On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I disagree entirely. House price inflation is caused by having too few
houses for too many people. Hitting property developers just prevents houses
being built or renovated and is a simple populist and utterly erroneous
course of action that will make things worse.

It's a bit like hundreds of years ago when speculators would stockpile food
before harvest and make a bomb if the harvest was bad (but usually made some
losses in most years). People tried to tax them to extinction too. The
result was that no-one risked stockpiling, so if the harvest really was bad,
then there was no food at all and everyone died.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

Hopefully he'll be intelligent enough to see that a tax on employment
mobility reduces economic competitiveness. At the same time he could
notice
that the ridiculous manner that tax duty bands apply to the whole value
over
a certain figure, rather than just the excess, seriously distorts the
market
around those price points.

A neighbour has a very nice well located right in front of the woods, 3 bed
house. It was fine with one kiddie then another comes. Being an accountant
he calculated it would be cheaper to extend on the back than go for a bigger
house because of stamp duty ect. They would also find it difficult to get a
house in such a good location too. The extension is to "!their" design too.
Apart from the building mess, it appears a win, win situation.

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly,

Hopefully he'll have the sense to introduce transitional bands so
that (say) you pay the same at £200K and £300K but there is no
sudden step change at £250K instead of the current 1%-3% jump so the
transitional rate would be 7% on the £200-300K band. The problem
with this is that the press would have a field day pointing out that
the stamp duty on a £240K house had gone up from £2,400 to £4,800
whilst ignoring the fact that houses that were priced at £249,999
could now be sold for £260K leaving the seller considerably better
off. And at £275K you'd pay £7,250 instead of the current £8,250.

But it would be easier just to charge everyone 5% g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:08:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

What's the betting that stamp durty will rise significantly, or that
the chancellor will introduce some new kind of tax, e.g. capital gains
tax on first properties?

A rationalization of stamp duty would seem in order, the current
system being highly inflationary wrt house prices: flat rate on all
purchases? Changes to capital gains tax that would hit quick-profit
property developers and serial-movers seem to be an excellent idea.

With the latest Relocation Relocation programme with Kirstie and Phil
extolling the virtues of selling up and affording TWO properties
elsewhere, surely the chancellor and his advisers must see home
ownership as a nice little earner - for him!

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

In article ,
Huge wrote:

Unlikely. He appears to be driven entirely by short-termism,
greed and spite, and the standard socialist motivation that
everything should belong to the State, to which everyone should
be beholden.

I agree. The job of local and central gummint these
days seems to be dedicated to squeezing more and more
money out of the proles..... either as a hidden under-
tax, or by a method that can be spun to look politically
acceptible (and if a pollie stands up on his hind legs
and utters the phrase "User Pays" one more time, I'll
bloody well throttle him.... the Users have already paid,
and paid, and paid.... all their working lives).

Note that there is no corresponding improvement in services.
The extra money is required to keep them all in the style
to which they have become accustomed, and to fund all those
index-linked pensions.

Rant over.

--
Tony Williams.

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.



Another bit of sense:-)
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Huge wrote:
I imagine the midnight oil is being burned to work out how to
confiscate the proceeds of house price inflation without being
booted so far out of office that he'll be standing for the job
of Mayor of Tblisi.

But arguably there is a problem here. When there were rumours of CGT
on houses the economics editor of 'The Business' wrote a piece about
how hundreds of thousands of homeowners would risk being left
destitute by such a tax. I wrote to him berating him for his Daily
Mail shock-horror style and pointing out that if your property
hadn't gained in value you wouldn't have any tax to pay, and if it
had you still kept most of the gain, and got the very reasoned reply
back that the real problem was that loads of people had taken out
further borrowings against the perceived equity in their properties
which they would not be able to repay if their gains were taxed.

Most commentators seem to agree that it is all this borrowing
against house price increases that has kept the economy buoyant, but
one cannot but help feel that at some point we will have to pay the
price. And of course all those who borrowed to the hilt rather than
taking advantage of low interest rates to clear their debts will be
demanding that the government does something whilst arguably it
should have acted while we were all having a good time - but who
wants to spoil a party with warnings about hangovers?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Christian McArdle wrote

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I disagree entirely. House price inflation is caused by having too few
houses for too many people.

Yes, but the main factor is availability of finance - prices would not go up if
buyers could not borrow so easily. Being able to borrow more funds at low
interest rates, as at present, allows people to make higher offers to get the
place they want. If the interest rate goes up, down will come the amount they
can borrow and down will come prices. This was the cause of the negative equity
problems in the early 90's.

