On Budget Day....

.... the genius that is Matt of The Telegraph yet again manages to say it all in a simple cartoon!



It will probably be irrelevant in the chancellor's overall scheme of things but I include a link to an article from back in January that highlights the parlous state of the British Beer industry.

Those of you that do enjoy a pint or two, and even, perhaps, those that don't, probably don't realise that pubs are closing at the rate of 55+ per month; and no, not the big town centre outlets associated with weekend drunk and disorderly behaviour, but the local village pubs, that are often the only local centre of the community, are the ones that are disappearing. And you certainly won't be aware that "Beer sales for pubs are now at their lowest since the Great Depression of the 1930s." and that "In the UK, beer is already the most expensive form of alcohol that money can buy."

"Unlike wine, brewing is a homegrown industry, employing 20,000 people with an annual turnover of £19 billion. Britain’s pubs employ 600,000 people. Current tax policy is encouraging the move to stronger, and often foreign produced, drinks such as wine - and from pubs to supermarkets."

As it would seem that our Gov's intention is to close down all village pubs, my guess is that the chancellor will take not a blind bit of notice.

Addendum:
Post budget: Another 4p a pint!! That will be 6p by the time it reaches the handpulls. And on top of the brewery rises last month, for most averaging 10p per pint. Our chancellor has probably just ordered the boarding up of another 1000+ village pubs!
Cheers! (Extremely sarcastically!)

Doesn't Add Up

Taxpayer hit again

Re; Please tell me there was a misprint

Sadly, I'm guessing not.

And what is amazing to me is how little noticed or commented upon this has been.

It's almost as though certain folk have been compensated for buying certain other folk more time to further waste more of our money... with our money.

When I ran my ad agency there was once a notion of 'pitching fees' to prevent flippant clients getting all and sundry to contribute, but it never happened.

This was... what... two or three bidders? Bidding to make bazillions. And they take even less risk just having a go and getting rafts of PR and paid work... on our money.

The world has gone mad.

Impudently, if prudently, yours...

Limiting food choice to cut carbon emissions?

I don't recollect anybody actually saying this, other than on the ultra green, vegan fringes, but it seems to be exercising the mind of one of Sainsbury's directors as reported by First4Farming.

"Managing needs versus demand seems like a form of communism, he said. It's something the world we are living in isn't ready for."

The thing is, if climate change does tick past any of the theoretical tipping points some time in the future, we all may have no option but to eat only what is available locally (if amongst the lucky ones). However, in the meantime, the idea of a 'meat tax' might just have our erstwhile chancellor licking his lips in anticipation of yet another way to fill the coffers!

£1,800 each!

That's what the cost is to each taxpayer for the gov's bail out of Northern Rock according to the Telegraph! And, as ever, the inimitable Matt manages to say it in spades.

I just hope that:-
1) they've taken it out of existing revenue, and
2) aren't planning additional taxation somewhere to make up the shortfall

What's the betting that I'm wrong on 2)?

Fundamentals? Or financial flows?

As oil approaches the $100 per barrel marker, decide for yourself. As reported in the FT.

Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.

And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)

The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?

Bad news may actually be good news!

Sounds rather daft doesn't it, but this from The Business reports on a survey (yes, yet another one!) of British companies that looked at how many businesses, across various sectors, were actually measuring their carbon footprint, may just actually be good news from what are apparently bad results.

"The education, hospitality and manufacturing sectors were among the worst offenders, with just 10%-15% saying they measured their carbon footprints, compared with 78% in the leading sector, aerospace. About 40% of companies cited the cost and limited range of environmentally-friendly equipment as the most significant obstacles to going green, while around a third said there was no competitive advantage."

Yet, as commented by the UK Social Investment Forum, "A few years ago, the percentage would have been vanishingly small. To me, this report contains much good news.”

So there you have it, bad news can actually be good news.

_____________
Hmmmmm, "The research follows a report in September by UHY Hacker Young, the accountants, that indicated green taxes were reaping the government 50 times what it handed back in tax breaks for environmental initiatives." I'll have to see if I can find any references to that particular report! But I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me.

Important Addendum:
Just checked back and Peter did actually post a piece about a concurrent report back in September - see "it must be true; its on the BBC".

The strange thing is that the report the Beeb referred to was by the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems, at least to me, to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. Take a look at this from politics.co.uk. Scary stuff!!

"The UHY research claims official Treasury figures reveal the government accumulates £29.3 billion in green levies, of which only £549 million – or 2 per cent – is handed back to the taxpayer to encourage environmentally conscious activity."

