Jump to content

economic situation is dire


Recommended Posts

never mind the 9 billion in Gold what about the 100 billion per year we loose each year through tax evasion....?

What complete and utter bollocks. £100m - it's a fraction of that.

:):)

Reduced it by a factor of 1,000, just with the stroke of a keyboard. That's accountants for you.

You have no idea what we lose through taxdodging. Or do you? And if so, how?

Do you have a view about the loss to the economy from tax fraud?

Come on, give an original viewpoint for once.

Says Mr Cut and Paste from UK Uncut.

Anyway, the thing about tax evasion is that it's illegal activity, so it's difficult to put a precise figure on as people don't tend to fill in a box on their tax return marked "tax evasion" and then put a figure of £2.5m. However, I think that something between £10bn and £15bn pa is thought to be a reasonably reliable estimate of how much the taxman has lost to tax evasion for the last few years.

So, about 15 times the level of "benefit fraud", then?

(£15bn is the lower estimate; Tax Research UK estimate £25bn. Yes, I know Mr Risso hates them, but that doesn't make them bad people.)

But well done on giving an opinion. It's good to hear one from you.

By the way, my quotes are all attributed, I think, and aren't generally from UK Uncut. I do like to use a range of sources including the Torygraph, FT, and Mail, so I hope you won't fall into the lazy and stupid trap of stereotyping or writing off my comments based on who I last quoted. You wouldn't do something as naive and pathetic as that, would you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no, Im not making the finance sector to be a victim, i just wonder why you always put the blame there rather than those who spent more and more money they couldnt afford to "keep up with the Jones"? The whole debt culture is built out of wanting to have what others have because they feel they deserve it and it doesnt seem to matter if they are on benefits or in a high paid business job, they feel they should have the same...

Should you blame the addict, or the pusher?

Most people would criticise the addict for their weakness, but criticise more strongly the pusher for exploiting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear lot of the top earners in the country have got another pay rise at an average of 49%

Nice work Dave...!

Its a good thing we are all in it together otherwise it would seem to be a tad unfair.

Tbh (and I'm no defender of Mr Cameron), it's hardly his fault.

His suggestion (if it is indeed what he said) that increasing the numbers of women in boardrooms ought to act as a curb on the pay levels of directors may not have been the brightest thing to say, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no, Im not making the finance sector to be a victim, i just wonder why you always put the blame there rather than those who spent more and more money they couldnt afford to "keep up with the Jones"? The whole debt culture is built out of wanting to have what others have because they feel they deserve it and it doesnt seem to matter if they are on benefits or in a high paid business job, they feel they should have the same...

Should you blame the addict, or the pusher?

Most people would criticise the addict for their weakness, but criticise more strongly the pusher for exploiting it.

My favourite theme!

It is up to government to protect the unsuspecting population from exploitation. Gordon Brown and his cronies happily allowed the banks to dole out 120% mortgages, and encourage people to "release the equity" that is in their homes to buy fancy cars, exotic holidays or, the killer, to clear their credit card debt. This all contributed to the 'boom' consumer economy that underpinned the government at the time's claims of success. Brown chose then to leave the blame with the banks for the crisis, rather than acknowledge his crime against generations of this country's people.

The banks, having nowhere to go with the private consumer, are now on a heavy campaign to sell unsuspecting and often inexperienced business people the opportunity to factor their sales invoices. Setting aside whether businesses can afford to factor in the first place, this potentially places supplier's cash in the hands of a large number of inadequate business people anything between 30 and 90 days before they need to pay for it. The inevitable consequence of this is that several more companies will fail, putting companies in their supply chain at further risk.

I very much doubt whether the present government would see anything wrong in this, but the manner in which companies manage their purchase ledger in this country bears little resemblance to our northern European neighbours, but has striking similarities with the Greek way of conducting business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks, having nowhere to go with the private consumer, are now on a heavy campaign to sell unsuspecting and often inexperienced business people the opportunity to factor their sales invoices.

Who, generally, takes on the risks of bad debt in these circumstances?

Re: the purch ledger management, are you talking about paying invoices as late as possible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks, having nowhere to go with the private consumer, are now on a heavy campaign to sell unsuspecting and often inexperienced business people the opportunity to factor their sales invoices.

Who, generally, takes on the risks of bad debt in these circumstances?

Re: the purch ledger management, are you talking about paying invoices as late as possible?

PL management-yes.

The banks 'risk' is factored into their pricing, as with all commercial credit. Their invitation to clients to 'improve their cash flow' in this way will lead to a large percentage defaulting on their suppliers. With margins being ever cut in the present climate, it is hard to see how any sound business could afford to use factoring. But then if their business isn't too sound.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

PL management-yes.

