Not that I’m as important as Martin Luther or anything but I am actually important you know!

The Senior Lecturer:

1) All money is created by a promise to pay.

OK, fair enough, not complete nor definitional but useful all the same.

2) The fiat currency of a government is created by its promise to pay.

No, it’s something that other people can use as a promise to pay.

3) The promise made by a government to pay is backed by its willingness to accept that currency in settlement of taxes owing.

Backed by, certainly, to some extent. But again this isn’t definitional. Cash US dollars circulate in Russia, they cannot be used to pay Russian taxes, the users aren’t racking up US taxes yet believe me, they do still have value. This is also where most of the seigniorage earned by the Federal Reserve comes from. Precisely and exactly those notes which circulate outside the US and which do not cycle back through the tax system.

4) As a result all fiat money is backed by the promise that there will be an obligation to pay taxes in the future.

No.

5) without taxes there would, then, be no fiat money.

See 4). Both because of 3).

6) Government debt is, in that case, not a sum to be repaid by the government. It does instead represent government spending not yet cancelled by taxes due.

That doesn’t even follow by his own premises.

7) Since all fiat money is created by government spending in advance of tax collection the government’s debt is, then, simply the major part of the money supply.

No, not at all. The statistics are here. M4, total money supply, is some £2.2 trillion, absent gilts. Notes and coin, absent QE effects, maybe £80 billion. National debt is, dunno, £1.6 trillion? It’s not in either of those, oddly enough.

8) Banks can create money when they lend, but only under government licence.

This is where the distinction between money and credit becomes important. Banks cannot create narrow money, M0. They can create elements of M4, broad money. But we’ve another set of names for the distinction, money and credit. If you rewrite the theses so far making that distinction then Ritchie’s idea falls to pieces.

9) The licence the government grants to a bank to create money means that he bank is never independent of the government and is responsible to it.

The banks issues credit, not money.

10) As a consequence the government has a duty to regulate banks to ensure that they use their licence to create money appropriately.

Meh. There aren’t that many people who argue for no bank regulation. A few, the free bankers. Who do make that M0 and M4 distinction. What Spudda means here is “use that licence in the manner I consider appropriate” which is a rather different Fat Controller sort of meaning, isn’t it?

11) This obligation to regulate banks is universal, and should be reciprocal i.e. nations owe this duty to each other as well as to their own populations.

Eh? Zimbabwe owes it to the UK not to issue too much money?

12) Since banks can create money in the currency of a country both outside as well as within its jurisdiction the supply of data on the banking activities undertaken in one state to the authorities of another who has the obligation to regulate both monetary and taxation transactions arising within their state is inherent within the nature of the banking system.

Again with the confusion here. State have the righteous monopoly on the creation of their own fiat currency. But not on the creation of credit.

13) Tax is the mechanism most readily available to a government to impose its fiscal and social policies on a country.

Odd that really, a great deal of Keynes is about how spending can be used to influence fisal policy.

14) Markets have a natural tendency to concentrate wealth because wealth has never been equally distributed.

An entire non sequitur. Whether or not wealth has ever been equally distributed means nothing as to whether markets concentrate it or not. What’s worse is that they don’t. Capitalism we might think concentrates it, we can certainly make that argument. But it’s markets which temper that very process. When entrepreneurs end up with some 3% of value created, near all the rest turning up as the consumer surplus, that’s not concentration, is it?

15) The concentration of wealth within an economy reduces the well-being of all within it as those with excess resources derive lower marginal utility from their consumption than those with below average resources. Relative poverty always follows, as can absolute poverty.

Relative poverty is measured by income. Consumption is determined by income – well, usually. If it ain’t then people are becoming less wealthy. Thus neither really have anything to do with the wealth distribution.

No, really. Assume a wealth distribution. Double asset values, halve the return from assets. Relative poverty and incomes haven’t budged an inch, wealth inequality has soared.

16) The redistribution of income and wealth to achieve greater equality in the distribution of both does, therefore, increase well-being.

To a point Lord Spudda, to a point. The best guess from the likes of the OECD, IMF and the rest is that some 13 or 14 points on the Gini is about it. Yes, increased value of marginal resources etc, but also the effect running the other way, too high a level of redistribution strangling incentives in the economy.

BTW, the UK tax and benefit system moves the Gini by some 13 or 14 points…..

