As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
Erm, no I’m just using the phrase “small man” in the way it’s used by other English speakers….
Well, it's my native tongue, and to me small means small.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
What I didn’t know until today is that Smith’s wife had a very public affair with a rapper, quite recently. So he’s been publicly cuckolded
LONDON, March 28 (Reuters) - Russian soldiers who seized the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster drove their armoured vehicles without radiation protection through a highly toxic zone called the "Red Forest", kicking up clouds of radioactive dust, workers at the site said.
The two sources said soldiers in the convoy did not use any anti-radiation gear. The second Chernobyl employee said that was "suicidal" for the soldiers because the radioactive dust they inhaled was likely to cause internal radiation in their bodies.
"Vladolph" is easily as clever and funny as "Bliar." Easily. Well done. It's just utterly fucking infantile. Do you think the readership needs nudging towards the idea that Putin is an evil man? Or that it is stupid enough, for calling him that to push them in that direction?
Several posters have used the term on here, so if you want to throw the abuse around you need to widen the scope of who your are slagging off.
Otherwise, what do you think of the actual tweet I posted?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
(3)Cyclefree added that a referendum in the Ukraine should "include the 30,000 people taken by the Russians from Mariupol and deported must be allowed to return and vote plus all those who used to live there." YES
(1) Unless I am one of the several hundred annual suicides in this country who are driven to it by purely verbal harassment, or one of the , let's guess, 100s of thousands who are driven to intense but not quite killing oneself misery by it. Very good point.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
What I didn’t know until today is that Smith’s wife had a very public affair with a rapper, quite recently. So he’s been publicly cuckolded
I wonder if Smith really wanted to slap HER
There's plenty on his side of the equation too....
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
Erm, no I’m just using the phrase “small man” in the way it’s used by other English speakers….
Well, it's my native tongue, and to me small means small.
Well, if you say so. It must suck though
You're now going to have to explain that doesn't involve drawing into the mouth by contracting the muscles of the lips and mouth to make a partial vacuum.
P&O Ferries to hire Will Smith for publicity advice
I was going to suggest they rename themselves White Star Line, but on checkiong that got subsumed into Cunard, who presumably still own the brand. So that quick route to improvement is out.
LONDON, March 28 (Reuters) - Russian soldiers who seized the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster drove their armoured vehicles without radiation protection through a highly toxic zone called the "Red Forest", kicking up clouds of radioactive dust, workers at the site said.
The two sources said soldiers in the convoy did not use any anti-radiation gear. The second Chernobyl employee said that was "suicidal" for the soldiers because the radioactive dust they inhaled was likely to cause internal radiation in their bodies.
"Vladolph" is easily as clever and funny as "Bliar." Easily. Well done. It's just utterly fucking infantile. Do you think the readership needs nudging towards the idea that Putin is an evil man? Or that it is stupid enough, for calling him that to push them in that direction?
Several posters have used the term on here, so if you want to throw the abuse around you need to widen the scope of who your are slagging off.
Otherwise, what do you think of the actual tweet I posted?
Some big boys also did it and ran away.
You don't earn the right to a response by posting a fucking tweet. But since you ask, the article is context free. It gives no clue as to whether the risk involved is more or less than smoking 5 a day.
P&O Ferries to hire Will Smith for publicity advice
I was going to suggest they rename themselves White Star Line, but on checkiong that got subsumed into Cunard, who presumably still own the brand. So that quick route to improvement is out.
Ironically Cunard is owned by Carnival, who also own P+O cruises...
(3)Cyclefree added that a referendum in the Ukraine should "include the 30,000 people taken by the Russians from Mariupol and deported must be allowed to return and vote plus all those who used to live there." YES
(1) Unless I am one of the several hundred annual suicides in this country who are driven to it by purely verbal harassment, or one of the , let's guess, 100s of thousands who are driven to intense but not quite killing oneself misery by it. Very good point.
I know. There is torment and torture. It is not a topic for flippancy, but it's a starting principle. We must help one another.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
Erm, no I’m just using the phrase “small man” in the way it’s used by other English speakers….
Well, it's my native tongue, and to me small means small.
I did an analysis a few years back on the impact of rising energy prices on GDP. Basically, countries that are importers (EU, UK, Japan, South Korea) get very badly hit.
The worst hit country - IIRC - is actually Italy, because they have less renewables, negligible domestic energy resources, and quite a energy intensive economy. Japan also doesn't look good. We do a little better, because we still have some meaningful domestic oil & gas production, and we have very little heavy industry.
I will try and drag out the data.
Self correcting type of recession though right? With a lot of pent up demand left over. E.g. If you’re going to have one…
One good thing about the 2022 Oscars is that they’ve made the Royal tour of the Caribbean look profoundly well judged, bordering triumphant, in comparison
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
One good thing about the 2022 Oscars is that they’ve made the Royal tour of the Caribbean look profoundly well judged, bordering triumphant, in comparison
I saw people like your good self comment on the ratings decline of the show so looked it up. Wow. At this rate the ratings will be in single figures in a few years.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
If a privately held business is the large majority of your wealth - say Theo Profetus or Peter Jones - then what happens?
That’s the issue. You can be forced to drain capital from the business to pay taxes.
One good thing about the 2022 Oscars is that they’ve made the Royal tour of the Caribbean look profoundly well judged, bordering triumphant, in comparison
I saw people like your good self comment on the ratings decline of the show so looked it up. Wow. At this rate the ratings will be in single figures in a few years.
Given the trouble they've had with couples this year, that might be the smart move.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
It is a sort of wealth tax.
Let me give you an example.
I am currently raising money for my start-up auto insurance company. Let's say we raise $15m, and the price of the shares means the company is valued at $60m.
On paper, I will be worth (say) $10m more than I was last year. But I am not able to sell my shares. The paper value of them is just that... paper. If things go well, then at some point in the future I will be able to sell them, and then I will pay capital gains tax. But right now, I have unrealised capital gain.
Now, let's say that I am charge 20% on that $10m gain. From whence do I get the $2m? I don't actually earn anything like $2m/year. And I pay income tax on my actual earnings.
And what if my insurer has to close down next year? In that scenario, what happens? I will have lost everything, and I will have paid $2m in tax on a gain I never made.
Income is money you receive. Unrealized capital gains are not money you have received. You don't necessarily even have any control over what they are. They are also often not easily realisable. It would be essentially impossible for me to sell shares in my insurance company, even if I wanted to.
