Whoever is in political power makes no difference to the country.

As for companies avoiding tax through offshore accounts, I cannot understand why any sales revenues in the UK cannot be written into UK law to be taxed in the UK regardless of their parent companies location.

The government should start a ‘coffee tax’, paid up-front like VAT, so that companies like Starbucks can’t claim they’ve invested millions in the country, opening coffee-shops everywhere, putting local shops out-of-business…

…and yet they’ve never made a profit and so don’t pay any corporation tax!

The biggest question given how much money has been spent, what is the Deterrent actually doing these days? Is it deterring Islamist Extremists from attacking people in the UK? …The 7/7 London Bombs in 2005, Glasgow Airport 2007, attempted suicide Bomb in Exeter in 2008 or more recently Lee Rigby, an off duty soldier murdered outside Woolwich barracks. That would be a resounding No!

It doesn’t deter shoplifting or littering either! :rolleyes: Let’s get rid of it!

Having downloaded and watched some of the content of the multi party debate there are a few things I’d like to say.

The SNP kept wittering on about getting rid of nuclear weapons which would entail Trident or its replacement. Whilst one might think this a good move I beg to differ, the armed forces have been decimated so much people simply do not realise how stretched they now are, you could stick the Army in a football stadium and they would not fill it…. But I’m drifting, let’s look at the nuclear deterrent and the advantages, take the Ukraine, they had a large stockpile and they disposed of them after the UK ie us and the good old USA promised to defend them against any incursion…. We have all seen how that went, we re aged and the a Ukraine is ravaged by war, do you think Putin would have even considered any of it if the Ukraine had the facility to turn Russia into glass?…… The answer has to be no and the answer to retaining our nuclear capability in this unstable world is yes.

[Counter argument – devils advocate]

If the UK Government doesn’t have to pay the day-to-day bills for the Trident fleet, an begin spending on the replacement. The defence budget whilst probably not getting all of that money would likely not have been squeezed as much. That would mean less cutbacks all around, more boots filled, less early withdrawal of needed Kit, less chance of totally dropped balls like MPAs.

The biggest question given how much money has been spent, what is the Deterrent actually doing these days?
Is it deterring Islamist Extremists from attacking people in the UK? …The 7/7 London Bombs in 2005, Glasgow Airport 2007, attempted suicide Bomb in Exeter in 2008 or more recently Lee Rigby, an off duty soldier murdered outside Woolwich barracks. That would be a resounding No !

Ukraine isn’t in my view a good example of what happens when you give up the deterrent, the Blacksea fleet in Crimea has always been a ticking bomb. unless your suggesting that Putin’s next move is to land the patrolling Bears in the UK as soon as the Tridents are gone?
[/Counter argument -devils advocate]

As for companies avoiding tax through offshore accounts, I cannot understand why any sales revenues in the UK cannot be written into UK law to be taxed in the UK regardless of their parent companies location.

Having downloaded and watched some of the content of the multi party debate there are a few things I’d like to say.

The SNP kept wittering on about getting rid of nuclear weapons which would entail Trident or its replacement. Whilst one might think this a good move I beg to differ, the armed forces have been decimated so much people simply do not realise how stretched they now are, you could stick the Army in a football stadium and they would not fill it…. But I’m drifting, let’s look at the nuclear deterrent and the advantages, take the Ukraine, they had a large stockpile and they disposed of them after the UK ie us and the good old USA promised to defend them against any incursion…. We have all seen how that went, we re aged and the a Ukraine is ravaged by war, do you think Putin would have even considered any of it if the Ukraine had the facility to turn Russia into glass?…… The answer has to be no and the answer to retaining our nuclear capability in this unstable world is yes.

Yes, “all the money’s gone!”. :rolleyes:

Not to mention knowing what they will find when they do gain power. The state of the public finances was much worse than had been expected last time around.

It should be illegal to go back or act contrary to anything you listed in your manifesto…

Unworkable…..it would require politicians to be able to predict the future.

I just wanted to debate whether the party in power actual makes any difference to the overall economy of the country

IMO the economy won’t vary much over the short term as a result of any changes. But given a 4 year term, the consequences of changes made in year 1 will be taking real effect (to allow for proper long term projection) by year 4.

Anyhoo – I think the point your really driving at is – labour and tory are roughly two sides of the same turd. Both look out for themselves first, their crony millionaire mates second, and distant third is virtually irrelevant to them.

A few changes I would make

Political system
1. It should be illegal to go back or act contrary to anything you listed in your manifesto.
2. Any politician can be removed from office with signed petitions by >50% of constituents or a local re-election forced with signed petitions by 30% of constituents.

General governance
1. Multinational companies moving money accrued in any UK business or UK business arm to an offshore location/account are subject to 20% tax on the total amount of monies moved. That will in an instant stop the tax avoidance of multinationals.
2. Top band income tax is reduced to 40% and there are no credits, loopholes or exemptions. Any monies moved offshore is subject to 40% tax.
3. A complete overhaul of the government infrastructure services (i.e. roads) is needed. It is currently far too admin-heavy and end-worker lite.
4. Public sectors can carry over budget from one year to the next, removing the stupid policies that result in “spend it or lose it” === “waste it or lose it” mindsets and the resulting near eradication of strategic projects.