17) The legal ownership of land concentrates the ownership of wealth.

Yer wha?

18) Land cannot be owned: it can only be tenanted.

Well, if you want to say that property can only be owned to death, maybe. You know, you’re not there to own it afterward. But otherwise this is drivel. We have rather a large system whih insists, very strongly, that land is indeed owned. Ever heard of the Land Registry?

19) The common ownership of land will therefore reduce wealth concentration.

Has no one pointed out to the Senior Lecturer the existence of Garrett Hardin? Elinor Ostrom? Even Henry George?

20) Markets tend towards monopoly.

Not obviously, no? There is that Marxist insistence that they do but it has not been proven. And even then, it’s really a reference to monopsony, a word that didn’t exist when Marx was writing.

21) Monopoly is contrary to the interests of consumers.

The exercise of monopoly power does, yes. So, that’s the NHS, state education system and so on that has to go, right?

22) Monopoly results in the generation of excess profits, or rents.

The exercise of monopoly power does, yes. But it is the exercise, not the existence.

23) To prevent such profits arising markets must be regulated by governments to ensure the fairest possible outcomes for all, including the rights of new entrants to the market.

We should indeed regulate to ensure ease of market access. You know, make it easier to set up private schools and hospitals perhaps?

24) The payment of interest is a transfer of wealth, none being created in the process of payment.

Bollocks. Interest is the time value of money, no more. This is Thomas Aquinas and his drivel about fair prices and usury, isn’t it?

25) The payment of interest concentrates wealth.

Bill Gates issues bonds to buy a company. I buy some, Bill pays me interest. This is concentrating wealth?

26) It is the job of government to, as a result. regulate the availability of credit and the price that is paid for it so that exploitation should not arise.

And we reach credit and price controls! You know, like interest ceilings on payday loans so that they don’t exist? Or perhaps he wants to extend that to junk bonds?

27) The obligation to regulate credit extends to the promotion of activities that induce the extension of credit, including advertising.

From Aquinas to banning soap powder ads. That’s an interesting tack, isn’t it?

28) The physical resources of the planet are finite.

In a sense, but only in a sense. We cannot use more copper atoms than there are copper atoms, that’s true. This says nothing about what we can use copper atoms for, the value we can create by doing so.

29) The second law of thermodynamics holds true.

Holds true in a closed system. Which this planet is not, there’s a vast nuclear reactor up there pumping energy in every second. We just ain’t in a closed system.

30) The use of the minimum possible energy in the process of meeting human need is, therefore, a necessity and not a choice.

There is, out there, some limit to the energy we can use. Current annual global energy use is, can’t recall, a few seconds, maybe a few minutes worth, of the energy arriving.

31) The use of taxation to change behaviour with regard to wealth and income distribution, the ownership of land, the abuse of markets, the payment of interest and the exploitation of natural resources is a necessity.

I have just justified why I should be the Fat Controller. Kip Esquire’s Law.

32) The process of taxation must be democratically controlled.

Err, yes? Not by unaccountable bureaucracies perhaps?

33) It is the job if government to ensure that when a tax has been decided upon it is equitably enforced.

Why not? We also have courts out there to decide what that equity is, according to the laws the government has written. Along with constitutions and constitutional courts to check whether the basic idea is indeed equitable.

34) A government must be held accountable for its failure to enforce the payment of taxes legally due because this represents a failure of its social as well as its fiscal obligations to those who elected it.

Sure. Hey, that tax is legally due, go collect it.

35) No government has the right to undermine the right of another government to collect the taxes owing to it.

Don’t think anyone argues otherwise. That’s rather different from what is meant here, that no government should structure matters so that less tax is legally due.

36) No government has the right to undermine the tax base or rate of anther government.

Sure they do. Taxes on Frenchmen working in London are lower than taxes on Frenchmen working in Paris. Shrug.

37) Governments have the positive obligation to assist each other in the process of collecting taxes lawfully due by those liable to pay them.

We do have extradition treaties, not paying tax is a crime so……

38) Each person must have the right to appeal against any tax liability imposed upon them and have that appeal heard in an independent court.

We’ve heard of this rule of law thing, yes.

39) To be equitable a tax system must take into account the capacity of a person to make payment and maintain their rights as described in Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

OK.