Now if that's accurate, it is not just unethical, it is downright heinous, almost bordering on the bloody fraudulent!

“The concern is that revenue raised from green taxes is being used to fund other government pet projects such as the Olympics.”

Now given the absolute shambles that the grants systems for renewables and insulation etc. are in, then who's conning who?

2p or not 2p

I just got a call to sign another petition; this time on petrol: Vote to stop 2.35p extra tax on fuel next week

Fuel hikes are a fact of life, and frankly I am most likely to shrug and absorb the things. I doubt I'll sign this petition (unlike the road pricing one), at least on the reasons stated.

My main thought is to wonder what the money is going towards.

Also, in this will 'e/won't 'e 'election fever' (well, in the Westminster Village) period, how it will play outside of London where some voters still drive because they have to, not want to sit on the M5 each day for an hour each day.

Big stick - minuscule carrot

According to AutoExpressNews the chancellor is intending to impose a big levy on those who would purchase 'gas-guzzlers', a term which I don't particularly like as it unfortunately hits a large number of people who have little option but to use off-road vehicles, such as farmers.

The source is a supposed leaked Treasury document which outlines a suggested £2000 purchase tax levy, OR, a Vehicle Excise Duty first year increase of £1300, on all vehicles that emit more than 254g/km of CO2 .

"All cars in this category – including the entire Range Rover line-up, all Porsche 911s and most versions of the Mercedes S-Class – would be hit by the proposed £2,000 levy."

Now that's a pretty big stick; but I have to question how much it is intended to ameliorate CO2 emissions as opposed to how much revenue it might generate for the Treasury's coffers? The other point that needs to be made is that anyone who can afford a brand new Range Rover, Porsche 911 or Merc S Class can afford to pay that sort of sum without blinking anyway.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the carrot. For those purchasers who buy vehicles that emit less than 100g/km of CO2 there will be a 'rebate' of £2000 (off what? .... the purchase cost, or in ongoing VED reductions?).

OK, that sounds like a nice bit of encouragement to purchase a low emitting vehicle. Unfortunately it leaves you with a choice of either an entirely electric car, such as the G-Wiz, or the one and only current combustion engined vehicle that meets that target, the VW Polo 1.4 TDI BlueMotion.

Sorry, but this is tantamount to a large scale tax grab whilst holding out a minuscule and almost worthless carrot to purchase low CO2 emitting vehicles. What's the betting that as sales of the Bluemotion take off, the Treasury suddenly decides to reduce the 100g/km to something like 80g/km?

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) -

Sorry, it's easier for me to add a link here: CAR INDUSTRY THREATENS AD EXODUS OVER CO2 WARNINGS

I have to agree with you, Dave. At best this seems a silly little (and not very original) piece of political point scoring with no real downside (I doubt most owners to be affected are Labour voters. Not just on money terms, either. Here in the boonies the 4x4foraliving guys are not exactly Brownian in their voting motions!).

And, as you say, who trusts (that word) the carrot?. I still hover on an LPG conversion which is already not good on ROI, but if the tax on the fuel gets nudged up because it proves too popular I'm stuffed!

As to the ad piece above that doesn't make sense, unless they are accepting that such things don't help sales. A silly knee jerk in my view, not that I think popping Co2 labels on will make a blind bit of difference.

Well, at least they were honest:(

We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes

When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.

But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.

I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.

Meanwhile...

BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?

Political common sense shock!

Of course it may be a tad early to cheer too much: Brown to lobby EU on greener VAT

Words and phrases like 'to (as opposed to 'will') lobby (as opposed to 'get in their faces')' and 'push for' (which means?) or 'would seek' (and ye need not necessarily find?) rather make it in the realms of a punt... or, rather, pledge.

And you have gotta love this bit: 'The European Commission welcomed the initiative but said it would require agreement from all 27 member states.' I stand ready to be disabused, but that sounds like 'Yo, Gordo. Still settling in and need to show you're in charge, eh? Sure, we'll help a bit. But the answer is going to be no, ok? But you knew that, right?'

Huge idea, though. Wonder why no one thought of, and/or suggested it before/

Especially as we're trying to encourage better enviro-practice all round.

ps: Is it just me, but is everyone's nearby river coming through their front door?

There's what was. There's what is. And there's... what????????

I watched a BBC news slot this morning when it seemed that all involved with the last decade of government (and staying on) seemed to be awarded a 'get out of everything free' card.

