[Archived] Rant (4?)

[Pedro]

Last June my step son was beaten up by four young guys ( he's 35, they were all late teens ), one Saturday afternoon in our local park. In broad daylight they beat him pretty badly, cut head etc. The also stole his wallet with about £30 in and his watch. Some girls were nearby and actually broke up the assault and phoned for an ambulance.

My wife worked as a teacher at our local secondary school and the girls who broke up the assault came to see her after her lesson and told her who the perpetrators of the assault were. This was on Monday morning. The Police were informed on the Tuesday. Since then much prevarication from our local plod but no arrests or anything.

Maybe the same gang will have to kill somebody first.

My friend's business was broken into and you could easily identify the culprit on CCTV so we informed them who it was and where you could find him. The police said that just the image wouldn't stand up in court because all he needs is to say that isn't him - which annoys me as a number plate on the front of a car leaves you liable to a whole host of fines, and that technique certainly doesn't work.

[adopted scouser]

Which I think is ludicrous as much as the next sane man but all governments no matter which party are guilty of this so I wish everyone north of the line ( just where the hell this is nobody knows! ) would stop suggesting us southerners have it easy. Its not a north/south thing. Its not an east/west thing. Its a nationwide thing. However, how do any government budget for 12 inches of rain in 24 hours? 24 inches? 36 inches? Just how on earth can you budget and prepare for events that keep breaking records? Its not possible. I`m trying to be reasonable here speaking as someone who lives in a town that floods often. Its no individuals fault. Its no governments fault. Its no PM`s fault. Its life. If your garden fence blows over....thats life. If your roof gets struck by lightning...thats life....if places flood...thats life. Humans take great comfort in having someone to blame even if they are innocent. Go and watch the film Arlington Road. Build a wall 6 feet high at huge expense to the country around every flood prone area. As soon as the water level is 6 feet 1 inch and floods the area everyone screams blue murder and blames.....someone. The country floods, the British Isles flood, many areas of the world flood not just the north of the England. I`m yet to hear of another town that had no running water as Tewkesbury did in 2007. Nobody here blamed anyone. The talk was of the severe weather. Different mentality I guess. But I guess we can blame that on ...?

I understand what you are saying Alan, but a stiff upper lip doesn't provide consolation to the many whose lives have been ruined again. Spend a king's ransom on flood defences and dredging to look after our own, and don't tell me for one minute we can't afford it when we are probably paying for an aircraft carrier in Pakistan.

[AlanK]

Not that simple. For example the flood defences built in Carlisle even went to the extreme of factoring in global warming so had an extra half metre added for precaution. The recent floods were another half a metre over that! How high do you go? And what about tourist venues that don`t want a 10 foot wall through the village? There really is no easily solution. Certainly not as easy as throwing money at it no matter where it comes from.

Good article here AS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35196046

[Paul]

The difficulty with flood defence is generally we want our cake and eat it. I lived in York 1976 - 80 and the city flooded on a regular basis. The one I remember in particular was December 22nd 1978 when the city was virtually cut in half. To a large extent everyone just had to get on with it.

I have a huge affinity with York, it's almost a spiritual home, so I really feel for the city and people there. I'm not dismissive of the problem. The flood defences on the Ouse can cope with a rise of 18 feet. This is huge. Just what level do we go to 30 feet?

By chance we stayed at the southern end of Derwentwater the week of the first Cumbrian floods. On the Thursday we walked the shore of Derwentwater in to Keswick. It was obvious the lake had previously been very, very high - I didn't realise the lakes rose so much till this visit. Thursday 12.00 it started to hammer down, caught a bus back to the hotel and later in the evening drove in to Keswick. About 10.00pm we drove back again and came close to not getting back. The hotel closed the car park and moved all cars to higher ground and was pumping out the cellars all night. Everything was totally saturated and no flood defence could possibly stop the volume of water cascading off the hills.

In this country we build on flood plains, drain, plough and farm meadows, concrete or Tarmac over vast areas, agricultural cropping schedules have changed, dredging is reduced and the country voted for cuts and austerity.

