35bn tax deficit

[Phil xxkr]

29 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I didn't say the 42% number isn't real Phil, just that it doesn't mean that 42% are a burden, which was the claim.

£12.5k is not below minimum wage for a part time worker, so I'm not sure what you mean about low earners paying no other taxes as, regardless of income, they pay vat and duties on many/most things they buy. Not everyone claims benefits, or all that they're allowed to. However yes, welfare expenditure is a burden on the economy, but no more so than healthcare, policing, defence, infrastructure etc.

The fact is that we have chosen a society that collects taxes to provide for all these things, and the basic principles are unlikely to be changed by any government. For the most part it's a good thing, but the mechanics of the system are such that people will find ways to exploit it for their own benefit. At the bottom end that means some people might claim benefits unfairly, and at the top end people and businesses may avoid paying taxes unfairly. Both may be acting legally, but both are an unwelcome burden. Mostly though, rich or poor, people try to play the hand they've been dealt fairly.

My main point being that the poorest members of society aren't the villains here, as was being implied, any more than corporations are, as others have implied. The system is flawed, but clearly not enough for governments to do anything about it. In fact it's worth noting that welfare expenditure is a deliberate part of the economic system we operate, which requires a certain amount of unemployment in order to function efficiently.

 

Apologies Bill, I clearly took your words "That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst" out of some form of context. Part-time workers are an interesting category as I note the push to further burden companies with giving them equal benefits as full-time ones, fine if you are in the Public sector. The point that I poorly articulated about low earners was this, the benefits system allows you to to claim a myriad of "free" money. This money was originally tax payers money taken from them via the tax system. So if a recipient say pays VAT on a new kettle they are not losing money at all as it was given for free in the first place but the original benefactor is the only one to truly lose out. And I would further venture apart from alcohol and tobacco it's hard to see where low earners contribute tax, 

[Bluemarlin]

44 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Apologies Bill, I clearly took your words "That would be an assumption at best, and a wildly inaccurate one at worst" out of some form of context. Part-time workers are an interesting category as I note the push to further burden companies with giving them equal benefits as full-time ones, fine if you are in the Public sector. The point that I poorly articulated about low earners was this, the benefits system allows you to to claim a myriad of "free" money. This money was originally tax payers money taken from them via the tax system. So if a recipient say pays VAT on a new kettle they are not losing money at all as it was given for free in the first place but the original benefactor is the only one to truly lose out. And I would further venture apart from alcohol and tobacco it's hard to see where low earners contribute tax, 

No worries Phil.

Low earners buy food, clothing, petrol etc. That said, I'm not disgreeing with much of that, and am only curious as to why you think the problem is only at one end of the spectrum.

There are two sides to most things; take equal benefits for part time workers as an example. You describe this as a burden to companies, but equally a lack of it can be seen as a burden to part timers, as well as an incentive to reduce the number of full time workers to avoid providing full time benefits. It may also disincentivise people from taking such work, thus pushing them towards state benefits.

Tax payers money is also used to give businesses grants, bail out banks, and subsidise failing businesses. Some of this isn't fair, or money well spent, either.

When people suggest that big businesses should pay a greater share of the tax burden, it's claimed that it might disincentivise them from growth and employing people. That may be true, but the fact that some people choose to claim benefits over working might be because they're disincentivised by the pay and conditions on offer. It therefore seems somewhat one sided to feel that those with the money and power should be provided with carrots in order to contribute fairly, whilst those without should be given the stick.

As I said previously, some level of welfare is necessary in a functioning economy. If it becomes excessive then that represents a failure of the market to either provide or incentivise sufficient employment.

 

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Tax payers money is also used to give businesses grants, bail out banks, and subsidise failing businesses. Some of this isn't fair, or money well spent, either.