Me... I prefer to look at track records and facts. Or such as they are. And here's one: Council tax 'doubles in 10 years'

Or, to put it another, equally walletally-painful way: 'three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings'.

Now, there is an attempt at balance, and: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services."

O........k. What do we reckon?

Maybe there could be another reason; one raised a short while ago.

Now, there was a slight tweak back to the 'Cross of Ross' posting in the reply section, but really, can there be much doubt as to where a large wadge of the money seems to be going, and 'increased services' are hard to reconcile when weekly rubbish collections are moving in a distinctly unincreased direction.

I'm afraid all this does is push my trust factor in government, and some rather... cooperative... aspects of publicly-funded media, even lower.

BBC - Brown interview: key quotes - I am simply intrigued as to how what is factual 'cannot be accepted' in so many cases. What the heck does that mean?

NOT Gordon Brown

So he has learned, will reach out, build consensus and answer questions at last.

But if the answers to such questions are, and allowed to be (especially in the case of what is surely easily established fact) 'I don't accept that', I'm afraid to all of the above I can only have one reply:

"I don't accept that".

But, as always in this newsflip era, that's probably all there is time for. Shame. On all involved, and complicit.

Friday, 22 June, 2007 - Not looking like many others were too impressed with either the interviewee, or ers. For all the good it does.

Council tax funds pensions!!

DAILY MAIL

So now I'm beginning to understand just why some councils are moving to fortnightly bin collections - much of their (sorry, but shouldn't that be OUR?) allocated cash goes straight into 'gold-plated', index linked pensions. .... And they can still retire at 60 whilst the plan is that the rest of us will have to work until 68!

Wasn't council tax supposed to pay for essential services? I don't remember agreeing to help provide super pensions for the faceless bureaucrats who spend all day pen-pushing and inventing new and ever more meaningless targets. But I suppose they have to employ someone to decode the data collected from the "Chip 'n Bin" devices.

Tax and spend, OK. But where's it going and what's the return?

The real battle is over services, not tax

To the author:

Forgive me, but I don't subscribe, so I don't have the benefit of the full article to comment upon. So maybe you have covered this.

Like any businessperson, or indeed any individual managing a budget, my greatest concern is what I get for my expenditure and, In the case of investment, how good the return is.

What appals me is the way government, and its hired but unaccountable mercenaries in the quango sector, can claim results based on expenditure with no measure at all of how well anything has performed in real terms.

As a parent I despair over what the money lavished upon health and education has actually resulted in. As a professional ad man and green advocate my jaw stands agape that entities such as WRAP can claim response rates for recycling as 'good' when they have blown bazzillions of public funds on campaigns that may look nice, tick boxes, meet agendas, etc, but may not actually result in as good, or even a better planet for the money.

My battle is to get this whole sorry mess back on track, for my kids' sake. It will take a long time, at least before any rectifying efforts bear fruit. And for that reason, I doubt any short-term oriented pol who does appreciate this truth will be in the least bit interested or motivated to do so.

What a waste

Call for council tax rise - and a charge for emptying your bin

"But Sir Michael said with local government facing huge EU fines for missing waste targets "a charging regime would act as a powerful incentive" on householders to recycle."

No, it may act as a powerful DISINCENTIVE NOT TO, and is certainly passing the burden for meeting administrative targets onto those who are meant to be served. And pay for the 'privilege'.

Another nail in the 'fine first, figure out solutions later' coffin of what's being achieved by 'green' policies we are being subjected to these days.

What chance doing if they are still not yet understanding

Gordon the green engine?

Whatever measures Mr. Brown does take, and lord alone knows some are necessary, it is to be hoped that they will be thought through and 'sold' to the public a darn sight better than they have been to date.

One major hurdle is to convince those who do not live in the London-C - for centric- zone (between the BBC in the West, Canary Wharf in the East, and all the various political and activist hotspots in between, which are easily accessed by tube, bus and bike (weather, lack of kids, more than one shopping bag, not living in a flat city... permitting}) that this is not some half-baked notion cooked up by an urban elite with no idea of the real world most of the population is struggling to live and work in.

So how one financially dissuades a squillionaire Yummy Mummy in her annually renewed Cayenne, whilst not bankrupting a farmer in their 30 year old Land Rover (how much is produced simply in in a car's manufacture?), to get both in a Hybrid (good log pullers, I'm sure) is anyone's guess.