If we remove natural flood defences we can't expect to solve the issue by dredging rivers and building defences. I understand the Ribble reached one mile wide at Ribchester, going to need a deep, deep dredge to move that down to Preston and then where do you put that lot? Walton Le Dale? It doesn't work.

I went to Read on Boxing Day and carried on a few miles in to the Ribble Valley. Nothing would have stopped the water. It was unbelievable to see with your own eyes.

Ultimately these are severe weather events which are compounded by our lifestyle, weather systems (el Nino) and possibly global warming. It's tough to control nature.

[yoda]

Lack of trees is a big issue, 1 mature tree lifts 100 gallons of water per day out of the ground

[Paul]

Yes. Deforestation is an issue though we haven't cut down trees the way we used to for a long, long time. There's no doubt that reforestation and allowing flood plains to do their job, where not built on, would help significantly.

I really hope the governments first response is to ban any further development on flood plains. Big test for the Conservatives in that one. Stop developers making profits in order to help protect the electorate.

[Amo]

It also doesn't help that more and more people have driveways and there are less gardens to absorb the rain.

[blueboy3333]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/29/deluge-farmers-flood-grouse-moor-drain-land

http://newint.org/blog/2012/08/20/hebden-bridge-moor/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/hide-evidence-storm-desmond-floods-paris-talks

Disgusting really. Subsidies given to farmers to chop down trees and grouse moor owners given money to burn back shrub so they can charge people £thousands to shoot on their land.

[Jock]

A cockney slag bag becomes a Dame for services to gansters. Likes to clean the chocolate off a gay Kray's hickery dickery dock.

[Steve Moss]

Or make hedge fund Tory donors and companies like Amazon or Starbucks pay their taxes like the rest of us?

That would definitely raise additional revenue. But Amazon and Starbucks won't pay the tax. More correctly, they'll collect the tax and the customers (you, me, etc.) will pay the tax.

Business never pays tax. It is a cost which is wrapped into the price charged. Customers always pay the tax, businesses are mere tax collectors.

So yes, we can hammer business and eliminate loopholes, etc., resulting in more tax collected. The net effect will be an increase in the cost of living as the cost of good rise, which will be paid for by the consumer.

[Baz]

That would definitely raise additional revenue. But Amazon and Starbucks won't pay the tax. More correctly, they'll collect the tax and the customers (you, me, etc.) will pay the tax.

Business never pays tax. It is a cost which is wrapped into the price charged. Customers always pay the tax, businesses are mere tax collectors.

So yes, we can hammer business and eliminate loopholes, etc., resulting in more tax collected. The net effect will be an increase in the cost of living as the cost of good rise, which will be paid for by the consumer.

I'm talking about corporation tax on their earnings, rather than VAT (sales tax). At present Starbucks move their profit to Switzerland, by buying their uk business buying the coffee beans from switzerland at a hyper-inflated price (set at year end so the totals paid are almost exactly the uk taxable revenue) in order to pay at lower overall swiss tax rates. Unfortunately the chancellor of the exchequer seems unwilling to deal with these tax evasion schemes, so it's still legal, and also morally and ethically disgusting.

[Jimmy612]

I'm talking about corporation tax on their earnings, rather than VAT (sales tax). At present Starbucks move their profit to Switzerland, by buying their uk business buying the coffee beans from switzerland at a hyper-inflated price (set at year end so the totals paid are almost exactly the uk taxable revenue) in order to pay at lower overall swiss tax rates. Unfortunately the chancellor of the exchequer seems unwilling to deal with these tax evasion schemes, so it's still legal, and also morally and ethically disgusting.

How exactly can any government other than those of North Korea or Albania formulate legislation to cover such practice Baz?

[Baz]

How exactly can any government other than those of North Korea or Albania formulate legislation to cover such practice Baz?

Thanks for the condescending reply Jimmy, however there are documented caees of countries substantially increasing their tax take by tightening their tax regulations on transfer pricing (Colombia).

