Doctors
teamonkey
joined 1 year ago
The costs are high. Finance regulations force the banks to investigate high-profile clients for any conflicts of interest or reasons where a bank may be facilitating something illegal or sanctioned. It is literally illegal for the bank not to perform these checks. They can’t just put on blinkers and claim ignorance.
It would be at least negligent to shareholders, and possibly outright illegal, not to act on that information if there were significant risk.
Brown coal output 12.2021: 10100 GWh Black coal output 12.2021: 5391 GWh
Of course comparing August 2021 - August 2023 there’s less of a difference, but still a noticeable drop.
Lua crew represent
Shout out to the 5% of UKIPpers who voted to remain
I think it’s making sure that they can’t record their voice in a single session and have it synthesised forevermore.
It doesn’t make sense to think of it in terms of how much of the Sun’s energy it uses because solar energy is essentially free and unlimited, it comes from an outside system, we don’t need to mine it or carry it or anything and we can’t ‘waste’ it in the same way we can other fuels. All it tells us is the maximum theoretical limit.
10% more energy from solar means a rooftop array could generate an extra 300-500W which is a genuinely useful amount of energy.
Absolutely, a change to CGT may affect the risk-return profile of individual investments and might make some unpalatable. But it wouldn’t slow or stop investing altogether. One thing that has a bigger effect would be how much spare money people have to invest, how much they earn above their costs of living.
People have a financial incentive to invest their money somewhere (stock market, bonds, businesses, property, interest-bearing bank account) because if they don’t, their money devalues. Economically speaking it doesn’t matter so much where, so long as money cycles around the country and doesn’t sit doing nothing - or leave (which is another issue with global investments). A change in CGT would have to be hugely disruptive to change that incentive.
To start with I think we need to stop giving credence to bunkum theories that state that people are free to provide or withhold their services as they see fit. It’s not the case for the majority of people.
Most people cannot afford not to work, they have no choice until they are financially secure enough, which few are. Either that or they physically can’t work, but in most cases they MUST work to pay rent, eat, survive. Even if you’re specialised in any job, when unemployed it’s only a matter of weeks before you need to pick any job, whatever you can get. Raising or lowering income tax will not affect that, only the amount of money you have when employed.
Even if you don’t HAVE to work, the financial incentive is always to work, because it gets you more money, which is the promise of a better time. Changing income tax doesn’t affect that either, just the rate at which you accumulate wealth, but if you don’t have to work at least you have a choice not to.
What affects employment more than income tax? Employment taxes. Because a business finding it cheaper to employ more staff… employs more staff. That financial incentive again, and a completely different set of levers. You can increase income tax and decrease employment tax, or both together, whatever. Independent.
You know what else can take people out of the workforce? Reducing CGT. It allows people to retire earlier or live off their investments. Changes the threshold of where your financial incentive to work balances your body’s ability to can. Whether that’s good or bad depends on your point of view.
On the subject of CGT, again, look at where the financial incentive lies. At what CGT threshold does it become more profitable not to invest in some vehicle, even risk-free-rate bonds, rather than stuffing a mattress? CGT only affects realisation of assets, so with a rate increase you would expect an increase in longer term investments, you might see people delaying retirement. It’s unlikely to affect actual investment, really only the amount of ready cash people have affects that. Lower income tax/higher CGT may actually increase investment in that case (though it’ll probably be mostly invested in other countries through SP500 or global trackers, so maybe not a good thing for the country).
Capital gains tax discourages investment and innovation. Income tax discourages work
Are either of those statements true? Does capital gains tax ACTUALLY discourage investment? Does income tax ACTUALLY discourage work?
Not sure why you need a study to confirm what is literally codified in tax law, but sure.
AV+ was not a PR method and only offered minor benefits above FPTP. It would still lead to a concentration of power between the two main parties, but it would increase the overall number of seats gained by a centrist party.
AV+ suited the Tories (and Labour) only slightly less well than FPTP, but Lib Dems would have been a much bigger spare leg if it had gone through. For the Tories, it was a win-win result.
In other words, the LDs allowed themselves to make another compromise, being tempted with another minor power grab, and in doing so allowed themselves to be outplayed again, and didn’t even gain us the minor democratic benefits AV+ had to offer.
As for AV+ being a short leap to PR, I have doubts, even though I voted in favour of it. PR would be less beneficial than AV+ to the three main parties now, so why would the LDs try to push it through? Also the referendum would have been used as a weapon - “the people voted so we can’t change it” - just as has been done for election reform, the Scottish Referendum and Brexit since.