Financial Crisis

[topt]

Reading some tax details it seems I, or anyone else in a similar position to me looking to move overseas and reposition investments, would be best to move first and declare non resident / non Dom status. Then sell all assets with no capital gains tax to pay, reinvest and declare your non Dom status on yearly returns so the rental income is not subject to any income tax either!

Looks like you must stay away for minimum 5 years and not come back for any more than 90days per year.

Happy days.

http://www.hmrc.gov....qs_capgains.htm

Have you read up fully on applying for non dom status? In my memory, admittedly a couple of years ago, I don't think you can "declare" non dom status - you have to apply and it is not as easy or straightforward as becoming "non resident for tax purposes". If you plan on never going back to the UK for an extended period then ok but otherwise it think it becomes problematical.

As a non resident you are however still taxed all be it there are lots of ways to reduce, mimimise , avoid....

[mccw]

Reading some tax details it seems I, or anyone else in a similar position to me looking to move overseas and reposition investments, would be best to move first and declare non resident / non Dom status. Then sell all assets with no capital gains tax to pay, reinvest and declare your non Dom status on yearly returns so the rental income is not subject to any income tax either!

Looks like you must stay away for minimum 5 years and not come back for any more than 90days per year.

Happy days.

http://www.hmrc.gov....qs_capgains.htm

Have you read up fully on applying for non dom status? In my memory, admittedly a couple of years ago, I don't think you can "declare" non dom status - you have to apply and it is not as easy or straightforward as becoming "non resident for tax purposes". If you plan on never going back to the UK for an extended period then ok but otherwise it think it becomes problematical.

As a non resident you are however still taxed all be it there are lots of ways to reduce, mimimise , avoid....

I think one "declares" it on ones tax return and then up to the HMRC to challenge it/ ask for more evidence if they perceive a problem. Passport should clear this up.

The "apply" could be the application to / through a letting a agent to allow them to not have to deduct the tax before passing income to you.

http://search2.hmrc.gov.uk/kb5/hmrc/forms/view.page?record=NllaOsCiG7o&formId=743

Maybe one must apply also if you work for a UK company and paid in UK but live overseas mostly / work offshore- I don't know about this since not relevant to me.

When I leave England it will be for 10+ years , maybe never to return over that 90days limit.

I don't think it's worth paying the NI contributions because expect by the time I reach retirement age (40+ years from now) there won't be hardly any welfare state left.

[topt]

Reading some tax details it seems I, or anyone else in a similar position to me looking to move overseas and reposition investments, would be best to move first and declare non resident / non Dom status. Then sell all assets with no capital gains tax to pay, reinvest and declare your non Dom status on yearly returns so the rental income is not subject to any income tax either!

Looks like you must stay away for minimum 5 years and not come back for any more than 90days per year.

Happy days.

http://www.hmrc.gov....qs_capgains.htm

Have you read up fully on applying for non dom status? In my memory, admittedly a couple of years ago, I don't think you can "declare" non dom status - you have to apply and it is not as easy or straightforward as becoming "non resident for tax purposes". If you plan on never going back to the UK for an extended period then ok but otherwise it think it becomes problematical.

As a non resident you are however still taxed all be it there are lots of ways to reduce, mimimise , avoid....

I think one "declares" it on ones tax return and then up to the HMRC to challenge it/ ask for more evidence if they perceive a problem. Passport should clear this up.

The "apply" could be the application to / through a letting a agent to allow them to not have to deduct the tax before passing income to you.

http://search2.hmrc....iG7o&formId=743

Maybe one must apply also if you work for a UK company and paid in UK but live overseas mostly / work offshore- I don't know about this since not relevant to me.

When I leave England it will be for 10+ years , maybe never to return over that 90days limit.

I don't think it's worth paying the NI contributions because expect by the time I reach retirement age (40+ years from now) there won't be hardly any welfare state left.