But we aren't talking about income, are we? If you want to make the case that taxing capital is wrong, make it. Meanwhile, if I want to tax you on assets, including, say, a Van Gogh you own, it isn't much of an answer to say Yebbut this time next year it might have been destroyed in a house fire.
Also, if your insurance co is worthless for tax purposes, I'll take it off your hands for $1m next week. If that's not a bargain, why not?
++ Betting Post++ Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship. Crazy odds! He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan. I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience. But eights would be generous. He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now. A value bet for sure.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
What I didn’t know until today is that Smith’s wife had a very public affair with a rapper, quite recently. So he’s been publicly cuckolded
I wonder if Smith really wanted to slap HER
Rumors for years that they have an open/unconventional marriage.
P&O Ferries to hire Will Smith for publicity advice
I was going to suggest they rename themselves White Star Line, but on checkiong that got subsumed into Cunard, who presumably still own the brand. So that quick route to improvement is out.
I'm not sure if they have the chutzpah to pull this off, but one way to rescue the brand now (in addition to rehiring the workers) would be to pay Ukraine £££ to use the names of a couple of Ukrainian ports, perhaps with some future agreement that the parent company would help repair ports damaged by the war.
Then P&O Ferries could become "Pivdenny & Odessa Ferries".
They happily already use blue and yellow in their corporate branding.
One good thing about the 2022 Oscars is that they’ve made the Royal tour of the Caribbean look profoundly well judged, bordering triumphant, in comparison
Would ve been fucking cool if Baldy had thumped a darkie for dissing Death's head. I'd have been well impressed.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
It may not look like it but I suspect we have passed the peak of what Zelensky can achieve as a communicator abroad. After the initial sensation there will now be diminishing returns for his efforts as countries and corporations have decided what they are ready to do for Ukraine.
An interesting question is what happens if the liberation of Trostyanets is just the beginning, and it begins to look as though the Russian ability to sustain the invasion is beginning to crumble?
Suppose the Ukrainians manage to retake Kherson City, or to force the Russian forces East and North-West of Ukraine back, beyond artillery range of Kyiv. Does that boost optimism in the West that Ukraine can win the war, encouraging the provision of more support, or does it lead some leaders in the West to worry about how Putin might react to imminent defeat?
I could see some leaders of some countries wanting to reduce the amount of support provided to Ukraine, to encourage Ukraine to agree a compromise with Russia, to avoid Ukraine pushing on for for a complete victory.
I'm a pessimist in these matters and think that is what will happen - at the least the relative unity on the need to be very tough (which has been pretty impressive by and large) will crumble a bit. A fair point is made that a 'compromise' on the Donbas in particular might not be something even Zelensky can sell to his people at this point, after what has happened, and if the West is perceived to have turned off the taps to stop Ukraine even getting to the status quo ante bellum? What a way to throw away so much goodwill toward the West that Ukraine has been looking up to.
Gordon Lubold @glubold Leon Panetta says on CNN that Biden’s gaffe in Europe about regime change came about because Biden is Irish, and his instinct to internalize human suffering may have overwhelmed him to the point where he was not careful about what he said. Biden needs more discipline Panetta says
How bloody Irish do they think he is?! (leaving aside the weird characterisation of what being Irish even means). Yes, I know Biden has said that, but come on.
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Yes, it is fair to say that sacking all your workers publicly and illegally is not a smart business move. It turned a financial drama into what looks like a terminal crisis.
Even if they can find a way through, they will struggle to win back lost business. Who would sail on P+O ferries knowing they don't care about laws or apparently safety?
DFDS and Stena must have actually wet themselves laughing.
Not so much a terminal crisis as a you-can’t-leave-the-terminal crisis
Britain’s thetimes reports that Turkey is proposing that Crimea and Donbas be held by Moscow under a “long term lease” like the UK’s former control over Hong Kong with their future to de decided at a later date
It may not look like it but I suspect we have passed the peak of what Zelensky can achieve as a communicator abroad. After the initial sensation there will now be diminishing returns for his efforts as countries and corporations have decided what they are ready to do for Ukraine.
I just don't see how the actual Ukrainians living in the Donbas will stand for it. Even if Zelensky goes for it I doubt the Ukrainians who have had their cities destroyed by Russian shelling are going to welcome their new overlords. There will be a massive insurgency without a doubt.
Zelensky wants a referendum doesn't he?
If the Donbas votes to join the child murdering dictatorship of Putin just because many of them speak Russian, then good bloody luck to them.
Must be UN controlled referendum mind. Not some bollx organized by the FSB.
And the 30,000 people taken by the Russians from Mariupol and deported must be allowed to return and vote plus all those who used to live there.
Which is why, contrary to some beliefs, it couldn't be done quickly - Russia has no incentive to allow former residents the chance to vote. And that's even assuming they would allow and win a fair vote of those living there currently, which based on the Russian playbook is doubtful.
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Yes, it is fair to say that sacking all your workers publicly and illegally is not a smart business move. It turned a financial drama into what looks like a terminal crisis.
Even if they can find a way through, they will struggle to win back lost business. Who would sail on P+O ferries knowing they don't care about laws or apparently safety?
DFDS and Stena must have actually wet themselves laughing.
Not so much a terminal crisis as a you-can’t-leave-the-terminal crisis
They need an off ramp, but can't lower it as the crew don't know how.
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Gerald Ratner must be feeling a fair bit of relief at his name no longer being used as the eponymous term for corporate seppuku with no reason at all.
"Ratnered" is so much easier to say than "Hebblethwaited", or "P&Oed", so I think it will survive, but P&O will be seen as taking Ratnering to a new level.
P&O Ferries would make an interesting case study for a business school course. Get the students into teams and ask them to devise a strategy to turn the company around. Things currently look grim: there's an alternative technology (the chunnel) that's faster, more weatherproof and scarcely more expensive; a recent change in border arrangements (Brexit) means throughput has got slower and more expensive; the fleet is old and tired, and heavily dependent on volatile fossil fuel prices; there are poor labour relations; the leisure offering has weakened over time as more people fly or stay at home. Etc.
Team 1 (let's call them SeaX) decide it's time to disrupt ferry technology to save staff costs and remove fuel price risk. What we need is an electric and sail-powered, self-navigating ferry with only minimal staff aboard. Essentially a giant floating battery with robotic controls.
