How risk averse are you?

Glen_Clark

bigadaj wrote: »

There's far less corruption now than a few decades ago, .

you mean there is less being detected?

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I am surprised Glen Clark s not railing at Sir Phillip Green, who siphoned off more than a billion pounds from BHS

Thats probably libellous, since the £billion dividend came from Arcadia not BHS.
And it says a lot if the only way you can defend the Tory party is by changing the subject to the New Labour party.

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Not sure if you have ever tried to become a new money wealth creator by, for example, starting a business and building it up into something that creates or implements ground breaking technology or employs lots of people.
.

I have, but would have made more profit investing in buy to let.
The land barons have seen the value of their inherited land triple in 10 years without lifting a finger, and Agricultural land is free of inheritance tax.
Why risk investment in productive industry when Osborne makes unprodctive property speculation more profitable?

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Thats probably libellous, since the £billion dividend came from Arcadia not BHS.
And it says a lot if the only way you can defend the Tory party is by changing the subject to the New Labour party.

You are correct, it was Arcadia, my mistake. However, the actual figure that he drained from BHS in dividends is over £400 million. Had that been reinvested, would the company be thriving? This sounds like someone milking a company rather than a desire to earn an honest living.

As for defending the Tory party, I am simply pointing out your double standards and bigotry, since many of your criticisms actually apply to both parties.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I am surprised Glen Clark s not railing at Sir Phillip Green, who siphoned off more than a billion pounds from BHS in the form of dividends, depriving it of funds needed to grow and strenghen the business. The dividends were free of tax, being paid to his non UK resident wife. Legal, but smelly.

I should add there is plenty of evidence against Sir Phillip Green without exaggerating it. That just gives them ammunition with which to sink you. The amount he took out of BHS is less than a £billion. Its a similar amount to the pension deficit, which he was allowed to sell on to a twice bankrupt, who has then taken out another £25m before passing the pensions deficit on to anyone but the business owners.
We now have the awkward situation where its more politically expedient for the Government to pay the pensions deficit from public funds, (after a suitably long 'enquiry' that lasts until the public has tired of it, or Cameron & Osborne have moved on etc) than to admit they made a mistake by allowing Sir Phillip Green to walk away from it a year ago.
So to avoid the little people having to pay (indirectly) for Sir Phillips third superyacht, we not only have to prove he did wrong, but the Government did wrong as well. And the Queen did wrong by knighting him. No easy task. Its not helped by throwing around false accusations about the amount of dividends he took from BHS.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

You are correct, it was Arcadia, my mistake. However, the actual figure that he drained from BHS in dividends is over £400 million. Had that been reinvested, would the company be thriving? This sounds like someone milking a company rather than a desire to earn an honest living.

As for defending the Tory party, I am simply pointing out your double standards and bigotry, since many of your criticisms actually apply to both parties.

I posted before seeing your post above.
I have no more respect for Blair & Brown than I have for Cameron & Osborne. But Cameron & Osborne are the ones in power now.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I posted before seeing your post above.
I have no more respect for Blair & Brown than I have for Cameron & Osborne. But Cameron & Osborne are the ones in power now.

But you blame them for everything. For example, you say that Osborne created a housing boom due to his decisions. Well, a friend sold her London flat 10 years ago for 4 times what she paid, and she had it maybe 15 years. My late mother's house in Devon was sold 12 years ago, for three times what she paid 13 years earlier. So the claim that Osborne has engineered a housing boom is imply not consistent with the facts. We have had a housing boom for decades, albeit with a sharp drop and a few years of stagnation from about 2008 onwards. Now you might argue that his policies are not helping, but you could just as easily blame Blair who was in power longer than Cameron.

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I should add there is plenty of evidence against Sir Phillip Green without exaggerating it. That just gives them ammunition with which to sink you. The amount he took out of BHS is less than a £billion. Its a similar amount to the pension deficit, which he was allowed to sell on to a twice bankrupt, who has then taken out another £25m before passing the pensions deficit on to anyone but the business owners.
We now have the awkward situation where its more politically expedient for the Government to pay the pensions deficit from public funds, (after a suitably long 'enquiry' that lasts until the public has tired of it, or Cameron & Osborne have moved on etc) than to admit they made a mistake by allowing Sir Phillip Green to walk away from it a year ago.
So to avoid the little people having to pay (indirectly) for Sir Phillips third superyacht, we not only have to prove he did wrong, but the Government did wrong as well. And the Queen did wrong by knighting him. No easy task. Its not helped by throwing around false accusations about the amount of dividends he took from BHS.

The central point I made is that he took huge dvidends from BHS (and Arcadia), although I confused the figures. Yes the government made a mistake to knight him, as Blair made a mistake to knight Fred Goodwin. It is not a party issue, but rather a non party issue, namely that politicians as a whole do not examine these people closely enough. It seems that they are not held to account, and they are allowed to siphon off huge amounts of money, or make massively risky decisions.

You always interpret these things in a way that implies malevolence by the Tories. The truth is that what Green did may well have been completely legal. If you are a company director, you can take dividends. I know, as I have done that myself. But in this case it seems to me at least to be morally reprehensible. So yes, you are right, the government should not have knighted him. They might not be able to claw money back, but they can at least metaphorically throw ordure over him.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

you say that Osborne created a housing boom due to his decisions.

still exaggerating, I never said Osborne created the housing crisis, just made it worse.

Glen_Clark

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Yes the government made a mistake to knight him, as Blair made a mistake to knight Fred Goodwin.

When did Blair become Queen?