40) Companies, corporations, partnerships, trusts, foundations, charities and other legal entities created by common or statute law are agents of those who create, own, manage or benefit from them as the situation requires with regard to taxation and afford no separate or identifiable rights not attributable to those persons when acting in their own beneficial capacity.

He doesn’t actually mean this. For if he did it would be impossible to say that “companies pay taxes” or that “companies should pay more taxes.”

41) Each person has the right to enjoy their after tax income or wealth without hindrance so long as the purpose they pursue with it is itself legal.

Sure, we’ve heard of private property too, the right to enjoy it within the law.

42) A person is an agent of the state acting as a trustee or custodian of the state’s funds due in taxation arising as a result of the income, wealth or transactions that they enjoy until such time as that taxation is settled and the funds that they hold in that capacity are not theirs to rightfully enjoy without such obligation having been taken into account.

No. This is just “Tutti nelle Stati” once again.

43) A person acting in breach of their obligation as an agent of the state to appropriately manage and retain the funds that they owe in taxation shall be liable for penalty for not doing so.

If you don’t pay your tax you get nicked. And?

44) The state shall, in reciprocation of the obligation to pay tax appropriately account for the use made of that taxation in a manner that shall be appropriate to those with obligation to make payment.

Well, yeah, most of us do make it easy for people to pay us.

45) Those who, when holding political or public office fail to account for taxation due or paid be held accountable for their failure to do so.

Ooooh, Goodie! We get to jail politicians and bureaucrats then, do we?

A reasonable point I think?

We are imprisoning those who broke the law. Those who didn’t break the law are not in prison. That is rather how this is all supposed to work.

There’s nothing illegal about getting things wrong. Nor is greed, incompetence, or wasting rather than stealing money. It’s not even a crime to be drunk in charge of a bank.

With reference to Mr. G Brown this morning.

Ah, so, it’s not actually about the election, is it?

President Trump’s former campaign chief has been charged with running a money-laundering conspiracy that moved $75 million from pro-Russia political groups through a labyrinth of offshore accounts.

Paul Manafort surrendered himself to the FBI yesterday after a special counsel investigation into Russia’s alleged meddling in the US election yielded its first criminal charges. He was accused of dodging taxes, illegally working as an unregistered agent of a foreign government and making false statements to federal investigators.

That a bloke associated with Trump did these things – if proven of course – still doesn’t show that the Russians stole the Presidency from Hillary now, does it?

Well, you see Owen?

How dare you, Kevin Spacey. One of the age-old tropes deployed against gay and bisexual men is that they pose a threat to children, that they are synonymous with paedophiles and pederasts. This vicious lie has long proved useful in justifying the systematic persecution of gay and bisexual men.

Some are indeed pederasts. Just as some who identify as heterosexual chase kiddies. As some women do. To borrow a word, there’s some intersectionality going on here.

We, today and quite rightly, say that consenting adults are consenting adults and that’s that. And that not consent and not adults aren’t.

Err, Polly?

Inflation springs from rising import prices, due to the plunge in sterling caused by Brexit – not from rising wages, which are stuck at little over 2%. Raising rates will hardly affect foreign prices – sterling may plunge again if the Brexit deal looks bad.

Raising interest rates does raise the value of the £, all other things considered.

We’ve told you before not to get your economics from Richard Murphy.

Just about everything done in the past seven years of taxing and spending has dug a deeper hole in the national finances and in most people’s pockets – apart from the soaring number of super-rich, beneficiaries of quantitative easing that sent mostly untaxed wealth and property sky-high.

Raising interest rates will aid in reducing those asset prices pushed up by QE.

Raise the top rate of income tax: latest research quoted by tax specialist Richard Murphy shows a top rate of 60% would aid growth.

Told you the source of this.

Because some things are crimes and others are not

Gordon Brown has warned that “rogue bankers” could cause another financial crash because the failure to imprison them after the last crisis means it is “inevitable” they will start gambling again with public money.

Writing in his memoirs, which are published next week, the former Prime Minister warned the “mistakes of the past have not been heeded” and bankers who act fraudulently must be jailed, banned from future practice and their assets confiscated.

He questioned how Fred Goodwin, the former boss of RBS, could walk away with his past bonuses “untouched”, a tax-free lump sum of £5 million and a pension of £300,000 a year after the bank collapsed and was bailed out by the taxpayer.