But simply using interest rates to control house prices depends on all lenders
sticking to the rules about factoring salaries. Of course they don't, and
nobody polices them, with the result that house prices (and agents' commissions
along with them) are spiralling.

Peter

Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".


Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

--
Grunff

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2004 12:17:21 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Julian Fowler writes:
On 10 Feb 2004 11:43:53 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Julian Fowler writes:

[17 lines snipped]

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I mean, Ghod forbid that the Little People should become (gasp)
capitalists.

.... in the current, debased, interpretation of the word "capitalist".

Hardly. All I am talking about is the private ownership of capital.
Neither
debased nor current.

My understanding of "capitalism", as used in classical economics, is
that it is about the *use* of capital to support business and
industry: not the accrual of value in bricks and mortar.

Contrary to the belief of the (post) Thatcher generation, capitalism
is *not* about watching the value of your house grow while you scratch
your arse, nor is it about making quick, obscene profits

Profits are not and cannot be "obscene". Your bigotry is showing.

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at
immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by
workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not
obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the
rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as
our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not
obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can
convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its
never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on
at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or
in *people* for a slow but long term return.

Or a top company head has a golden parachute. the SKB head is better off
being totally incompetence, as he will make more money being paid off. What
****ed me off yesterday is that a prescription drug I got from the chemist
has they name on, so I/we pay for this incompetence and "greed".

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Spot on - and it's a very carefully engineered shift in perception,
which has taken several years to mature.

I have never read such crap!

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Just release lots of land in the country in order to build on, preferable
to
individual self builders, and prices will stop rising.

Another bit of sense:-)

I bombard you with sense constantly.

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.



--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what
the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

What devastation would that be?

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On 10 Feb 2004 12:17:21 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Julian Fowler writes:
On 10 Feb 2004 11:43:53 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Julian Fowler writes:

[17 lines snipped]

Home *ownership* shouldn't / need not attract taxation: speculative
property buying/selling should, given the overall benefits of taking
some of the heat out of the property market.

I mean, Ghod forbid that the Little People should become (gasp)
capitalists.

.... in the current, debased, interpretation of the word "capitalist".

Hardly. All I am talking about is the private ownership of capital.
Neither
debased nor current.

My understanding of "capitalism", as used in classical economics, is
that it is about the *use* of capital to support business and
industry: not the accrual of value in bricks and mortar.

Contrary to the belief of the (post) Thatcher generation, capitalism
is *not* about watching the value of your house grow while you scratch
your arse, nor is it about making quick, obscene profits

Profits are not and cannot be "obscene". Your bigotry is showing.

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at
immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by
workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not
obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the
rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as
our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not
obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can
convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its
never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on
at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or
in *people* for a slow but long term return.


In those cases it isn't the profit that is obscene, but instead the
corporate modus operandi. A profit of 80% is just that. The point of
contention should be how the company has conducted itself in order to
generate those profits.

Cheers
Clive

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:17:54 +0000, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

Presumably, then, you regard:

- the poll tax
- the Miners' strike
- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
- taking the country to war over a few sheep
- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:17:54 +0000, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what
the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

Presumably, then, you regard:

- the poll tax
- the Miners' strike
- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
- taking the country to war over a few sheep
- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

I honestly can't think of any good that came out of Thatcher. There was a
hell of a lot of bad though. Sad days, very sad days.

Forgive me if I fail to have any sympathy whatsoever for people who
get themselves into unsustainable debt through greed.

What about those who just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5 times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:

What about those who just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5 times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?

But that's a minority and you know it - most people who get into a bad
debt situation do so because they feel it necessary to live well beyond
their means. The prevalence of granite worktops is a symptom of this
disease which is currently afflicting our nation.

--
Grunff

Try reading your own posts on this subject
Regards
Capitol
IMM wrote in message ...
I have never read such crap!

Julian Fowler wrote in message Presumably, then, you regard:

- the poll tax
- the Miners' strike
- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
- taking the country to war over a few sheep
- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???
Yes!

Look at todays standard of living, this is due to Thatcher. It has been
fouled up by Major/Clarke and now by Bliar/Brown. We are living in the
Scottish communist state and it is getting worse. I knew Major was
incompetent, but he was an amateur compared to this lot!
Regards
Capitol

Huge wrote in message ...
It's obscene that Gordon Brown thinks he can run my life better than I
can.