If I remember correctly I think I paid £30 for a one-off transaction (sale) of about £360 worth of shares.

A self-dealing account doesn’t cost big money.

Mine works on a flat rate £12.50 per trade, regardless of the amount invested / disposed of.

Moggy

Fees are not that great, and certainly shouldn’t be as high as you have quoted there.

Playing the stock market is little different to a flutter on the horses. Anyone can do it badly. To do it well, you need to spend time with the form books, know the trainers and the riders.

My father can do it well. My brother too.

I do it badly…

Bruce

Yes, ‘risky’ was the wrong word! What I meant to convey was that there was no guarantee that the value of shares would always increase over time.

I think there is this widely held perception that share ownership is the privilege of the wealthy and that making money from share-dealing isn’t ‘real work’ (if it is done professionally) and in fact ‘shareholders’ and those that trade shares are mere parasites who profit from the hard-work of decent working people!

The only dealings with shares that I’ve had personally was some that were part of an inheritance; as executor I quickly sold these but was surprised by the ‘costs’ associated even with doing this. From memory the selling fee was about 10% of the (modest) holding; if one was to make money from rapidly buying and selling shares on market fluctuations I assume you’d need a much larger holding to cover the costs of the fees?

Nice work if you can get it (and with online share dealing everybody can)…..but risky too! 🙂

There is much you can do to minimise that risk.

Remember share ownership is not largely just gambling on the company’s value going up. You as a shareholder participate in the profits of the company via dividend payouts. Most people hold shares long term and get a steady, but not spectacular income from them via dividends. The actual shareprice is irrelevant unless you are buying or selling.

I have a small residual pension paying out a few hundred quid a month. I put that straight into my online share account, which is also an ISA, so I don’t have to pay tax on it.

My holdings cover about twelve or fifteen companies from BP and Sainsbury at one end, and internet companies like BooHoo at the other.

I have seen the share price of all three of those named fall whilst I have been holding them, but I still get dividends when they are paid out. Conversely I have some real stars – Greggs, Greene King, Persimmon Builders which have zoomed up in price.

Overall I get a slightly better return than investing that money in a savings account. By selling the ‘stars’ I could show a healthy increase in my capital. If I sold the lot I think I’d still be comfortably ahead.

So spread your portfolio over a good number of companies, mix big solid businesses with small growing ones, don’t invest money that you might need short-term – you don’t want to be forced into selling in the middle of a stock market crash, that’s when you need to be buying.

Moggy

No, not an important distinction. Lots of things are traded in the same way as shares…

…fine art, gold, agricultural land, antiques…..bits of old aeroplanes! 😉

I guess I meant with a consumable item like a pint of milk, when it is consumed, it is gone. Not sure it’s an important distinction!

Why isn’t there a consumer? The buyer of the share is buying a part of the company; that is a real thing. It exists, it has value, you can buy it and sell it.

And shares go down as well as up! The profit (or loss!) comes from the individual or company that you are trading with, not the company that the share is a part of (although buying and selling of their shares will affect the value of the whole company).

Nice work if you can get it (and with online share dealing everybody can)…..but risky too! 🙂

No, that’s not magical. That is indeed retail.

You buy a pint of milk. You do nothing, no transport, storage, refrigeration, advertising, interest repayments (ahem) or anything. You then sell the pint of milk for z more than you bought it for. You add no value to it, but because someone else thinks they can perform the very same trick with that very same pint of milk they will pay you z more than you paid.

Ok, not magic – but nice ‘work’. NOT KNOCKING IT. No politics of jealousy. But what a system.. and not really analogous to retail. There is no ‘consumer’ at the end of the chain, just a chain.

Tresco buy a pint of milk from a farmer; after the costs of transportation, storage, refrigeration, advertising, interest-repayments and other overheads they sell it to you making a small profit in the process…

…let’s call that profit ‘z’. All a bit magical or just normal retail practice?

Nothing, I guess. I suppose its all to do with perceived value, but rather than there being an intrinsic value in the widgets themselves it’s the mutually agreed value of the company that makes them that adds to wealth when it goes up. Or the company that cleans the offices of the company that makes them, or the company that provides the phones for the company that cleans the carpets of the company that makes them, or whatever. Whatever the shares are in, I can’t argue with anyone buying for x and selling at x+y. At worst it’s surely harmless. At best it might even be wealth creation, though I’m not sure. It makes my head hurt to follow the real value when it comes to share dealing (as opposed to virtual, ascribed value – the ‘share price’). As a caveat there are some activities that really should not be managed in the interests of shareholders rather than customers. But I’m sure people guessed that already, I’ll spare everyone.

EDIT – thinking about it, I guess if person A is gaining x+y by selling then the person B buying is parting with x+y at the same time, and the overall wealth in circulation is unchanged. The next time that share is traded, assuming its price has risen by z, the exchange is for x+y+z, but the actual total wealth actually in circulation still remains the same (person B picks up x+y+z, but person C PARTS WITH x+y+z at the same time, net sum zero. The only real increase is in the perceived value of the item, the share. And person B makes a profit of z. All a bit magical, really. Bit like house prices.