean utter and total rubbish!
Hasn't anyone ever told you this before?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I wish you of all people would stop using the word theft at me!
