Loz

That is still as the asset is transferred to a new owner, which is also done on capital gains tax and stamp duty. Not an actual tax on a person's asset.

new mother Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, is it legal? Can you whack a tax on an > asset someone already owns? Answer yes, they do it > all the time if I think about it. North sea oil > profits for one thing. That's not quite the same - you are taxing the profit that the asset generates (not the value of the asset) and only at a time that such profit is realised. I can't think of any tax on an asset. The only on that comes close is the poll tax, but that is levied on the value of a house, but it is not (necessarily) applied to the owner of the asset (i.e. tenants in a house pay it, not the owner).

Frankie, Yep - just looked at iamhere's past posting history to see if we had crossed swords before (which would help to explain why he/she homed in on me) and yes, it was back early last year when iamhere posted a mysterious 'complaint' about James Barber, which included the telling single line post "Because he is LIBDEM - fact.", before suddenly disappearing back into the ether. So, iamhere probably knows as much about peace as I know about ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. As can be noted in their last post. Anyway, retiring again to sit back and watch this thread eat itself.

iamhere Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello, > First time here in a very long time. Loz, it doesn't cost anything to be civil - I > cannot understand why people need to be rude and uncivil - you don't even know this person - this > forum would surely be a better and safer place to share information, if you didn't need to worry > about being attacked! East Dulwich is a small place - you could be standing next the person that > you've been rude to - some respect, is missing in certain quarters of the forum membership and is > negative and unhelpful to creating simply good discussion where people can voice without having > fun, ridicule or rudeness put upon them. > > I must admit, that I'm bracing myself for attack! > > Iamhere. Peace. (I had retired from posting in this thread, but I cannot let this one pass) Iamhere, In 11 pages of posting, where *many* various people - including myself - have posted some pretty forthright comments which involved "fun, ridicule or rudeness", as you put it, you have singled out me (last post: page six) for your attack. And yet you profess to preach peace. You have a very strange way of doing it.

peterstorm1985 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cats are a more serious problem though as they > crap everywhere and it's considerably more > unpleasant poo - at least fox poo tends to be > dryish and they leave it on the surface so it's > easy to dispose of. There is nothing nastier than > sowing a row of something edible then finding a > small mound in the middle where some cat has > decided to bury it's deposit. Yuk. Lion's Roar zoo poo is brilliant at getting rid of cats. I think the Dulwich Garden Centre still sells it. Unless the cats are yours, in which case you are stuffed.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So. I'm off for a pint! I've just cracked open a bottle of wine. So, cheers! :)-D Have a good one.

But how many constitute a mouthful? :))

LadyD, It was because of your post a few pages ago that I gave NN a chance. I tried, I really did. But when you a faced with a random garbage generator with which any sort of intelligent debate is impossible, then I'm sorry, there is only so much I can take. When someone just churns out cut-n-paste information they don't really understand together with undergraduate level, mindless political sloganeering, there is just no conversation to be had. Now I suspect that you are only defending him/her as their politics are - as far as can be established - reasonably aligned with your own. If a similarly reality-challenged poster came on and started hopping into immigration by cutting and pasting Daily Mail and BNP propaganda, I somehow doubt you would be so charitable. In fact I dare say the dread word 'nutter' just might emanate from your keyboard.

Imagine. A poor taste joke. On this thread. As if. Damn good thing you pulled it out at the last minute, LM.

I think SJ is saying that he concluded that NN was a random nutter 5 pages ago and was loudly wondering why it had taken so long for the rest to work this out. As one who gave NN the benefit of doubt, I'd have to say: fair point.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the matter with everyone?? I called him a > nutter after about 3 posts and here we are where > everyone thinks they can still debate with him Yeah, Ok. I thought that when he stopped the random cutting and pasting and actually started typing, a decent debate could have been had. But, after that last outpouring of reality-free bollox I give up. Filed under 'weird nutter'.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Truth is there has never been democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism or any other > (ism) human self-interest. OK, you are just being silly now. If that is the level of debate, then you are wasting my time.

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A handful of plums and just 1 firm cucumber?? > What *are* you insinuating about our katienumbers? :))

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Ho please, no one vote for this coalition. > > Democracy die years ago. Vote for a potato if you > like, you will still get the same old song. Except that QE and the bailouts were done by the former Labour government - the coalition is irrelevant to the issue. And I don't believe the crap about 'democracy dying'. It's usually the mantra of people upset that everyone does not vote the way *you* want them to. Yes, people are voting for the same old, same old, but as it has been said, "the biggest problem with Democracy is that people tend to get exactly the government that they deserve". If you don't like that, you don't like democracy.

... and the scorching of many plums ...

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could I ask you if you voted for the bank bailouts or the Quantitative Easing > If the answer to this is no, then you are in a cleptocracy. Well, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, the answer is actually 'yes'. The electorate empowers the government to make decisions like this on our behalf. Otherwise, your argument would also suggest that I didn't vote for: - My bin being emptied every week - Any funding at all for the NHS this year - Firefighters to be employed - Roads and rail to be maintained etc, etc.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > So, you are actually saying that all banks and > > their assets should be seized by the government? > Let me tell you something about the New York stock exchange [...] Actually, a 'yes' or a 'no' would have sufficed. And been more enlightening.

So, you are actually saying that all banks and their assets should be seized by the government?

Laddy Muck Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As for you Loz, Huggie, and now-famous-to-Guardian-readers-Alex-K, the three > of you (goaded on by the incorrigible maxxi) are an utter disgrace to this forum. > And I shall be reporting you in due course. Why thank you, LM. I have to say, I've worked hard to be an utter disgrace, and my due recognition is long overdue. *bows*

Yeah, KK out back 'trimming a bush' bought back memories of the great Privet Hedge thread. This one has added plums, though. And a 'jam pan' that's seen better days and might never be the same again. I think now is the time to slip in a 'cucumber relish' joke.

How would governments do that? It was fine for the banks that were on the brink of failure, but you just can't march into Goldman-Sachs and the rest and say 'this is all owned by the government now'. That would be challenged in the courts. Also, you would make some of the biggest companies in the world worthless overnight - the knock on effect on other businesses, pension schemes and the rest would be calamitous for everyone. But, if you are just talking about 'the banking system', then each government already controls that. Having said that, I am a big fan of the separation of High St and 'Casino' banking operations. But that is not such a revolution and so probably not a big enough change for you.

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes the world will still be here tomorrow, but > what kind of world? One the we chose or one that > has been chosen for us Neither. It will be the one that develops as a consequences of billions of unrelated decisions made by people in power all over the world. Or are you suggesting we have a snap poll of over 6 billion people. And if we could do that, would you actually get the result you hoped for? You want an easy protest? Get everyone to close their bank accounts and withdraw all their savings. But that is never going to happen.

OK NN, we are starting to get a glimpse behind the cut and paste and posting of links as to what you actually are saying. So: 1) You say, "No one had the decency to turn off the banking life support system in 2008". What would the consequences had been if they *had* turned it off? 2) In general, you pose lots of problems and forecast all sorts of doom and gloom, but what is the solution? What are the consequences of that solution?

Jaysus, MrBen. I'd be locked in my room hiding if I'd have experienced all that.

*gets out popcorn and waits for the fun*