Drink, smoke and be happy

By | | , , , ,
1 Comment

It would seem that next week is Alchohol Awareness week brought to us by the fake charity Alcohol Concern. Who seem to believe that booze is the work of the devil and whilst we may start with just a social drink before long our habits will spiral out of control. The “good” news is that due to the governments generosity with our money (no cuts there yet) Alcohol Concern are always nagging us to stop drinking, after all they believe that for men 2 pints a day is too much and if you’re a lady well just one pint for you (or should that be a glass of white wine?). Who cares about different metabolism’s or tolerances nope more than one drink a day and you’re on a certain road to doom and damnation. Somehow they seem to think that despite the beer duty escalator and numerous other taxes increases that booze has dropped in price by 75% in the last 30 years, I suspect they’re comparing super market value lager with less alcohol than a shandy used to have with a proper pint from 30 years ago, but I’m suspicious like that.

However remember they’re proud to boast that they’re always nagging, well they weren’t kidding they want us all to accept their Dry January challenge. Which much like the recent nagging of Octabber resistance‘s finme example and declare January – Drinkuary. I’m thinking it might be a good time to take a leaf out of LegIrons book and maybe get a bunch of beer mats produced to be left around pubs for peoples delectation (if you’re interested in such a plan watch this space – or get in touch). As for Alcohol awareness week I plan to be so aware of Alcohol that most evening I won’t be aware of anything much else. Sadly though that does mean I won’t be able to attend the screening of “Thank you for smoking” organized by the guys over at SamizData, which is a shame as the trailer looks awesome (also of course by now the tickets have sold out).

Now where did I leave that gin?

-1

Leave? We should be so lucky

By | | , ,
Comments Off on Leave? We should be so lucky

Sometimes not checking my e-mail works out rather well, as in this case it rather pulled together a few bits. The Telegraph tells us that Germany is desperate for the UK to not leave the EU. Presumably because if we do they’ll be left to pick up the bill for the Euro, but all the time we’re around they can pass some of it our way despite all the measures allegedly designed to stop non-euro members getting shafted by it.

I do love the comment Ms Merkel made:

“You can be very happy on an island, but being alone in this world doesn’t make you any happier,”

because obviously if we leave the EU then the entire rest of the world will stop talking to us and the rest of Europe won’t want to sell us anything or even buy anything from us. Nope if we leave the EU it’ll be as if we ceased to exist of something, mind if that were the case at least we’d not be involved in anymore wars on terror people in mud huts, oh and we could probably save money but not keeping soldiers in Germany. Something Ms Merkel seems to quite like, oh and of course there’s that 11% budget increase the EU wants whilst telling everyone else to cut their spending.

Not quite sure what Ms Merkel is worried about though given the response the government has made to those of us that asked for a referendum on Europe. If I were cynical I might suspect it was all an act to let Mr Cameron to look tough on Europe before caving in and doing what he’s told. After all when the response the government gives to over 18,000 people asking if they’d be so kind as to consider giving us a say on this whole Europe thing is roughly:
“shut up, we may give you a say if we sign any new treaties”.

The full response is as follows:

“Dear peon,
 
The e-petition ‘Referendum on the European Union’ signed by you recently reached 18,188 signatures and a response has been made to it.
 
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:
 
The Government believes that membership of the EU is in the national interest of the UK. It is central to how we create jobs, expand trade and protect our interests around the world. The Government’s priority is dealing with the crisis in the Eurozone and making sure that the Single Market, which is one of the greatest forces for prosperity the continent has ever known and of immense benefit to this country, is not damaged.
 
The crisis in the Eurozone has intensified the debate in every country on the future of Europe and there is no exception here. Europe is changing, and we do not know what the EU will end up looking like at the end of this crisis.
 
As the Prime Minister has said, this Government believes that a choice between the status quo within the EU or leaving completely is the wrong question. But now that the European Union Act 2011 is in place the British people will have the final say, through a referendum, if any future treaty change results in a transfer of competence from the UK to the EU. This cannot happen without the express consent of the British people.
 
The activities of the EU have expanded over time, before the coalition Government established a referendum lock, and it is important to take stock of the impact of the EU on our country. In line with a commitment made to the British people in the Coalition Programme for Government, the Government recently launched a review of the balance of competences between the UK and the EU to assess the EU=E2=80=99s impact on the UK. Now is the right time to take a critical and constructive look at exactly which competences lie with the EU, which lie with the UK, and whether it works in our national interest.
 
The parties in the Coalition will have the opportunity to address issues such as referenda in their own manifestos at the next election.
 
You may also wish to read the Prime Minister’s Statement of 2nd July 2012 on the European Council at http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/prime-ministers-statement-on-the-european-council/
 
This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
 
View the response to the e-petition here:
 
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20133
 
Thanks,”

So we have that cast iron guarantee which can be ignored due to the wonders of self amending treaties and which isn’t binding on future governments, and is easily ignored by adding a clause to bills such as this one saying:
“That decision does not fall within section 4 of the European Union Act 2011 (cases where treaty or Article 48(6) decision attracts a referendum).”
almost as if they put a lock in place but forgot to actually well lock it.
In the meantime the EU who have been very quiet over Argentinia’s claims on the Falkland islands is vital to protecting our interests. The conflation between the single market and the Eurozone is quite slick, and the claim that the EU is one of “the greatest forces for prosperity the continent has ever known” would seem to not give much weight to the industrial revolution, the enlightenment or if we want to treat the continent as a whole the British or Roman empires. As to not knowing what the EU will end up looking like at the end of this crisis the riots spreading across the continent and the recent Europe4All poster would seem to provide rather a good hint.