The link you gave is for non residents for tax purposes and I use this. However there is a big difference between that and becoming non domiciled -

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/international/domicile.htm

This was an article from the Telegraph 2 years ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/7465517/Non-dom-status-do-you-qualify.html

I am not suggesting it cannot be done just that the two terms are very different in tax law and that there is more to it than you think/suggest. If you plan to leave for ever than there should not be an issue.

[mccw]

Reading some tax details it seems I, or anyone else in a similar position to me looking to move overseas and reposition investments, would be best to move first and declare non resident / non Dom status. Then sell all assets with no capital gains tax to pay, reinvest and declare your non Dom status on yearly returns so the rental income is not subject to any income tax either!

Looks like you must stay away for minimum 5 years and not come back for any more than 90days per year.

Happy days.

http://www.hmrc.gov....qs_capgains.htm

Have you read up fully on applying for non dom status? In my memory, admittedly a couple of years ago, I don't think you can "declare" non dom status - you have to apply and it is not as easy or straightforward as becoming "non resident for tax purposes". If you plan on never going back to the UK for an extended period then ok but otherwise it think it becomes problematical.

As a non resident you are however still taxed all be it there are lots of ways to reduce, mimimise , avoid....

I think one "declares" it on ones tax return and then up to the HMRC to challenge it/ ask for more evidence if they perceive a problem. Passport should clear this up.

The "apply" could be the application to / through a letting a agent to allow them to not have to deduct the tax before passing income to you.

http://search2.hmrc....iG7o&formId=743

Maybe one must apply also if you work for a UK company and paid in UK but live overseas mostly / work offshore- I don't know about this since not relevant to me.

When I leave England it will be for 10+ years , maybe never to return over that 90days limit.

I don't think it's worth paying the NI contributions because expect by the time I reach retirement age (40+ years from now) there won't be hardly any welfare state left.

The link you gave is for non residents for tax purposes and I use this. However there is a big difference between that and becoming non domiciled -

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/international/domicile.htm

This was an article from the Telegraph 2 years ago - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/7465517/Non-dom-status-do-you-qualify.html

I am not suggesting it cannot be done just that the two terms are very different in tax law and that there is more to it than you think/suggest. If you plan to leave for ever than there should not be an issue.

Cheers. Yes another reason to make sure both are properly declared and established over many years- so they can't tax me even after I'm dead ! Inheritance tax.

Reading about the increasingly long arm of the IRS, I sure am glad not to be American.

[churchill]

Learning a few tricks from thailand ....

How to beat the new property tax?

'Remember the saying? “Man proposes - God disposes.” China has a variation on that. Basically it says that higher-ups set out policy and the rest of the population then proceed to circumvent the new policy. That’s exactly what’s happening in Hong Kong right now.

With the introduction of the additional 15 per cent stamp duty for non-Hong Kong permanent residents (PRs) and corporate buyers – described as a rare “anti-foreigner tax” in Hong Kong by some international media – many non-local home buyers are working with property agents and lawyers to find out how to legally avoid the new tax.'

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1073896/how-get-ahead-property-without-being-tried

[mccw]

Part of interview with Niguraguan president.

"We hope that those in power in the worlds most advanced economies will finally realize that the path they had been following, thinking it to be a path toward peace, stability, growth and development, has eventually brought them to the verge of disaster, and they are the ones heading toward a cliff.

In the past, they used to drive us toward self-destruction, but this time, they are themselves set on a path to collapse. Their only option is to change themselves, and to that end, they need to evolve, and to promote a world order that would be in line with international law, UN principles and the laws of international trade in a multi-polar world.

RT:So you believe this is reality rather than wishful thinking?

DO: It is reality, I am sure of that. We already see it happening."

He goes on to say china is about to start building a canal across his country to rival that of panama

[churchill]

'He goes on to say china is about to start building a canal across his country to rival that of panama '

Perhaps the Chinese should focus closer to home .. and If one drives the road ..one can see the plan is already there for future development ..

see http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Thai_Canal

• 
  

Edited October 31, 2012 by churchill

[mccw]

UBS 'Rogue Trader': We Were Pushed to Limit

Last Updated 14:12 30/10/2012

Alleged rogue trader Kweku Adoboli who is accused of gambling away £1.4bn has given jurors his account of how the losses unfolded.