Team 2 (Boatflix) say it's all about the retail offer. You're selling the experience not the crossing. Free tickets for all travellers, with an array of in-boat purchases ranging from luxury shopping to immersive audio-visual facilities. Less a ferry crossing, more a floating mall
Team 3 (Easyboat) has perhaps the most old-fashioned idea: a stripped down offer with limited sailings at ultra-low prices, with skeleton on-board staff and stripped back facilities.
Finally, Team 5 (ScUber) have decided the days of large company-leased fleets are over. The future is ride sharing. Ditch the Pride of Kent and instead roll out an app that connects independent skippers with willing cross channel travellers. A kind of modern day gig-economy Dunkerque flotilla.
Reality is nobody can make money from cross channel ferries. They've been trying for decades and each company periodically either goes bust or withdraws services. The best by far in my adult life was SeaFrance but I think that was owned and heavily subsidised by government. Like rural bus services the ferries probably either need to be government-subsidised as an essential facilitator of freight trade, or run as a pure freight operation by a logistics giant like Kuhne & Nagel as part of a vertically integrated cross border model.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
Erm, no I’m just using the phrase “small man” in the way it’s used by other English speakers….
Well, it's my native tongue, and to me small means small.
Impossible to really answer a question like that, as you aren't believed if you engage with it and deny and obviously won't admit it if you do. To an extent all politicians think we are stupid because they try to manipulate us with slogans, obfuscations and targeted messaging, and to an extent we prove them right about that by falling for it time and again. Sunak's current problem is people are no longer giving him the benefit of the doubt and so questions like that hit home.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
I think Russia's position is actually worse than might appear at first sight really for 5 reasons:
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Gerald Ratner must be feeling a fair bit of relief at his name no longer being used as the eponymous term for corporate seppuku with no reason at all.
"Ratnered" is so much easier to say than "Hebblethwaited", or "P&Oed", so I think it will survive, but P&O will be seen as taking Ratnering to a new level.
P&O Ferries would make an interesting case study for a business school course. Get the students into teams and ask them to devise a strategy to turn the company around. Things currently look grim: there's an alternative technology (the chunnel) that's faster, more weatherproof and scarcely more expensive; a recent change in border arrangements (Brexit) means throughput has got slower and more expensive; the fleet is old and tired, and heavily dependent on volatile fossil fuel prices; there are poor labour relations; the leisure offering has weakened over time as more people fly or stay at home. Etc.
Team 1 (let's call them SeaX) decide it's time to disrupt ferry technology to save staff costs and remove fuel price risk. What we need is an electric and sail-powered, self-navigating ferry with only minimal staff aboard. Essentially a giant floating battery with robotic controls.
Team 2 (Boatflix) say it's all about the retail offer. You're selling the experience not the crossing. Free tickets for all travellers, with an array of in-boat purchases ranging from luxury shopping to immersive audio-visual facilities. Less a ferry crossing, more a floating mall
Team 3 (Easyboat) has perhaps the most old-fashioned idea: a stripped down offer with limited sailings at ultra-low prices, with skeleton on-board staff and stripped back facilities.
Finally, Team 5 (ScUber) have decided the days of large company-leased fleets are over. The future is ride sharing. Ditch the Pride of Kent and instead roll out an app that connects independent skippers with willing cross channel travellers. A kind of modern day gig-economy Dunkerque flotilla.
Reality is nobody can make money from cross channel ferries. They've been trying for decades and each company periodically either goes bust or withdraws services. The best by far in my adult life was SeaFrance but I think that was owned and heavily subsidised by government. Like rural bus services the ferries probably either need to be government-subsidised as an essential facilitator of freight trade, or run as a pure freight operation by a logistics giant like Kuhne & Nagel as part of a vertically integrated cross border model.
Hmm. the ferries were originally vertically integrated with the relevant railway companies ...
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
If anyone needs their faces slapped it's the designers or stylists, as I believe they're called. Style and elegance were noticeably absent.
I do find this Abramovich story, and really his whole involvement since the beginning of the war, really quite confusing. I don't really get what he is trying to achieve, since while I don't eliminate the possibility of a Damascene/Scrooge revelation and conversion, those are pretty rare and so it seems unlikely ruthless, self motivated billionaires suddenly start trying to do some good after so long.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
Erm, no I’m just using the phrase “small man” in the way it’s used by other English speakers….
Well, it's my native tongue, and to me small means small.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
It is a sort of wealth tax.
Let me give you an example.
I am currently raising money for my start-up auto insurance company. Let's say we raise $15m, and the price of the shares means the company is valued at $60m.
On paper, I will be worth (say) $10m more than I was last year. But I am not able to sell my shares. The paper value of them is just that... paper. If things go well, then at some point in the future I will be able to sell them, and then I will pay capital gains tax. But right now, I have unrealised capital gain.
Now, let's say that I am charge 20% on that $10m gain. From whence do I get the $2m? I don't actually earn anything like $2m/year. And I pay income tax on my actual earnings.
And what if my insurer has to close down next year? In that scenario, what happens? I will have lost everything, and I will have paid $2m in tax on a gain I never made.
Income is money you receive. Unrealized capital gains are not money you have received. You don't necessarily even have any control over what they are. They are also often not easily realisable. It would be essentially impossible for me to sell shares in my insurance company, even if I wanted to.
But that is an unrealised capital gain and not income. Now I don't know the American rules, and I know you will, but it was described as income tax and what you have described is not what HYUFD said. If the Americans are going to tax unrealised capital gains that will be an issue.
As the final word on this whole Oscars business, and I say this as a big fan of Will Smith, I'd be very concerned about anyone who knows him - someone who lashes out physically so deliberately like that has probably done it before to others. You do it for a 'good' reason, you can find other 'good' reasons too. Bad day, didn't like what that person said, just being tough, etc.
The continued shouting afterwards and the of manner it displays signs of somebody who has real anger issues.
Being angry when someone abuses your wife and upsets her about her healthcare on an issue that's known to be sensitive is entirely reasonable.
Yes, being angry about it is reasonable. Committing assault in response is not.
It's really not a complicated issue, despite people bizarrely deciding to pretend it is.
We teach this stuff to children for crying out loud, and we think adults must resort to the level of an unthinking beast? That people are pretending to believe (or actually believe) being angry justifies anything you want basically, makes this one of the most depressing series of PB threads ever simply because of how stupidly lacking in logic and proportion it is.