Being an idiot, running a business badly, losing lots of money, these are not crimes. When people did commit actual crimes, like rigging Libor, they were jugged.

Slightly odd this one

Another alleged incident happened in a toilet at the 2013 Edinburgh TV Festival. The Sun quoted sources as claiming Spacey made an advance on a writer, who pushed the actor away and left.

There was a furor over whether John Gielgud should be pardoned for similar importuning. And I’m sure there are parts of our society where cottaging etiquette is actively taught by the state.

Seriously, “Fancy a shag? No, OK then” isn’t a crime to the very heavens.

This is well known to be true

The Queen is merely ‘a countryside woman of limited intelligence’, the writer of hit royal series The Crown has claimed.
In remarks sure to raise eyebrows amongst the millions of fans of the hit show, screenwriter Peter Morgan has insisted the monarch ‘would have much preferred looking after her dogs and breeding horses to being queen’.
‘If you had told me I would be doing this, I would have told you it was mad, hallucinogenic conjecture’, Mr Morgan – known for his republican sentiments – mused in the Sunday Times magazine.
‘I wouldn’t have guessed there would be anything more to say about this countryside woman of limited intelligence who would have much preferred looking after her dogs and breeding horses to being Queen.’

No one really has said over the years that Our Brenda has a towering intellect. She’s not going to be extending Wittgenstein, nor Einstein.

She is canny though, as many have also noted.

There is though a certain amusement at Fritz himself, married as he was to one of the Princesses Schwartzenberg, having a pop at the system of aristocracy and monarchy.

Quite so, quite so

Philip Hammond must scrap stamp duty on property sales to solve the housing crisis and boost the economy, a think-tank warned last night.
The Adam Smith Institute said the ‘damaging’ tax – which raised £11.7billion last year – stopped Britons moving jobs and kept them in houses too large for their needs.
By penalising older people for downsizing, stamp duty makes the number of larger homes on the market for growing families even smaller.

Transactions taxes are a bad idea.

We could even say, in fact we should, that stamp duty raises the unemployment rate. It’s actually well known that an owner occupier rate which is “too high” increases unemployment. It costs to sell and move. So, if regional employment patterns change “too high” an owner occupier rate makes labour immobile. There’s also the point that without a vibrant private (social housing is even more immobile that owned, making the problem worse) rental market, which is the inverse of course, it’s not possible to move as swiftly as one might need to for those employment reasons.

Stamp duty increases that cost of moving, increasing the immobility of labour, thus raising the unemployment rate.

This is one of those things, as with so much in economics, which is undoubtedly true. But that’s not enough, there are many effects which are true and some will be working in the opposite direction as well. What we want to know is whether this is both true and important, is it a large enough effect to make a difference?

As best we know, yes. It’s a large enough effect that it can be measured, people have done it and proven it. That is, just the immobility of labour due to a high owner occupation rate is large enough that we can measure the effect.

Thus, presumably, stamp duty makes it worse.

Having now looked at it I recommend this paper. Really rather good.

So not just cis-hetero males then?

Kevin Spacey has responded to allegations he made unwelcome sexual advances towards a 14-year-old actor, saying he did not remember the incident but if it did happen it was likely “deeply inappropriate drunken behaviour” for which he sincerely apologises.

The Star Trek: Discovery star Anthony Rapp has accused Spacey of traumatising him after a party in New York in 1986.

In an interview with BuzzFeed, Rapp alleged that Spacey, then 26, invited him and a 17-year-old friend to a nightclub, despite both being visibly underage, during which they were entertained in the VIP area by Spacey.

Rapp said Spacey then followed up with an invitation to a party at his Manhattan apartment, which Rapp attended.

Rapp said he spent much of the party “kind of bored” and watching television in the bedroom until late into the night, before noticing Spacey standing at the bedroom door and realising all the other guests had left the party.

He said Spacey “sort of stood in the doorway, kind of swaying. My impression when he came in the room was that he was drunk … He picked me up like a groom picks up the bride over the threshold. But I don’t, like, squirm away initially, because I’m like, ‘What’s going on?’ And then he lays down on top of me.”

Rapp described the experience as “a frozen moment … In terms of fight or flight or freeze, I tend to freeze.”

