LondonMix

I see your point that its the individual nurse (who was tricked and now has tragically died) rather than the institution. However, such a breach of medical confidentiality in the US would result in any practitioner losing their license. People take such breaches very seriously and given that this nurse, if we are to believe the hospital, was not even reprimanded, I think that shows some institutional failing. That the DJs shouldn't have done it is clear but that would be like dismissing a failing by the police by saying the criminals should not have broken the law. Clearly people will always try to access confidential medical information (on spouses / children etc). We must trust that the medical establishment will protect us from such breaches of privacy.

Also, Lady D, I'm no hard-core free-market enthusiast. Several other strategies, like import-substitution industrialisation have worked well in certain countries (mostly Asian) and been disastrous in others usually because of politics. I support whatever helps people though and can recognise that increasing the effective rate of corporate income tax collected may not actually do that based on how our economy works. There's no point adopting an ideological position that will in effect harm the people you purport to care about.

I don't assume Capitalism is the only system. I think it is our current system and if you are making decisions about tax in our current economic system you need to take into account how the current system works. If you want to propose an overhaul not just to tax but institute a new economic system you think will work better, I'm all ears and will judge it as a coherent whole. I'd be delighted if you found a better system that can work in the real world. Most industries not just in the UK economy but the global economy are competitive rather than monopolies / pseudo monopolies. That's a fact. However, I think we would all benefit from stronger enforcement of anti-competition laws / anti-trust laws as monopolies and cartels are terrible for everyone concerned except those businesses themselves.

I can't see how the call alone could result in a suicide. No one should be able to get anyone's private medical information ever over the phone improperly. Regardless of the fact that it was a VIP, this fact alone suggests a significant failing in hospital procedures and for me at least is the most worrying part of the incident.

Fuschia, I agree with you in general about Academies. But for those who don't have time to read the full link, it would be worth presenting a more balanced summary of what the article concludes. I quote from Fuschia's link: " A similar picture emerges if we look at % of students making expected progress in English and Maths. In both categories the ARK and Harris chains are above the national average but the other five chains are below it. And overall the chains are again below the national average." A lot of Harris's value add is a maths rather than English. Fuschia's claim that Harris have no value add is patently untrue even according to her own link. Again, this is not a defence of Academies in general but I don't like this type of manipulation of the truth. Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Analysis here of 2011 results by chain > > http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/02/acad > emy-chains-no-case-for-expansion/ > > At 1000, Harris isn't contributing any additional > value added > > > Measures above 1000 represent schools where pupils > on average made more progress than similar pupils > nationally, while measures below 1000 represent > schools where pupils made less progress

I'm not sure I understand your ideas about redistribution particularly in relation to corporate tax. Increasing corporate taxes (depending on what the capital raised is used for) will result in fewer businesses, higher unemployment and higher prices as most industries in the UK economy are competitive (see link for explanation: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1010624,page=1). The government tries to figure out the best way to maximise revenue and any extra revenue assumed to be raised by increasing corp taxes needs to deduct the loss of revenue from a reduction in business growth, reduced income tax collection due to reduced employment growth and increased benefits claims like for like. There will be a tipping point at which an increase in the effective corporate income tax rate REDUCES total government income as the negative impact is so severe it results in economic contraction. Taxes are never a simple equation of I take from you to give to others. Certain types of gov't expenditure actually increases economic activity though so are worth doing in the medium term and others are worth doing as a "social good" even if it doesn't pay for itself economically. My list includes: 1. Spending on education that maintains existing levels of skill or that results in a more productive / appropriately skilled workforce 2. Spending on necessary infrastructure necessary for continued growth 3. Spending on defence / security / etc within limits: everyone would trade some economic prosperity to be free from the immediate fear of being killed, conquered murdered etc so we have a military, police, fire service etc. 4. Reducing the deficit to ensure the long-term prosperity of the country (though there comes a point where cuts and corp tax increases are not effective at reducing the deficit because it tips the economy into recession) 4. Certain types of welfare spending that while they reduce economic potential, represent a social good worth the cost to the economy (for everyone these things will be different as its totally subjective). For me, its universal health care, certain means-tested welfare benefits, environmental protection (which in the long-run may pay for itself anyway), conservation and planning depts to protect the aesthetic quality of our built environment, support for the arts etc... Ineffective and inefficient, tax wasting services are not just a waste of limited resources but come at a real cost to the overall well being of the country. When the government wastes taxpayer money they actually harm the economy quite seriously. Trains running half empty, school spending that doesn't produce any improvement in results etc should be an outrage to everyone. When we contemplate demanding new services, whatever they may be, please remember that its never free money being spent. Similarly, taxes are never a simple redistribution of resources. LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not at all Hugo. The co2 vehicle industry is > subsidised by new road building rather than rail, > cycling etc. the nuclear option espoused by Tories > as the green alternative would take huge subsidies > to get off the ground. Every outsourced service, > education/transport/prisons etc takes tax payers > money away from the services we need in the form > of profits for shareholders. Ditto health soon. > > And in relation to your statement earlier re the > purpose of redistribution and society, society > should be for arranged for the benefit of all the > people in it, not just big business owners and > corporations. > > The means of feeding/housing/watering ourselves > has been removed from most of our control and we > have been turned from autonomous residents of > earth into dependant, micro-managed, slaves to > vested interests who control what rules are put in > place and who our money and labour benefit.