Bang on
I’m amazed at the usually logical PB-ers defending extremely public physical assault. Will Smith was not being bullied. He’s an extremely powerful wealthy actor. He just lost his rag and did it in the most distressing way and forgot that he really IS a role model for millions
A depressing thread indeed
If he really wanted to humiliate Chris rock and make a point he could have quietly walked on stage and demanded an apology there and then. Explaining the alopecia.
So much more powerful. The slap was absurd and demeaning for will smith
Will Smith laughed at the joke when first made. What a tool. Violence over a joke is not the answer.
Yes I noticed that. I think he was overreacting to the fact that he had laughed and his wife had not. He’s a small man and he overcompensated.
Bloody hell, this whole episode is just a catalyst for peak pb wankerdom. He is 6'2" You saying he is kinda spiritually small?
What I didn’t know until today is that Smith’s wife had a very public affair with a rapper, quite recently. So he’s been publicly cuckolded
I wonder if Smith really wanted to slap HER
Rumors for years that they have an open/unconventional marriage.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
I once had a summer job working in an art bookshop. My boss was a middle aged lady who was so appalled by all the sex and nudity in the books she was meant to sell that she mentioned it all day every day and could list with great accuracy every page in which you could find filth, as she put it. She made Mrs Whitehouse seem like a screaming liberal.
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Gerald Ratner must be feeling a fair bit of relief at his name no longer being used as the eponymous term for corporate seppuku with no reason at all.
"Ratnered" is so much easier to say than "Hebblethwaited", or "P&Oed", so I think it will survive, but P&O will be seen as taking Ratnering to a new level.
P&O Ferries would make an interesting case study for a business school course. Get the students into teams and ask them to devise a strategy to turn the company around. Things currently look grim: there's an alternative technology (the chunnel) that's faster, more weatherproof and scarcely more expensive; a recent change in border arrangements (Brexit) means throughput has got slower and more expensive; the fleet is old and tired, and heavily dependent on volatile fossil fuel prices; there are poor labour relations; the leisure offering has weakened over time as more people fly or stay at home. Etc.
Team 1 (let's call them SeaX) decide it's time to disrupt ferry technology to save staff costs and remove fuel price risk. What we need is an electric and sail-powered, self-navigating ferry with only minimal staff aboard. Essentially a giant floating battery with robotic controls.
Team 2 (Boatflix) say it's all about the retail offer. You're selling the experience not the crossing. Free tickets for all travellers, with an array of in-boat purchases ranging from luxury shopping to immersive audio-visual facilities. Less a ferry crossing, more a floating mall
Team 3 (Easyboat) has perhaps the most old-fashioned idea: a stripped down offer with limited sailings at ultra-low prices, with skeleton on-board staff and stripped back facilities.
Finally, Team 5 (ScUber) have decided the days of large company-leased fleets are over. The future is ride sharing. Ditch the Pride of Kent and instead roll out an app that connects independent skippers with willing cross channel travellers. A kind of modern day gig-economy Dunkerque flotilla.
Reality is nobody can make money from cross channel ferries. They've been trying for decades and each company periodically either goes bust or withdraws services. The best by far in my adult life was SeaFrance but I think that was owned and heavily subsidised by government. Like rural bus services the ferries probably either need to be government-subsidised as an essential facilitator of freight trade, or run as a pure freight operation by a logistics giant like Kuhne & Nagel as part of a vertically integrated cross border model.
If they let me sleep in the car instead of stuffing hundreds into crowded lounges It would be appreciated.
*Understandably it may be a little dangerous. But I'd pay £30+ for a bunk and some earplugs.
I do find this Abramovich story, and really his whole involvement since the beginning of the war, really quite confusing. I don't really get what he is trying to achieve, since while I don't eliminate the possibility of a Damascene/Scrooge revelation and conversion, those are pretty rare and so it seems unlikely ruthless, self motivated billionaires suddenly start trying to do some good after so long.
He was a regoonal governor?? His mother us Ukrainian?? He has a long association with Putin, going back to the Yeltsin days. Ukrainians asked him yo be involved?? He wanrs to be in both camps, just in case, for srld preservation??
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
If anyone needs their faces slapped it's the designers or stylists, as I believe they're called. Style and elegance were noticeably absent.
Of course it's garish, bad taste and excess, it's Tinsel town. If you've got it, flaunt it!
I do find this Abramovich story, and really his whole involvement since the beginning of the war, really quite confusing. I don't really get what he is trying to achieve, since while I don't eliminate the possibility of a Damascene/Scrooge revelation and conversion, those are pretty rare and so it seems unlikely ruthless, self motivated billionaires suddenly start trying to do some good after so long.
He was a regoonal governor?? His mother us Ukrainian?? He has a long association with Putin, going back to the Yeltsin days. Ukrainians asked him yo be involved?? He wanrs to be in both camps, just in case, for srld preservation??
I've also forgotten the Hungarian election this Sunday.
Viktor Orban's Fidesz party won 117 seats last time with its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Party's People 16 giving them 133 of the 199 seats in the National Assembly.
The opposition United for Hungary bloc has 56 seats with the remaining 10 seats held by Independents.
The Fidesz alliance won nearly half the vote in 2017 and most polls have them close to that now. One had them just 2.4 points ahead of United for Hungary but the latest has a 5.2% lead for the Government suggesting a re-election but with a significantly reduced majority.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
I once had a summer job working in an art bookshop. My boss was a middle aged lady who was so appalled by all the sex and nudity in the books she was meant to sell that she mentioned it all day every day and could list with great accuracy every page in which you could find filth, as she put it. She made Mrs Whitehouse seem like a screaming liberal.
Sounds like she was getting off on it, frankly.
But I recall seeing a story on Whitehouse recently. The thrust of it seems to be that she was right about pornography (plenty would agree), so she was really ahead of her time being so censorious.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
I once had a summer job working in an art bookshop. My boss was a middle aged lady who was so appalled by all the sex and nudity in the books she was meant to sell that she mentioned it all day every day and could list with great accuracy every page in which you could find filth, as she put it. She made Mrs Whitehouse seem like a screaming liberal.
Sounds like she was getting off on it, frankly.
But I recall seeing a story on Whitehouse recently. The thrust of it seems to be that she was right about pornography (plenty would agree), so she was really ahead of her time being so censorious.
Before my time, so cannot really comment on how bad it was - I have seen several video nasties and some are not that shocking.
