WOOO HOOOO!!!! People Power!

kevin.philips

I would maybe guess that the people initially accepting the terms and conditions of the credit card application didnt read that the charges for mised payments are clearly explained!!!!

Interesting view... Regardless of whether they have been seen or not is not a question concerned with legality, there are two clear camps on this subject but the position and facts will always remain - any business transaction can not generate profit revenue over and above any true actual loss, I say good luck to those who are reclaiming the charges, it is neither yours or my money they are taking back it is theirs and should the banks try to introduce charges for the normal operation of accounts then it is time for the power of us as consumers to make our voices heard as this group of people have successully done.

We should not forget that we are the people who lend the banks money every month, we are the customer and in different business transactions we would expect much better service considering the profits they make on our money.

gazza975526570

I take a rather simplistic view:
I go into a shop and buy a TV for £1000. I then go into another shop and its only £900. Shop A is making £100 more than shop B yet could i pursue shop A to repay me £100 back from their profit margin on the product.

i doubt it.

My view is as long as terms are set out before a product/service is purchased how can you then go back and disagree with some parts of it.

As you say two different view points.

oldwiring

I may be misundersanding some, but I think they seem to be saying that nusinesses should not make a profit. OK, your firm does not make a profit. Now tell me where your wages are to come from. Shareholders seems to be a lengthy F word, but tell me, those of you who work for a company, whre your job would come from, if they did not accept the risks attached to shareholding.

Hereward

gazza975526570 wrote:

I take a rather simplistic view:
I go into a shop and buy a TV for £1000. I then go into another shop and its only £900. Shop A is making £100 more than shop B yet could i pursue shop A to repay me £100 back from their profit margin on the product.

i doubt it.

My view is as long as terms are set out before a product/service is purchased how can you then go back and disagree with some parts of it.

As you say two different view points.

You could take the TV back as it is your right to a 14 day cooling off period: you would then go purcahse the identical TV for £100 from the other shop. Shop A would, eventually, change their price to match the cheaper unit as all its customers would be buying the TV at a different shop.

Hereward

oldwiring wrote:

I may be misundersanding some, but I think they seem to be saying that nusinesses [sic] should not make a profit. OK, your firm does not make a profit. Now tell me where your wages are to come from. Shareholders seems to be a lengthy F word, but tell me, those of you who work for a company, whre your job would come from, if they did not accept the risks attached to shareholding.

Wages are an operating cost and, therefore, the business would cover its wages if it was not allowed to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with making a profit.

oldwiring

Hereward wrote:

Wages are an operating cost and, therefore, the business would cover its wages if it was not allowed to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with making a profit.

BUt that seems to contradict itself. Profits surely are the wages of the soletrader, members of a partnership, or a company's shareholders. If they cannot make a profit, thay will not undertke the activity, because in extermis they would starve and be unclothed by its doing.

You may relish the sight of naked fat cats, but there is such a thing as child abuse and you can't blinker them like horses.

Hereward

oldwiring wrote:

BUt that seems to contradict itself. Profits surely are the wages of the soletrader, members of a partnership, or a company's shareholders. If they cannot make a profit, thay will not undertke the activity, because in extermis they would starve and be unclothed by its doing.

You may relish the sight of naked fat cats, but there is such a thing as child abuse and you can't blinker them like horses.

That is incorrect. The wages of a sole trader should be taken before any profit is declared; otherwise the business is in breach of wages legislation, not to mention various accounting practices. Any profit after the sole trader’s wages can be classified as additional income, but this will be subject to capital gains tax (unlike their normal wages as these should be taxed as normal income).

Profits are vital to the British economy. If no one made a profit, then growth would slow to a trickle and could put many people out of work.

kevin.philips

Just to clarify, my point was not questioning whether a business should make profits - of course it should and I firmly agree with the econmoical view points posted for future growth and prosperity. What annoys me is the acceptance by alot of people in how these profits are generated.

As for the terms and conditions there are further legal protections which are in place, most people don't change banks and original paperwork in some cases could have been signed many years ago, if we are all honest most of us would say that we do not meticulously read and fully understand the contents of T&C's or contracts so long as we are generally happy with the flavour of what we are doing. Most of us would not challenege the contracts offered by the banks as there is no power of negotiation on our part and we take in good faith that the contract, although binding, has also in fact been created within the legal framework in which businesses are bound by. This in turn leads to the point that the protection offered by law in general allows us as citizens to retrospectively challenge terms built into contracts if they prove to be illegal. Why is this part where we don't unite and say actually we as a whole nation whether we are set to gain financially or not will not tolerate illegal activity by businesses who look after our money, I mean c'mon we wouldn't show support for illegal activity in other, more criminal areas would we.

And just to throw another point into the conversation how have we as consumers benefited for the reduction in costs using activities like indian call centres (90% at least cost saving) and internet banking (Unsure), do we promote higher profits or shouldn't we be pushing for our share of the prize.

oldwiring

Hereward wrote:

That is incorrect. The wages of a sole trader should be taken before any profit is declared; otherwise the business is in breach of wages legislation, not to mention various accounting practices. Any profit after the sole trader’s wages can be classified as additional income, but this will be subject to capital gains tax (unlike their normal wages as these should be taxed as normal income).

Profits are vital to the British economy. If no one made a profit, then growth would slow to a trickle and could put many people out of work.

I agree with the last quote. As to the firdt I was not trying to make a legal point, but simply if the sole trader does not make a profit, he will even if he has to pay wages before the declaration of profit, soon go under!