An easy way round this would be to scrap CGT on property sales (alot of long-standing landlords just hold until they die to avoid having to pay huge amounts in CGT) and replace it with a 5% annual value tax on 2nd properties, 7.5% on thirds, etc. That would free up loads of property and cause prices to fall.

There is a proposal from turnaround practitioners that HMG should encourage banks to withdraw lending from 50,000 "zombie" companies to free up funds to lend to growing companies. That would give a short term spike in unemployment but may be better in the long-term.

Let me get this straight, insolvancy practitioners are suggesting that they be allowed to point a finger at up to 50,000 businesses who are currently trading and currently employing folk, but not at a level that they (the practitioners) consider to be viable, "they" being the arbitors of these things.

Of course "withdrawing lending" from these fingered businesses won't necessarily mean that the lending will go back to the lenders, in practice it will mean that the businesses will be given a few weeks to return their accounts to a positive balance after which time the overdraft will be denied and outgoing payments will be stopped until a positive balance returns, at which point a director is obliged to call in the insolvancy practitioner and the bank loses its loan (which is effectively what the overdraft is).

Sounds like a fekkin ace idea, if you're the insolvancy practitioner, because they are the only ones who will make a bean out of this barmy plan.

No you didn't. I can read, it appears that you are the one who struggles with the problem. This is what you wrote:



I did take the liberty of assuming you meant biggest, instead of waffling about a deep-fried pastry




There are thousands of hectares of land suitable for development, all owned by local and national governments. There are also institutional investors willing to make the necessary capital available to fund such projects, based on a 5-10% return over 99+ years. The political will to create such a scenario is the only element of the equation that is absent.



I do accept that, what I also accept and you seem too blind to see, is that there are an increasing number of people who, for whatever reason, are being denied the opportunity to enter the house-ownership market. Not only can they not afford the deposits and mortgage payments, increasingly they are having to rely on taxpayer subsidies to afford their rents. Now Housing Benefit really is dead money, a taxpayer-funded subsidy that goes straight into the pockets of buy-to-let landlords.

Scrapping CGT on property sales wouldn't cause much of a surge in available properties, most would be bought by other landlords anyway. A far better stimulus would be to charge LVT on all Empty properties and land. If the LVT was based on the full council tax (for dwellings) or the UBR (for empty land or commercial properties) of adjacent properties, there'd soon be an increase in availability. A few thousand properties coming onto the market at any one time will not make a dent in pricing, nor will it stimulate building and employment. More importantly, it wouldn't reduce the amount of housing benefit the exchequer is funding.

My scheme to release publicly-owned land to be developed for the rental market would create the necessary employment stimulus and reduce rents and by extension, housing benefits. It requires policial will, unfortunately that will is not evident at the moment. The land is there, the funding would not be difficult to acquire from pension and insurance funds, if not in this country, then certainly from abroad. In the South West, agricultural land is being acquired by foreign investors because they see even the relatively low returns as being a safe bet.

Yes, the IPs have a vested interest in saying this! But, it does have merit. Our economy will be dragged down for years - looking like more than the 10 years I predicted in 2008 when everyone was saying 5 years max. If we'd allowed (or been in a position to allow) things to take their natural course these companies would have already gone bust, the crap banks would have and house prices would have plummeted. By now we'd be in recovery mode. As it is a nation we're propping up banks ('cos we have to), propping up mortagees ('cos we have to for the banks' sakes) and propping up bust companies (so the banks don't take a big bad debts hit they can't really afford). It is an unsustainable position and will almost inevitably end is another UK financial crisis of much greater severity than the 2008 one.

Are you saying a 5-10% return per annum - no wonder they are interested 10% compound over 99 years!! - or are you saying 5-10% over 100 years in which case I don't believe it. No institutional investor would stand a return like that. If they would I hope they are not managing my pension fund!!

That is where getting the funds available to suitable applicants - we need to get back to achievable deposits and available funds.

So under your scheme would taxpayer subsidies not simply be going to your institutional investors?

Or alternatively we'd be bust and so would most of Europe, unemployment the highest ever recorded, house repossessions double or triple what they were in the early 90s and a government helpless to assist in any way.

There is a reason why all parliamentary party's voted to bail out the banks in 07/08.

Classic conditions for fascism.

And all the sanctimonious Middle England types who like to brag about how they are "savers not borrowers" and "did the right thing" building up their pension, funds for their children etc, would be whinging no end when their savings had been wiped out when the banks crashed.

I never suggested the banks be allowed to go under. But the other things - maybe.

With Cyprus imposing a 10% tax on people's savings to help save the economy, could that happen here! Effectively, UK policy has been to do the same thing by stealth but the way things are going could it become overt policy? Could there be a run on the banks as a result of the Cypriots policy?