So really don’t worry Ms Merkel as long as the the current parties remain in power the only way we’re leaving is by civil war and revolution.

-1
Tagged

The British tax system hate it or hate it

By | | , ,
Comments Off on The British tax system hate it or hate it

Thanks to other people posting things to the book of faces I stumbled across two rather differing views of the problems with the UK tax system. One from the Gaurdian that puts the blame largely on companies trying not to pay more tax than they have to and the other from the Telegraph who see the problem as being the system itself. From here I’d say the Guardian is doing an excellent job of describing the symptoms of the problems described by the Telegraph – I’m not sure I agree with what they seem to think is the cure though.

The symptoms that has the Guardian up in arms are that large companies have arranged their affairs so as to pay as little tax as possible, which is something I’m sure their shareholders (which probably include pensions funds, councils, charities and who knows what else) approve of. After all less taxes paid more profits, better dividends (do companies still pay those?) and better news for the shareholders who ultimately will be people. One of the main ways that they avoid paying taxes here is by having headquarters in other lower tax countries like say Ireland and thus only paying tax there, which is a design feature of the EU and could be quite easily tacked by lowering the tax rate here. After all to take one example they give:
“Four US companies – Amazon, Facebook, Google and Starbucks – have paid just £30m tax on sales of £3.1bn over the last four years, according to a Guardian analysis. Apple is estimated to have avoided over £550m in tax on more than £2bn worth of underlying profits in Britain by channelling business through Ireland, according to a Sunday Times analysis, while Starbucks has paid no corporation tax in Britain for the last three years.”

So after asking for 26% we get 3%, now some of those companies are headquartered in Ireland which asks for 12.5% if it gets even half of that it’s doing better than us, so it’d seem to perhaps make sense to drop our rate to say the same as Ireland or lower so that these companies headquarter here and we get a smaller slice of more and bigger pies. Of course suggesting lower corporate tax is terribly unfashionable during these times of austerity, after all “taxes are rising and jobs, benefits and pay being cut for the majority.” Though taking a smaller amount of more pies seems to work for supermarkets the world over, though it is so much nicer being the small corner shop of the tax world with reassuringly high prices and few people paying them.

Before I move on I must mention a bit I do find quite laughable in the Guardians article:
“The total tax gap between what’s owed and collected has been estimated by Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK at £120bn a year: £25bn in legal tax avoidance, £70bn in fraudulent tax evasion and £25bn in late payments.”
Emphasis mine, as I hate to break it to them but if it was legally avoided it’s not owed – I make homebrew and apparently the tax per pint is about a pound so my last 40 pint batch means by the Guardian logic I’ve legally avoided 40 pounds of tax that I owe – taken to it’s logical conclusion every time you do anything for yourself you’ve avoided tax you owe, cooked at home you’ve legally avoided paying the VAT on a take away meal. Anyway on to what the Telegraph had to say for itself.

Having previously tried to work out how much tax the government takes from me that it shouldn’t (or in Guardian speak how much tax I could legally avoid or possibly how much tax the government takes from me that I don’t owe) I find this line rings very true:
“Britain’s shockingly opaque tax system, which sometimes feels as if it has been purposely designed to confuse and fool taxpayers”
Compliance costs and a complex tax system are an utterly avoidable drag on the system, adding costs to every financial transaction we make, and the UK tax code is very complex indeed. We pay swathes of civil servants to take money out of peoples pockets and then pay another tribe of them to put some of it back – why not just take less in the first place? How can it make sense that people on minimum wage are taxed at around 40% (PAYE + NICs)?
“The total tax levied on wages paid to under-65s is an astonishing 40.25pc for anybody earning between £8,105 and £42,475; 49pc on earnings over that; and 57.82pc on £150,000 or above. There is an especially crazy tax rate of 66.1pc on incomes between £100,000 and £116,210 as the personal allowance is removed, as well as various loopholes that render the picture even more complex than I have described it.”

Of course for most of us we than go and spend the bit of our wages the government lets us keep on fripperies such as fuel (Vat) petrol (Vat and duty) , housing (stamp duty), clothing (vat) or maybe some luxuries like beer (vat and duty) of baccy (vat and duty). Perhaps those at the sharp end that the (tax avoiding)Guardian are so concerned about might be an awful lot better off if the Government just took less money away from them in the first place. Maybe it might be easier to find jobs if small firms weren’t having to spend “up to 36 hours a month on tax-related matters”? Perhaps those evil evil tax avoiding companies (like The Guardian) might find fewer loop holes if our tax system was less complex?
“Tolley’s tax guide, the Bible in such matters, reached an insane 11,520 pages at last count, more than double the number of pages in the 1997 edition”

The “business friendly” Tories haven’t seen fit to tackle this but then just think how many tax lawyers, tax accountants and civil servants might find themselves having to look for gainful employ if we actually had a tax system that was understandable by an individual. I’m sure they’d happily explain to me just why we need such a complex tax system as it’s no doubt far too complex an issue for the likes of me to understand, I mean what possible good could a simple stable tax system do anyone?

-2