Posts by LucreLout

Re: Loan Charge?

Except this is not tax _evasion_, and such schemes have not been ruled illegal. So the 20 year rule seems like it should not be applicable.

It may not have been specifically evasion at the time, but then nothing is until it is so ruled by HMRC and then the courts. Once that happens, what was not specifically evasion, merely very aggressive tax avoidance, becomes specifically so and the 20 year rule applies.

Re: Loan Charge?

And there is also no law saying that doing 70mph on the motorway is acceptable practice.

Sorry, but that isn't true. [1,2]

Anything that is not prohibited is permitted, that is the nature of laws everywhere.

While that is generally true of the UK [3], it isn't wholly accurate I'm afraid.[4] Ex post facto law occasionally changes past relationships.

This income was legally declared, open to HMRC scrutiny, and could have been challenged any time since.

It could, and I'd agree, it should have been challenged. However, there is no requirement to do so. Gordon Brown, if I'm not mistaken, was the first chancellor to apply ex post facto legislation to tax affairs, so it's not without precedent.[5]

The fact they did not do so in even a single case within the time period in which they were obliged to do so implicitly makes it legitimate.

Unfortunately implicitly legitimate and actually legitimate aren't the same thing. Again, given the law may be changed retrospectively, and there is history of past chancellors retrospectively taxing what they see as evasion or at least unfair avoidance, how sure could you really be that an artificially complex offshore structure wouldn't come back to bite? Really?

It really is equivalent of retroactively reducing the speed limit and then sending everyone who exceeded the new speed limit going all the way back 19 years speeding tickets.

Sorry, but it really isn't. Speed limits are specifically authorised in law, and avoiding tax using EBT, which is really their only purpose, simply isn't authorised in law. It exploited a grey area in tax legislation, which is the industry I work in for a bank, and its really no suprise to most in the industry that this chicken came home to roost.

You'll find I've backstopped everything with a citation. Please do the same when disputing what I've said. I know you are upset at the changes, but the harder you press tax avoidance, the more it looks to the tax man like evasion, and EBTs press harder than was perhaps wise.

1 - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/traffic-signs-signals-and-road-markings

2 - https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

5 - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1514972/Brown-hits-millions-with-backdated-wealth-tax.html

Re: Beyond branch closings, there's serious 'Cashless Risks'

Gotta laugh and shiver in fear whenever there's a big political push towards 'cashless'. Cashless means inconvenience when things are down plus constant surveillance as a bonus. The benefits? Still not seeing them...

Can I start by going on record that going cashless is a terrible idea. There are so many downside risks its hard to even know where to begin. However, for the government, cashless looks like a good plan because:

A) It eliminates cash in hand work, or otherwise makes it easier to see where it is happening, while allowing crime detection opportunities - "What is little Johnny being paid 15 pounds for 23 times a day, while apparently job seeking?"

B) It allows negative interest rates to be applied thus motivating people to go out and spend in a recession - they can't tuck it under a matress

C) It saves a fortune in currency printing and distribution costs

D) Millennials, bless 'em, all seem to live near cashless lives. And as we're so often told, they're the future.

As I said, I think cashless is a terrible plan, but I can see why government would think otherwise.

Re: Banks are just big IT outfits

If more people realised that was the actual situation, things might improve.

If management realised that was the situation things would improve! And it very much IS the situation.

Re: MPs are not Knowledgeable enough to ask these questions

Don't forget the casino bolted onto the side.

In Barclays case the bank is "the casino", with a retail function bolted onto the side. Like most other large banks, it has an investment bank where the real money is made, a corporate function, where a little money is made, and a retail bank that makes very little and was historically used to finance the first two, but post ringfencing is even less important that it used to be.

Obviously, its not a casino, it only looks that way to those that don't understand international finance or investment, but there ya have it.

there are plenty of UK-based IT staff working for the big banks. There probably are fewer than there once were but there definitely are quite a few still.

There are, but we mostly work in what the bank would term "important functions", so, not retail banking.

Don't shoot the messenger, because as a retail bank customer myself, it pisses me off to, but the money isn't made in retail so its a cost to be managed.

In the case of banks, take it out of the bonus fund as a regulatory requirement. Performance will increase amazingly.

I doubt it. I've worked in banking for decades and there is nobody of senior director level and upwards with the least little clue about technology. There's a few layers of MD's, then several layers of D's, and literally none of them understand technology.