Rapp said he believed Spacey was trying to “seduce” him but that he was able to “squirm” away soon afterwards, closing himself in the bathroom before telling Spacey he was leaving. “As I opened the door to leave, he was leaning on the front door[frame]. And he was like, ‘Are you sure you wanna go?’ I said, ‘Yes, good night,’ and then I did leave,” Rapp said.

Drunk bloke tries to seduce someone, nothing happens.

Film at 11.

That’s one way to read it.

Another is attempted paedophilia, or at least ephebophilia, along with an actual real crime of underage in a nightclub (for whatever importance one ascribes to that).

Be interesting to see what happens here, won’t it? Does it fit the narrative of all men being aggressively Weinstein? Or give that the intended seductee was male, it doesn’t fit the narrative of women being those who suffer from it?

So, coding letters, umlauts and things

OK, so , ALT + 0228 gives ä.

Etc.

And now the big question. Is there an ANSI code for an i but with a little heart replacing the jot?

Yes, I know, but…..or a Unicode or something?

Specifically want to be able to have a heart as the jot, not as a separate letter or image…..

It would appear that market competition works then

Sex workers in a major British city are said to be selling their bodies for as little as £4 – with prostitutes blaming an influx of Eastern European competitors for pushing down prices.

More producers, lower prices to consumers. Perhaps we could use this insight to explain something about our world?

The documentary tells the story of crack addict Natalie, who works on the streets to fund her habit.

That might have more to do with it to be honest. Or this:

A man named Jack, who lives with Natalie, blames Eastern European sex workers for flooding the market and slashing prices.
He claims women come from as far as Serbia and Croatia and sell sex for rock bottom prices.
He said: ‘They’re absolute stunners. But the local girls… Sometimes I have to lend them my teeth.’

Yes, OK then, why not?

Is it not time that our heavily subsidised universities restricted entry to those students who have passed through the state education system? Let those who pay for private secondary education also pay for private university education.
Alan G Stow
Tring

Be interesting when state pupils can choose Islington Technical College or Brent Further Education College and the private sector has Oxford, Cambridge and the LSE to choose from.

Deeply unsure that Willy understand the Enlightenment

The meaning he seems to believe in is that the enlightened believe as he does, that the Enlightenment means that he and his should rule:

The intensity of the attacks betrays the fragility of the Brexit position. A 52% – 48% result is not overwhelming. Few of the country’s key interest groups – business lobby organisations, trade unions, universities, the City, the security, defence and foreign policy communities, the creative industries and even the property world – supported Leave. But, more importantly, there is and was little support in Britain’s culture.

That’s corporatism there. A reversion to the pre-Enlightenment world of guilds in fact. Precisely and exactly what Adam Smith was raging against.

Then there’s this:

A significant element in western electorates, particularly among the less well-educated and unskilled members of the white working class, is so fearful about the impact of mass immigration on their sense of identity that Enlightenment values can go hang. There are fertile ground for the populist right everywhere – from eastern Europe to the American midwest, including the poorer regions of England.

But a goodly part of that rage and reaction is that what is being thrust upon them is the very opposite of that Enlightenment. It’s not difficult to see at least some (to be mild about it) insistence upon group rather than individual rights in the bleatings of the left these days, is it? Group rights, corporatism and the guilds being exactly what we’re supposed to have left behind.

Womens’ interests are not in fact a monolithic block

Anti-abortion Life charity will get cash from UK tampon tax
Government confirms group will receive £250,000 despite outcry from MPs and women’s groups

There are a number of women in the country who are anti-abortion. Why shouldn’t their interests be funded?

That’s the argument being made, that only “progressive” causes should receive such money, isn’t it?

As it actually happens this isn’t the point at issue anyway:

A longlist said Life would receive £250,000 for “housing, practical help, counselling, emotional support and life-skills training for young pregnant women who are homeless”. The sum was among the largest grants on the list.

One would have thought there would be a certain amount of support for this. You know, abortion is “choice” isn’t it? Aiding people in actually having a choice is a good thing then, no? Rather than choice only doing what you’re told to.

This is one of these things which might actually work

One of France’s oldest breeds of heavy horses, the Poitevin, may be saved from extinction if breeders succeed in convincing local authorities to draft them into service to pull dustbin carts.

Dozens of French towns and villages have already ditched dustbin lorries in favour of horses and carts as a greener way to collect household waste.