Right. I agree with you (as I'm assuming you are of the opinion that this is a bad thing).

The banks 'risk' is factored into their pricing, as with all commercial credit. Their invitation to clients to 'improve their cash flow' in this way will lead to a large percentage defaulting on their suppliers. With margins being ever cut in the present climate, it is hard to see how any sound business could afford to use factoring. But then if their business isn't too sound.........

Trying to clarify (apologies for being slow today): are you saying that the discount on the sales revenue that businesses will take by selling on their debt will lead to them in turn defaulting on their own suppliers?

So, in effect, it becomes a vicious cycle that because businesses try to pay as late as possible, cash flow problems spread and more businesses will have to go in for factoring thus creating more difficulty with regard to timely payment of suppliers and more problems down the line?

If the risk of the bad debt is with the bank doing the factoring (rather than just being a provider of SL/CC functions) who will succumb first - the banks or the businesses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks, having nowhere to go with the private consumer, are now on a heavy campaign to sell unsuspecting and often inexperienced business people the opportunity to factor their sales invoices.

Who, generally, takes on the risks of bad debt in these circumstances?

Re: the purch ledger management, are you talking about paying invoices as late as possible?

There are two type of factoring; with recourse and without. If the factoring company takes on the entire risk of the debt, they of course charge a lot more for the service than if they just act as a collector and short term loan provider. Factoring is shit though, I wouldn't touch anything to do with it with a barge pole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear lot of the top earners in the country have got another pay rise at an average of 49%

Nice work Dave...!

Its a good thing we are all in it together otherwise it would seem to be a tad unfair.

Tbh (and I'm no defender of Mr Cameron), it's hardly his fault.

His suggestion (if it is indeed what he said) that increasing the numbers of women in boardrooms ought to act as a curb on the pay levels of directors may not have been the brightest thing to say, however.

Its not his fault - Do you really think that he is against this, he has hardly come out and said that this is outrageous has he.

Its because all of the people who fund and make donations to his party are the people this pay rise applies to.

Dont be fooled by the smoke screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that if you loose your job and you rent privately your rent gets paid for.

However if you have a mortgage then it does not get paid for...?

How is this.

That's not strictly true, it depends what kind of mortgage you have. The cost of any interest portion of your payment is paid, just not repayment on the capital. I think the reasoning behind this is pretty clear, it's not the responsibility of the government to add to net worth or wealth of an individual because they lost their job. Similarly if I had a standing order of 500 quid a month into a savings account, the government wouldn't pick up the bill if I lost my job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PL management-yes.

Right. I agree with you (as I'm assuming you are of the opinion that this is a bad thing).

The banks 'risk' is factored into their pricing, as with all commercial credit. Their invitation to clients to 'improve their cash flow' in this way will lead to a large percentage defaulting on their suppliers. With margins being ever cut in the present climate, it is hard to see how any sound business could afford to use factoring. But then if their business isn't too sound.........

Trying to clarify (apologies for being slow today): are you saying that the discount on the sales revenue that businesses will take by selling on their debt will lead to them in turn defaulting on their own suppliers?

So, in effect, it becomes a vicious cycle that because businesses try to pay as late as possible, cash flow problems spread and more businesses will have to go in for factoring thus creating more difficulty with regard to timely payment of suppliers and more problems down the line?

If the risk of the bad debt is with the bank doing the factoring (rather than just being a provider of SL/CC functions) who will succumb first - the banks or the businesses?

Sorry for the tardiness in responding.

My main concern is that an awful lot of business people, however good they are at what they make/create/sell, are not particularly good at financial management.

If they need to pay cash for something, they do it successfully. The moment that they are extended some credit then, given an inch, they will try to take a mile.

If they have 30-90 days from a supplier, they may be giving 30 days to their customer. If then a bank comes in with the offer to factor and they take it up, they will not then pay their suppliers quicker, they will use the money for something else. This could be an investment in their business by improving in certain areas, or they might just choose to buy a Ferrari!

In the meantime, the supplier from whom they are taking 30 to 90 days credit is oblivious to the fact that they are getting their money quicker, and that said suppliers risk has therefore increased.

And yes, we agree on the PL thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK economy grew by 0.5% in the three months to the end of September - slightly above expectations.

Greece going for a referendum on the bailout deal .. you couldn't make it up really could you ..

and then the economic expert bloke on radio today said forget about Greece Italy is in far far more trouble

happy days ahead it would seem

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â