Just suits his own narrow self interests. If he was a patriot he wouldn't be a tax exile....
- Status
Just suits his own narrow self interests. If he was a patriot he wouldn't be a tax exile....
What's beyond diamond brexit?
A North Korean style Brexit?
A rear admiral has claimed that the Royal Navy could cripple Spain if it came to a clash over Gibraltar???
This is the first time that I have used multiple question marks in my time at ISF or JREF...
How well is that going to work as a negotiating position?
The lunatics really are seeing what they can promote.
I might have to dust off my New Zealand passport, except my kids only have UK nationality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/
A North Korean style Brexit?
A rear admiral has claimed that the Royal Navy could cripple Spain if it came to a clash over Gibraltar???
This is the first time that I have used multiple question marks in my time at ISF or JREF...
How well is that going to work as a negotiating position?
The lunatics really are seeing what they can promote.
I might have to dust off my New Zealand passport, except my kids only have UK nationality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/
IIRC that was from the Latin - librae, solidi, denarii
Strange that little Englanders are so keen on something so resoundingly foreign.
Of course Latin predates English in Britain.
So an article about changing the passports back to blue, but it not really the change, or the cost that caught my eye. It was this quote:
National humiliation? This seems like a pretty good insight into the Brexiteer mind. Things like the colour of a passport weigh as heavily as the economic benefits of EU membership.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...-brexit/ar-BBzbiIm?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
National humiliation? This seems like a pretty good insight into the Brexiteer mind. Things like the colour of a passport weigh as heavily as the economic benefits of EU membership.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...-brexit/ar-BBzbiIm?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Maybe Brexit will now be out (of the EU) - out (of the EEA) - out (of the Council of Europe) - out (of the WTO) - out (of NATO)
Titanium Brexit FTW !!!!1!!1!!!!1!1!!
Are they still staying in this reality, or are they taking a break from that too ?
never mind I think i got the answer on that one.
I see that the government and the Brexit-loving arm of the UK press have decided that a brouhaha over Gibraltar is the way to distract us all from the economic madness of Brexit and instead have us all wrapping ourselves in the Union Jack.
Clearly Theresa May sees Gibraltar as her Falklands, the thing which defines her premiership and which distracts from all her failings to date. The whole thing is so depressingly transparent and yet here we are, falling for it hook, line and sinker
"We'll fight for Gibraltar like we fought for the Falklands" is dangerous rhetoric IMO and Michael Howard should know better - unless of course he was toldto say exactly that
Clearly Theresa May sees Gibraltar as her Falklands, the thing which defines her premiership and which distracts from all her failings to date. The whole thing is so depressingly transparent and yet here we are, falling for it hook, line and sinker
"We'll fight for Gibraltar like we fought for the Falklands" is dangerous rhetoric IMO and Michael Howard should know better - unless of course he was toldto say exactly that
Explorer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,521
"We'll fight for Gibraltar like we fought for the Falklands" is dangerous rhetoric IMO and Michael Howard should know better - unless of course he was toldto say exactly that
We shall see. If May does not distance herself from his statement then it would be reasonable to assume two things. Firstly, he was told to say it as a tool of distraction, and secondly, it wil remain as a bargaining chip for a UK bereft of negotiation cards.
Sure, but this would imply he stands to gain substantially more by Brexit than the money he will spend investing in it and this would have to be true even if he included the risks he loses money in the end, plus you need to include interest he would be able to earn on the money he already invested in Brexit.
It is implausible that he would be much better off. You don't do something like that for two or three million pounds if you already have several millions of pounds lying around to spend on Brexit.
Of course it could be just that he wants UK to suffer because he's a jerk.
McHrozni
If the Brexiteers get their wish and immigration drops, key service industries will face difficulties:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39448424
But, you know, there are plenty of benefits of Brexit, it's just that the press isn't reporting them
AFAIK the only "good news" is that for "only" £500m, we can have blue passports again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39448424
But, you know, there are plenty of benefits of Brexit, it's just that the press isn't reporting them
AFAIK the only "good news" is that for "only" £500m, we can have blue passports again.
Why is it implausible that he would be much better off ?
If he got the levels of personal taxation that Trump wants for the US and the lower levels of regulation, especially financial regulation, then he stands to gain considerably.
Accounting for interest isn't a big deal IMO, cash is depreciating in real terms these days - even more so if you actually pay tax, which he mostly doesn't.
Because he already threw in several million pounds, money that could be earning him new money right now. He must now wait for two years then whatever more for the deregulation to happen, then his remaining money must first make up for the money he spend on Brexit and the compound interest that money would earn in the meantime before he breaks even.