Especially, as I understand it, in London (all hail) the EverReady-buggy can buzz about all day, emitting away, for free, while a Suzuki Vitara would get busted for a 3 mile trip to and from Paddington from Wandsworth to be parked, CO2less, all day. Kensington to the City and you're golden... er.. green to go in a Hummer, of course.

So how long 'it' emits is surely as key as what? But then you need to work around the district nurse in the Dales with her Fiesta, and you have a Gordknotian problem to unravel.

As for air travel, well let's just not go there. Really. Let's not. At least, if you are serious (Tony B, Al G, all climate 'experts' with conferences and/or book deals, etc, please note).

I wish any pol good luck signalling their understanding of this. And in ways I not only understand... but believe.

If not... see you at the voting booth.

Telegraph - Brown's green tax rise on 'gas-guzzling' cars

DO what?!!!!!

Council tax valuers recruit a spy in sky 'snooping on households'

If it's true, of course.

Death and taxes

I hate to be nasty to an old lady, but when the media elite get to mouth off from their pedestal on things they know nothing about, or choose to interpret to fit some cosy view of a world they are privileged to inhabit, I see red:

Dear Ms. Bakewell,

Further to your piece, It is a rare tax that can inspire generosity, and in particular:

Gifts made more than seven years before your death will go untaxed. Now is the time to give some of it away.

I must respectfully diasagree.

Why then, can you not give it away immediately, or in fact immediately prior to passing, on the same basis you espouse?

It simply seems to allow time for a game to be played between the Treasury and a lot of vastly paid folk in the City and Lincoln’s Inn Fields, that most mere mortals cannot consider affording. Guessing the date of one’s demise to ensure the best use of the funds for one’s retirement to that point, and the betterment of those who have helped make it comfortable thereafter, to assist such leeches, their gold-plated salaries and index-linked pensions can not be what you are promoting, surely? You seem to be advocating more the crushing of the majority to penalise a minority (most of whom are immune), and while that may satisfy your view of the world you inhabit, it does not mine.

I returned from abroad with my young family several years ago to help my mother tend my dying father, and now find myself fitting in her care around trying to generate a living and establish the foundations of a comfortable retirement for my wife and myself - to avoid being a monetary burden, at least, on our future family members. This has required many career and financial sacrifices on our part, some of which have benefited the state already. It has to an extent been my choice, already with the support of my mother’s inherited income, to pursue a dream of a better future for my nearest, dearest and, I’d hazard, others. But by not being the beneficiary of all my Mum may end up leaving me will not make things easy, and will run contrary to a lot of the ‘logic’ you seem to hold so dear, in terms of family cohesion or avoiding future calls upon the state.

Depending on your view, I have either done very well or very badly. I have looked after both my parents' interests pretty well, a fact recognized by my mother who is more than happy for me to take over her finances in my name and look after her as part of the family she helped establish, and of which she is very much part.

However, despite having an Enduring Power of Attorney, as her sole heir (in addition to her grandsons, for whom I am trustee to her bequests) I doubt the Court of Protection would view this move as in her best interests. And, unless I have missed something, neither would I. I love my wife very much, and she me. But I am too old to be a total romantic. Things can change, especially as careers come to a close and kids leave. It is just possible therefore that having handed over her gift my mother would find half of it (and a large % of what I have committed to devote to her care until she passes on), going... elsewhere.

So I am afraid I cannot accept your statement is as you would have it. And, frankly, that a lot else behind your piece as being either fair or just in the circumstances I, and many others, have had to commit to. The current system still benefits those able and willing to avoid the proceeds of their ancestors' slave trade or other ennobled efforts (how much tax do Messrs. Fayed, Green or indeed many highly-placed Government supporters contribute again?). And while I am sure you are an exception, I can think of a view media celebrities of stage, screen and print, with oft-quoted egalitarian views, who I suspect have a speed dial to a good adviser with a nifty way to ensure the Tuscan villa doesn't come into the reckoning. Not all of the beneficiaries of a more equitable solution are the descendants of the rich, be they old money or nouveau (as you polish your Guillotine, be careful who the mob comes for next), and it frankly smacks of idealistic meddling to claim otherwise, at least in the terms you do.

Yours sincerely, an illogical crackpot (by your definition, at least),

I am juggling a lot, including making Junkk.com work, on terms that are of my choosing, but by any measure would destroy her beliefs, logic and defences. Trouble is, those with nothing to lose (gold-plated, index-linked ones) are setting the system and being supported by dewy-eyed, fabulously wealthy media types like her who think they know what's best for 'us'.