BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 05:00 AM

Perhaps, customers are entitled to choice, I want the choice.why should i buy everything on line, what about the people who cannot afford or do not have computers
keep up to date with info bonz, you make statements criticising rail workers for going on strike, but do not appear to be informed about the reasons for striking[ which is not just about pay
East Croydon, might have had six windows that does not mean the private rail companies want to maintain them, and keep them all
you seem uninformed about the rail strike Bonzo, but why should i be surprised at that?I want security on trains a guard and a driver
I want to travel in security and safety on the platforms and on the trains
"Network Rail will start the formal process to lay off up to 1,800 staff at the end of the month, it has told the RMt" quote guardian
I do not think it a good idea that a private company, should lay off 1800 staff, because the state will then have to pay unemployment money, a much better idea is to renationalise the railways

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 05:06 AM

"a much better idea is to renationalise the railways"

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 08:56 AM

The railways are peactically nationalised already Bonzo. The government takes the ticket revenue and then pays the train companies to run the trains, badly in some cases. Some of those train companies then pass on some of that revenue to their shareholders. Does not mske a lot of sense however you look at it.

Third party companies selling tickets just means less revenue for the government or the taxpayer. Again, it does not make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 09:18 AM

Shareholders invest and expect a return in the form of dividends.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 10:13 AM

Shareholders - investors - skimming the profit (aka working capital) from an otherwise viable business.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 10:17 AM

As I said, Shareholders invest and expect a return in the form of dividends, quite normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 10:45 AM

Paying dividends comes after ensuring the business has enough capital to run efficiently. Remember shares can go down as well as up.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 11:24 AM

It used to be illegal in the US for companies to do the "share buyback" that is so popular now. It needs to be illegal again.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 12:04 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 01:01 PM

why not

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 01:42 PM

Because it means the management is not investing the proceeds in the employees and the operation, they're buying stocks back to increase their own compensation. This from the Communication Workers of America:

Stock buybacks are when companies buy back their own stock from shareholders on the open market rather than investing in workers or equipment. When a share of stock is bought back, the company reduces the number of shares left in the market, which raises the price of remaining shares. Company executives have every incentive to buy back stocks, since most of their compensation derives from stock and a higher stock price makes them personally richer.

It hasn’t always been this way. Until 1982, buybacks were considered a form of market manipulation, but a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruling that year gave companies free reign to buy back stocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 01:53 PM

Which in the UK has to be properly disclosed in the accounts.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 03:09 PM

SRS: Stock buybacks are when companies buy back their own stock from shareholders on the open market rather than investing in workers or equipment. When a share of stock is bought back, the company reduces the number of shares left in the market, which raises the price of remaining shares. Company executives have every incentive to buy back stocks, since most of their compensation derives from stock and a higher stock price makes them personally richer.

Consider the source. Communication workers of America appears to be a trade union (In effect, if not in name).
Their logic however fails in making the assumption that When a share of stock is bought back, the company reduces the number of shares left in the market, which raises the price of remaining shares.
The logical fallacy here is that the value of the company does not remain the same (to be allocated between all shareholders). The money used to buy-back the shares (on the open market) will only buy those shares if there is no market for them at a higher price. But the cost of those shares bought back reduces the company's assets by the value of those shares. This should not cause a re-evaluation of the remaining shares unless the company has spotted that the shares are undervalued, and is buying for this reason.

If anything company buy-backs show that the company has confidence in its own future, unlike when directors start selling their personal holdings when they can see the company is in difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Dec 22 - 03:15 PM

I chose them because of the source, Nigel. They are directly impacted by the bad behavior of their company management. They understand why stock buybacks are immoral and should be illegal.

Your rendering of the situation is not only wrong, it's crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 04:31 AM

The most recent share buyback announced by BP (BP) of $3.5bn has resulted in the FTSE100 (UK100) members reaching the largest ever aggregate annual cash pay-out in history. In 2022, the members are forecasted to pay out £46.9bn in share buybacks, almost double that seen last year. The top three sectors were energy, financial and consumer staples. BP (BP) and Shell (RDS) were the top two companies, paying out more than the seven runner ups combined.