She had a real bee in her bonnet about dr who. No idea why, but constantly railed against it. With pornography you can make a case that we have been both more open to human nudity and more closed off at times in history. What is more worrying is the narratives involved. And the unrealistic expectations about what real sex is like.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
I once had a summer job working in an art bookshop. My boss was a middle aged lady who was so appalled by all the sex and nudity in the books she was meant to sell that she mentioned it all day every day and could list with great accuracy every page in which you could find filth, as she put it. She made Mrs Whitehouse seem like a screaming liberal.
Sounds like she was getting off on it, frankly.
But I recall seeing a story on Whitehouse recently. The thrust of it seems to be that she was right about pornography (plenty would agree), so she was really ahead of her time being so censorious.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
I think Russia's position is actually worse than might appear at first sight really for 5 reasons:
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
On 4, I watched a YouTube discussion hosted by the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point, where the panellists were clear that the US would supply an insurgency and their reasoning was interesting. They said that countries like Poland and the Baltics would provide supplies even if the US didn't, and so the US has to be involved in order to organise and lead it.
You can see the effect of this with the question of the Migs. The Poles want to send the Migs, but because the US has leadership they were able to veto it.
So I think there is potential for the US to slow down support if they think that's in their interests.
On 5, apparently this is one reason, in addition to corruption, why production on the newest Russian tanks, aircraft, etc, has been so slow. The 2014 sanctions were enough to snarl that right up.
The optimistic scenario is that the Russian armoured forces being destroyed in Ukraine now will never be replaced. Putin has used them and lost them.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
BREAKING: A second P&O ferry, the Pride of Kent, is being detained following safety checks by the authorities amid the backlash over the company's decision to replace 800 seafarers with lower-paid crew.
P&O are a zombie company. They may as well call in the receivers now.
Given that directors of a company have a legal obligation to act in the company's best interests, is there a chance that the owners of P&O would have a case against the CEO?
What an absolute shambles.
Gerald Ratner must be feeling a fair bit of relief at his name no longer being used as the eponymous term for corporate seppuku with no reason at all.
"Ratnered" is so much easier to say than "Hebblethwaited", or "P&Oed", so I think it will survive, but P&O will be seen as taking Ratnering to a new level.
P&O Ferries would make an interesting case study for a business school course. Get the students into teams and ask them to devise a strategy to turn the company around. Things currently look grim: there's an alternative technology (the chunnel) that's faster, more weatherproof and scarcely more expensive; a recent change in border arrangements (Brexit) means throughput has got slower and more expensive; the fleet is old and tired, and heavily dependent on volatile fossil fuel prices; there are poor labour relations; the leisure offering has weakened over time as more people fly or stay at home. Etc.
Team 1 (let's call them SeaX) decide it's time to disrupt ferry technology to save staff costs and remove fuel price risk. What we need is an electric and sail-powered, self-navigating ferry with only minimal staff aboard. Essentially a giant floating battery with robotic controls.
Team 2 (Boatflix) say it's all about the retail offer. You're selling the experience not the crossing. Free tickets for all travellers, with an array of in-boat purchases ranging from luxury shopping to immersive audio-visual facilities. Less a ferry crossing, more a floating mall
Team 3 (Easyboat) has perhaps the most old-fashioned idea: a stripped down offer with limited sailings at ultra-low prices, with skeleton on-board staff and stripped back facilities.
Finally, Team 5 (ScUber) have decided the days of large company-leased fleets are over. The future is ride sharing. Ditch the Pride of Kent and instead roll out an app that connects independent skippers with willing cross channel travellers. A kind of modern day gig-economy Dunkerque flotilla.
Reality is nobody can make money from cross channel ferries. They've been trying for decades and each company periodically either goes bust or withdraws services. The best by far in my adult life was SeaFrance but I think that was owned and heavily subsidised by government. Like rural bus services the ferries probably either need to be government-subsidised as an essential facilitator of freight trade, or run as a pure freight operation by a logistics giant like Kuhne & Nagel as part of a vertically integrated cross border model.
If they let me sleep in the car instead of stuffing hundreds into crowded lounges It would be appreciated.
*Understandably it may be a little dangerous. But I'd pay £30+ for a bunk and some earplugs.
Part of the problem with Dover-Calais is it’s too long for most people to just sit in the car like they do in the tunnel, but too short to kick back and enjoy the trip.
Ferries are one of my favourite firms of travel but are at their best when the journey is 4-6 hours in the daytime or 8-10 hours overnight, and when there are nice views from deck (like the Greek island ferries, of course, but also ferries further West in the channel.
I’m doing Corsica Ferries for our summer holiday this year: Savona to L’Ile Rousse, then Bastia to Nice. Looking forward to it.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
If anyone needs their faces slapped it's the designers or stylists, as I believe they're called. Style and elegance were noticeably absent.
Of course it's garish, bad taste and excess, it's Tinsel town. If you've got it, flaunt it!
What they mostly seem to flaunt is that the poor dears seemingly can't afford any underwear.
If we are STILL going on about the bloody Oscars can I ask how it is that, despite the oodles of money around, virtually all the actresses are appallingly dressed?
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
People aren't interested in them anymore apparently. Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
I once had a summer job working in an art bookshop. My boss was a middle aged lady who was so appalled by all the sex and nudity in the books she was meant to sell that she mentioned it all day every day and could list with great accuracy every page in which you could find filth, as she put it. She made Mrs Whitehouse seem like a screaming liberal.
Genuine conversation I once had in the super feminist bookshop Silver Moon, on Charing Cross Road (the shop is now sadly gone)
Me, after unsuccessfully perusing the shelves, and being approached by the feminist lesbian shopkeeper
Shopkeeper: "Can I help?"
Me: "Yes, I'm looking for Intercourse."
Shopkeeper: "Sorry?"
Me: "Andrea Dworkin?"
Shopkeeper. "Ah, no, I'm sorry, don't think we can help with Intercourse. But we do have Pornography?" (Another book by Andrea Dworkin)
Then we looked at each other, and - to the credit (I assert) of both of us: her a feminazi lesbian with multiple piercings, me a raddled cishet alcoholic toxic male type - we exchanged a sly grin, and both chuckled, and I went on my way
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
I think Russia's position is actually worse than might appear at first sight really for 5 reasons:
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
On 4, I watched a YouTube discussion hosted by the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point, where the panellists were clear that the US would supply an insurgency and their reasoning was interesting. They said that countries like Poland and the Baltics would provide supplies even if the US didn't, and so the US has to be involved in order to organise and lead it.
