IVA (Little Known Government Legislation)

IVA - Little Known Government Legislation - Well that is what they say on the increasing number of adverts on television.

For the last few years that I was in the Inland Revenue I was involved in dealing with bankruptcies, liquidation and other insolvencies. I left over 6 years ago, so am sure there have been many changes since then.

As usual there two ways at looking at these adverts. I felt that if you had no money you had the worst help, if there was some money but did not know how to work the system, would be badly treated and I even felt the creditors did not do well out of it, if £2,000 available the fees from the Insolvency Practitioner would be more than that or if £10,000 the fees would be over £8,000. There was even a case where the insolvent person had a creditor, who was paying back £150 per month, so the Practitioner kept the case open to receive these funds, but also added there would be nothing available for creditors.

If you knew the system and could pay a few thousand to the Insolvency Practitioner for the initial work, they would be able to bid for the assets at a price, true low, but also true, the original owner of the business would place more value in the assets than others. In the case of professionals very often IVA's would be sorted out, they always claimed the bankruptcy costs would give more to creditors with an IVA, of course there is also the 5 years of payments in to the fund.

I feel it is good that the IVAs are not now limited to a small number of people. The downside being that if you have just spent more than you earn, should this be encouraged. After all if you do not pay what you owe, others have to, hence the Banks wanting to charge for more services. If you have been borrowing responsibly, but say lose a job or become ill, I feel help should be there. With everything something is set-up to help others take advantage. Like the accident compensation, where people have serious injuries need money to keep them going, industrial decease which can disable or kill, the time has been reduced. Them people who fall over take advantage of the system. Ian

Pirate Items on the News

I will say first, that I do not approve of 'Pirating' items, even to the extent that people get annoyed with me over not accepting things.

The thing that annoys me it the figures given on the News etc. for the amount lost as if people would be able to buy the same number of items if only available at the full price. For example there was a News items about computer games in markets, at a time when the were £40 plus, in the market the pirate version was £5 and people were buying say 3 at a time. They seems to have calculated a loss to the business in that case of £120, but if they had that much money would they buy only 3 of the £5 ones?

Another annoyance, was the CD Wow thing where they charged an additional amount for CDs obtained outside the EEC. The business and band maybe from the UK, but they are happy to do the recording abroad, printing of the discs and covers in Southern Europe, producing the discs in Asia. They sell in these places at a lower rate (even the USA) but they do not like it if we buy from the best value place. They say as there is a cost of research and development, but why should the UK be the only place that pays for this. Even if it is a British band, if someone from overseas enjoys the music they should also pay their share of R & D.

I know some US states tried to charge Banks which had branches in the State, the worldwide profits to the States taxes. Perhaps the UK should charge UK companies to worldwide profits based on the price they would have charged for their goods in the UK. Perhaps they would do more of the production in the UK or reduce UK prices, OK it would not work. Ian

Not a Money Whinge (Voting Age)

I understand that the Government from October will increase the age that people can buy cigarettes and tobacco from 16 to 18. Now this does not effect me as I am well over 18 and have never smoked.

I understand that the Government wants to show how seriously it takes the damage to health of smoking, in the past comments have been made that the Government does not have any interest in reducing smoking as the tax on a packet of cigarettes is about 75% of the total cost.

The problem as I see it, is that the Government wants 'young people' to become more responsible, but increases the age limit for purchasing certain items, perhaps they need to offer something back. I feel reducing the voting age to 16 will not cause any harm and may have some benefits. There is a General Election about every 4 years on average, (up to the 5 years maximum) so the first General Election that someone could be when they are 22-23 a time when they are living their life and have managed without politics, so why would they bother about it. If reduced to 16 it would take the first General Election say to 20-21 and a number before leaving school or college, a time when people are more interested in politics so the Parties may find it easier to recruit help for General Elections if they are also going to be able to vote.

I doubt the outcome of an election would change much as it would would only mean about a million or so potential electors, spread over the UK and of course would not all vote the same way. It may also help to balance in a small way the increasing numbers of electors in the older age group. It may also balance the feeling the Government is against the young, in increasing the age for various things (except in one area effecting a minority of the population), comments about 'Youths in Hoodies', 'Overweight young people', 'Binge drinking', pushing for the further education, and so on. It may even reduce or reverse the fall in people voting in elections, by catching peoples interest at a young age and maybe even holding on to some of it. Ian

Why I Started

Many years ago I noticed interviews, one with a Petrol company spokesman, on one occasion at a time when petrol prices were going up, the interviewer suggested the profit per gallon had gone up to 22p, but the spokesman could not say the profit, he said there were problems with calculating the costs of different products from a gallon of oil. A couple of years later petrol companies were complaining of falling profits, at that time they told the interviewer they knew they were only making 6p a gallon.

Another time there were complaints in the media that Barclaycard was making very high profits, the spokesperson was only able to say as Banks provide a number of services but they do not know the breakdown of the costs of the Bank for each service. This was accepted by the interviewer. My feeling were that if someone went to a bank to ask for a loan to increase part of their business, I feel the bank would say,'but how do you know that you are increasing a profitable part of your business.' After all the part of the business that the person is increasing, could be making a loss, that is not noticed as overall the business is in profit, the banks would expect a breakdown of the costs of each product.

I felt that in both cases, the interviewer did not know much about the subject. I feel this is improving with the likes of Adrian Chiles, who when necessary, will question about the reply given, but by the same token, where you could not expect a business to give a full answer, but does the best that they can, he seems to appreciate it, after all who wants to hear the same question 15 times, when you know that it will not be answered after the first couple of times. Ian