The country\’s leading tax expert comments upon Apple\’s tax dodging

Ritchie picks up on a piece in the New York Times:

Without such tactics, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States most likely would have been $2.4 billion higher last year, according to a recent study by a former Treasury Department economist, Martin A. Sullivan. As it stands, the company paid cash taxes of $3.3 billion around the world on its reported profits of $34.2 billion last year, a tax rate of 9.8 percent.

It\’s amusing that the country\’s leading tax expert doesn\’t pick up on the important point about that statement. Apple\’s 9.8% tax rate is entirely mind gargling nonsense.

US Corporation tax is paid a year in arrears. Thus the $3.3 billion cash taxes paid this year refers to the profits from the previous year.

And what do we know about Apple\’s profits recently? Yup, they\’ve been rising very strongly, haven\’t they?

And what that 9.8% tax rate, cash taxes paid on last year\’s profits when compared to this year\’s profits is that profits at Apple are growing very fast.

It\’s an interesting thing for the country\’s leading tax expert to miss, isn\’t it? Almost as if he doesn\’t know the subject upon which he is pontificating.

The power of the committee, it gets everywhere!

It is especially annoying that Banerjee was put back in the committee two years after he gave the award to his colleague and lover (not a secret any more now that they have a baby).

About the award of the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economics Association to the best economist under 40.

Often thought of as as an indicator of a future Nobel.

Ms. Bindel and logic

On Saturday rumours circulated that some supporters at Bramall Lane would pay tribute to Evans with handclaps in the ninth and 35th minutes of the game (corresponding to his shirt number and goals he has scored this season). Apparently this was a damp squib with few taking part, but the fact it was suggested at all was because of the widespread support for a convicted rapist among the football fraternity.

Absence of widespread support is evidence of widespread support.

Sigh.

When footballers go to brothels, have women delivered to hotel rooms, visit lap-dancing clubs, or \”harvest\” local girls to line them up for group sex parties, it is not seen as evidence of misogyny.

Women who hang around hotels looking to pick up footballers are viewed as \”goal-diggers\” and groupies. Players view them with contempt and they are painted as slags who have no other purpose in life than to marry a rich man.

Perhaps it isn\’t evidence of misogyny. Perhaps it\’s evidence that young women offer sex to the males they perceive, however strangely, to have status in their society.

Idiots on drugs

A new report warns that the commercial cultivation of cannabis poses a “significant risk” to Britain linked to burglary, violence and the use of guns.

The number of farms detected has more than doubled in recent years to reach almost 8,000, with many now set up in homes or flats rather than factories in order to spread the risk.

More people are also growing their own drugs as a result of the economic downturn, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers study.

The ACPO lead on cannabis cultivation, Met commander Allan Gibson, said: “Commercial cannabis cultivation continues to pose a significant risk to the UK. Increasing numbers of organised crime groups are diverting into this area of criminality but we are determined to continue to disrupt such networks and reduce the harm caused by drugs.

The risks are caused by the damn stuff being illegal.

There are vast areas of agricutural (and even forest) land in the UK where you could grow the stuff without problem. Plus plenty of factories oop north that could be used for hydroponics.

The only reason there is any danger at all is that Plod will be chasing you if you do so. Stop Plod chasing and the \”risk\” goes away.

Windmills cause climate change!

Most amusing:

Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.

Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world\’s largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.

Chortle chortle.

Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.

Err, no, it ain\’t. The wind farms manage 1oC per decade, or in a decade whichever: I believe AGW is held to be responsible for 0.8 0C since the industrial revolution so far?

Anyway, the real issue is of course that we\’ll have to revisit the temperature record from any measuring stations that have had wind famrs built around them and then adjust those records for that local and known effect, won\’t we?

And to see this in The Guardian!

\”In a way bankers are Marx\’s dream, it\’s the workers getting the fruits of their labours. It\’s funny that the left is usually angry at shareholders, for taking money out of companies and thereby bringing down workers\’ salaries. Yet with the banks they want shareholders to press the banks to do exactly that, and curb pay.

Hurrah for Charlie Watts!

Jagger, drunk, once telephoned Charlie Watts\’s hotel room at 5am and demanded to speak to \”my drummer\”. Watts rose from bed, meticulously showered and shaved, dressed himself in a three-piece suit, then took the lift downstairs and decked Jagger for impertinence.

Does this mean I iz a real scientist now?

So, I wrote that paper for the IEA on the FTT. Which was published in a journal. So I\’ve actually produced a piece in a peer reviewed journal.

Which sorta makes me a scientist.

Yes, I know, more a comment on low barriers to entry than anything else.

But I find that this paper has been cited. Here.

Worstall, T. (2011). The case against a financial transactions tax. Institute of Economic Affairs. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

OK, so it looks like a Master\’s thesis more than anything else. And it\’s from hte Alma Mater to boot and we all know how the old boy\’s network operates.

But does this count as a \”real\” citation and if it does does this mean I iz a real scientist now?

Ms. Orr seems to have found some of hubby\’s dust down the back of the sofa

Because it\’s bizarre to see this logic:

Yet, people – usually women – still do it, and there, essentially, is the root of the triple-whammy called the gender pay gap. First, careers are hurt even by short periods of leave, let alone a few years \”out\”. Second, the more limited work opportunities that this affords channel people who aren\’t \”committed to their careers\” into less lucrative work in caring. Third, care paid for to allow someone to work tends to put downward pressure on the salaries of the other working people doing the caring.