You can see the effect of this with the question of the Migs. The Poles want to send the Migs, but because the US has leadership they were able to veto it.
So I think there is potential for the US to slow down support if they think that's in their interests.
On 5, apparently this is one reason, in addition to corruption, why production on the newest Russian tanks, aircraft, etc, has been so slow. The 2014 sanctions were enough to snarl that right up.
The optimistic scenario is that the Russian armoured forces being destroyed in Ukraine now will never be replaced. Putin has used them and lost them.
The Mig one was interesting. Biden got a lot of blowback from the Republicans on that and I suspect he won't want to be accused of "losing" Ukraine by refusing to supply weapons. So I think the US slowing down would be restricted to the more heavy duty stuff like planes and tanks.
Re 5, I don't see how militarily Russia recovers from this for a long time. Demographics, sanctions etc are all against them.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
"Rishi Sunak dismissed calls for more help to alleviate the cost of living crisis today, saying his priority now was cutting taxes and getting public borrowing under control."
Mail Online.
We are well past peak Sunak now. He may well become leader, but he will be deeply deeply unpopular with the public soon.
Fiddling will Rome burns comes to mind.
There is evidence in tonight's Redfield Wilton poll of his popularity
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak’s net approval rating stands at +1%, his lowest net approval rating to date. 34% say they approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance (down 2%), while 33% disapprove (no change).
He is only going one way on the popularity front after his tin-eared disaster of a budget.
Totally out of touch.
I see the Mail has also found photo of him wandering around Westminster yesterday in £350 trainers that Kayne West wears.
I suppose at least he was working on a sunday.
God I hate this country, only people with boring lives and micro penises criticise another person's choice of (expensive) footwear.
Easy for you to say that from a keyboard. I went to the PB meetup at the beginning of the month in black quill-out ostrich skin Tony Lama cowboy boots. A straight flush to your 4 of a kind, if you'd even been there. So which of us walks it like he talks it?
I have a pair of fairly conservative black Tony Lamas, what a late middle-aged gentleman wears with them is something of a quandary. Any style tips?
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
It’s a much higher percentage of the equipment that was operable. I am expecting/hoping for larger units to get surrounded and out of ammunition surrendering. That would really change things.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
It’s a much higher percentage of the equipment that was operable. I am expecting/hoping for larger units to get surrounded and out of ammunition surrendering. That would really change things.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
Reporter: When you said a chemical use by Russia would trigger a response in kind? Biden: It will trigger a significant response. Reporter: What does that mean? Biden: I'm not gonna tell you. Why would I tell you? You gotta be silly. Reporter: ... the world wants to know? Biden: The world wants to know a lot of things. I'm not telling them what the response would be, then Russia knows the response
"Rishi Sunak dismissed calls for more help to alleviate the cost of living crisis today, saying his priority now was cutting taxes and getting public borrowing under control."
Mail Online.
We are well past peak Sunak now. He may well become leader, but he will be deeply deeply unpopular with the public soon.
Fiddling will Rome burns comes to mind.
There is evidence in tonight's Redfield Wilton poll of his popula Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak’s net approval rating stands at +1%, his lowest net approval rating to date. 34% say they approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance (down 2%), while 33% disapprove (no change).
He is only going one way on the popularity front after his tin-eared disaster of a budget.
Totally out of touch.
I see the Mail has also found photo of him wandering around Westminster yesterday in £350 trainers that Kayne West wears.
I suppose at least he was working on a sunday.
God I hate this country, only people with boring lives and micro penises criticise another person's choice of (expensive) footwear.
Easy for you to say that from a keyboard. I went to the PB meetup at the beginning of the month in black quill-out ostrich skin Tony Lama cowboy boots. A straight flush to your 4 of a kind, if you'd even been there. So which of us walks it like he talks it?
I have a pair of fairly conservative black Tony Lamas, what a late middle-aged gentleman wears with them is something of a quandary. Any style tips?
It's a less is more thing. I wear them with relatively wide cut moleskin jeans, so you wouldn't really notice what they were if you weren't looking.
Have worn them with a kilt, but only for the outrage factor. Not a natural pairing.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
Yes, the Russians are learning, and aren't sending small detachments of forces on suicidal missions. But my understanding is that it could take quite a long time for them to mobilise their reserves. If Russian losses are as high, and morale as low, as suggested by some, then the Russian army will collapse before those reserves are available.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
I think Russia's position is actually worse than might appear at first sight really for 5 reasons:
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
Three other reasons to be cheerful, or at least less gloomy:
- Russia may have much more manpower to call on, but there's evidence that some units have simply refused to be sent to Ukraine - lots of Russian equipment losses are taken by the Ukrainians when the Russians flee and some of it at least can be used by the Ukrainians against their enemies. That's much more of an advantage when you're on your home turf. - the Russian army has always been terribly weak in supplies and logistics. And as they seem to hardly be able to supply what they have there at the moment, would transferring more troops there really help much?
So I'm getting more optimistic the Ukrainians will slowly get and keep the upper hand, as long as we keep sending them weapons.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
What I find interesting about that sort of list, and the BBC did one too on the inner circle, is the Medvedev does not feature even though he was permitted to pretend to be leader for 4 years as President.
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I don't understand this. "Unrealised gains" only makes sense if you think that only cash is reality. In a fiat currency world, and even not if one, that is obviously not true. It's gibberish. If I own a house or company or painting in what sense am I realising it by swapping it for cash?
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Yes. It's a wealth tax. Your point being?
To answer @kjh question “how is it ever a wealth tax?”
Except it isn't. It is an income tax only. It is s tax on income. If you don't realise the income it doesn't stop it being an income. If your company makes £100 and you don't pay it out it will go up in value by £100. Your P&L account will show a profit of £100 and you pay tax on it.
The value of a company is a multiple of income, not the retained earnings which is what you are measuring
Of course, assuming it is a going concern. I was being simplistic to make a point. Not sure of your point though. The company will also increase by the value of the increase in retained profits of that year, hence the difference in share price pre and post ex div when retained profits will drop
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
You are still going on about this are you.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
Reporter: When you said a chemical use by Russia would trigger a response in kind? Biden: It will trigger a significant response. Reporter: What does that mean? Biden: I'm not gonna tell you. Why would I tell you? You gotta be silly. Reporter: ... the world wants to know? Biden: The world wants to know a lot of things. I'm not telling them what the response would be, then Russia knows the response
"Rishi Sunak dismissed calls for more help to alleviate the cost of living crisis today, saying his priority now was cutting taxes and getting public borrowing under control."
