Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

It is originally an old gospel song.

That is what the Wicked Book suggests!

8-)

This last year is the first with continuous growth in all 4 quarters since 2007.

Can someone help me please?
If I bought £10000 a share in 2009 and sold in 2013 for profit of £1000.

Is my profit £1000 or less due to inflation? If less, how to calculate?

i'm not an accountant, but i'm sure that the profit is now the profit - i.e. there is no indexing - but of course you can make something like £6,500 (or is it now more?) before CGT at 28% (i think) cuts in

I think the profit is £1,000. There was taper relief on capital gains, but that stopped, I think, in 2008 (another nail from Labour).

OK,
Thank you guys. Straight forward, then.

Do you remember this from Labour

Gordon Brown's ruthless raid on pension schemes has cost the country's savers at least £100bn, a report claimed yesterday.

For the first time, the devastating impact of the Chancellor's controversial tax grab in 1997 has been revealed.

He scrapped the tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds just a few weeks after Labour came to power. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has described the move as one of the 'great scandals of the last decade'.

The report, from Terry Arthur, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, warns the decision has cost Britain's pension savers at least £100bn. This is equal to the entire annual economic output of Ireland, or 50 years of Tesco's annual profits at £2bn a year.

For every one of Britain's 20m people currently saving into a pension scheme, it means they will retire on less money.

To make matters worse, Mr Arthur warns his calculation is on the cautious side. Even £ 150bn may be a 'conservative estimate', he says.

A former pensions adviser to Number 10 said yesterday that the abolition of the tax relief had dealt a body blow to many pension schemes.

Dr Ros Altmann said: 'Gordon Brown saw pension funds as an easy target - so he raided them. 'He either doesn't understand private pensions or he doesn't care about them, which is hardly prudent.'

Before 1997, a pension fund could, for example, be paid £80 in dividends and get £20 in cash back from the Treasury in tax relief. On Budget Day, 3 July 1997, Mr Brown axed the tax relief.

The change took effect immediately. At the time, most people ignored the move, considering it a tedious technicality.

Until recently, it had been thought that the tax grab had cost about £6bn a year, but Mr Arthur fears the figure is much higher.

Even at this level, it would cost every worker who pays into a pension about £300 a year, or £6 a week, according to accountants Grant Thornton. If the £100bn figure is accurate, this is equal to £5,000 for every person who is currently saving into a pension scheme in this country.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said: 'His pension raid was one of his first and worst acts as Chancellor. Pensioners will be paying a heavy price for many, many years to come.'

The sudden cut in pension fund income has played a key role in the closure of final- salary pension schemes. By 2012, it is estimated that the majority of Britain's big businesses-will have axed these gold plated pensions for existing workers, according to the pension consultants Lane Clark & Peacock.

Mr Arthur said: 'What happened in 1997 represented an enormous and ongoing raid on the assets of UK company pension schemes.'

but the obvious question then is why did not GO retract that move?
it's the same question as would be reasonably asked if the boot had been on the other foot

AHOJ.

Try this http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/shares/basics.htm#1

Thank you very much fred.

Post 35851. Trol alert!

Tosser alert

Talking of Trols. And who should post next -):

Call me what you want but I said the unemployment figures were fiddled.

It now happens dodgy Cameron is using Maggies Tactics and transfering unemployed to the sick to make the figures look better.

Just cant trust the tories.

Dodgy this dodgy that dodgy everything.

that's a bit of a moot point surely

if someone is getting sickness/disability benefit, why should they be classed as unemployed - as opposed perhaps to unemployable?

btw, if it was an MT "ploy", did labour reverse it when they came to power?
if not, then your comment is inaccurate

Gf
Your post seems lack any logic.

Firstly, you are constantly complaining that people are being kicked off disability benefit in large numbers. How could the government transfer unemployed to the sick group. Secondly, the numbers on the sick list AND the numbers unemployed are BOTH falling. Thirdly, the government has no power to alter figures from the ONS.

Distortion misrepresentation of government economic figures is a form of political corruption.


But I understand barrow boys are happy to do it.

Cameron is untrustworthy and attempting to turn the UK into a banana republic.

if it was an MT "ploy", did labour reverse it when they came to power?
if not, then your comment is inaccurate

that is the real question
no point in waiting for fossy to answer it, because he has never ever answered a question on this site, but sticky may - he's rather more honest

Yes they did, they created a business atmosphere in which thousands of new jobs were created.

They didnt need to transfer unemployed over to sick.

I f i can find the document Ill post it up, strange aswel it came to light on the day IDS carried out his speech and the Unemployment figures were released.