Also, shamelessly stolen from the new statesman is the following list:

Limit or remove the legal standing of blacklist companies or ownership from jurisdictions with cannibalistic tax and secrecy regimes (with "restricted" and "banned" categories).

Restrict qualifying criteria for offshore and residency statuses. Overseas ("offshore") ownership should be substantive not nominal; "non-domicile" status limited and finite in time; and "non-resident" status exclude those with lives, businesses or wealth in essence in or derived from the UK.

Curtail the benefits and permissiveness of offshore, ownership and residency statuses. Non-domicile, non-resident, trusts and partnership advantages all need cutting back. Similarly, reverse the preferential treatment of "overseas" profits and firewall between remitted and non-remitted earnings.

Increase the costs and disadvantages of ownership or residency statuses. Tax charges can be increased, in particular made more progressive. Possibly (re)introduce an exit tax for British companies or citizens taking overseas residency, relocating or emigrating.

Require companies (and appropriate individuals) to provide transparent country-by-country accounts. Furthermore, the accounting and tax presumption for the assessment and validity of inter-group or cross-border charges would be strict apportionment of national sales and actual costs.

If it exists, happens or is owned here, it's taxed here and taxed the same. For instance, tax UK on-line/remote sales where the sale is made; rather than as at present often "supplied" from "overseas" to avoid VAT and/or "booked" in another country to avoid company taxes.

Inhibit cross-jurisdiction costs, charges and tax exemptions that can be deducted for tax purposes, particularly between associated companies. These must be necessary, substantive and proportionate; with specific limitations on inter-group costs, debt, intellectual property and goodwill charges.

Automatic information exchanges with other countries; not just existing by-request arrangements (where the number of UK requests is miniscule). Joining the existing European network is a good start.

Confront avoidance facilitators and promoters. Bar banks licensed or operating in Britain from operating in or providing facilities to British citizens or companies from "restricted jurisdictions". Require UK financial companies to automatically disclose all offshore accounts and holdings. And make advisory firms directly liable for tax penalties from avoidance they have promoted or facilitated.

Vigorous, properly empowered enforcement. Enact robust general anti-avoidance provisions. Significantly enhance HMRC's assessment powers, resources and personnel. And increase tax avoidance penalties, with both principals and intermediaries liable.

Major tax reform. Avoidance inducing disparities of tax treatment join improving economic performance, major fiscal problems and greater fairness in making reform long overdue. Today's complexity of taxes and rates needs replacing with consistent, equal treatment of all types of earnings employment, unearned incomes, company profits and capital gains while rebalancing between over-taxing of work and under-taxing big companies, wealth and "finance".

Change the permissive and fatalistic culture. Given the corrosive damage being done, leaders and government can and should be taking vigorous action. Not paying proper taxes and mediating avoidance should cause explicit censure and sanctions. This includes recognising the City's complicity in wholesale tax avoidance from other countries as well as Britain.

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/twelve-steps-stop-tax-avoidance

[Al]

I see that the official guidelines for consumption of alcohol are being tightened up. Well we took no notice of the old ones so no change there then.

[ABBEY]

the yaya chant...i swear it f your mind up. Its sticks in your head and you sing it all day ,even the dandruff one.

[Steve Moss]

I'm talking about corporation tax on their earnings, rather than VAT (sales tax). At present Starbucks move their profit to Switzerland, by buying their uk business buying the coffee beans from switzerland at a hyper-inflated price (set at year end so the totals paid are almost exactly the uk taxable revenue) in order to pay at lower overall swiss tax rates. Unfortunately the chancellor of the exchequer seems unwilling to deal with these tax evasion schemes, so it's still legal, and also morally and ethically disgusting.

It's not just VAT (or sales tax) which gets passed on to the consumer. All tax (like all costs) which effects the bottom line gets passed on to the consumer. Especially if all businesses, including competitors, have to pay it.

Businesses are in the business of making a profit, not paying tax. If it becomes a cost that impacts profit, then the cost of goods to the consumer will rise in order to protect that profit.