Excellent news for shareholders, and the treasury also benefits from any Capital Gains Tax payable.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 05:14 AM

And he calls the unions greedy...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 11:19 AM

and the treasury also benefits from any Capital Gains Tax payable.quote hilarous most of them employ accountants to show them how to avoid paying tax

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 11:28 AM

useless useless lefty idiots.

The government has delayed the introduction of MTD for income tax for landlords and self employed by two years until 2026!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 12:01 PM

Can you tell us what you think without using all of the name calling and slurs, Bonzo? Asking for a friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 02:10 PM

Government ministers have been wheeled out today to tell us on the radio and telly that they won't discuss pay for nurses and ambulance drivers, both of whom are striking on various days, and that the paltry pay offers on the table (about a quarter of inflation, the numbers attached to which are a blatant lie in any case), made by "independent" pay review bodies (independent my arse - they have to abide by the remit of the government) are "fair and reasonable." All that after twelve years of no pay rises or hardly any pay rises.

It's perfectly clear that the Sunak government wants people to die so that we'll come to hate the NHS. It won't work, and what's even more galling is that he's by far the richest prime minister we've ever had, with a non-dom wife who has about £800 million of unearned wealth, thanks to her dad. These people haven't got a bloody clue about ordinary people's struggles. Not a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 04:01 PM

Very true, they do not appear to understand the consumer society either, how can people buy goods and boost the economy if they do not have sufficient money to do so, it is not even efficient capitalism,

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 07:46 PM

Do note that no Tory minister is allowed to say "pay review bodies." They have all been briefed to say "independent pay review bodies." The lie of the century. Why, one such Tory apparatchik had to correct himself this morning on the Today programme when he accidentally omitted the word "independent."

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Dec 22 - 11:46 PM

A real-world, personal friend of mine (a damn fine musician, as it happens) wrote the following elsewhere recently. I think he hits the nail fair and square on the head…

”Getting really fed up with the Gov line that the Pay Review Body is INDEPENDENT. It is not. It works within constraints set by the Gov. It’s Terms of Reference are clear:

“In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:

* the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified staff;

* regional/local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention

* THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT as set out in the Government’s Departmental Expenditure Limits;

*the Government’s inflation target;”

In other words, the Pay Review Body can only recommend what the Gov says it can afford. And - WHY IS THE BBC NOT REPORTING THIS?”

What he doesn’t mention, but is worth bearing very much in mind, is that the members of the ‘Independent’ Pay Review Body are appointed by the government - not much chance of ‘independence’ there!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 03:46 AM

yes indeed, and of course on examination the BBC is not independent either

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 05:37 AM

The Beeb isn't so much not-independent as just plain scared: they know which side their licence fee is buttered on. Back in the Long Ago when Labour was in power, istr the Beeb getting dumped on for being overly left-leaning .... but methinks that was by the right-wing press. Much depends on who does the examining.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 09:45 AM

Who are the BBC board members?
Image result for bbc board of governors 2022
Members

    Richard SharpChairman.
    Tim DavieDirector-General.
    Shumeet BanerjiNon-executive Director.
    Damon BuffiniDeputy Chair; Chair, BBC Commercial Board.
    Elan Closs StephensNon-executive director; Member for Wales.
    Shirley GarroodNon-executive Director.
    Robbie GibbNon-executive director; Member for England.Who are the top people at the BBC?
Executive Committee

    Tim DavieDirector-General.
    Kerris BrightChief Customer Officer.
    Tom FussellCEO, BBC Studios.
    Charlotte MooreChief Content Officer.
    Gautam RangarajanGroup Director of Strategy and Performance.
    Rhodri Talfan DaviesDirector, Nations.
    Leigh TavazivaChief Operating Officer.
Might i suggest you check out their political back grounds

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 12:21 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWnfW_WSons
you may or may not agree , but aboveis an argument as to why the bbc is not impartial

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 04:40 PM

Further horrors have emerged in Croydon Council’s finances as the true picture of Labour’s toxic legacy became clear in a recent “opening the books” exercise.