Some areas become more affluent and still retain indie shops and some character. I hope that can be the case here. I also hope people moving here are coming because they like the character of the area and not just because they can't afford to live some place else. By the way, McDonald's / Primark etc have nothing to do with how affluent an area is! There are loads of them in areas much more affordable than East Dulwich.

I never said I was a Libertarian! I'm not any kind of -ism or-ian :). I don't think liking the idea of rational thought as a way to understand complex issues is only the purview of one group! That would truly be a depressing thought...

Are those two extremes the only choices? I think even libertarians acknowledge something in between totalitarianism and anarchy is probably the best environment in which humans flourish...

Tell me about it :) eco79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we're done :) I can't stand it when all my > spare time gets sucked in to trying to argue a > point on the forum! Good chat though.

Images of Lord of the Flies...

I agree with DaveR. The only concern is that the press have the power to blackmail and coerce in a way that others in violation of criminal law cannot. I suppose the question is how to ensure that there is at least a section of the police who can enforce criminal law against the press without fear of having their lives destroyed. You'd need modern day G-Men! This is the reason Patraeus had to resign-- certain posts require total rectitude as the possibility of blackmail is too dangerous for society as a whole.

If all schools were universally of the same quality I'd agree with you. But as long there are still major quality differences, distance criteria alone essentially allows the middle class to buy their way into good schools via house prices. Do you think ED Harris Academies would have an intake that included 35%-40% of its students on free lunch without fairbanding? Anyway, we can debate the merits of various admission systems all day! Maybe another thread in the Drawing Room so not to hijack this one?

The reason why people highlighted this is that a failing school that used only distance is converted into an academy that uses ability bands has a significant increase in total percentage of students getting 5 good GCSE's, it could easily be the result of more able students making up a larger portion of the intake following fair-banding and new interest in the school post-conversion. That's why we looked at how students progressed based on their starting attainment level when they entered the school vs Charter and national expectations as well as discussing value add scores which relate to this too.

Carbonara is that directed to me? Fair banding can either increase the average ability or decrease the avearge ability of the intake compared to only distance. If everyone living right beside a school came from families with high-attaining children, the intake would be less high-attaining after implementing banding and visaversa. If the abilities are already evenly distributed geographically around the school then fair banding has no impact at all on the composition of high / low / medium attainers in the intake. Unfortunately, schools are usually located in one of the extreme concentrations of ability (as socio-economics impact ability). Richer families can afford to buy homes closer to good schools they want to attend, increasing the concentration of high-attainers due to their socio-economic advantage. Bad schools often have the exact opposite. Being near a good school can increase a houses value by something crazy like 20% in some areas. Fair banding tries to neutralise this. It also tries to mix the attainment population of less popular schools as this benefits low attainers for a variety of reasons. Carbonara Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But all schools that use fair banding, with the > exception of Kingsdale whihc is a lottery, use > proximity within each band. So proximity is till > the main test of criteria for admission.