[Paul]

VAT though has a marginal influence on company profits. In my experience this is in two areas; an impact on cash flow, as VAT is reclaimed quarterly this relatively low and in a seasonal business can aid cash flow, and secondly the administrative element in VAT returns as the company effectively acts as the tax collector.

Taking your argument that tax is a cost, and I've yet to encounter a company which includes company taxes in its' product costings, allowing Starbucks (already the highest priced lowest quality producer) to legally avoid tax provides them with an unfair competitive advantage as their cost base would be reduced.

Where UK taxes do impact product costings would be in respect of administering VAT, employers NIC and the administrative functions associated with tax affairs.

The impact tax has on profits is governed by the level of company taxation not on the cost of production.

[Steve Moss]

Taking your argument that tax is a cost, and I've yet to encounter a company which includes company taxes in its' product costings, allowing Starbucks (already the highest priced lowest quality producer) to legally avoid tax provides them with an unfair competitive advantage as their cost base would be reduced.

Where UK taxes do impact product costings would be in respect of administering VAT, employers NIC and the administrative functions associated with tax affairs.

The impact tax has on profits is governed by the level of company taxation not on the cost of production.

So tax is free money?

All money spent by a company is tracked. Owners and shareholder desire profit. If that profit is taxed, it impacts the amount of money in owner and shareholders pockets. That amount determines owner and shareholder satisfaction. If net profit is decreased, they will look to increase it. Other than cutting the cost of production, they can increase the price. Increasing price is logical if all competitors work under the same tax system (i.e. they are not acquiring a competitive disadvantage). That price paid by consumers.

It's a sad fact of economics that the middle income (and the poor) earners pay the bulk of everything, eventually. The only question is where down the line we pay it.

[Beta Ray Bill]

So basically you are arguing that if a major international company can find a way not to pay UK tax they should do to satisfy the thirst for profit of the US ownership, whereas a UK company doesn't have that 'luxury'.

Therefore, the US company is subsidised in unfair competition against the local companies. And claims it is good for the consumer?

Really great for the consumer, or for that matter, a nation when the local market collapses due to ubiquitous brands of non-tax paying international firms. Not only is that in principle bad, it also reduces the revenue for the government that has to find alternative ways of raising that lost money or reduce spending accordingly.

Starbucks and others are not playing on a level field. Is that the American way?

[Pedro]

...the government that has to find alternative ways of raising that lost money or reduce spending

Maybe to save money they should stop aiming extremely expensive fireworks at near-empty deserts?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Maybe to save money they should stop aiming extremely expensive fireworks at near-empty deserts?

Interesting to see Iraqi forces re-take Ramadi recently when prior to coalition airstrikes IS were at the gates of Baghdad.

[Pedro]

Interesting to see Iraqi forces re-take Ramadi recently when prior to coalition airstrikes IS were at the gates of Baghdad.

Time for some more CIA training then?

[jim mk2]

Britain's tax system is too complicated and contains too many reliefs and loopholes that allows rogue companies such as Google, Starbucks and Amazon to avoid tax.

Google uses Ireland to process all of its European sales but uses complex structures to push much of its income out to the notorious tax shelter of Bermuda. Amazon claims that its European operations are based in a small office in Luxembourg.

Apple has also been criticised for funnelling revenues out Britain to lower tax jurisdictions and holding vast amounts of cash in offshore accounts.

The power to fix these tax scams lies in the hands of politicians in Brussels and Westminster. Dodgy Dave last year pledged to clamp down on tax-avoiding multinationals and the EU says it is trying to crack down on the lucrative deals struck between US firms and continental govts that allow companies to whittle down their tax bills.

Hopefully the likes of Amazon and Starbucks will eventually be brought to book.

In the meantime, vote with you feet. Don't buy any products from these companies or use any of their services.

[yoda]

Maybe to save money they should stop aiming extremely expensive fireworks at near-empty deserts?

Those empty deserts have a film industry

[Pedro]

Those empty deserts have a film industry

Yeah, looks like they've upgraded their cameras and experimenting using a bit of depth of field.