Good example of that is £2bn paid as subsidy to bus companies! This is literally tax money being given to privately owned companies which makes profits and then they claim they spent £4-7bn on the roads - clearly at least £2bn of that did nothing to improve the roads! My understanding is that money was subsidy paid for "unprofitable" routes, but they allowed the companies to keep profits from other "profitable routes". This is good example as to why public transport probably should be publicly owned, because this is clearly bizarre.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Tax payers money is also used to give businesses grants, bail out banks, and subsidise failing businesses. Some of this isn't fair, or money well spent, either.

............ and you may remember i mentioned sometime back ( recently ) that the Donald Trump organisations benefitted from UK Govt covid loans / furlough whatever it was ....  to preserve the Scottish Golf ( hard-up poor citizens  ) golf Courses for the future ..... oh and the jobs of the few too ........  such a deserving cause that the prime movers in the Donald Trump golfing businesses just had to take from you and me .....  the Taxpayers to the UK Govt 

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

16 hours ago, Malc said:

............ and you may remember i mentioned sometime back ( recently ) that the Donald Trump organisations benefitted from UK Govt covid loans / furlough whatever it was ....  to preserve the Scottish Golf ( hard-up poor citizens  ) golf Courses for the future ..... oh and the jobs of the few too ........  such a deserving cause that the prime movers in the Donald Trump golfing businesses just had to take from you and me .....  the Taxpayers to the UK Govt 

Malc

Why single out DJT? What about Wentworth, Skibo Castle, JCB etc. Unless of course your comment is directed at all overseas firms with businesses here? 🤔

[wharfhouse]

I know this is from the Daily Mail (!) but maybe more people finally starting to wake up to the reality... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10483317/Are-electric-cars-new-diesel-scandal-Expert-looks-future-road-travel.html

[Malc]

34 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Unless of course your comment is directed at all overseas firms with businesses here? 🤔

not at all ......  just the odious Donald with so much wealth being subsidised by you and me and all UK Taxpayers

you may recall I mention him, specifically 

Malc

[Malc]

31 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I know this is from the Daily Mail (!) but maybe more people finally starting to wake up to the reality... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10483317/Are-electric-cars-new-diesel-scandal-Expert-looks-future-road-travel.html

blimey, a salutary lesson there for us all and the protagonists of EVs

Malc

[wharfhouse]

23 minutes ago, Malc said:

blimey, a salutary lesson there for us all and the protagonists of EVs

Malc

I thought this part was very interesting and what the CEO of Toyota said a while ago about using hybrid tec - if we use hybrid tech the rare metals (that are not environmentally friendly to mine) needed for Battery production can go so much further and most of the reduced emission benefits, especially in built up areas where it impacts families health, are still retained: "The IEA found that hybrid cars save about the same amount of CO2 as electric cars over their lifetime. Moreover, they are already competitive with petrol cars price-wise — even without subsidies — and, crucially, they don’t have most of the electric car downsides outlined above."

[Phil xxkr]

12 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I thought this part was very interesting and what the CEO of Toyota said a while ago about using hybrid tec - if we use hybrid tech the rare metals (that are not environmentally friendly to mine) needed for battery production can go so much further and most of the reduced emission benefits, especially in built up areas where it impacts families health, are still retained: "The IEA found that hybrid cars save about the same amount of CO2 as electric cars over their lifetime. Moreover, they are already competitive with petrol cars price-wise — even without subsidies — and, crucially, they don’t have most of the electric car downsides outlined above."

And it gets more controversial ; 

Referencing the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Jonathan Lesser author of a report from the Manhattan Institute forecasted the number of new electric cars through 2050. He also estimated the amount of electricity they’d consume and how much pollution that electricity would create. He then compared this data to the amount of emissions new gasoline-powered vehicles would create.