Mail Online.
We are well past peak Sunak now. He may well become leader, but he will be deeply deeply unpopular with the public soon.
Fiddling will Rome burns comes to mind.
There is evidence in tonight's Redfield Wilton poll of his popula Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak’s net approval rating stands at +1%, his lowest net approval rating to date. 34% say they approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance (down 2%), while 33% disapprove (no change).
He is only going one way on the popularity front after his tin-eared disaster of a budget.
Totally out of touch.
I see the Mail has also found photo of him wandering around Westminster yesterday in £350 trainers that Kayne West wears.
I suppose at least he was working on a sunday.
God I hate this country, only people with boring lives and micro penises criticise another person's choice of (expensive) footwear.
Easy for you to say that from a keyboard. I went to the PB meetup at the beginning of the month in black quill-out ostrich skin Tony Lama cowboy boots. A straight flush to your 4 of a kind, if you'd even been there. So which of us walks it like he talks it?
I have a pair of fairly conservative black Tony Lamas, what a late middle-aged gentleman wears with them is something of a quandary. Any style tips?
It's a less is more thing. I wear them with relatively wide cut moleskin jeans, so you wouldn't really notice what they were if you weren't looking.
Have worn them with a kilt, but only for the outrage factor. Not a natural pairing.
That makes sense, mine are essentially black wingtips with a very mild Cuban heel from the ankle down.
The latter combo would very much depend on the tartan of course.
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Another pointless review by another pointless Poo-Bah which will be read by one poor civil servant, summarised then ignored.
Comments
I wonder if Smith really wanted to slap HER
Otherwise, what do you think of the actual tweet I posted?
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
You don't earn the right to a response by posting a fucking tweet. But since you ask, the article is context free. It gives no clue as to whether the risk involved is more or less than smoking 5 a day.
For what it's worth, I don't think the situation is as bad for Russia as made out. One other point Michael Kofman has made is that very few people had an accurate idea of what a conflict between two sides with some parity of capability would look like. Our ways of thinking about conflict are rooted in recent experience where one side, or the other, has had the advantage from the beginning, and so has been in control of the conflict throughout. This means that we are prone to over-estimating Ukraine's potential to rapidly defeat Russia, now that it has become obvious Russia isn't going to rapidly defeat Ukraine.
That said, Ukraine has demonstrated some advantages over the last month that aren't going to go away any time soon. They have higher morale and are more motivated. They have a logistics advantage for three reasons: they are fighting in their own country, they are better organised, they have more successfully targeted the enemies logistics. They have better equipment and training for night-time operations. They have demonstrated greater tactical flexibility due to superior communications and operational independence for junior officers.
I feel relatively optimistic about the Ukrainian's chances at the moment.
Also, if your insurance co is worthless for tax purposes, I'll take it off your hands for $1m next week. If that's not a bargain, why not?
Zhao Xintong is 20-1 in some, 16-1 most, to win the snooker World Championship.
Crazy odds!
He's the top money earner this season. And he relishes the longer format. When he's on he's the closest I've seen to the young Ronnie O'Sullivan.
I wouldn't have him as favourite due to lack of Crucible experience.
But eights would be generous.
He's completely outplaying John Higgins on ITV4 right now.
A value bet for sure.
Then P&O Ferries could become "Pivdenny & Odessa Ferries".
They happily already use blue and yellow in their corporate branding.
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Yay. I think.
Team 1 (let's call them SeaX) decide it's time to disrupt ferry technology to save staff costs and remove fuel price risk. What we need is an electric and sail-powered, self-navigating ferry with only minimal staff aboard. Essentially a giant floating battery with robotic controls.
Team 2 (Boatflix) say it's all about the retail offer. You're selling the experience not the crossing. Free tickets for all travellers, with an array of in-boat purchases ranging from luxury shopping to immersive audio-visual facilities. Less a ferry crossing, more a floating mall
Team 3 (Easyboat) has perhaps the most old-fashioned idea: a stripped down offer with limited sailings at ultra-low prices, with skeleton on-board staff and stripped back facilities.
Finally, Team 5 (ScUber) have decided the days of large company-leased fleets are over. The future is ride sharing. Ditch the Pride of Kent and instead roll out an app that connects independent skippers with willing cross channel travellers. A kind of modern day gig-economy Dunkerque flotilla.
Reality is nobody can make money from cross channel ferries. They've been trying for decades and each company periodically either goes bust or withdraws services. The best by far in my adult life was SeaFrance but I think that was owned and heavily subsidised by government. Like rural bus services the ferries probably either need to be government-subsidised as an essential facilitator of freight trade, or run as a pure freight operation by a logistics giant like Kuhne & Nagel as part of a vertically integrated cross border model.
📉Trade down 15%
📉Growth cut by 4% (2× damage from Covid)
📉Productivity hit by 4%
🚍Tax rise to fund NHS (not the £350m/wk on the bus)
📈UK prosperity fund hasn't matched EU £1.5bn/yr
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-brexit-scarred-economy-1543403
1. The Ukrainian mud season hasn't really started yet. So, for at least the next month or so, Russia will be forced to transport supplies and troops along roads which are ideally suited for ambushes and where the defenders have the better knowledge;
2. Looking at the anecdotal evidence of the funerals for Russian soldiers, it is clear they have been taking exceptionally heavy losses in more "elite" units such as the paratroopers. Reserves being brought in are from less capable units eg the Far Eastern forces;
3. The Ukrainian capability for upping operations is increasing. Why? (1) because they have by now trained a large percentage of the call-up soldiers to at least some degree; (2) extra non-Ukrainian units, which are likely to contain an above-average percentage of trained soldiers; (3) captured Russian equipment on the ground; (4) the supply of western weapons;
4. Re nations giving support to Ukraine, when you break it down, there are clear reasons why it should continue to hold up. The likes of Poland, the Baltics etc are not going to let Ukraine down. The UK has also made this clear and BJ / Wallace are clearly committed to providing the necessary weapons. I am less convinced of Biden in terms of principle but he knows any backsliding on the Ukraine will cause him untold difficulties;
5. Going back to Russia, its military capabilities have been weakened stealthily for several years by the sanctions imposed post-2014. That wasn't clear before the crisis but it is clear now. Russia simply cannot replace many of these losses - it doesn't have the skills, experience, necessary Western know-how etc. Its existing Western-made equipment will slowly depreciate.
