are we still a fair country

Relax and chat about anything not covered elsewhere.
Post Reply
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

To a point. :)

Let's say a British-based investment makes a nice profit over the course of a year from its Forex trades. Trading is a sum zero game, and their profits would have come from investors throughout the world. And if the British taxman gets a healthy slice of the profits, we're better off as a country.

Similarly, if Bill Gates asks a British hedge fund to invest 100 million dollars of his money, then if they make a profit, then the fee and commission (if that's they right term) would represent new money coming into the economy.

OK, we wouldn't be adding any wealth to the world economy - it's not like we'd be creating new production capacity - but as long as more money enters the UK economy than leaves it due to the activities of the City, I'm not complaining!

Jeff
superfrank wrote: if an investment bank or hedge fund makes loads of money it has effectively taken the money from somewhere else - it hasn't created any wealth.

SF
Last edited by Iron on Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

mulberryhawk wrote:Do you genuinely believe that the UK government would contribute such a considerable ammount to either the IMF or another country. :shock:
They wouldn't hand over that money as a gift, but the EU said they needed a loan of that magnitude to prevent the certain break up of the Eurozone, and with it possibly the destruction of the global economy and (more importantly to the Lib Dems) the EU, then they might reluctantly remortgage the farm (if they hadn't already done so in 2008!)...

Jeff
mister man
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm

mister man wrote:yes it would be enough. and yes ive answered before more than once, i suggest a reading course, as well as recognising a reply you could then, research cost/benefit ratios and price elasticity.a cut in alcohol duty down to similar european levels of our competitors, would slow the rate of closure of british pubs, thus reducing unemployment, help our brewers,thus reducing unemployment, help our glass maunfacturers thus reducing umemployment, help our potttery industries, thus reducing unemployment, and our specialist bar equipment and supply manufacturers thus reducing unemployment. If we were to reduce our massive fuel duties, similar savings and reductions in unemployment could be made in our logistics and transport industries many of which are going to the wall due to foreign companies having the advantage of lower fuel costs.
the savings to the economy benefit bill would far outweigh the reduction costs.
also you could scrap the nhs reforms that nobody but a few nutcases in the tory party wants,certainly the doctors nurses and virtually all professional bodies oppose it, the price tag to even implement this needless bill is 3billion, before it does anything.
I could go on but little point debating with a closed mind.
the fee we are paying for our taxpayer owned banks to pay the bankers in unwarranted bonuses this year alone would cover the entire payments for all job seekers allowance, and if they the banks left the country we would still own them, and they cant while in majority state ownership.
The inescapable truth is we are governed by a prime ministers and a cabinet mostly eton educated who wouldnt know fairness and how to govern as if we are all in this together, if a fairness fairy came and sprinkled them all with reality dust.
i dont know who to feel most sorry for,the poor and desperate being targeted by this government,or the ignorant who are currently allowing cameron to sleep walk us into social anarchy, and moral bankruptcy.
the latter will suffer,like the former soon enough.
as a betting man, my odds on more riots this summer are 10/1 0n..
bump


plus you only need to see the news about remploy today, to know all you need to know about camerons morality.
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Bump
Ferru123 wrote:From http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... d-in-beer/:

Suppose that once a month, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all of them comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes and claim State benefits, it would go something like this;

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every month and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So the bar owner suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 .
The seventh paid £5 instead of £7.
The eighth paid £9 instead of £12.
The ninth paid £14 instead of £18.
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59. 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The rich get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.

But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.

That's how our tax system works.
mister man
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:10 pm

camerons attack on the disabled and weakest in society continues, what a disgrace of a man.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/business/ ... 1700-jobs/
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Cameron suggests cutting housing benefit - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

'The prime minister has suggested that people under the age of 25 could lose the right to housing benefit.

...

He said that he also favoured new curbs on the Jobseeker's Allowance.

Downing Street said they were Conservative plans for after the next general election.'


Ed Milliband must be rubbing his hands with glee at his massive own goal by the PM. How many under 25s are going to vote Tory if they think a Tory government would mean that, if they end up unemployed, they will get no housing benefit? :evil:

Jeff
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

Unemployed single mother on benefits who spends £2,000 on Christmas with 20 presents for each of her children

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2EnCAZLa4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

Jeff
Iron
Posts: 6793
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:51 pm

LISTEN: Jobless Man Who Won't Get Up At 8am - http://www.lbc.co.uk/listen-jobless-man ... -8am-64710

Aw bless! :lol:
Post Reply

Return to “Chill Out Area”