Its very hard to make the right decision when you don't know what you're doing, don't know who to ask, and don't want to live with what you personally perceive as a loss of face for asking. So they go to consultants, and they spend small firtunes doing what the consultant is selling this year, with little understanding that the same consultant (note, not contractor) will sell them an entirely different solution next year.

It'd be funny, if the consequences weren't so serious. Half or more of the senior staff in every bank I've worked at need to go, because its all just dead weight. Sorry, but it is. And that includes my own bank!

Re: Who's interviewing?

So will the person interviewing be technical enough to ask the right questions and the interviewee to answer them?

It won't matter much, both of those banks lost all their good staff years ago.

Re: Democide.

There have been more people killed by firearm in the last century in the USA than all the other wars combined in history worldwide.

Total rubbish; State your source.

America has about 30k gun deaths per year, so about 3 million people in a hundred year span. It's also about a third of the number of people Spain killed in the Inca conquest [1].

FFS. Facts!! Use facts to form an opinion, don't just come here spaffing your emotions around like a moody teenager.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll#Modern_wars_with_greater_than_25,000_deaths_by_death_toll

Re: 16 US citizens shot dead yesterday

Only two injuries today so far but the day is young.

It is indeed. Guns are regulated to the point of being illegal here, and still people are getting shot.... could it be that criminals don't respect the law and just carried on having firearms. Whodathunkit?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-shooting-gun-armed-police-injury-street-met-a8548231.html

Re: Remember folks - You can and should form an opinion from facts

Well, the *fact* is I read headlines about mass shootings taking place in the US considerably more often than I do of mass shootings in other countries.

why do you think it is?

That you ignore the countries that don't fit with your world view? Unless you're illogically worried about being killed in a mass shooting as opposed to one in which you are the only victim? Quite why that would matter to you I cannot fathom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Re: M biggest worry on a long visit to head office in Texss...

biggest worry on a long visit to head office in Texss...

For this Brit at least was "What if they have a round of lay offs?".

I go to a concealed carry state on business a lot. If you genuinely worry, your biggest worry at that, about someone going postal due to layoffs then I'd be more worried about your overly emotive and not very analytical mind, not my American co-workers.

You're more likely, almost 3 times as likely, to be killed by a driver. 31k vs 11k [1,2] You are in fact more likely to die falling down the stairs [3].

Remember folks - You can and should form an opinion from facts, but you can never form a fact from your opinions. Facts matter, emotion doesn't.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Statistics

3 - https://ellisinjurylaw.com/premises/how-many-people-have-died-from-falling-down-stairs/

Re: Anti-ageism

Just send wrinklies

Where's grandad? Well, he had a choice of boring himself to death in a care home, or jumping on the latest Mars mission and adding a few more bricks to the wall out there before taking the long walk.

One way missions would surely reduce the costs, and I can't imagine there would be any shortage of volunteers.

Fuck off.

Bit hard of thinking are we? Never mind petal, the grown ups have voted to leave, and as usual we'll do the heavy lifting. You just sit in the corner doing your angsty teenager thing.

If you change your mind about a constitutional vote affecting your countries relationship with others and which carries inevitable economic consequences, tough.

'Twas the same when we voted to join a common market.

That's why its conventional for referenda to require a supermajority.

Conventioanl where, exactly? In the UK it's not conventional at all.

And, of course, you decide before the event whether the decision is to be binding or advisory.

All referendums are binding. Were they not, people would not vote in them. Remainers wrote the text, so its too late to moan about the spelling.

That doesn't affect the fact that this has been an economically disastrous decision made in an outrageously stupid manner.

I agree, but now we're ont he verge of reversing that and leaving the EU to go back to our historically advantageous position of trading with the rest of the world, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

In the meantime my children and grandchildren are going to have to live with that economic cost in the longer term

Mine are going to live with the economic opportunity. So are yours. Stop being afraid and start taking hold of the opportunities available.

My family have already (financially) done very well out of remainer panic. We remortgaged at all time low base rates, and fixed it for the life of the loan, moved out of the £ and then back in once the panic had set in, thus addind substantially and tax efficiently to our assets. If you were too busy panicing or incapable of thinking things through to do the same then I can hardly be blamed for that.

The end of the next labour government is going to make my family rich beyond anything I could have comprehended growing up. Those voting labour not so much, but again, I can hardly see how that will be my fault.

come Downing Street with a document at least as detailed and as heavy as the indyref document published by the SNP before their referendum.