The 32-year-old denies committing Britain's biggest ever fraud while working for Swiss bank UBS during the global financial crisis.

He said he "lost control in the maelstrom of the financial crisis."

He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of fraud and four counts of false accounting between October 2008 and last September relating to a so-called "umbrella" fund for off-book trades.

Southwark Crown Court heard the fund was doing well until he changed from a conservative "bearish" position to an aggressive "bullish" stance - under pressure from senior managers, Mr Adoboli said.

Describing the moment when he began to make serious losses as European markets crashed in July last year, he said: "The real problem was a result of the pressure to flip my position from short to long, this broke my control.

"I absolutely lost control, I was no longer in control of the decisions around the trades we were doing."

The court has already heard how Adoboli worked for UBS's global synthetic equities division, buying and selling exchange traded funds (ETFs), which track different types of stocks, bonds or commodities such as metals.

He claims senior managers were fully aware of what he was doing and encouraged him to push the boundaries to make profits for the bank.

Yassine Bouhara, former co-head of equities at UBS, allegedly told Adoboli in an email: "You don't know what your limits are until you push the boundary so far that you receive a slap on the back of the wrist."

Answering questions by his defence barrister Paul Garlick QC, Ghanaian-born Adoboli said: "There were no secrets, there was no hiding, there was no holding back.

"We were told to go for it, we went for it. We were told to push the boundaries, so we pushed the boundaries. We were told you wouldn't know where the limit of the boundary was until you got a slap on the back of the wrist. We found that boundary, we found the edge, we fell off and I got arrested."

He also claimed that an alleged email to colleagues from a more senior trader, mocking his bearish position, contributed to his more aggressive approach.

"Everyone was laughing about it," he said.

Mr Garlick asked: "If you had remained bearish would any losses have followed from your trades?"

Adoboli replied: "If I had held on for one more day, just one more day, if I had just held on, those losses would never have happened."

The trial continues.

I believe him.

This culture seen again and again if the banks is why I don't hold any faith in the paper markets and think another catastrophe could unfold at any time.

(Not that his individual loss was a catastrophe, I mean some scam or another could unfold not currently on the radar because the bank are all crooks running multiple books/ "umbrella" operations. )

[churchill]

Mr Garlic should keep his mouth closed ...

one more day .. always one more day ..

[yoshiwara]

Learning a few tricks from thailand ....

How to beat the new property tax?

'Remember the saying? “Man proposes - God disposes.” China has a variation on that. Basically it says that higher-ups set out policy and the rest of the population then proceed to circumvent the new policy. That’s exactly what’s happening in Hong Kong right now.

With the introduction of the additional 15 per cent stamp duty for non-Hong Kong permanent residents (PRs) and corporate buyers – described as a rare “anti-foreigner tax” in Hong Kong by some international media – many non-local home buyers are working with property agents and lawyers to find out how to legally avoid the new tax.'

http://www.scmp.com/...out-being-tried

They can try, but highly unlikely they will succeed. Any exposed loopholes will have a very short shelf life.

Also no evidence AFAIK of the 10% Singapore tax being circumvented which is already in place.

It does mean in practice that those of us holding HK property will likely put to one side ideas of trading up with the 15% surcharge at least in the short run.

[mccw]

"The US will reach the federal debt limit near the end of 2012, the Treasury Department revealed along with plans to sell $72 billion in notes and bonds next week to raise capital.

But the Treasury said it would keep borrowing under the current debt limit of $16.39 trillion until Congress votes to increase the debt ceiling. The nation's debt currently stands $16.16 trillion.

"We continue to expect that these extraordinary measures would provide sufficient headroom under the debt limit to allow the government to continue to meet its obligations until early in 2013," Treasury Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford said.

