Donate SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Zacs-Master. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hardly a rescue,more like a takeover.
I have no time for Welby. He is just the Labour Party in a mitre.
I must admit I'm not quite sure I get this.

If the loan book is sold off cheap how would the borrowers have a problem? Surely it is the investors that loose out?

Or am I missing something?
Question Author
Maybe his Mitre will be good in a tight corner?
Only if he is cutting corners though.
Question Author
2nd paragraph, YMB. ‘in an effort to protect about 200,000 borrowers who could otherwise be forced to pay back their debts at high rates by a commercial lending firm‘
Question Author
Maybe he has a different angle on things?
haha

And yes, I saw that but can terms and conditions be changed? I would think that would fall foul of the FCA.
Question Author
I don’t have the knowledge (or energy to be bothered researching) to answer that, YMB. I just thought the article was bizarre and worthy of posting.

Anyone who takes a loan out with a company like this needs to be prepared to take the consequences, not receive a safety net via the Anglican Church. (There’s a sentence I never thought I’d write!)
watched news where he was at the TUC expounding on about Amazon and how they don't pay their proper dues, taxes, and all the while it turns out that the CofE has a large portfolio which includes large tract of Amazon, now there's a man who doesn't know which way is up.
I don't the church has ever refused to help people on the grounds that their problems were caused by their own mistakes; perhaps Welby feels a little more empathy towards those who get things wrong than ABers do?
Yes Zacs, not sure I have the energy either and yo uare right it is bizzare what he is suggesting.

Mind you the Church is stonking rich off the masses and did invest in a Wonga holding company (as well as Amazon) (and wasn't Welby an oil trader or something and now lives in a free mansion?) so perhaps it's a guilt trip?
Question Author
Maybe, YMB. I find the whole scenario like the plot for a Python film.
emmie - // watched news where he was at the TUC expounding on about Amazon and how they don't pay their proper dues, taxes, and all the while it turns out that the CofE has a large portfolio which includes large tract of Amazon, now there's a man who doesn't know which way is up. //

What the Archbishop, and similar moaners like him, fail to appreciate, is that if major companies are paying low taxes, that is the fault of the tax system, not the company.

All companies are duty bound to declare as much profit for their shareholders as they can, within the law, and that is exactly what they do.

If a company is able to minimise its tax liabilities, then it is beholden for the government to sort out its tax legislation accordingly.

I entirely applaud any company evading tax, I would do so myself in a heartbeat if I were able - and I imagine the Archbishop's funds are just as carefully managed as any of the companies he is so fond of criticising.

If the church was a fraction as holy as it claims to be, it would have set up a not-for-profit loan company decades ago, instead of rushing to play up its largesse by bailing out a bunch of Shylock charlatans now.
Perhaps Welby should re-read his Bible: "Render unto Caesar..."
''I entirely applaud any company evading tax, I would do so myself in a heartbeat if I were able - and I imagine the Archbishop's funds are just as carefully managed as any of the companies he is so fond of criticising."

Tax evasion is illegal - tax avoidance is not.
The church should not get involved with propping up evil companies that prey on the vulnerable. Praying on the vulnerable is the church's job.
But it looks like they aren't rescuing Wonga at all. Just buying the loans.
geevo - // ''I entirely applaud any company evading tax, I would do so myself in a heartbeat if I were able - and I imagine the Archbishop's funds are just as carefully managed as any of the companies he is so fond of criticising."

Tax evasion is illegal - tax avoidance is not. //

You are quite correct - I do know the difference, but I used the incorrect term. Apologies, and thanks for the correction.
// Tax evasion is illegal - tax avoidance is not. // //

well the Choich commissioners lost £100 m a few years ago
just one reason why the prot vicars are as poor as church mice
so the idea that the some one in the proddy church can manage money is NOT a 'given'

hey anyone of you atheists noticed .....
it is as though the money changers in the temple - - - have been nationalised .....

( yeah sorry biblical quote there - and you have to know about Christ turning over the tables of the money changers)

1 to 20 of 23rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Archbishop And The Sharks.....

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.