You must read this article

[granted]

One of the most important articles I've read in a long, long time.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century

Truly shocking stuff.

And remember it next time you vote.

Many thanks for posting that link.

This also makes interesting reading

Dotnet - do you think the Egyptians will get a better government - or simply a different set of US sponsored repressive rich men?

I read the link you put up, Takver; very depressing, but true. We (especially the most vulnerable among us) are being betrayed.

About the Egyptians - I'm not the one to ask, not being enough of a politico really - I just feel strongly about certain issues.

I'd like to think they'll get better government; hope springs eternal and all that. The voice of the people has at any rate come through crystal clear, which is a wonderful thing. It's terrible but unsurprising that people have died fighting for change.

But, about US influence, I do know what you mean and it could well skew the ultimate result, so future change would not be truly democratic at all.

Maybe someone a lot more insightful than I will post about this, Takver.

I was thinking a bit more about the Monbiot article, and the comments posted higher up the thread about possible over-reaction.

I'd like to research this a bit more, but mad at work atm, so not much time. Does anyone on here have time to try to track down the White paper or wherever the policy is announced? I'd like to know whether it is genuinely worth going nuclear over, or whether it is - as suggested by some of the posters above - a relatively minor change. In particular, it makes a big difference whether (as Monbiot says) companies are still able to claim against losses on their overseas branches, or whether (as suggested above) they are not.

It would also be interesting to write to a Conservative MP if anyone has a thoughtful/helpful one who won't just give a stock response, and ask for their comments, as it might give a bit more background. Don't want to write to mine as I'm currently badgering him about the Universal credit changes to self employment rules

Does anyone have a thoughtful/helpful one, Takver? Ha ha. That counts mine out, then.

Takyer. I'm seeing David Cameron soon, and would have helped you out by asking the man himself. Seeing as the article was carried by the Guardian. I'm dubious about the truth of the content! May slip in a quick question, just for you.

Don't forget your sunglasses complimentary. The glare from the forehead can be blinding.

Yes it's truly depressing.

It makes you think we need Egyptian-style protests (by which I mean lots of people, not ending in violence) to demand democracy.

Will this be an issue at the next election though.

Don't think so.

Feriousbeast. I've met him before. Very nice actually. I found him a bit naive. Didn't answer my questions directly, until I wrung an answer out of him! Red in the face, clenching his hands.(and his buttocks I bet!).
Yes my meeting with David was very interesting...........

P.S. He insists on being called David! What's going on?

Nothing wrong with insisting on being called David. I'd be concerned, though, if he asked you to call him Roger,Sly Dog or Camilla.

I think all of those names suit him better than David.

Rabbitstew. He's not my mate! So I insisted on calling him Mr.Cameron. Do you think if you met Margaret Thatcher when she was Priminster, she would have felt it appropriate to call her Maggie/Margaret? Also I think when you are too familiar with someone in his position, it is hard to get your 'point across' as you appear too matey. Anyway that's how I felt.

Anyway I was afraid/hoping, with his being so familiar, that he would suggest sloping off down the pub for a !

Ooh. I would have loved to call Margaret Thatcher "Maggie" to her face. But only in the same way that there is a certain excitement for a child in ringing someone's doorbell and running away afterwards...

I know (and knew) what you mean, complimentary. It does feel more difficult to ask challenging questions of someone who insists you refer to them by their first name. You either sound too matey or extremely sarcastic. That's probably why he did it. Either that, or he thinks "Cameron" is a rude word.

OK, so if anyone is interested, this document here (go to p91) and this document seem to be the main relevant docs from the Treasury.

For the foreign branch changes, the Treasury are predicting in their impact assessment "This measure is expected to have a steady state cost of £100 million a year by the end of the scorecard period (2014-15)." So they're not expecting net exchequer gains through encouraging economic activity et al.

They also predict "The primary benefit of this proposal will arise in two sectors: banking, which currently makes greatest use of foreign branches and general insurance where we expect use to increase."

I noted in the AIBU thread on this topic (which I can't now find) that one poster was suggesting that the measures weren't going to apply to banks - the above suggests that this is not the case. (I think there may be some confusion with other changes that are taking place at the same time.)

How depressing.

@BoffinMum and anyone else who wants to know what you can do about it...

get some friends together and set up a creche / library / minor injury unit in your local Barclays branch

see
www.ukuncut.org.uk/targets/banks

There is a fantastic and indepth rebuttal to this argument on the AIBU thread on the same topic, from a tax expert. I suggest all the depressed and unhappy people go and read it, hopefully it will cheer you up!

Link to thread

I hope it's near the end of the thread???? Couldn't face reading 235 posts...

It's a great post

CinnarbarRed Fri 11-Feb-11 11:09:27

People can put the pitchforks down and relax. It was just Monbiot up to the usual.