UK credit rating is downgraded to AA- by Fitch.

  • Thread starter Thread starter morganist
  • Start date Start date
Farmas said:
The news is unpleasant, but predictable.
More...

I have been releasing economic work to the British Treasury to try and get some good positive publicity to put confidence back into the market. If I told there is a massive area of macroeconomics that has previously been missed that could generate an additional 4% of economic growth per year, which could reduce government debt to 60% of GDP over 13- 14 years would that make you feel more confident in the UK economy?
 
Let's see, the UK has deep structural problems within its economy that severely restricts growth and innovation and capital investment - namely, a 46% income tax rate >£150K and a 20% VAT on all domestic goods and services and exports to the EU - and you want to shill once again for "pension pumping"? You start threads over and over again for this tired trope.

You want exhausted, overtaxed workers to take a second job so that they can contribute more into the pension system and you want to give some government bureaucrat a license to gamble with those pension plan funds and you want the UK government to monopolize and commercially license intellectual property and you want a return to the days of inefficient and bloated State-Owned Enterprises. Got it.


morganist said:
I have been releasing economic work to the British Treasury to try and get some good positive publicity to put confidence back into the market. If I told there is a massive area of macroeconomics that has previously been missed that could generate an additional 4% of economic growth per year, which could reduce government debt to 60% of GDP over 13- 14 years would that make you feel more confident in the UK economy?
More...
 
You have previously presented 3G in the UK as an example of your "novel" idea of the government "creating" and implementing technology in order to monetize it.

The UK government did nothing of the sort with 3G.

Governments and bureaucrats don't create anything. Asking government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the private sector is a well known and tested disaster.

The UK Government simply auctioned off £22.5B worth of 3G franchise licenses.

https://esrc.ukri.org/news-events-a...f-mobile-license-auction-raised-22-5-billion/
 
bone said:
Let's see, the UK has deep structural problems within its economy that severely restricts growth and innovation and capital investment - namely, a 46% income tax rate >£150K and a 20% VAT on all domestic goods and services and exports to the EU - and you want to shill once again for "pension pumping"? You start threads over and over again for this tired trope.

You want exhausted, overtaxed workers to take a second job so that they can contribute more into the pension system and you want to give some government bureaucrat a license to gamble with those pension plan funds and you want the UK government to monopolize and commercially license intellectual property and you want a return to the days of inefficient and bloated State-Owned Enterprises. Got it.
More...

You have been misreading my posts.

I encourage a lower tax rate and encourage pension saving to reduce taxation. The real rate of taxation after pension tax relief is taken into account is much lower than the 46% of income tax you state. In terms of pension pumping they have already used it since 2012 and it has been effective, it could be taken further but the technique I have been proposing is called Pension Fund Easing.

Pension Fund Easing directs the placement of pension fund investments to speed up the velocity of transactions within an economy. The British government has already been using it for the last decade through the increase in corporate bond issuances and pension investments in corporate bonds. Corporations will borrow to spend money quickly and use the money to increase production, this increases output and speeds up the velocity of transactions.

Corporate bonds also pay fixed income returns, which is safer for pension annuities and near to maturity pension schemes funds. Corporate bonds are also more securely protected against default because they are higher in the administration (insolvency) payout order. The interest payments are also not taxed unlike dividends making it more cost efficient for the corporation to get funds. This is Pension Fund Easing and it works, but it can be taken much further.

In terms of the Supplementary Income Taxation Exemptions (yet again lower tax policy) I was hoping to get people to do tax free trade. This is different to getting another job or even starting another business. Commissions from sales contracts, where the individual doesn't have to do anything but get someone to sign a contract or pass on goods that someone else makes and delivers would get more trade achieved.

The opportunity to get another personal allowance taxation exemption or to extend the existing taxation allowance for supplementary income (which is put forward with the R-PAID) is ideal for the new 'gig' style economy, where people can get a bit of work here and there. The R-PAID offers an incentive for people to extend 'gig' work for an additional taxation advantage and for existing part time workers to perform extra work increasing output.
 
bone said:
You have previously presented 3G in the UK as an example of your "novel" idea of the government "creating" and implementing technology in order to monetize it.

The UK government did nothing of the sort with 3G.

Governments and bureaucrats don't create anything. Asking government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the private sector is a well known and tested disaster.