In truth, what looks like a gender pay gap is really the gap between two currencies – the currency of money and the currency of care. The former is always prioritised, always at the expense of the latter. That, really, is where feminism came in.

So, yes, this is the cause of the gender pay gap:

Yet, people – usually women – still do it, and there, essentially, is the root of the triple-whammy called the gender pay gap. First, careers are hurt even by short periods of leave, let alone a few years \”out\”. Second, the more limited work opportunities that this affords channel people who aren\’t \”committed to their careers\” into less lucrative work in caring. Third, care paid for to allow someone to work tends to put downward pressure on the salaries of the other working people doing the caring.

But then this?

In truth, what looks like a gender pay gap is really the gap between two currencies – the currency of money and the currency of care. The former is always prioritised, always at the expense of the latter. That, really, is where feminism came in.

That caring was, pre-feminism, more highly valued than the cash money stuff. That\’s why half the species (defining which half of the species was the discriminatory part) dedicated their lives to it and the other half worked for cash to support them while they did so.

Indeed, it is precisely feminism which has marketised, commodified, this caring. For what is a demand for \”affordable child care\” but the commodification of the raising of children? What are old folk\’s homes if not the commodification of caring for one\’s parents?

Billy Bragg gets the internet wrong

For someone who exists in an environment where their political views are in a minority, immersing themselves in an audience who are singing songs that articulate those views can be inspirational. To find yourself among other people in your town who share your views – people whose existence you may not have been aware of – offers a sense of social solidarity unavailable in internet chatrooms.

Agreed that the singing is different, that one is in physical proximity with those fellow believers.

But as Natalie Solent pointed out near a decade ago (not quite, but this has all been going on nearly that long) what the internet makes much, much, easier is:

find other people who share your views – people whose existence you may not have been aware of –

Whether we are talking about people who knit small animals to leave in urban locations or those who would discuss libertarian political ideas we can all find, much, much, more easily those who share our ideas on these here intertubes.

Tragic error at The Guardian

The Roberts court redefines judicial activism: it is pursuing a states\’ rights, anti-federal agenda, reckless of the constitution

That\’s the subs getting it wrong of course.

A State\’s rights agenda is a pro-federal agenda.

For that\’s what federal means, that there are multiple sovereignties and a division of powers between them.

The opposite to State\’s rights is not federal, it is unitary state.

As to the actual piece by Scott Lemiuex, it\’s basically, sure, I like the Constitution too but not when it stops some project that I\’m in favour of.

Which rather misses the point of having a constitution, which is a set of rules that all must obey. Yes, your friends as well as your enemies.

Help me out here

The London arm of the great vampire squid paid only £4.1m in corporation tax to the Treasury last year. Despite pocketing £1.9bn in pre-tax profits.

Lord Blankfein’s investment bank received a tax bill of £422.3m for 2011 but has put off paying 99pc of it until next year.

Umm, isn\’t corporation tax always paid in arrears?

You know, you\’ve got to get to the end of the tax year before you can calculate what the bill is?

I can imagine that there\’s some form of pre-payment scheme, HMRC insisting that they get a chunk earlier, based upon perhaps an assumption that this year\’s profits will be similar to last year\’s. You know, like with self-assessment.

But you might think that a bank could have losses to carry forward after the worst financial crisis for nigh on a century?

So, help me out here. Is this just some journo not understanding the basics of the tax system or is the Vampire Squid actually doing something nefarious?

So Ritchie was an accountant to poor people then? Or mean ones?

But let me also be clear, based upon my long experience as a tax practitioner, which I was before I became a tax campaigner, and during which earlier career I was responsible for the preparation of thousands of tax returns, I can genuinely say that I can’t recall seeing anyone give 10% of their income to charity. I can also only think of one instance of seeing a person give more than £10,000 to charity in a year.

Makes sense of course. Murphy Deeks Nolan\’s business was advising luvvies on how to claim for greasepaint.

At least that\’s what I conclude from their annual release of the artists\’ financial guide during the 90s.

Translating Ritchiespeak for you

The reason why we got a welfare state was that charities did not and could not do the job that was needed.

Nor can they now.

Which is why although I think charity is vital at drawing attention to problems and facilitating the actions of those who want to address them paying tax to maintain essential services will always be more important

Of course I think it\’s vital that charity cash be used to pay activists to draw attention to outmoded political ideologies. That\’s where my largest income comes from after all.

I just don\’t want charitable funds to be used to actually do anything.

That would mean less for activists, wouldn\’t it?

The non-denial denial

\”It is long established government policy neither to confirm nor deny speculation of this sort. However, given the intense interest in this case it is, exceptionally, appropriate for me to confirm that Mr Heywood was not an employee of the British government in any capacity,\” the foreign secretary wrote in his reply.

Employee has, of course, a legal meaning. One that HMRC takes great pains to clarify at times.

Strictly speaking Hague has just denied that Heywood was paid through the PAYE system.

Which really isn\’t what anyone was asking in the first place, is it?