Category Archives: Britain

Britain, Business, Economic, Finance, Government, Legal, Politics, Society, Taxation

Amazon’s tax advantage is economically unfair. Time to put a halt to it…

 

TAX LOOPHOLES

The age of the internet has brought colossal benefits to many large, multinational companies. No more so than for Amazon, a distribution giant. The company has earned very lucrative revenue streams, but has managed to deftly reduce its corporation tax bill through skilful use of tax loopholes. Last year, Amazon paid just £4.2 million in UK corporation tax, despite generating UK sales of £4.3 billion. The firm has been heavily criticised because it has now emerged that it avoided paying billions of pounds in tax last year by funnelling revenue of £11 billion through an overseas company based in Luxembourg. Amazon is also reported to have received a financial inducement and rebate amounting to £4m from the authorities in Luxembourg as part of the controversial arrangements.

This is all the more startling considering Amazon has received more than £10m in financial assistance from the Scottish Government, with the company opening a logistical distribution hub in Dunfermline, alongside its customer call centre in Edinburgh.

Similar:

Striking the right balance between competitive rates of Corporation Tax to attract foreign direct investment such as this while ensuring companies pay their rightful share is a difficult and complex area for politicians of all parties. Whilst Amazon’s avoidance causes public anger, governments have to take into account the investment the company has made in a country and the employment which that investment has created. Amazon may well argue that it would not have invested if it had been discouraged from exploiting this position.

A low rate of Corporation Tax which the UK offers in comparison to other countries is generally attractive for foreign firms wishing to make direct investment. But such schemes should also encourage companies like Amazon to pay and reduce the incentive for elaborate avoidance schemes of this sort. The loopholes provide too much of an economic and financial advantage for many large multinational firms. These require to be reined in through tighter political scrutiny and more exacting and better enacting of legislation.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

New round of British Defence Cuts…

DEFENCE

Intro: Our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere standing defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough at present to deal with the most basic of future threats

The announcement from Whitehall that there is to be further cuts to Britain’s already shrinking Army, albeit on grounds of economy rather than strategic priorities, is deeply alarming.

The new rounds of cuts are aimed, primarily, at Britain’s elite rapid reaction force – the most unwarranted target for making economies and savings through cost-cutting. A prime target earmarked is 16 Air Assault Brigade, a core component of which is Britain’s elite Parachute Regiment. It is to be stripped of half its regular infantry battalions, as well as reductions in some of its helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. The Royal Engineers, who support our elite forces through maintenance of equipment and servicing, are also to suffer wide ranging cuts to its budget. 16 Air Assault Brigade is to be reduced from the current level of 8,000 troops to 5,000 by the end of this year. Such a scaling-down is difficult to discern given Britain’s post-Afghanistan strategy. This was meant to be focused on our military capability deemed agile enough to respond and execute contingency operations as they arise in the future. A diminishing capability raises fresh concerns over the Government’s overall defence policy.

Alarmingly, these latest cost reductions are to be implemented alongside the already massive cuts inflicted on the Armed Forces. The last strategic defence review in 2010 proposed the reduction of the Army’s strength from 102,000 regular soldiers to just 82,000 by the end of the decade. Parallel reductions of 8,000 personnel in the RAF and 5,500 in the Navy were also part of the defence reconfiguration. Not since before the Napoleonic Wars has Britain had such a low level of manning to call upon in the event of defending sovereign interests.

Some £10 billion has already been cut from the defence budget. Whilst understanding the need for austerity and for efficiency gains to be made where they can, of which the Ministry of Defence cannot expect to be excluded given its high wastage rate on incompetent procurement programmes, defence of the realm is a paramount obligation of every government. If that duty is neglected, a government runs the risk of all of its other priorities and government policies becoming compromised in the process. It is crucial, then, that Britain retains an effectively trained army with a full complement of experienced and professional troops. For many, though, our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough to deal with the most basic of future threats. Yet, the world is a far more dangerous place than it has ever been, and Britain should be punching above its weight: diminution of military resources reduces the UK’s global influence – military cuts which go against the Government’s aspiration of retaining a place at the top table around the world. To have a positive influence, it is crucial that Britain’s Armed Forces are sufficiently maintained if that ambition is to be met.

There is no doubt that Britain’s military Armed Forces have been pared to the bone. It has reached the stage where any further cuts may well imperil national security.

Standard
Biotechnology, Britain, Environment, European Union, Government, Research, Science, Society

Pesticides require to be cut to save bees…

COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER

Bees are an essential part of our life-cycle. Without them, flowers would not be pollinated and crops would fail. And as the world’s human population continues to grow, bee numbers in recent times have been falling, indicating that there is a big problem looming. Scientists are concerned.

Biologists and environmentalists have been puzzling about the cause for some time. Of particular concern is what has become known as colony collapse disorder, an affliction that has already led to the death of entire hives of bees during the winter months. The collapse of colonies is something which has been happening with frequent occurrence. The finger of suspicion is now pointing ever more firmly at insecticides and aggressive agricultural practices, especially those chemicals containing compounds known as neonicotinoids.

These are recently developed pesticides that have become widely used in agriculture because they are much less toxic to humans and other animals than the chemicals they replaced.

Evidence is mounting, though, that they are highly toxic to bees. A scientific study has found that hives that had similar levels of mite and parasite infestation, also thought to be a factor in colony collapse, were much more likely to die if the bees had also been exposed to neonicotinoid pesticides.

Empirically, several studies have now borne out this effect, with researchers edging closer in identifying the casual mechanism – that neonicotinoids are responsible for disrupting the immune and neurological systems of bees. This makes them less resistant to disease caused by parasites.

European and British regulators have already moved to restrict the use of neonicotinoids, but the case for a much tougher clampdown to reverse the loss of honey bees is gaining traction.

 

Standard