Agreed! and capital flows to where the best profits can be generated. That
is certainly not in the UK! The idea that you can manipulate a production
market on anything but a short term basis is a fallacy.Why we still produce
steel is beyond my understanding, apart from a defence requirement. Brown's
energy taxes will soon remove that part of the economy and much else. The
legacy of the Brown years will be vastly increased taxation, lost productive
jobs and IOM wild inflation. The present economy to my mind resembles a sand
castle, which will be swept away when the tide comes in. The unemployment
levels in Scotland and Wales are already looking pretty sick as a result of
his policies. Why do you think that the RMT in Scotland want to join the
Scottish Socialist party?

Regards
Capitol

Christian McArdle wrote in message 40291a6f$0$10342What about those who
just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5 times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?


No, stupidity. History shows us that house prices are cyclic and it is
necessary to buy at the right point in the economic cycle. Now is not the
time to buy. I'd wait 2 years at the moment, for the economy to stabilise
before moving. IMO the chances of major capital losses are too great at the
moment with a Socialist Taxation Chancellor.

Regards
Capitol

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:17:54 +0000, "Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)"
wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:

Oh, yes. There's a perception problem in this country caused by a
general move to the left. New Labour are still a socialist organisation
- they are utterly convinced they can run your life better than you
can, and in particular that they can spend your money better than you
can. And anyone who dares suggest otherwise is immediately castigated
as an "extreme right winger" or "Thatcherite".

Which is a badge some of us would wear with pride, bearing in mind what
the
pseudo-commies get up to. I'm old enough to remember the last time this
shower got in and the utter devastation they caused.

Presumably, then, you regard:


And as a counter to that:

- the poll tax
50+ stealth tax rises, including removal of tax credits on dividend payments
to pension funds (worth £5billion)

- the Miners' strike
the contempt for democratic processes and institutions

- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
The police being used as a revenue generation organisation

- taking the country to war over a few sheep
taking the country to war over non-existant WMDs

- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
wilful destruction of service and knowledge industries by positive
encouragment to outsource

- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
see above. For example here in S. Yorks there were a lot of call centre jobs
created, which gave some semblance of a return to employment after the
devastation of the miner's strike. These jobs are now being outsourced
overseas with the willing conivance of the govt.

- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices
squandering vast sums on public sector inefficiencies


as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???
as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Cheers
Clive

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Try reading your own posts on this subject

I have. They are brilliant.

Regards
Capitol
IMM wrote in message ...
I have never read such crap!

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Julian Fowler wrote in message Presumably, then, you regard:

- the poll tax
- the Miners' strike
- the police being used as the paramilitary wing of a political party
- taking the country to war over a few sheep
- the wilful destruction of manufacturing industry
- the wilful destruction of the communities supported by manufacturing
industry
- selling off national assets at bargain basement prices

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???
Yes!

Look at todays standard of living, this is due to Thatcher.

Can't go any longer.. This is need professional attention.

snip garbage

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver Cromwell.
The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high
Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Are bloody blind?

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

Forgive me if I fail to have any sympathy whatsoever for people who
get themselves into unsustainable debt through greed.

What about those who just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5 times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?

He thinks they should be back in cardboard city. In fact, the next Tory
party manifesto will a programme to re-introduce these.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Christian McArdle wrote:

What about those who just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5
times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?

But that's a minority and you know it - most people who get into a bad
debt situation do so because they feel it necessary to live well beyond
their means.

What ********. 80& of consumer debt is mortgages. Shock! Horror!

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Christian McArdle wrote in message 40291a6f$0$10342What about those who
just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5 times
their salary to do so? Is that greed?


No, stupidity. History shows us that house prices are cyclic

They are? When do drop right off to 10/6d then?

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote in message ...
It's obscene that Gordon Brown thinks he can run my life better than I
can.

Agreed!

More ********. Brown is not running anyone's life except his own. Is there
a new moon about?

IMM wrote:

What ********. 80& of consumer debt is mortgages. Shock! Horror!

You just don't get it, do you? When someone spends £10k doing up their
kitchen in their £120k house, where do you think that money ultimately
comes from?? That's right - mortgages!

--
Grunff

Christian McArdle wrote:
Forgive me if I fail to have any sympathy whatsoever for people who
get themselves into unsustainable debt through greed.

What about those who just want to buy a tiny flat and have to pay 5
times their salary to do so? Is that greed?

