"CBDCs are about ways of making payments; they are not a new currency."
"Whether a country needs a CBDC is really about the state of its current payments system," he pointed out in the House of Lords this month..
"What are the problems in our payments system to which a CBDC might be the answer? .... There are no problems to which a CBDC is the only, or even the most obvious, answer."
"Our payments system is more efficient than those in most other countries, certainly the United States."
"Most transactions are already digital, whether by tapping a card on a machine at the point of sale or making a digital payment on a computer for remote transactions."
"All of these are operated already by commercial banks and an increasing number of new payment vehicles."
"Competition has moved us from a system based on paper cheques to one driven largely by digital payments with virtually instantaneous clearing."
"It would be somewhat odd to try to increase competition in this area by creating a state monopoly of the payment system"
"Of course, there can always be improvements in our payment systems, but a CBDC is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for that.
"The major problem today concerns the cost and speed of cross-border payments, but much of this results from money laundering regulations."
"The enormous risk is that, in a financial crisis, households would abruptly shift their deposits from banks to [CBDC] accounts with the Bank of England, forcing the latter immediately to transfer the deposits back to the banks to avoid a collapse of the system."
"In 2008, when the Bank, with approval from the Government, lent a large amount of money to RBS and HBOS to prevent their collapse, the operations were covert and revealed only some months later to prevent a system-wide loss of confidence"
"That would be impossible if households could switch without limit instantaneously from all commercial banks to the Bank of England."
"So a retail CBDC has risks but no obvious benefits".
Lord King, from a position of immense experience, has completely demolished the case for a "Britcoin," British CBDC or "digital pound."
It thus remains quite puzzling why the Government and Bank of England are pressing ahead with such vigour? What are their real motives?
Do you trust the Government to decide where your pension funds should be invested?
The Treasury has just said “The government will take a reserve power in the Pension Schemes Bill to set binding asset allocation targets.”
It's a shocking expansion of state power
1/5
If the Government wants to get more pension money invested in British shares it should reverse Gordon Brown's tax grab & restore the pension dividend tax credit. And it should scrap stamp duty on shares.
But then it would have less cash to give to the public sector unions.
Robert Shrimsley says in the FT: "Like many of you, I suspect, I’ve come to the view that Rachel Reeves should oversee more of my financial decisions.
Who wants to see their retirement pot frittered away on cowboy outfits like Nasdaq indices or Nvidia when we could be supporting great British entrepreneurs like Michelle Mone?"
Angela Rayner's tax hike proposals would “seriously risk wrecking savers’ retirement plans” according to Andrew Tully of financial advisers Nucleus.
Punishing savers in order to reward public sector unions is not a morally justifiable policy
1/4
“Savers need confidence that the goalposts won’t constantly shift. Rather than constantly tweaking rules we need cross party consensus on issues like this to deliver the stability required,” Tully said.
“Removing the dividend allowance may drive behavioural changes, including moving into assets that don’t produce a dividend or ensuring investments are appropriately held in wrappers," said Claire Trott, head of advice at St James’s Place.
This week Britain will be hit by a range of horrifying tax increases which will inflict major damage to the finances of British citizens, to businesses & to the economy.
We detail 12 scheduled tax hikes below
1/14
Tax hikes are programmed for April 1 and April 6.
The greatest economic damage will be caused by hikes to Employer NI contributions. The rate will go up by 1.2ppts to 15% & the threshold cut to £5k, dragging many more low-paid & part-time workers into its scope.
The prospect of the hikes destroyed business confidence and has already led to major reductions in hiring & investment, lower pay & some lay-offs.
Now that the tax hikes are actually occurring, the pressure to reduce staff costs and numbers will be much greater.
The OBR budget watchdog downgraded its forecast for capital gains tax revenue for the next 5 years, reducing the projected tax take by £23b
No surprise there, as hikes in CGT invariably lead to reduced revenues. Labour's ideology driven CGT hikes are having the same effect
1/8
Under reforms introduced by Tony Blair’s Government, from the year 2002-03 business assets attracted a reduced rate of 10% CGT if held for more than 2 years. CGT revenues increased sharply as a consequence, doubling in 3 years.
Conversely after the Tories in 1988 increased CGT rates by ten points from 30% to 40%, revenues fell dramatically, more than halving from £2,175m in 1987-88 to £976m in 1990-91 & further still to £606m in 1992-93.
Inventor Sir James Dyson has accused Rachel Reeves of “vindictiveness” saying that her death tax raid on family businesses will “destroy” them & that, rather than raise revenue, it will cost the exchequer billions in other taxes.
He is entirely correct.
1/6
Dyson said that 60 of the top 100 UK taxpayers were owners of family businesses and together pay £3 billion a year in taxes. “Such companies employ 14 million people & contribute many more billions — year in, year out — funding vital public services,” he said.
“This is what Rachel Reeves will kill off with her budget, which introduces a confiscation of 20% of all family companies at every generation, based not on assets (as with farming) but on a much higher figure, a theoretical multiple of future profits".