Then he needs to be much better off too. Unlike you or me, doing all of that for a few million pounds is a waste of time. Dozens of millions of pounds at a bare minimum, maybe hundreds.
Maybe, but doing all of this to go from a multimillionaire to a multiermillionarie seems a bit petty to me.
McHrozni
Cash is losing money in real terms these days, you're compounding losses not gains.
Yes, I believe that's the plan. He's currently worth around the £100m mark according to the Financial Times.
He makes his money from financial services and, latterly, commodities. His net worth could increase significantly if lighter touch financial regulation allowed his financial services businesses to increase significantly in value.
Maybe to you, maybe to me, but maybe not to him (or those like him).
It also amazes me how very rich people do very stupid things to avoid comparatively trivial amounts of tax - and yet they do.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Or is it Diamondillium?
This assumes he has nowhere to invest the cash, which is false.
He's that rich, huh? This makes the whole exercise even more useless for him. He already has more money than he'll ever need and he's already in a position to make more, much more, without Brexit.
Why, then, would he invest about 7% of his entire net worth into a project that might earn him more in the long run, but will destroy the country?
I can understand destroying the country to seize power, I can understand destroying the country to get you from nobody to well off, but destroying the country so you can be slightly richer is a tad odd.
There's also an if you mentioned. Suppose he has a 50% chance to double his net worth as a result of Brexit, but a 50% chance to halve it as a result of economic damage.
A rational economist will conclude Brexit was a waste of money for him. I contend the chances of making money from Brexit are lower, because he needs to secure financial deregulation first - and that's questionable at best, it depends to a large extent on the EU-UK deal, over which he has little to no control. Then if the deregulation happens, he must also profit from it, which isn't as clear-cut as assumed, he could also loose money. Never mind the drop in pound cost him another 15% or so of his net worth, assuming he has most of it in pounds.
These are not trivial sums he can earn back quickly and easily.
It could be a cause and effect thing. Rich people don't do stupid things to avoid tax for no reason, they're rich because they've cut costs whenever they can, and taxes are one costs we can all cut without impacting our personal lives.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
How many days left till we settle on wto terms?
This is just going to go from bad to worse isn't it?
This is just going to go from bad to worse isn't it?
True, but the value of investments can fall as well as rise. The typical way of accounting is to view cash or government bond returns. Anything else is pure speculation.
Anyone with more than £some amount has more money than they would ever need, doesn't stop them doing all kinds of things to get more.
Because more money is more important to him than the welfare of the country ?
Because 7% of net worth is pocket change - relatively speaking ?
Because he sees a multi-cultural UK in the EU as being broken and a UK operating as a 51st state to a U.S. rebuilt in Trump's vision as being fixed ?
True, but as you seem to have indicated, busting your hump when you already have more money than you'll ever need doesn't make a lot of sense to you (or me) - other people are wired differently and will do pretty much anything to get a bit more money.
If that's the case then an investment of 7% of his net worth would be a good investment.
His money is offshored and quite possibly held in dollars or other currencies. A drop in the value of the pound may not have much of an impact on his net worth - indeed it may increase it in pounds.
For him maybe there are. 7% of my net worth is maybe £250k. At the moment my business is doing pretty well and my investments in both the stock market and property are solid. It would take 12-18 months to make that money back if I wanted to invest it in some scheme that had a 50% chance of increasing my net worth by 50% (not that *I* would, I'm too conservative of an investor for that).
A bad Brexit would be financially ruinous for me (and is the biggest financial risk I face) and while I'm doing my best to diversify and move money out of the UK it's an uphill task. Banks' money is already out of the country and so his downside risks are much smaller.
Some rich people do illegal things to avoid trivial amounts of tax. To me that shows that having more money is very important to them. That's all I was attempting to say.
I wouldn't do something illegal to avoid tax. Partly this is because I'm not *that* bothered about getting more money and partly it's because I worry about the consequences.
So is deregulation from Brexit and any benefits he might recieve from the deregulation.
I agree with the last one as a possibility. The first two ... not so much. Too much risk and too many costs for too little gain.
My point is that if he wanted to get more money there would be better ways to do so than financing Brexit.
Maybe. That could offset the costs he incurred thus far.
Maybe, but again, this scheme, by itself, won't make him any money - unless he shorted the pound just before the referendum or something like that. It is just an investment that would enable him to make more money with his remaining assets sometime in the future, more than two years from now. He wouldn't just have those 7 million pounds in the bank, he could increase that to 10-15 million by the time deregulation might happen.
McHrozni
Do the UK's signing of the GATT treaties mean that it would automatically be a member of the WTO?
WTO might be optimistic.
- Status