In addition to doubling the Council’s debt to a staggering £1.6 billion - which costs around £50 million a year to service - it has now emerged that:

Labour overestimated parking income by £10 million per year, leaving an ongoing black hole in the finances
Labour sold £73 million of council property and quickly spent the money. However, they got the accounting wrong and now £9 million must be repaid
Labour claimed that the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls would come at zero cost to the taxpayer. However, it was so badly managed that the project has cost the taxpayer £70 million – and the roof still leaks
Substantial losses have now been crystallised in Labour’s Brick by Brick developer, into which they pumped £200 million of our money
Labour made numerous accounting and spending errors over time that have now come to light and need to be paid for

As a result of these historic issues, the Council has been forced to issue a Section 114 Notice, meaning that it will be impossible to set a balanced budget next year.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 21 Dec 22 - 06:03 PM

I did intend to say something about generals vs poor bloody infantry at the BBC, but the conversation appears to have moved on, so I'll leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 03:26 AM

Bonzo, a drop in the ocean compared to Conservative controlled Thurrock50 billion in debt.
But the real point is that what ever the party in control, both councils have been very irresponsible

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 04:15 AM

Rattling on repeatedly about Croydon in a UK politics thread may not be completely off-topic, but surely it's a bit parish-pump when set alongside the fact that your party managed to piss £30 billon of our money up the wall in a few short days...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 04:47 AM

Date: 16 Dec 22 - 01:09 PM

Thurrock has debts of 50 million

---- " ----

Date: 22 Dec 22 - 03:26 AM

Bonzo, a drop in the ocean compared to Conservative controlled Thurrock50 billion in debt.


The actual debt lies in between, at just under 500 million, which is outrageous but less than third of Croyden's.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Rain Dog
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 05:19 AM

To be fair to Bonzo, (though not sure why I should be fair), Croydon has been leading the way. Other councils have followed and I am sure some more will follow in the next few months.

Thurrock have debts of £ 1.5 billion, largely borrowed from the government and other councils. Servicing that debt is costing a lot of money, which has resulted in a deficit of £ 500 million this year.

From The Guardian this week.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/19/thurrock-latest-council-declare-effective-bankruptcy

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 05:24 AM

Government intervention into Thurrock Council.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 05:35 AM

There are other councils of all political persuasions struggling to make ends meet and many will fail. The underlying cause is the mismanagement of the economy by the bunch of lying, cheating and corrupt rogues currently in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: peteglasgow
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 08:15 AM

thurrock always brings me a smile. i watched Bath City v Thurrock some years ago. maybe 20 thurrock fans sang - 'it's Th-U-U-rock! Th-U-rock FC - are by far the greatest team the world has ever seen!' Yes, I did meet Ken on the terrace, I wanted to compliment him on the scene in Land and Freedom where the Spanish peasant farmers are discussing whether to collectivise their land. Croydon - on the other hand - has no fond memories for me at all

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 12:45 PM

An individual has won a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) appeal against a demand from HMRC over disputed stamp duty land tax (SDLT) payments

The appellant, Gary Withers, appealed against a closure noticed issued by HMRC, which increased the SDLT due from £114,500 to £212,500.

The notice was issued to Withers over an enquiry into his SDLT return for the acquisition on 31 July 2019 of a house and land located at the property known as Lake Farm, in Kent.

The case concerned whether a home with adjoining grazing and woodland could attract commercial rates of SDLT tax instead of residential rates.

HMRC allowed the appellant’s claim for multiple dwellings relief (MDR) but concluded that the acquisition was of ‘wholly residential property’ and calculated the increased amount of SDLT under s55 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003).

FA 2003 establishes that SDLT tax is chargeable when the relevant land ‘consists entirely’ of residential property.

In respect of the land, HMRC contended that it was entirely appropriate for such a large rural property to include ‘extensive gardens or grounds’ and was eligible as residential property for SDLT purposes.

The appellant argued that the property included non-residential property and, therefore, should have been classed as mixed-use.

Lake Farm was a barn conversion and was advertised as sitting in landscaped gardens. The fields and woodlands were mentioned separately.

Two months before completion, the appellant had signed an agreement with a farmer which gave him permission to graze sheep on 20 acres and to cut hay on a further five acres. This agreement lasted for one year, in return for £800.

The same farmer had grazed sheep at the property on an informal basis continuously for many years. In addition, another part of the property was used as part of a Woodland Trust scheme, a conservation charity.

On 31 July 2019, Withers completed the transaction purchasing the property for £2.5m. On the same date, HMRC received an SDLT return from the appellant.

The property was classified as ‘mixed-use’ on the basis that its land was used for agricultural purposes and the amount of tax self-assessed was £114,500.