The introduction of general anti-avoidance rules in the UK is a good thing. On that we certainly agree. HMRC is guided by tax law and hence the tribunal. General anti-avoidance which exists in many other countries will give them even more bite to make challenges but the real issue lies in the intentional breaks provided in tax law more than those pushing things to the point of near evasion. Tax havens are a global issue. My point is, the UK doesn't need to have a tax treaty with the Channel Islands and Isle of Man for any practical reason. Most countries don't need one with these islands. The UK actively chooses to have a tax treaty there. It's not part of some con-game by corporations but part of government policy. I think we more or less agree. I just think the government is much more of an active participant in the low effective tax rate corporations pay than you do. And I also can see that it?s a judgment call (rather than purely a moral one) given that there are benefits and downsides for the UK public to imposing higher taxes on businesses.

By more akin to evasion I meant illegal as its captured by general anti-evasion / anti-avoidance legislation in most countries as I said. The tax arrangements that most firms go into are nothing like that. In fact, if in doubt they will get a ruling from the tax authorities certifying that they are using the law as intended and are not exploiting / misusing it (Spain, Germany, France etc this is very common practice). That is the only distinction I was trying to make. If a tax structure appears to the authorities in most countries to exist solely for the purpose of avoiding taxes the authorities want to collect, it won't be valid. I am not arguing about whether corporations should pay more corporate income tax- I've already made my position on that clear. I think policy makers feigning shock are hypocrites, you don't, fine. HMRC do not sanction what they view to be illegal arrangements ever for the sake of operating in the real world. There is tax law. It can and is changed all the time in many places to increase the effective rate of corporate income tax (Germany in the last few years is a good example with new thin cap rules and limitations on tax losses that can be used to offset profit). You can create minimum taxation rules, increase substance test etc. When a country wants corporations to pay CIT, they can do it. Not all countries have tax treaties with tax havens and many countries have them with only certain preferred ones! I?m not accusing the politicians of wrong-doing or corruption. There are reasons why governments want to reduce the effective rate of tax that you as a voter / consumer may or may not find valid.

Okay so VAT and income tax evasion are okay (cause it all stays in the UK) but for foregin companies it wrong because the benefits aren't accrued in the UK? Sorry but that isn't the case. If the industries foreign companies operate in are competitive (many actors and low barriers to entry) and ?savings? from not paying tax will be competed away until profits return to the minimum required for no new actors to enter the sector. The entry of additional businesses is what competes down the price. Therefore, the idea that no benefits accrue in the UK when foreign businesses don?t pay tax is not correct. Again, that?s not to say they should not pay tax, but the consequences aren?t what you are describing.

No, why do you think it should? The idea was to move beyond the impact of the aggregate results that could be influenced by the admission policy and create a comparison based on progress and results that take into account what students capabilities were when the entered the school to better assess the impact the school rather than the change in the composition of the intake was having.

LadyD- the gov't very well could. They don't want to. They have reasons for not wanting to of course which you may or may not feel are valid but there is nothing stopping them.

Most investment funds go as far as getting a tax ruling from the authorities in most jurisdictions specifically approving their tax strategies and structures. This is necessary due to general anti-evasion rules in Europe which no one wants to be ensnarled in. Also, it?s part of the fiduciary responsibility. Please forgive me if I now find all this posturing hypocritical. I?m sure some MPs that don?t work specifically on such issues were totally unaware but let?s get real. The S&P 500 in the US pay an effective rate of tax of 12%. No one with half a brain can credibly say that they were unaware that virtually all companies use the various schemes that have been made available to them to reduce or virtually eliminate tax. The current proposition to cut small business tax rates (in general, not for any specific industry or goal) to stimulate growth is another example but of course this is acceptable to most people and not a scandal. I am not against corporate income taxes by the way! I think depending on how the revenue is used it could make sense but I also recognize it comes at a cost.