With Cyprus imposing a 10% tax on people's savings to help save the economy, could that happen here! Effectively, UK policy has been to do the same thing by stealth but the way things are going could it become overt policy? Could there be a run on the banks as a result of the Cypriots policy?

They can have 10% of mine, so long as they can collect if from The Bank of Under the Mattress

They are quite welcome to take 10% of my savings.

When they do then maybe they can tell me where the other 90% is because I'm unaware that there is anything left at all.



On a similar theme I have received a letter from a company called Equiniti this week advising me that I may have uncollected assets in the form of dividends or shares that I am unaware of.

The unaware bit is correct but for a small stipend they will advise me of what they are (a percentage of the takings), so the reply has gone back to them - here I come, lottery winnings time, I'm back in the money again ...

I do note that on their scale of charges they start from a finders fee of £0 for amounts under £10, so haven't ordered the Bentley just yet.

Chances are that I will OWE somebody something...

It isn't.

Between 6.5% and 10% dependent on how much savings you have isn't it?

And technically not a tax but a one-off levy.

Still seems unjust to penalise savers for their banks being idiots.

No because even the Tories aren't that stupid. That hasn't been UK policy, despite their being no such thing as UK policy, but neither HMG or BoE policy has been to do this, either secretly or overtly. Yes there probably will be.

It may not be legal to do this under EU law. Not sure of the details but I have seen this mentioned in the press.

It may have something to do with it undermining deposit guarantee schemes. They are there to protect you if the bank goes bust but preventing it going bust by nicking your money anyway would seem to make them worthless.

Many Cypriot savers would I imagine, be better off if the banks went bust and the guarantee's came into effect.

And 9.9% is the upper one, IIRC.

From something I read, it seems that neither Schäuble nor the IMF particularly wanted to impose this on private savers, but the Nicosia government was determined. There's vast amounts going around about half the accounts in Cypriot banks being Russian – and at least some of that money being laundered – while the government in Nicosia apparently wants the Russians to give them some cash.

From the scant amount I know, it seems as though this solution is deliberately intended to be the one that upsets the Russians least.

I think the way it ended up where it did is more to do with Germany than what the Nicosia government wanted.

The Cypriot banks lost a shed load of cash having to take a "haircut" on the Greek debt they held. So they needed bailing out.

The Germans take the view there is a lot of Russian money in the Cypriot banks much of which was laundered so there was no way they were going to allow a normal bail out using funds that would mostly be coming from German tax payers. They would be using German money to protect Russian criminals.

Without money coming in from a central (mainly German funded) bail out fund the Cypriot government had little choice but to do as it did.

The reason the IMF and others don't like it is this rips up two fundamental tenets of post Greek crisis banking. It's supposed to be bond holders who lend to banks who take the hit if the proverbial hits the fan and the deposit protection scheme is supposed to protect the ordinary person from banks getting in a mess. The logic is sophisticated financial institutions are in a position to assess the risk of lending to banks whereas it is unreasonable to expect ordinal people to do the same. So bank bond holders are supposed to be exposed to risk and ordinary people aren't.

What has happened is the exact opposite. The bond holders are not affected and the ordinary people are. And all this is to keep the German electorate happy so they aren't protecting deposits of laundered Russian money and it is a direct consequence of the terms they were instrumental in imposing on Greece that shafted the Cypriot banks in the process.

Doing this has basically undermined the new rules put in place designed to reassure people if a bailout is on the cards their money is safe, it will be bond holding institutions that take the hit not them and there is no need for a run on the banks deposits as we saw with Northern Rock.

It's quite amazing the Germans have been so short sighted because anyone in say Spain or Italy thinking their bank is about go belly up now has every reason for get their cash out. Exactly the opposite of how its all supposed to work.

It's a mess, without doubt.

Although frankly I can't imagine why anyone would want to have their own taxpayers bailing out the Russian mafia if there's a genuine belief that large pots of money in Cypriot banks are exactly that.

Well yes, if they think that is the case shouldn't the solution be to dream up some way to seize the funds and use that to bail the banks out? I mean they either know for certain its laundered money or they don't.

My guess is the reality is it is only assumed to be the case and they have next to no idea what is laundered money and what isn't. So unless you can prove the case you have no basis for going round and wrecking the two banking principles I mentioned in my previous post. You just have to take it on the chin and then set about dealing with money laundering as a separate exercise.

The Germans haven't got over Stalingrad. Simple as that.

Having read some more about it, it seems the idea behind this is the Cypriot government are really after a nice chunk of the billions on deposit there originating in Russia. The fact they are hitting everyone to a certain extent (latest rumour is the lower threshold will be 3% the higher one 12.5%) is a kind of fig leaf to show they just aren't seizing the money of one particular set of depositors.

I still think it is probably illegal. The ECHR has as one if its fundamental principles that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property.