The findings: electric vehicles increase the amount of pollution into the atmosphere compared to new internal combustion vehicles. And it's the "New ICE vehicles" that's crucial here as old comparisons were with old gas guzzlers and not the new energy efficient designs 

[Phil xxkr]

53 minutes ago, Malc said:

not at all ......  just the odious Donald with so much wealth being subsidised by you and me and all UK Taxpayers

you may recall I mention him, specifically 

Malc

Now I understand Malc, your argument is with the personality and not the merits of the furlough scheme aimed at supporting Scottish jobs. 😎

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

I thought this part was very interesting and what the CEO of Toyota said a while ago about using hybrid tec - if we use hybrid tech the rare metals (that are not environmentally friendly to mine) needed for battery production can go so much further and most of the reduced emission benefits, especially in built up areas where it impacts families health, are still retained: "The IEA found that hybrid cars save about the same amount of CO2 as electric cars over their lifetime. Moreover, they are already competitive with petrol cars price-wise — even without subsidies — and, crucially, they don’t have most of the electric car downsides outlined above."

That is very good point - lifetime CO2 saving on BEV is about 30% compared to that of ICEV. I am not sure if Hybrids or PHEVs achieve 30% saving, because extra batteries adds pollution and they are not CO2 free when running... but even if they can achieve 20% reduction... that is certainly better solution, without any downsides of BEV and with most of the benefits.

This is why I have considered PHEV - I would have been able to drive it to work on electricity alone, so for all intended purposes it would be just as good as BEV, despite having tiny Battery in comparison, yet saving most of tailpipe emissions where it matters (in the city) and it doesn't have huge polluting Battery, yet if I need to drive further I ca just put petrol. And all this as well can be charged from 220V domestic socket overnight, doesn't require any fancy 7kV or 50kV charger.

That is as well the reason why I said BEV Battery sizes should be limited and aimed at ranges of 50-100miles at most, BEVs should be city cars for short distances, because that is the only place where they are actually really beneficial. Long range BEVs with large batteries are not that environmentally friendly and long range driving is already 5 times less pollution than in urban environment, so I doubt BEVs saving any CO2 there at all. Really optimised BEV could be something like BMW i3 with "range extender" - basically PHEV, but with ICE engine being extremely efficient generator rather than driving the wheels directly. Again - small Battery for the city, some sort of ICE for long range.

[Linas.P]

56 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Now I understand Malc, your argument is with the personality and not the merits of the furlough scheme aimed at supporting Scottish jobs. 😎

Why don't let the Trumpster resort bankrupt and then let some true Scot to buy it out and make it truly benefit the Scottish people, rather than further enriching the person who is already rich. 

[Phil xxkr]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Why don't let the Trumpster resort bankrupt and then let some true Scot to buy it out and make it truly benefit the Scottish people, rather than further enriching the person who is already rich. 

In 2020 they turned in a loss of £3.4 million, and I don't recall reading of a long of suitors? And I seem to recall the course at Aberdeen was in a parlance state before acquisition 🤔

[Linas.P]

7 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

In 2020 they turned in a loss of £3.4 million, and I don't recall reading of a long of suitors? And I seem to recall the course at Aberdeen was in a parlance state before acquisition 🤔

Probably just another bad investment from poor businessman trump is - why should we prop-up his bad decisions by public tax? 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Probably just another bad investment from poor businessman trump is - why should we prop-up his bad decisions by public tax? 

...or deliberate tax avoidance scheme - you see if you declare loss, then you pay no tax. It doesn't really matter if it was genuine loss or one buys helicopter. 

Hence as I said - it is fundamentally better to tax wealth, than it is to tax income.

[Phil xxkr]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

...or deliberate tax avoidance scheme - you see if you declare loss, then you pay no tax. It doesn't really matter if it was genuine loss or one buys helicopter. 

Hence as I said - it is fundamentally better to tax wealth, than it is to tax income.

I wondered how long it would be before the old canard - tax avoidance - reared its popular and ill-informed head 😂😂😂. And a poor business man 😂😂😂 you must be the hotel porter who found George Best the footballer, in bed with Miss World covered in money and asked "where did it all go wrong George? 😂😂

[Linas.P]

That trump is poor businessman is a fact. It is estimated that he inherited ~$1.8-2.2billion from his father (New York real estate business) and that was circa 1980... considering inflation that would be worth ~$7.8 billion today. Over the time simply keeping money at the bank would have yielded ~2.3% growth over inflation, but even basic investment into index which doesn't require any sophistication would have yielded closer to 6% growth.