Dunno about greener – there’s probably more methane from those guts than there is CO2 from a lorry.

However, the breweries that retained horses on their drays did find that they appeared to be more cost effective up out to 4 miles from the brewery. Plus they were great advertising. Add in some little value, whatever you might want to think of, of “saving” the breed and you might well be onto an economic winner there.

I don’t say that’s true, only that it’s entirely possible. The biggest barrier I see to it in fact is being able to pay the people with that rare skill these days of being able to manage a team in harness.

Soapy Joe’s latest

An Employment Tribunal has decided that Uber is supplying transportation services. The consequence of that decision is that Uber should be charging VAT to customers and paying it to HMRC. And that will be true not just now but for the whole period for which Uber has operated in the UK, a period of longer than four years.

An Advocate General at the European Court of Justice has also said Uber is supplying transportation services. And I think those decisions are right. And I am a QC specialising in tax, so this is a view I am entitled to hold. I have also taken formal advice from another QC who specialises in VAT.

Err, no, not really, it doesn’t follow. Definitions in different parts of the law are different, no?

And the VAT liability is upon the individual river at present, no? Whether they are registered etc?

There being a useful little test. There are other (and older) methods of booking a cab through a central billing operation. How do they deal with VAT?

Well done, well done here

A new academic journal paper has something pretty interesting to add to the debate on the impact of higher than currently normal top rates of income tax. In their paper entitled ‘Top marginal taxation and economic growth‘ Santo Milasi and Robert J. Waldmann argue that there is a positive correlation between high rates of economic growth and high marginal top rates of tax. In their opinion:

The [estimates] suggest that the marginal effect of higher top tax rates becomes negative above a growth-maximizing tax rate in the order of 60%.

You knew that Richie was going to pounce upon this one, didn’t you?

Sadly, can’t see the paper itself. But it would be interesting to know whether they really mean income tax or taxes upon income. For Diamond and Saez find a not dissimilar result, a few percentage points away, for taxes upon income. Including, they insist, employer paid taxes upon employment etc.

But what’s really fun from Snippa is this:

The finding is, of course, entirely logical. We have known for a long time that the so-called Laffer effect, where higher rates of tax supposedly reduce effort, does not kick in until rates are sixty per cent or more.

Ah, good, so we do now all agree that the Laffer Curve is correct then. We’re only arguing about the rate, not the existence. That is an advance, isn’t it? And NB again, D&S tell us that it’s 54% for taxes upon income, in a system which contains allowances. Which, when you take NI into account, comes to an income tax rate of 40 – 45%. Which is also where the Treasury says the peak of the curve is.

BTW, allowances includes such things as being able to reside outside the taxing jurisdiction. Something the EU insists we all can do.

At which point, the giggles:

And we know, as a rule, that higher rates of tax encourage effort over observable ranges as people work harder to achieve net incomes given that the whole of our economy is geared to consumption, rightly or wrongly. Add the two effects together and the effect that this paper observes is the logical consequence.

Err, no, we don’t know this as a rule. In fact, if this were the rule then there wouldn’t be a Laffer curve at all. For if we all did target our net income then the higher the tax rates the more labour would be on offer to make up for the tax bite out of that desired income level. A 90% tax rate would see us all working 100 hours a week as we desperately tried to still afford a crust.

This does not happen. Therefore the assertion must be wrong.

And it is wrong of course. For the basic analysis which leads to that very Laffer Curve is that there are two different processes at work. One is the income effect, which is that very idea that we’ve an income we want and we’ll work to get it. Tax rates go up, we work more to hit that net income. On the other hand there’s also the substitution effect. If I’m only going to get 5% of my next hour’s work, a quid, fuck it I’m off fishing.

It is the interplay of these two effects which produces the Curve. We all, a little bit at least, work to the income effect, we all of us, a little at least, work to the substitution effect. The balance of the two changes as tax rates and incomes change. That’s what produces the Curve in the first place.

We cannot, therefore, point to the income effect and conclude that it proves Laffer wrong, because the income effect is one of the two things which produces the very curve.

Finally, how goddam ignorant does an economics teacher have to be to ignore that going fishing is consumption, the consumption of leisure?

Update: And reading the paper (thank you to DIAM who sent it to me) it does indeed seem to be looking at taxes upon income, not income taxes. Which rather neatly disposes of Snippa, doesn’t it?