The UK Government simply auctioned off £22.5B worth of 3G franchise licenses.

https://esrc.ukri.org/news-events-a...f-mobile-license-auction-raised-22-5-billion/
More...

Quote from above.

"Governments and bureaucrats don't create anything. Asking government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the private sector is a well known and tested disaster."

This is exactly the point, the government does not have to do anything but to simply authorise it. If you want to for example introduce a new pension scheme that allows a whole new level of flexibility which can completely change how investments work and money is invested, you would have to get the government to approve it.

If you get a new product designed to provide that function and a new regulatory body to support it, then you have a product that is now marketable. Now all you have to do is get the government to authorise it or patent it and then everyone involved including the government can get commissions for the products use.

Any new product needs a legal precedent to be able to operate the new industry or product function the new innovation creates. An example of this is the development of the internet, it has taken a long time to develop a system and its legal framework to enable it to operate on a business and international level.

Governments and legal bodies were involved in this process and were needed to enable the internet as a business platform. The same situation applies for new product development in finance, governmental authorisation is needed to develop new products. If you want new types of pension schemes that revolutionise investment, governmental approval is required.
 
It'll get downgrades a lot more after Brexit No Deal ( slight chance, vague deal mind, or was that BS and forgotten about already as that's gone dead )

Less Jobs, Less Tax to claim, less spending so less VAT and more Social spending = Socialist is the only survival option :(

The Poor want it, they hate the rich so higher taxes to cover there living wage and game over!!
 
Turveyd said:
It'll get downgrades a lot more after Brexit No Deal ( slight chance, vague deal mind, or was that BS and forgotten about already as that's gone dead )

Less Jobs, Less Tax to claim, less spending so less VAT and more Social spending = Socialist is the only survival option :(

The Poor want it, they hate the rich so higher taxes to cover there living wage and game over!!
More...

It has more been a case of the rich being able to get out of paying tax and the poorer people paying it themselves or a higher government debt is generated to pay for everything.
 
You are completely devoid of reality but you deserve some credit - you are overflowing with bad, unworkable tenets. Especially when it comes to the role of governments and technology innovation. Governments don't innovate or create anything. They can't.

And maybe that's why the entire World is buying up NASDAQ stocks and that Silicon Valley has basically been the driver for world technology commercialization. The US has a career path for clever Engineers and genius Scientists - we make them freaking Billionaires. And other than Defense Contracts the US Government pretty much stays out of the way.

I hold multiple international technology patents, so I know something about the process.

So the government holds my own original intellectual property hostage until they get a commission? I thought that was the purpose of taxation.

Literally everything you say is a unworkable contradiction about how governments function in free democratic societies with economies built on free trade and commerce. And your proposal about the government being the gatekeeper for technology innovation is a farce.

If the UK wants to take a 10 percent commission on my intellectual property patent filing, screw that - I'm simply going to go to the US and file an international patent covered under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Maybe I pay a Patent Attorney to help write a proper submission and I pay the USPTO a nominal fee for filing - but why does the government get to tax my income and take a commission out of the use of my IP? That's insane.

And your understanding of the origins of the internet are convoluted. Yes, the internet started in the US by DARPA as a secure way for scientists to communicate - but there is no "legal framework" responsible for the growth of the internet. That's the whole point. Private enterprise built out the world wide web.

morganist said:
Quote from above.

"Governments and bureaucrats don't create anything. Asking government bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the private sector is a well known and tested disaster."

This is exactly the point, the government does not have to do anything but to simply authorise it. If you want to for example introduce a new pension scheme that allows a whole new level of flexibility which can completely change how investments work and money is invested, you would have to get the government to approve it.

If you get a new product designed to provide that function and a new regulatory body to support it, then you have a product that is now marketable. Now all you have to do is get the government to authorise it or patent it and then everyone involved including the government can get commissions for the products use.

Any new product needs a legal precedent to be able to operate the new industry or product function the new innovation creates. An example of this is the development of the internet, it has taken a long time to develop a system and its legal framework to enable it to operate on a business and international level.

Governments and legal bodies were involved in this process and were needed to enable the internet as a business platform. The same situation applies for new product development in finance, governmental authorisation is needed to develop new products. If you want new types of pension schemes that revolutionise investment, governmental approval is required.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top