On 20 January 2021, HMRC wrote to the appellant citing that the acquisition of the property should have been classed as residential due to the fact that the appellant owned additional properties at the time of its purchase.

In response, the appellant’s agent stated that he owned their previous main residence upon purchasing the property but had sold this in October 2020. They argued that it was pointless for him to pay higher rates on additional dwellings (HRAD).

On 14 April 2021, HMRC issued the closure notice under s10 FA 2003 increasing the SDLT due to £212,500, a difference of £98,000 to the amount self-assessed.

The tax authority stated that as the appellant owned multiple dwellings at the date of the purchase, HRAD was applicable.

Withers argued that the land surrounding Lake Farm had been used for a separate purpose and in a commercial sense, as it had been grazed by a farmer continuously for 20 years.

He also stated that many in the farming community struggled to make a living and that it would be ‘irresponsible’ to charge high rent to a farmer for revenue which would be immaterial to his own income.

Judge Ruhven Gemmell WS said: ‘In respect of HMRC’s submission relating to the ‘use of land’ the tribunal does not accept their submission that it is sufficient that the adjacent land is available to Withers to use as he wishes. The grazing agreement does contain restrictions on his use of the land as set out in his submissions.

‘The tribunal, following a balanced assessment of all the facts, considers that the land surrounding Lake Farm to the extent that it is occupied for grazing and by the Woodland Trust does not constitute gardens or grounds, and therefore, should not be treated as residential property for the purposes of SDLT.’

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Sean Randall, partner at Blick Rothenberg, said: ‘For years taxpayers have argued that where they have a property in the country that has grazing and woodland that any SDLT should be levied on a commercial basis instead of a residential basis.

‘This has led to litigation and HMRC had, until this case, an unblemished record in challenging ‘mixed-use’ appeals. This is the first case where the evidence of separate non-residential use has been sufficient.

‘It is also a good example of the need to consider all the circumstance and to be careful of relying on HMRC’s guidance.’

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 01:37 PM

Gosh, Bonzo, I'd bet that you could write one of those books that once you put it down you can't pick it up again...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 01:51 PM

Lol :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 22 - 04:36 PM

Bonzo reminds me Stylistically of Patrick o Brian.
Bonzo is of course creating a Red Herring.or should it be a deep blue Herring

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 03:41 AM

I must be a bit weird because I found the story quite interesting. Particularly the fact that it it the first such case that HMRC has lost. What bonzo has failed to tell us though is that it is not his own work. It looks like a cut and paste from that thrilling publication "Accountancy Daily" :-)

Bad form to pinch someone else's work and not credit them bonzo old chap. Mind you, it is typically Tory...

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 03:52 AM

I'm sorry, I didn't "fail" to do anything.

It came from Croner i, who provide daily tax updates. I'm always glad to read about cases lost by HMRC, and tax saved by a taxpayer!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 05:04 AM

You did bonzo. You failed to credit the source. I know your hero Bozzer tries to gaslight everyone but there is really no need to emulate him

But, yes, in cases of genuine overtaxing it is good to see HMRC proved wrong. It is a pity that they don't put their efforts into closing the loopholes that allow the mega corporations to avoid paying what they should

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 05:11 AM

Tax legislation is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 05:14 AM

Then it needs changing. Nothing is written on tablets of stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 07:11 AM

We will miss the old Queen's speech, but look forward to the King's speech!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 07:18 AM

"Tax legislation is what it is."

We just need the tax enforcement to go with it. Not much point in the Tories raising taxes if they cannot be bothered to collect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 07:32 AM

"We just need the tax enforcement to go with it. Not much point in the Tories raising taxes if they cannot be bothered to collect them."

That's what HMRC is for, in case you didn't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 07:52 AM

HMRC work to rules set by the government so it is the government that need to ensure that the rules are fit for purpose. Part of the EU shake up of taxation rules mooted before 2016 was to close the tax loopholes that resulted in the mega rich being able to stash their earnings where HMRC could not get at them. If you have any doubt as to that is why those in power conned people into voting to leave the EU then you need to work on your comprehension skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit & other UK political topics - 2
From: Rain Dog
Date: 23 Dec 22 - 08:22 AM

'That's what HMRC is for, in case you didn't know.'

I did know that Bonzo.

It is the government who decide on the resources available to HMRC, in case you didn't know.