These measures include temporarily removing investments from government employee pension funds to clear space for other borrowing. The US Treasury is going to sell $32 billion in three-year notes, $24 billion in 10-year notes and $16 billion in 30-year bonds at auction next week as part of the effort to raise $288 billion during the third quarter. That compares to $264 billion in net borrowing during the second quarter.

Treasury also plans to borrow $342 billion during the first quarter of 2013 trying to curb a record budget deficit of $1.09 trillion in 2012. The country is running a deficit over $1 trillion for the forth year in a row." RT

How long can it go on?

"These measures include temporarily removing investments from government employee pension funds to clear space for other borrowing"- what does this mean do you suppose?

In the event an actual effort is made to reduce the debt and borrowing seriously how will this effect financial crises? Deflation?

If it continues , stagflation until the faith is lost?

[mccw]

Maybe a good idea; but I don't see it catching on somehow:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9623863/IMFs-epic-plan-to-conjure-away-debt-and-dethrone-bankers.html

[Naam]

Maybe a good idea; but I don't see it catching on somehow:

http://www.telegraph...ne-bankers.html

i think the Right Honourable Sir Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Esq.would have made a good author for Startrek episodes.

[mccw]

bbc.co.uk/news/business-20164795

[mccw]

Naam; your abound man right? What happens when a bonds bubble bursts? Do you think we could be in one / at the peak of one today?

[Naam]

Naam; your abound man right? What happens when a bonds bubble bursts? Do you think we could be in one / at the peak of one today?

mccw,

there are bonds and there are bonds. then there are this kind of bonds and that kind of bonds. there are so many kinds of different bond species that even the best informed "bondsmen" are lost because each species is divided into subspecies and even the bonds belonging to one subspecies might differ from each other like dogs and cats. evaluating a specific kind of bond might require to go through dozens, in certain cases a couple of hundred, pages of bond description.

the only common denominator bonds have is that they are supposed to yield worthles fiat money some more, some less, some monthly some at maturity that is... as long as the debtor doesn't go belly-up. and there are bonds (such as short term UST and Bunds) which yield nothing at all but you have to pay investing in them.

in short, there is no answer for your question which sounds (no offence meant) exactly like the often cited "how long is a piece of string?"

[mccw]

Naam; your abound man right? What happens when a bonds bubble bursts? Do you think we could be in one / at the peak of one today?

mccw,

there are bonds and there are bonds. then there are this kind of bonds and that kind of bonds. there are so many kinds of different bond species that even the best informed "bondsmen" are lost because each species is divided into subspecies and even the bonds belonging to one subspecies might differ from each other like dogs and cats. evaluating a specific kind of bond might require to go through dozens, in certain cases a couple of hundred, pages of bond description.

the only common denominator bonds have is that they are supposed to yield worthles fiat money some more, some less, some monthly some at maturity that is... as long as the debtor doesn't go belly-up. and there are bonds (such as short term UST and Bunds) which yield nothing at all but you have to pay investing in them.

in short, there is no answer for your question which sounds (no offence meant) exactly like the often cited "how long is a piece of string?"

To specify a little, I am thinking about government bonds.. How some you have to actually "pay to invest in them" or recieve very little. Do you think it likely such a situation can continue indefinitely? Would you class this situation as a bubble? That could pop? How and what might it look like?

[mccw]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

[cloudhopper]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

[yoshiwara]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

Marginally worse than gold with a return of zero.

[midas]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

But governments can change the rules or their minds anytime on a whim ?

Ask the GM bondholders.........

[mccw]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

Marginally worse than gold with a return of zero.

Except gold doesn't have central banks flooding more in to existence or the risks of government liabilities going forward; but I suppose all can be met from further printing?

[mccw]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

So it could be said a bond is a flight to safety with a deflationary worry. Where as gold is a safety but from mostly an inflationary point of view.

?

When one scenario starts to evidence itself more than the other is when bubble will pop then

[midas]

I mean a garranteed loss seems mad

Yes it would seem so unless return OF the principal is paramount. Even a nominally diminished principal could be a real gain in the face of deflation or currency appreciation.