In simple terms - if trump would have sold the real estate business interests and kept money in the bank he would be worth ~ $5.77 billion or if he would have asked the bank to diversify and invest his money with low risk/low growth products (what we call "wealth preservation" in wealth management) then he would be worth $27.17 billion.

Let's assume he does 50/50 - keeps some cash for pornstars, prostitutes and lavish lifestyle and lets the other half to be invested - that should still leave him with conservative estimate of ~$16 billion after so many years. And importantly he didn't even need to move a finger, just enjoy life whilst money is making money.

What trumpster is actually worth today? Estimate ranges between $3.1-3.7 billion and estimate debt is estimated ~$0.8-1.4 billion - so let's say he has net worth around the same as he inherited in 1980s or $2.3 billion... this means his business ventures have lost him like $14 billion over the years in todays money and that is even assuming he had no financial or investment knowledge and just let his bank to invest in most basic and safest indexes and products.

If we convert it back to the money he inherited - his current net worth would be equivalent to $0.68 billion in 1980s... meaning he basically lost 69% of what he inherited. Not a single business venture he created was ever profitable in long run, he didn't not make any money and all the wealth was inherited, not only that he lost majority of it's value over the time. I mean he is by no means poor, but is this sign of successful businessman? Or rather spoiled billionaire child who blown his father fortunes? I am sure this is "ill-informed" opinion... right? 

[Malc]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I am sure this is "ill-informed" opinion... right? 

whatever  ..........  it makes fun reading and lets vent to your and my angst with Trump odiousness

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

That trump is poor businessman is a fact. It is estimated that he inherited ~$1.8-2.2billion from his father (New York real estate business) and that was circa 1980... considering inflation that would be worth ~$7.8 billion today. Over the time simply keeping money at the bank would have yielded ~2.3% growth over inflation, but even basic investment into index which doesn't require any sophistication would have yielded closer to 6% growth.

In simple terms - if trump would have sold the real estate business interests and kept money in the bank he would be worth ~ $5.77 billion or if he would have asked the bank to diversify and invest his money with low risk/low growth products (what we call "wealth preservation" in wealth management) then he would be worth $27.17 billion.

Let's assume he does 50/50 - keeps some cash for pornstars, prostitutes and lavish lifestyle and lets the other half to be invested - that should still leave him with conservative estimate of ~$16 billion after so many years. And importantly he didn't even need to move a finger, just enjoy life whilst money is making money.

What trumpster is actually worth today? Estimate ranges between $3.1-3.7 billion and estimate debt is estimated ~$0.8-1.4 billion - so let's say he has net worth around the same as he inherited in 1980s or $2.3 billion... this means his business ventures have lost him like $14 billion over the years in todays money and that is even assuming he had no financial or investment knowledge and just let his bank to invest in most basic and safest indexes and products.

If we convert it back to the money he inherited - his current net worth would be equivalent to $0.68 billion in 1980s... meaning he basically lost 69% of what he inherited. Not a single business venture he created was ever profitable in long run, he didn't not make any money and all the wealth was inherited, not only that he lost majority of it's value over the time. I mean he is by no means poor, but is this sign of successful businessman? Or rather spoiled billionaire child who blown his father fortunes? I am sure this is "ill-informed" opinion... right? 

What portion of Donald Trump's wealth came from his father?