The problem was that the SNP document was a total work of fiction. They assumed England would simply pay Scotlands national debts, set up a favourable trade agreement, vote for them to be allowed back into Europe, and gift them all of the oil (which according to international convention is in English waters, not Scottish ones).

Unicorns and trebbles all round.

Same as a trip to the US;

I go to the USA on business several times a year and use my phone freely while I'm there. Oddly, my carrier allows the use of my pre-paind minutes and data for no additional fee.

Whatever arguement remainers think they may have against Brexit, phone charges simply isn't one.... unless we recently annexed America?

A top brexshiteer

Yay, name calling. The rest of your post I've ignored on the basis that in doing so, you have stated you have no credible points to make.

Bye.

@LucreLout you seem to forget that it was such a marginal "win" for Brexit that it was clearly insane going through with it without a proper analysis and a rerun when we actually exactly know what Brexit was.

And it wasn't even a compulsory-for-parliament-to-enact vote.

The entire bill which formed the basis of the referendum, the question we were asked, and the government campaign to keep us in, were all formed by a remainer. The arch remainer at that. So remainers complaining about it need to look to themselves.

The referendum was spelled out very clearly before you voted - one and done, no re-runs; the same as the Scots IndyRef. There's no do-overs.

Point of fact, people voting leave did so ont he basis that the arch remainer guaranteed them he'd fire A50 in the morning and then we'd have a punishment budget. And still Leave won out.

Sorry, but you've had your say on this matter and you're on the wrong side of history. There's no democratic basis or need for another vote; quite the opposite - there is a democratic imperative that the result be honoured.

The problem is that competition doesn't really work for things like roaming charges or termination fees

And yet in the post to which you respond, you've been given a crystal clear example where it does "really work", and far far beyond Europe.

If Brexit were so simple, it would have happened already.

You wouldn't be reliant on the EU bending to your will.

Remainers really are going to have to take responsibility for all three of those.

Gina Miller managed to string the whole thing out by around a year with pointless and meaningless legal challenges for no better reason than she didn't like the result.

Chequers is what happens when you have remainers negotiating Brexit. It's logically absurd - you don't let the people who think we can't possibly succeed without kowtowing to the rEU negotiate how we leave it. Negotiating from a position of fear never produces your best outcome.

We're not reliant on the rEU bending to our will. Leavers don't want chequers, they want a clean break and WTO rules while we sort out a realistic trade deal: essentially rebooting the rEU back to what it was originally intended to be. I know remainers are firghtended by that idea, but that's just mostly because they don't understand economics, trade, or finance.

Interesting use of anonymity here. Apparently, Leavers still don't want to be publicly identified, even by pseudonym.

I'm not the AC above, but I am a leaver. We disagree politically, so that's about the same as every general election ever then.... Sorry, I must not have got the memo about being ashamed of it.

Re: Fraud or fraud and hypocrisy.

So investors are complaining that the company they invested in, that committed fraud in manipulation emissions tests, didn't give them information to allow them to commit insider trading offences?

Not only that but they seem ignorant of market regulations. ALL company announcements that might affect the price of the stocks MUST be issued on the exchange at which they are listed first. VW, loathe though I am to defend them, had no choice in the matter.

So what we have here is a bunch of people that would prefer to commit insider trading than face investment losses, and expect that any company they invest in will break the rules under which their investment was placed in order to facilitate the insider trading.

These people are not mentally fit to be investors. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Shorting stock rewards the slime of the world.

Also, until the company actually goes bankrupt, NOBODY has lost money on their shares.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The mid-price for my shares is less than the value at which I acquired them, thus I have lost money on my Tesla shares. I may yet regain it, or I may lose further money still, but economically, for real, I have lost money. Why is everyone so afraid of admitting that?

They still own the same number it is just they have a lesser or perhaps in a few weeks, greater value.

Ok, so you seem to understand very basic market mechanics but apparently miss the significance of this in relation to your earlier point. Losing money on shares is multiplied by the quantity held, no mitigated by it.

I like the Warren Buffett quote. When people are greedy be fearful. When people are fearful be greedy.

You're seriously going to quote the Sage of Omaha, after just positing that nobody has lost money on a share that has lost market price? Really?

It is disgusting to bet against a company failing to make money where thousands can lose jobs, communities die

I'm not suggesting that Tesla is a zombie company (yet), but shorting is one of the things that helps zombie companies die out, which free's up the capital and staff for more productive use elsewhere. It's a core tennet of capitalism.