Marginally worse than gold with a return of zero.

Except gold doesn't have central banks flooding more in to existence or the risks of government liabilities going forward; but I suppose all can be met from further printing?

After all that has happened over the last four years the choice of whether to keep physical gold in your possession versus entrusting your money to third parties and in particular government officials should be a no-brainer

[midas]

Is this a glimpse of what it will be like when

Hurricane Sandy is another reminder of just how incredibly fragile the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted on a daily basis really is. Many of the hardest hit areas along the Jersey shore and the coast of Long Island have descended into a state of anarchy.

NY/NJ Gas Shortages: Mile-Long Lines, Rationing, Fights, Police Draw Guns

http://www.breitbart...shortages-Sandy

Edited November 2, 2012 by midas

[mccw]

After all that has happened over the last four years the choice of whether to keep physical gold in your possession versus entrusting your money to third parties and in particular government officials should be a no-brainer"

Well my money's on gold as the true safety.

I think government bonds are anomalies since the sovereign risk, the systemic risk is what's attempting to be hedged but then the very risk is also the hedge itself , so it looks fairly ridiculas to me. I suppose central banks can maintain demand for thier government bonds by buying them all up themselves? What % of total is this now compared to 1-5 or 10 years ago? How far/ long can that go on for?

Edited November 2, 2012 by mccw

[mccw]

Is this a glimpse of what it will be like when

Hurricane Sandy is another reminder of just how incredibly fragile the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted on a daily basis really is. Many of the hardest hit areas along the Jersey shore and the coast of Long Island have descended into a state of anarchy.

NY/NJ Gas Shortages: Mile-Long Lines, Rationing, Fights, Police Draw Guns

http://www.breitbart...shortages-Sandy

Did you ever watch that program "doomsday preppers" on nat geo/ you tube? All those comments from the state believers saying how dumb or crazy the preppers are or "nothing ever happens" etc etc; well i bet those in NY etc wish they had a room full of supplies on hand right now! Just like those catch in middle the London riots ,or Katrina, or Thai floods, Russian floods, Burmese floods, Pakistani earthquake floods, Chinese earthquake, Haiti, Japan, Italy, turkey, etc tsunami etc etc shit does happen and it seems to be hitting the fan more often than ever before.

I'm sure its not just my perception or the media coverage; seems there are so many many earthquakes and massive natural disasters since 2000; its like a once in 10year event is getting to 1 a year to now last couple of years building to more like 2-4 per year.

As we've talked about already the extreme weather around the world is leading in to food prices increasing in leaps and bounds.

This is just the beginnings

[mccw]

A better measure of inflation ;

https://www.aier.org/article/7557-epi-reflects-basic-economic-change

[mccw]

www.Shadowstats.com

Edited November 2, 2012 by mccw

[Naam]

To specify a little, I am thinking about government bonds.. How some you have to actually "pay to invest in them" or recieve very little. Do you think it likely such a situation can continue indefinitely? Would you class this situation as a bubble? That could pop? How and what might it look like?

as far as government bonds are concerned a bubble (pricewise) does indeed exist whereas the yields are at all time lows. sovereign debtors, who had to pay less than a decade ago double-digit yields are placing bonds in the market paying 3% or even less and some debtors, e.g. Germany could place debt at negative yields thus asking investors to take a loss.

the reason for the above-mentioned is that since Lehman 2008 huge amounts of cash are partly chasing yield and are partly searching "quality" to park cash safely all on a global scale. i'm not sure how long the present situation can last. but it is highly likely that it can go on for quite a number of years to come. the latter for the simple reason that both parties, debtors and creditors are taking part, respectively having created that situation and that the global economic cooling will not change their approach.

interest rates have never and cannot increase or decrease over night and our present situation (globalisation and interdependence) prevents a pop or burst of what is called a bond bubble. the "bond pope" Bill Gross of Pimco/Allianz made recently some relevant negative remarks but the last few years demonstrate clearly that his "papacy" has become quite weak based on completely wrong assumptions and decisions.