Exactly - basic 3 bed semi in Guildford, Surrey outside of high crime
Council Estate = £220k (inside said estate about £190k). We sold our 2 bed
maisonette (in high crime Council Estate) for £135k a year ago. Have now
seen the downstairs 1 bed maisonette going for £145k.

On my salary alone we had to borrow 6.8x income (would have been 8x if we
hadn't made some money on our flat). On joint income, its more like 4x
joint income. Though being married to a nurse doesn't bring in bucketloads
of cash, nor does having an unexpected baby arrive!

Whilst we could have rented - the rent on a similar place was more than the
mortgage.

So I take issue that it is greed. We moved because we were unhappy with
neighbours kicking their doors in, bashing up their wives and kids riding
motorbikes around. We knew we wanted a family at some point in the not too
distant future and that we'd outgrown the 2 bed flat - so 3 beds was the
most sensible option. We wanted to save on fees so didn't want a stop-gap
move (ie. pay estate agent fees, solicitor fees and stamp duty) so moved to
a 3 bed place. As it turned out we bought pretty much the cheapest 3 bed
semi we could (with horrible stone cladding and misted/rotten aluminium
double glazing) for £204k a year ago.

David

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 19:06:41 GMT, "Clive Summerfield"
wrote:

50+ stealth tax rises, including removal of tax credits on dividend payments
to pension funds (worth £5billion)

That's £5bn PER YEAR since Labour took office!

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver
Cromwell.

I know it is difficult, but try not to confuse radical with good. I would
hardly compare Blair's rampant croneyism and disregard for democratic
processes with Cromwell's confirmation of the primacy of the commons. And it
ranks low when compared to the Whigish Glorious Revolution.

Your placing of Blair alongside Cromwell is a perfect illustration of your
blinkered and misplaced faith in the fool.

The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high

The strength of the pound is very much a double-edged sword. Especially with
a PM so dogmatically commited to joining the EMU. Oh, and we have an
increasing trade deficit, business investment down 1.6% year on year.

Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Well, unemployment is low, comparable with countries such as Austria and
Ireland. What is interesting is to look at the trend in unemployment figures
over the last decade, which have pretty much fallen consistently from a high
of 10.5% in 1993 to 7.2% in 1997 and 5.0% in 2003. So Labour had inherited
an improving economic climate anway, although credit should be due for them
not screwing it up.


Are bloody blind?



I guess you are.

Cheers
Clive

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:05:17 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

Contrary to the belief of the (post) Thatcher generation, capitalism
is *not* about watching the value of your house grow while you scratch
your arse, nor is it about making quick, obscene profits by buying and
selling shares, currencies, or commodities on the London markets.

Eh? What *is* it about, then?

MM

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote in message ...
It's obscene that Gordon Brown thinks he can run my life better than I
can.

Agreed!

More ********. Brown is not running anyone's life except his own. Is
there
a new moon about?



There speaks a man who obviously doesn't run a business.

Cheers
Clive

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:34:29 +0000, Julian Fowler
wrote:

They can: is it not obscene that "designer" clothes are sold at
immense profit to their designers/marketers while they are made by
workers in third world countries for poverty-level wages? Is it not
obscene that city traders can take 6- or 7- figure bonuses while the
rest of us are told that "the value of shares can go up or down" as
our pensions, endowments, and savings take yet another hit? Is it not
obscene that capital is often available only to businesses that can
convince the bankers controlling the capital (controlling, note, its
never *their* money) that the company to be invested in can be sold on
at a profit in 36 months -- sod ideas like investing in a *product* or
in *people* for a slow but long term return.

So, if another carpetbagger succeeds next time in demutualising
Standard Life or Nationwide and your shares or policies suddenly paid
you a huge bonus out of the blue, you'd say, "No, thanks! Don't need
it!"

MM

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

as *positive* aspects of the Thatcher years???

None whatsoever.

as *positive* aspects of the Blair years???

Much needed constitutional change - the most radical since Oliver
Cromwell.

I know it is difficult, but try not to
confuse radical with good.

Ridding the nation of hereditary Lords is the most radical political step
since Cromwell.

snip babble

The soundest eco,money in the world. The pound is almighty high

The strength of the pound is very much a double-edged sword. Especially
with
a PM so dogmatically commited to joining the EMU. Oh, and we have an
increasing trade deficit, business investment down 1.6% year on year.

The economy and pound don't stay that way for 7 years because of luck.

Unemployment is very low, etc, etc.

Well, unemployment is low,

Thank you.

Are bloody blind?

snip inane babble