Search results

Absolutely not. I'm just fed up with wasting time on here explaining my position in detail and you and your friends having no response (seemingly conceding); only then to go round in circles with the same tosh again a week or so later.

I'm done discussing politics on here. Just noting my predictions.

It's starting to look very worrying. Noting here my prediction for the UK economy should Corbyn get in and push through his economic policies: Immediately: GBP weakens against all currencies. Stock Market Crash - but utility companies don't fall - may even increase. Medium Term: Higher...

Really? <Sarcastic shocked face>

I just thought of another way it would be advantageous to make a tax loss. Imagine an international company has to have an on-shore company to operate. Tax rates are high in this country, so it charges fees from an offshore company so that the on-shore one makes a loss. It then pays much less...

Can I manage your investments please? I promise to make a loss every year, so you'll be quids in.

Ah well, I believe that. He did it as a tax loss vehicle.

Yeah, but that's not very 'dry' is it? Honestly, I thought the proposition so absurd that it would be obvious - not having a go. :)

You need a sarcasm emoji. The only time that a tax loss makes sense IMO (and Old Sky Blue may know others) is when you lose money (and you never want to do that) you recognise it in the P/L immediately. So for example, if I have to buy a machine for £100 which has 5 years of use in it, the...

An offshore fund? Well first, it's a fund - so the profits don't even belong to SISU, they belong to the owners of the fund. SISU only profits from fees, which are probably a percentage of the value of the fund. And secondly, because it's offshore, they don't pay tax anyway.

Could you explain to me how it is ever an advantage to lose money, even if you avoid tax, because I don't understand it? Here's my maths: If the holding company were onshore and if it were not a fund (neither of which are true - but let's just imagine for a minute): If SISU were paying the...

By an offshore fund - very likely.

Because naming a price weakens their negotiations. If they state, say, £50m and the buyers would have gone up to £55m they lose £5m. If they keep silent they can refuse £49m and the next bid may exceed their price - which of course they accept. Also, they are not losing any more money; they...

The things is, you already know the answer to this question. Why persist with nonsense when you understand the difference; I don't understand.

Except it will quite possibly reduce the tax income; simple human nature - you tax someone so much that they decide it's no longer worth working or move abroad. Remember that the people who earn the most are typically the most ambitious and most dynamic and if they feel that the government is...

Agree about the 90s. And Brown absolutely culpable with Greenspan for the 2008 fiasco.

It is substantially false, I agree. However it's quite clever in the way that it includes disingenuous conclusions and narrative with some parts that are actually true. I cannot argue with this paragraph, for example: "The 1990 recession was more home grown. It was partly a result of...

Sorry, don't agree. Five year fixed interest rates are low because the markets believe there will be low growth and hence low interest rates for years to come. If they believed that growth was going to pick up they would factor in the higher interest rates that would be needed to control...

Supply and demand again. There aren't any empty houses in regions where people want to live.

Good luck with buying your first house. :) There is no one reason for house prices being so crazy but they are driven by supply and demand. Adding 332,000 net immigration per year certainly doesn't help. That's more than the population of Coventry: 313k in 2014, 332k in 2015 and 273k in...