The New York Times details multiple transfers of wealth from Fred Trump to Donald Trump in many different ways in numerous transactions over many years. The article says that Donald has received at least $413 million in today’s dollars. Fred Trump also helped bail Donald Trump out of his financial difficulties in the early 1990s. This is an incredible amount of wealth to inherit. However, President Trump's net worth is $3.1 billion in the current Forbes 400 listing. After two divorces and lavish expenditures, Donald Trump's net worth is more than seven times the current value of what he has inherited. The Times article states, "Had Trump done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the S&P 500, he would be worth $1.96 billion." This is a meaningless comparison.  The US stock market has been one of the best places to invest. Over the last 35 years it has appreciated by 12% a year. Why should we compare Donald Trump's net worth increase to the S&P 500? The S&P has no expenses, no taxes and is highly volatile. Donald Trump has large expenses, may have paid taxes and is also highly volatile. All kidding aside, it is unrealistic and inappropriate to use the S&P 500 to determine how Donald Trump's inheritance might have grown.

Forbes magazine 😊

[Phil xxkr]

41 minutes ago, Malc said:

whatever  ..........  it makes fun reading and lets vent to your and my angst with Trump odiousness

Malc

I find it fascinating how you allow a geographically distant individual, DJT, to manipulate your emotions - odious? 😊. Have you ever spent time in analysis trying to understand why? 😂

[Linas.P]

It just shows that he wasn't amazing businessman, building empire from nothing. The main misconception is that he build his wealth from nothing (like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos). It was not the case - he born rich. 

The comparison with S&P 500 is very valid one, because of how he got his wealth. If he would be like those aforementioned businessman, then sure it is inappropriate, because they had no money just their brain to work with and that can't be invested. He instead started rich and he could simply invest money and don't do any business, but he thought he could make more money himself than letting investments build his wealth.

This is not unreasonable assumption is one believes to be very good businessman, because even moderately growing business should outpace market index. I would make such assumption about myself as well, but I just don't have inherited billions. He did have those billions and this was reasonable decision to make - he decided he can beat the market, but now we can see he has failed, not only he has not beat the market, but he lost billions of his father fortune. 

So again in trumps place S&P comparison is very appropriate, other rich kid could have easily invested and let the wealth managers to look after his wealth, even divorces and scandals wouldn't have mattered.

As well trump likes to act as if he is in that £100 billion club and comparable with other billionaires no he isn't. It is like that joke - "can wife make man a millionaire" - "yes she can if he was billionaire"... just replace wife with Trump here and the same applies.

[Phil xxkr]

35 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It just shows that he wasn't amazing businessman, building empire from nothing. The main misconception is that he build his wealth from nothing (like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos). It was not the case - he born rich. 

The comparison with S&P 500 is very valid one, because of how he got his wealth. If he would be like those aforementioned businessman, then sure it is inappropriate, because they had no money just their brain to work with and that can't be invested. He instead started rich and he could simply invest money and don't do any business, but he thought he could make more money himself than letting investments build his wealth.

This is not unreasonable assumption is one believes to be very good businessman, because even moderately growing business should outpace market index. I would make such assumption about myself as well, but I just don't have inherited billions. He did have those billions and this was reasonable decision to make - he decided he can beat the market, but now we can see he has failed, not only he has not beat the market, but he lost billions of his father fortune. 

So again in trumps place S&P comparison is very appropriate, other rich kid could have easily invested and let the wealth managers to look after his wealth, even divorces and scandals wouldn't have mattered.

As well trump likes to act as if he is in that £100 billion club and comparable with other billionaires no he isn't. It is like that joke - "can wife make man a millionaire" - "yes she can if he was billionaire"... just replace wife with Trump here and the same applies.

Linas I am surprised with your clear mastery of the world of making money you aren't writing from your mega yacht in the Bahamas 😂. But your confusion between millions and billions maybe an insight. You will note the article quoted "413 million dollars in Todays money, so if you look further you might note his father's legacy estimates 100 - 300 million dollars was split between his siblings - hardly a billion. But then I guess you are from that side of the divide where irrespective of the actuality anyone who creates substantial wealth achieved it through less than honorable means 

[Malc]

51 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Have you ever spent time in analysis trying to understand why?

nah, wot a waste of good living time eh !

Malc

[Linas.P]

25 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

You will note the article quoted "413 million dollars in Todays money

That is only the cash paid from family Trust, excluding the controlling share in the real estate business and excluding bail-out of his failed ventures.