Why do I feel like I'm talking to a socialist who thinks they're a capitalist?

Re: Musk did get one thing right

The Guardian certainly has an insufferable side to it, particularly some of the columnists, but it is still one of the most trustworthy newspapers out there.

Ya think?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/guardian_use_me_as_a_mouthpiece/

Not least because it isn't controlled by tax dodging newspaper proprietors

Ya think?

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocrisy-of-the-guardian-on-corporation-tax/#39accd4a5969

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-media-firm-makes-186m-but-pays-only-200000-tax-8675818.html

LucreLouts law: Facts may be used to form opinions, however the inverse is not true.

Re: RE: What Car survey

Don't get me wrong, the design brief of the product is superb, but the build quality is shocking compared to similarly priced cars from companies with a lot more experience.

I've not read the surveys, but I expect you're right. When you rush tings, quality is the first casualty.

That being said, scalaing upa new product offering isn't the most difficult challenge in business (everyone from Apple to Cisco has done this before), so Tesla should be able to sort this out as things progress.

Assuming of course, they don't run out of money first.

(I have a small bet on Tesla but I'm pretty sure that it's not influencing my thinking here)

Re: The product is strong, and the vision is excellent

67% of $80 is around $54 and is the amount of current tax that needs to be replaced. Add that to your $12 recharge and you get $66, not $36...

My roof space can't safely produce petrol while I'm at work, but it can produce electrickery. Unless you tax domestic power at the same rate as road fuel, then its a non-starter.

Tax on vehicles is all but finished, absent tracking where & when they move and charging for that. Obviously, there might be one or two privacy concerns there, not to mention the idea of the government installing the ability to tell the vehicle not to move (something they can't currently do).

Re: I'll forgive Mr Musk every single one of his downsides.

How would you feel if he'd repeatedly called you a "pedo" on twitter?

I wish he would. Since it'd be completely untrue, I'd have zero concerns about suing him for millions or more. I'd have a lawyer working up the papers before he'd put down his phone.

Re: Howard Hughes, Tony Stark, Wizard of Oz..

So Tesla thought big. Solar panels, Electric cars, slight snag with night time but buy a Powerwall or 3.. And don't look at the acreage of solar roof tiles needed to fill up 1x100kWh battery. So a few risks, but Tesla's borrowed big and had US state and federal subsidies.. So not risked much of it's own money.

On the one hand, I agree. On the other, all that roof space all over the world is literally going to waste in energy terms. Using it for solar farming seems like a sensible idea - and when there's no adverse aesthetic considerations, it seems like a win-win.

I'm not suggesting that everyone run out and go electric (I need someone to eat the depreciation on a nice big V8 I have my eye on), merely that if you believe in AGW, or even if you just dislike inefficiency, then there seems to be a use case for Musk's work.

He has the money, the marketing skills, and the balls to try his seemingly crazy ideas, and with his level of intelligence, some of them are bound to end up benefiting humanity. The rest will merely keep us entertained.

Re: Musk the weed smoker

Do you really want the CEO of your company smoking weed, dropping acid and taking ambien.

In all honesty, I'm not sure I care. He's not a friend or family, and I can't even name most of the CEOs running businesses in whihc I have investments.

Most of my investments are in indexes, thus no CEO makes up more than about 1% of my investment capital at any time. If (s)he nukes the firm, then it pretty much just bleeds into general market volatility.

In terms of where I work - well, I make it my business, the defining strength of my career, to be able to attract another employer very quickly and on better terms, should my current employer blow up. It's the only real job security there is.

So, yeah, I'm genuinely not sure I care.....

On the flip side - I'm pretty sure he's amongst the most intelligent CEOs of the firms in which I hold investments, though looking at my Google stocks, intelligence isn't winning the race just now (AMZ are hammering GOOG, as are MSFT - I basically bet big on the cloud for my direct investments - it's not ideology, its cashing in, there's a difference).

Re: Daft Man

Must be like working for Trump to be honest.

I disagree. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is an actual genius, rather than Trump, whom I suspect has too many flunkys that simply deadpan "genius" after every idea he's ever had, and he's started to believe it.

I'll admit to talking my book in equity terms: My gambling money is in Tesla stocks. I've been down 10% and up as much as 30%, and I only placed a bet earlier in the year :-0 I'll either lose the lot, or make enough off it to buy my next car. Probably the former rather than the latter, but that's why it's in the pot marked "gambling" rather than "investment".