Cyclone Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Why would you be worried about where your money goes when you're dead? We've had this debate many times on this forum and no-one has been able to explain why IHT isn't a victimless tax. Who mentioned IHT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 I'm a paranoid hoarder, 2 and 3 of everything. Ideally three. If something breaks it's already replaced, and I can try to fix the other... If you visited my house and saw the tv in front of the tv, 2 tables stacked etc. you'd probably think I was mad. Gold & silver are all well and good, but how you going to buy a new XYZ when they are no longer for sale... If they're no longer for sale, then you probably won't want or need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Where is most of our overseas trade done then? European companies sell us more than we sell them; we are their largest client. So our trade and jobs would continue if we left the EU, and we would benefit by escaping from its crippling over-regulation. Leaving creates jobs. The favourite [pro-EU myth] is where europhiles insist that 70% of our trade is with the EU, so it’d be suicide to leave. This is a myth for two reasons – firstly, you can have free trade with the EU without being a member (EEA). But more fundamentally, it’s a deliberate manipulation of statistics – a lot of our world wide trade goes via Holland, as you get very good shipping links there. But because that involves goods being moved from the UK, to Holland (even though they only stay there for a few days), some pro-EU commentators use that to bulk up EU trade figures, and make it look like there’s more genuine intra-EU trade than there really is. UK trade is overwhelmingly internal, actually. The split is roughly this: 79% internal, 10% EU, 11% the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 This isn't about a collapse of the EU per se, it's about a collapse of the currency. We might have a trade surplus with europe, but there are still sales, and lots of them, to the eurozone. If those companies all stopped buying then it would cause a massive economic crash here. If it's really only 10%, then I guess you're right and it would probably only cause a recession instead of major crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Going back to the OP, I see several reasons to save. 1) Is to ensure you have some money available should something unplanned happen, be that a cooker breaking down or the roof leaking or you loosing your job unexpectedly. 2) For something specific, maybe a holiday, maybe to refit the kitchen, but saving with a goal in mind. I don't think there's much point in saving in order to die with a large bank balance, it makes more sense to enjoy it whilst your alive IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Watched the appalling Question Time last night. On the panel were 3 MPs (if you can include Diane Abbott) and a banker Niclola Horlick. They had the nerve to spout about how they would get us out of the financial crisis - you know, the one they got us in to. They said that 'if the Euro collapsed, it would be cataclysmic for everybody.' Well, thanks for that, folks. We never had a say in it, ditto the bank bailouts but now we're being asked to take the pain. Again. Leaving aside the stunning hypocrisy of all this (and the fact that Abbott and Horlick hardly look as if they had seen a famine lately), I reckon we're reaching the endgame for the 'system' the way 'they' have set it up. Take 'saving for a rainy day'. Long and rightly regarded as an important part of society, where one becomes less of a burden on the state, allows people to spend and help the economy and the primary reason for going to work in the first place. But what if you've worked hard, saved and become redundant? 'Sorry, you have savings so will get nothing. However him over there who has never bothered/hasn't paid anything into the pot. He'll get everything.' Or 'That 17 year old girl over there. Never even thought about working, but she's just had a bay-bee so will get both money and a council flat.' Or if you or a loved one has to go into an old people's home? Ditto. And how about the 2-year 'freeze' on interest rates for savers (so that people who have borrowed are spared the pain)? £43 Bn lost in interest so far and counting. And we may be facing the ultimate sin of being a saver. The feral, corrupt banks (i.e. all of them) may well fold and, as they head off in their limos, the savers will have lost everything. So is it worth saving? Sure, you need a bit in case your cooker blows up etc. but it seems to me that you are a bit mad to save (or declare savings...) that affect your right to services that those who haven't bothered currently enjoy. All I know is that it can't go on. As people get older and face later and diminishing pensions will have less to leave to their kids. Therefore the age when people 'get on the housing ladder' will get later. In 20-odd years, I'll probably have to go into a home. By that time, I'll have made sure I've spent the bloody lot. Selfish or sensible? All those people still in houses they can't afford - your savings are helping to pay for them. Every penny you don't get in interest is a penny off somebody elses mortgage bill or perhaps a penny in the pocket of a bank trying to rebuild its balance sheet. Savings are no longer used to fuel the economy - they are being used to prop up the zombie elements of the economy. The role of savings has been completely subverted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Going back to the OP, I see several reasons to save. 1) Is to ensure you have some money available should something unplanned happen, be that a cooker breaking down or the roof leaking or you loosing your job unexpectedly. 2) For something specific, maybe a holiday, maybe to refit the kitchen, but saving with a goal in mind. I don't think there's much point in saving in order to die with a large bank balance, it makes more sense to enjoy it whilst your alive IMO. Sound advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullerboY Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was told by a wise old man many years ago that it's better to die owing £1000000 than leaving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was told by a wise old man many years ago that it's better to die owing £1000000 than leaving it. Better for who? Certainly not those trying to administer your estate, …… a funeral is going to cost your family 3 grand if you want them to try and sort out a million pounds worth of debt as well go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I was told by a wise old man many years ago that it's better to die owing £1000000 than leaving it. The joke actually runs like this: If you owe the Bank £100 000 that you can't pay when it's due, you have a problem. If you owe the Bank £100 000 000 that you can't pay when it's due, the Bank has a problem. If you owe the Bank £100 000 000 000 that you can't pay when it's due, the EU has a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.