Budget

Its still cheaper than paying tax and NI as a salary, which is what most Ltd Co contractors should be doing!!!

Maybe, maybe not. Can see contractors using this as an excuse to up their rates in all honesty...

Maybe, maybe not. Can see contractors using this as an excuse to up their rates in all honesty...

Depends on the sector. No way the oil and gas boys will be doing that.

Agreed. Dividends were never intended to be subsitutes for salaries/payments for work performed and there are lots of wholly unimpressive contractors throughout the land taking home far more than their talent commands through use of "service company" tax avoidance structures.

The problem is that a lot of businesses have variable income/profits and don't know how much they can pay themselves until the end of the year.

However you look at it its a tax increase.

Depends on the sector. No way the oil and gas boys will be doing that.

Certainly from my side of things there is probably a bit of wiggle room - and probably similar for Steve as well. It's something you never particularly feel comfortable doing though.

The problem is that a lot of businesses have variable income/profits and don't know how much they can pay themselves until the end of the year.

 

However you look at it its a tax increase.

If you can rely on the Conservatives for one thing, it's cutting taxes...oh.

Georgie Porgie selling our RBS shares for a billion pound loss

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33769906

Georgie Porgie selling our RBS shares for a billion pound loss

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33769906

Or, to paraphrase it without Tory bashing spectacles....

"Acting upon advice from the governor of the Bank of England, chancellor slightly reduces stake in RBS from 78.3% to 72.9% in order to stimulate growth thus raising the chances of being able to sell future stakes at a profit."

Or, to paraphrase it without Tory bashing spectacles....

 

"Acting upon advice from the governor of the Bank of England, chancellor slightly reduces stake in RBS from 78.3% to 72.9% in order to stimulate growth thus raising the chances of being able to sell future stakes at a profit."

Nah, Prefer Badger's version,

Or, to paraphrase it without Tory bashing spectacles....

 

"Acting upon advice from the governor of the Bank of England, chancellor slightly reduces stake in RBS from 78.3% to 72.9% in order to stimulate growth thus raising the chances of being able to sell future stakes at a profit."

And how does selling 5.4% stimulate growth? It's still majority owned by the state

And how does selling 5.4% stimulate growth? It's still majority owned by the state

That is the view of the people that know about these things, apparently. I believe it's to do with freeing up ownership in the bank.

I think we need to rake a global view about these bank bailouts, we may take a small loss on one deal but regain it elsewhere. There has been some debate about the overall net cost of the rescues and it appears to be approximately neutral, give or take a few billion . We have go a lot of our money back over the last through years through fees and charges. We shall see, it should keep economists busy for another decade or so.

Wasn't G Brown pilloried for selling off gold on the cheap?

Wasn't G Brown pilloried for selling off gold on the cheap?

Indeed he was. In this instance I still cannot see any valid reason ffor it but this might be one: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/

It was sold on the cheap and he/we made sure it was even cheaper than it needed to be. It took 3 years or so for the surge in the gold price to make this sale look as weird as it does today.

Is it a bit OTT to hammer GO for selling shares at a loss - maybe Alistair Darling paid too much for them (in fact I am sure he did). The irony is if RBS shares now fall to £2, everyone will be kicking him for not selling more.

Everyone is a sh1t hot share trader with the benefit of hindsight.

Is it a bit OTT to hammer GO for selling shares at a loss - maybe Alistair Darling paid too much for them (in fact I am sure he did). The irony is if RBS shares now fall to £2, everyone will be kicking him for not selling more.

 

Everyone is a sh1t hot share trader with the benefit of hindsight.

My mrs has a few RBS shares and wishes she had sold them 10 years ago

And how does selling 5.4% stimulate growth? It's still majority owned by the state

You're probably better off asking Mark Carney that question as it was his recommendation and he knows slightly more about this financial malarkey than I do (difficult to believe I know)

What's you're alternative approach to stimulating the market so that the shares can be sold at a profit. Leaving 78.3% of the bank stagnating in government hands doesn't sound like the best approach to me.

You're probably better off asking Mark Carney that question as it was his recommendation and he knows slightly more about this financial malarkey than I do (difficult to believe I know)

 

What's you're alternative approach to stimulating the market so that the shares can be sold at a profit. Leaving 78.3% of the bank stagnating in government hands doesn't sound like the best approach to me.

That was G Brown's argument for selling the gold, wasn't it?

That was G Brown's argument for selling the gold, wasn't it?

Gold is a precious metal. RBS is a commercial bank.

Have I missed something somewhere as all I'm seeing is apples and oranges?

That was G Brown's argument for selling the gold, wasn't it?

The situations are not comparable.

Is the gold actually there anyway? Nobody is allowed inside Fort Knox to check the US holdings:

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2013/07/16/fort-knox-gold/

http://moneymorning.com/2015/05/12/is-there-gold-at-fort-knox/

****ing up selling the gold pales into insignificance when compared to ****ing up the pensions .

Nice one Gordon .