What you are describing DaveR is more akin to tax evasion and is usually covered in most countries by general anti-evasion rules. What most companies do is nothing of the sort. They take advantage specifically of tax treaties the UK has entered into with various tax havens. I can tell you that when the rules governing the use of off-shore vehicles to eliminate stamp duty on residential purchases came in, tax lawyers I work with spoke to the UK tax authorities to understand if continuing to do this for commercial real estate transactions would now be looked on as an aggressive evasion tactic. HMRC said no because they wanted to encourage business (their words). The lawyers asked because their clients asked them to clarify. Their corporate clients and investment fund clients wanted to make sure they were not breaking the law and wanted clarity from the tax authorities on how this would be viewed and this is almost always how the relationship works. The reason they do this is because their investors (directly and indirectly) are pension funds who also don't ever want to be caught up in an intentional wrong-doing scandal.

I am aware of that but thanks. My points about LAs were generic. I was comparing Charter to Harris as I believe most people agree that the Charter is a high performing school. Breaking down compartive performace by intake was a way to address the fair-banding points raised by others regarding Harris's improvement (which are legitimate and make deeper analysis necessary rather than just aggregate performance post conversion).

I agree if you are happy to accept the conequences that go along with that as well as truly ensure that the companies you are switching to (large or small) are paying what you deem is a morally acceptable amount of tax- most large comapnies don't and many small companies manipulate the system as well in various ways (pretending to employ family members to suck out profit of their companies using the tax free allowance etc etc etc). Increasing effective payment of corp income tax to reduce gov't borrowing will at least in the short-term increase unemployment and prices but will also put the country on a long-term more sustainable course more quickly in the best case scenario.

The point is all governments intentionally allow the effective tax rate to be dramatically lowered via various mechanisms because of the benefits (growth and lower prices). That doesn't mean that under all circumstances we would be better off with low rates of corp income tax -- it depends on how the taxes would be spent and if there are other ways to pay for what's needed. It does mean its a bit rediculous to buy into the current circus and demonise the companies who have been behaving exactly as the government would like them to. woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Anyone fancy making a Freedom of Information > > request to see who signed what to allow these > > greedy tax dodgers to get away with this? > > You dont need a FOI for most of the info required > - many of these are listed companies & their > numbers are in the public domain, if somtimes a > little difficult to delve into, as teh Swiss still > dont allow access to their domestic tax submission > account IIRC.. > > look at this ( a little dated ) FTSE MC > summarisation > > The following table lists the ten largest FTSE 100 > companies measured by market capitalisation as of > 9 March 2011.[4] > Rank Company Sector Market capitalisation (? > billion) > > 1 BHP Billiton Mining 148 > 2 Royal Dutch Shell Oil and gas 135 > 3 HSBC Financial services 118 > 4 Vodafone Group Telecommunications 93 > 5 BP Oil and gas 91 > 6 Rio Tinto Group Mining 86 > 7 GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals 61 > 8 Unilever Consumer goods 56 > 9 British American Tobacco Tobacco 49 > 10 BG Group Oil and gas 49 > > > Pretty much All of these companies have a Swiss > presence that aid tax efficient trading, though > the degree of utilisation varies enourmously > > This issue isnt about who is hiding assets, but > what how does their structure work and the actual > CT benefits gained. The Swiss are repatriating > detials of blates tax avioders in their gnome > banks, but this is a diversion & is effectively is > the tip of the iceberg, as the vast majority of > corps who use the Swiss setup are doing it > entirely legitimately & publicly.Stashing cash in > Swiss banks is a pretty Amateur practice nowadays, > more the haunt of dictators than big business - > theres no reason to hide your cash and run the > risk of exposure, when you can incorporate a Baar/ > Zug setup and do it legitimately. > > Libertarians would argue that tax minimisation > benefits the consumer through lower prices at the > till, though Im sure there is a doctorate level > thesis in the offing that evaluates the consumer > benefit vs corporation tax minimisation for corps > that use these structures. > > We have to be careful of going on a Bankers to > blame for everything type of sentiment, when it > could be argued that the UK consumer is an > accomplice in the game, albeit unknowingly or > unwittingly.innit.