The vulgarity of some of the dresses is awful. For most of the rest, I can only assume they got dressed in the dark with their eyes shut by covering their body with glue and running into a cupboard full of material.
If anyone needs their faces slapped it's the designers or stylists, as I believe they're called. Style and elegance were noticeably absent.
Or so folk were saying at 8 am.
Oh.
Ok, well at least we didn’t see Europe at war.
Oh.
Ok, well, some Poles went home.
Didn’t they?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/leylamohammed/will-smith-confirmed-jada-pinkett-smith-open-marriage
I thought it was a well-known fact.
But then I discover some don't know who he is at all.
And you're first on my list, you fucking bastard.
*Understandably it may be a little dangerous. But I'd pay £30+ for a bunk and some earplugs.
His mother us Ukrainian??
He has a long association with Putin, going back to the Yeltsin days.
Ukrainians asked him yo be involved??
He wanrs to be in both camps, just in case, for srld preservation??
I have no idea, as you can tell from the above.
Just seeing which berks would fall for the bait.
Viktor Orban's Fidesz party won 117 seats last time with its coalition partner, the Christian Democratic Party's People 16 giving them 133 of the 199 seats in the National Assembly.
The opposition United for Hungary bloc has 56 seats with the remaining 10 seats held by Independents.
The Fidesz alliance won nearly half the vote in 2017 and most polls have them close to that now. One had them just 2.4 points ahead of United for Hungary but the latest has a 5.2% lead for the Government suggesting a re-election but with a significantly reduced majority.
But I recall seeing a story on Whitehouse recently. The thrust of it seems to be that she was right about pornography (plenty would agree), so she was really ahead of her time being so censorious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-60556060
Before my time, so cannot really comment on how bad it was - I have seen several video nasties and some are not that shocking.
Is there no hope of Orban losing in the near future? Longer you are in the more the Putin tendency will show.
With pornography you can make a case that we have been both more open to human nudity and more closed off at times in history. What is more worrying is the narratives involved. And the unrealistic expectations about what real sex is like.
However. She wasn't an anti-porn campaigner really.
That was already illegal.
You can see the effect of this with the question of the Migs. The Poles want to send the Migs, but because the US has leadership they were able to veto it.
So I think there is potential for the US to slow down support if they think that's in their interests.
On 5, apparently this is one reason, in addition to corruption, why production on the newest Russian tanks, aircraft, etc, has been so slow. The 2014 sanctions were enough to snarl that right up.
The optimistic scenario is that the Russian armoured forces being destroyed in Ukraine now will never be replaced. Putin has used them and lost them.
"Ms Patel also announced a review into the handling of Dame Cressida's exit by the outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60903057
"The home secretary said: "She deserves our profound gratitude for her decades of public service and leadership in policing, as well as our best wishes for the future.
""Dame Cressida has shown exceptional dedication to fighting crime in London and beyond throughout her time as Commissioner, as the first woman to hold the role of commissioner."
"She added: "The circumstances in which the outgoing MPS Commissioner is leaving her role warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner."
"Outgoing chief inspector of constabulary Sir Tom Winsor will carry out the review."
Ferries are one of my favourite firms of travel but are at their best when the journey is 4-6 hours in the daytime or 8-10 hours overnight, and when there are nice views from deck (like the Greek island ferries, of course, but also ferries further West in the channel.
I’m doing Corsica Ferries for our summer holiday this year: Savona to L’Ile Rousse, then Bastia to Nice. Looking forward to it.
Me, after unsuccessfully perusing the shelves, and being approached by the feminist lesbian shopkeeper
Shopkeeper: "Can I help?"
Me: "Yes, I'm looking for Intercourse."
Shopkeeper: "Sorry?"
Me: "Andrea Dworkin?"
Shopkeeper. "Ah, no, I'm sorry, don't think we can help with Intercourse. But we do have Pornography?" (Another book by Andrea Dworkin)
Then we looked at each other, and - to the credit (I assert) of both of us: her a feminazi lesbian with multiple piercings, me a raddled cishet alcoholic toxic male type - we exchanged a sly grin, and both chuckled, and I went on my way
Re 5, I don't see how militarily Russia recovers from this for a long time. Demographics, sanctions etc are all against them.
Also, we are now out and have been for some years, so you’re comparing current reality to an old forecast, which is dodgy.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
So if it appeared on TV it means someone plagiarised me! (I have told the story elsewhere online)
Did it?
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or
2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
Reporter: When you said a chemical use by Russia would trigger a response in kind?
Biden: It will trigger a significant response.
Reporter: What does that mean?
Biden: I'm not gonna tell you. Why would I tell you? You gotta be silly.
Reporter: ... the world wants to know?
Biden: The world wants to know a lot of things. I'm not telling them what the response would be, then Russia knows the response
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1508528764082442251?cxt=HHwWlsC-yeO6r-8pAAAA
Have worn them with a kilt, but only for the outrage factor. Not a natural pairing.
The crux of the issue is tax should be paid on profits whether retained or paid and on realised capital gains. HYUFD said Americans would have to reduce their capital to pay tax on INCOME if increased to 20%. That is nonsense.
If the Americans are taxing unrealised capital gains that is not what HYUFD said and I would agree is bonkers.
- Russia may have much more manpower to call on, but there's evidence that some units have simply refused to be sent to Ukraine
- lots of Russian equipment losses are taken by the Ukrainians when the Russians flee and some of it at least can be used by the Ukrainians against their enemies. That's much more of an advantage when you're on your home turf.
- the Russian army has always been terribly weak in supplies and logistics. And as they seem to hardly be able to supply what they have there at the moment, would transferring more troops there really help much?
So I'm getting more optimistic the Ukrainians will slowly get and keep the upper hand, as long as we keep sending them weapons.
No one quite like Zhukov unfortunately.
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
Glad we cleared that up.
Well under the plan wealthy households that pay less than 20 per cent of their full income, including currently tax-free unrealised income, will be required to pay a top-up tax to meet a 20 per cent minimum.
That top-up tax includes wealth in the form of unrealised income from stock and bonds and would in effect apply even if that company later collapsed as RCS pointed out and they received no income from it in reality at all. So it is indeed in effect in part a wealth tax on those not paying 20% tax on their full income
The latter combo would very much depend on the tartan of course.