41–50 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, but after maximizing an ISA that's still an option. Also the government is clamping down on cash ISA.
I think they're clamping down on cash held in Stocks and Shares ISAs, not Cash ISAs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There really isn't a lot of slack in the welfare system unless you're prepared to be very short sighted and go back to "tent city" levels of homelessness. Which is partly why all previous attempts to cut it have failed. Maybe declaring certain areas of high rent off-limits for housing benefit, but then you have to raise the salaries of NHS staff and teachers living in London so they can afford to work there. Maybe if…
Yeah but the VAT on school fees meant a load of those children had to go to state schools so we ended up paying for it anyway.
So it looks like it would pay for itself?
Edit: We don't charge VAT on private healthcare - so charging it on private education looks a bit inconsistent to me.
I spent the entire day yesterday trying to set up some automated monitoring of my investments, only to discover most UK market information is locked behind stupid-money APIs. Anything that improves that situation is a positive.
That's normal in markets and it even makes sense. Think about it: shouldn't the market be funded by charging fees to the extremely wealthy participants? The alternative is that it's taxpayer funded, which is a tax subsidy to extremely wealthy participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's normal in markets and it even makes sense. Think about it: shouldn't the market be funded by charging fees to the extremely wealthy participants? The alternative is that it's taxpayer funded, which is a tax subsidy to extremely wealthy participants.
Only the extremely wealthy participate in the UK? That is most certainly not the case in the US, where your average salaried employee has most of their retirement invested in the market
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but the VAT on school fees meant a load of those children had to go to state schools so we ended up paying for it anyway.
A rough calculation: £8,580 funding per child at state school, ~90,000 less in private schools and in state schools so about £770 million more required for state school funding and this measure is supposed to bring in about £1.7 billion a year... So it looks like it would pay for itself? Edit: We don't charge VAT on private healthcare - so charging it on private education looks a bit inconsistent to me.
I spent the entire day yesterday trying to set up some automated monitoring of my investments, only to discover most UK market information is locked behind stupid-money APIs. Anything that improves that situation is a positive.
That's normal in markets and it even makes sense. Think about it: shouldn't the market be funded by charging fees to the extremely wealthy participants? The alternative is that it's taxpayer funded, which is a tax subsidy to extremely wealthy participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy- other alternatives are regulatory requirements or taxes that force or allow the api to be provisioned
You can force markets to make an open API funded by participants, but you can't make it fully open (open API and open participation) if you don't want tax funding because then there's no funding source left. Maybe you decide a fully open market is worth being tax funded, though it's still mostly going to benefit very rich people.
I love that it's a 'tape' - I assume in reference to the early telegraph tapes/tickers: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co33749...
I spent the entire day yesterday trying to set up some automated monitoring of my investments, only to discover most UK market information is locked behind stupid-money APIs. Anything that improves that situation is a positive.
Also some resellers of market information are pretty affordable for personal use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy- other alternatives are regulatory requirements or taxes that force or allow the api to be provisioned
You can force markets to make an open API funded by participants, but you can't make it fully open (open API and open participation) if you don't want tax funding because then there's no funding source left. Maybe you decide a fully open market is worth being tax funded, though it's still mostly going to benefit very rich people.
There's plenty of things that cost money that legislation forces companies to do anyway, regardless of if there is a 'funding source' or not.
Although this particular one is from the FCA so presumably is taxpayer funded anyway.