As this site is an infinite source of wisdom, I would like some help.
As many of you know, I founded a little business called Crowdscores, which crowdsources live football data. The benefit of this should be that: (1) we are quicker than traditional providers, and (2) we can cover more games (we have Frome Town vs Weymouth this evening, for example).
What we would really like is to get a university researcher or PhD student to do a quick (say over one Saturday and one midweek day) comparison of our service with a few other sources: say BBC, SkySports, and one or two apps. They should compare the coverage, speed and accuracy of the various services.
I guess it's probably one day of work to setup, two days of work to run the tests, and then two days to write it up.
We would really like to use the information in our marketing material and with prospective investors, so it's important that we can say "a study from researchers at the university of xx".
Does anyone know anyone who might be able to help?
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Standard practice for Hollywood. Many actors have been caught out by having points of the Net/Gross on a film.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understand the difference between gross and net profit! See earlier posts!
Then it's not relevant, is it? So why should it be brought up in the first case?
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
How on earth do you figure a 95% profit on a cup of coffee!?
I don't work for Starbucks, never have done, but figure that while there is no VAT on coffee, but there is: Cost of goods
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Frankly, the entire issue could be sidestepped by abolishing corporation tax completely. It's primarily incident on the worker, in any case.
Abolish dividend taxation as well; tax dividends as regular income. Treat dividends paid from any company in any given state as income earned within that state.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Labour costs related to the product most definitely do form part of the accounting for cost of goods sold. The baristas wages would form part of COGS for Gross Profit.
An accountants salary OTOH could be Overhead. But either way when it comes to taxes we quite rightly include Overheads as legitimate costs as they are unavoidable. Good luck selling a coffee without a premises that thus attracts business rates. Or without electricity or water.
Apologies I thought all Starbucks were franchised. If you take into account staff requirements, rent, rates and franchise fees I'd be surprised if many owners earned more than the min wage when hours worked is taken into account.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), absorption costing is required for external reporting. All normal manufacturing costs must be treated as product costs and subsequently included as inventory in the financial statements. Inventory costs are reflected in the income statement and the balance sheet.
The thing is, if there's an accounting trick, the Inland Revenue should jump on it. Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off. Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
The Revenue really hate being ripped off, unless the miscreant is a very large company, in which case a few cosy meetings at very senior level and the tax liability is suddenly massively reduced and no penalty sought. When HMRC go after the really big boys, like Starbucks, with the same vim and vigour that they go after the little people then they will be deserving of respect.
Have you any actual EVIDENCE that they are not going after the big boys?
I suspect the big boys are more whiter than white than some small companies can be, they play within the rules. Smaller companies who have nobody else to answer to can try and push the limits more (or fail to understand where the limits are).
As I am a private individual without access to the accounts or correspondence how can I have what you might call evidence.
Let us take for the moment accept your hypothesis that the really big boys are "whiter than white". If that were true what was the need for the meetings between Vodaphone and the head of HMRC? Just clearing up a misunderstanding or negotiating a settlement?
A small company/sole trader just gets a bill from the taxman. Furthermore, after these new rule changes, passed by a Conservative Government no less, HMRC can just seize the money from bank accounts even though their is an on-going dispute involving accountants and lawyers.
When I read that HMRC is treating the big boys in the same way that they treat SMEs I will concede you have a point. Until then I will continue to laugh when people mention the concept of "equal before the law" and I will hold HMRC in contempt.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Labour costs related to the product most definitely do form part of the accounting for cost of goods sold. The baristas wages would form part of COGS for Gross Profit.
An accountants salary OTOH could be Overhead. But either way when it comes to taxes we quite rightly include Overheads as legitimate costs as they are unavoidable. Good luck selling a coffee without a premises that thus attracts business rates. Or without electricity or water.
Hmm, Interesting. When I was CEO of a small company, admittedly some years ago, Gross Profit, according to our (chartered) accountants was sales plus stock in hand minus (invoice costs plus cost of good at start of the year)/. Overheads such as wages,rent, light, heat transport etc etc came out of the gross and the end product of GP - OH was Net Profit.
The value in the GOP Circus race could well be with Jeb Bush actually right now. I know he's floundered, but he's roughly level in recent polls with Rubio, has the Bush name and well who is going to be there at the end.
That said I've followed Antifrank in and laid Trump... Have to admit it is alot easier to do this move when you've backed him at 28-1 with Hills too !
Mr. Dodd, I'm confounded by the array of beverages, all apparently coffee.
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
So, with a little research, it appears that there are 21,366 Starbucks stores globally, selling 4 million cups of coffee a day (and of course a fair bit more besides) to 60 million customers a week (which implies a lot of customers buy no coffee). On that basis, on average, each store has 3000 customers a week give or take.
You should be able to make a handsome profit on that.
Mr. Dodd, I'm confounded by the array of beverages, all apparently coffee.
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
Mr. Dodd, I'm confounded by the array of beverages, all apparently coffee.
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
Mr. Dodd, I'm confounded by the array of beverages, all apparently coffee.
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
Depends if you ask for it with brown sugar, or not.
So, with a little research, it appears that there are 21,366 Starbucks stores globally, selling 4 million cups of coffee a day (and of course a fair bit more besides) to 60 million customers a week (which implies a lot of customers buy no coffee). On that basis, on average, each store has 3000 customers a week give or take.
You should be able to make a handsome profit on that.
Not if you sell each one at a loss!
(Not that I dispute Starbucks must be profitable.)
So, with a little research, it appears that there are 21,366 Starbucks stores globally, selling 4 million cups of coffee a day (and of course a fair bit more besides) to 60 million customers a week (which implies a lot of customers buy no coffee). On that basis, on average, each store has 3000 customers a week give or take.
You should be able to make a handsome profit on that.
Not if you sell each one at a loss!
(Not that I dispute Starbucks must be profitable.)
Their cost of goods sold (ex-labour) must be in the order of 10% for their drinks and 25% for their food, based on US prices. They are most certainly not making a loss on each sale.
The thing is, if there's an accounting trick, the Inland Revenue should jump on it. Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off. Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
The Revenue really hate being ripped off, unless the miscreant is a very large company, in which case a few cosy meetings at very senior level and the tax liability is suddenly massively reduced and no penalty sought. When HMRC go after the really big boys, like Starbucks, with the same vim and vigour that they go after the little people then they will be deserving of respect.
Have you any actual EVIDENCE that they are not going after the big boys?
I suspect the big boys are more whiter than white than some small companies can be, they play within the rules. Smaller companies who have nobody else to answer to can try and push the limits more (or fail to understand where the limits are).
As I am a private individual without access to the accounts or correspondence how can I have what you might call evidence.
Let us take for the moment accept your hypothesis that the really big boys are "whiter than white". If that were true what was the need for the meetings between Vodaphone and the head of HMRC? Just clearing up a misunderstanding or negotiating a settlement?
A small company/sole trader just gets a bill from the taxman. Furthermore, after these new rule changes, passed by a Conservative Government no less, HMRC can just seize the money from bank accounts even though their is an on-going dispute involving accountants and lawyers.
When I read that HMRC is treating the big boys in the same way that they treat SMEs I will concede you have a point. Until then I will continue to laugh when people mention the concept of "equal before the law" and I will hold HMRC in contempt.
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
Anecdote suggests that Starbucks are not very good at negotiating rents. This in turn suggests that they are not feeling the need to manage overheads particularly keenly.
As this site is an infinite source of wisdom, I would like some help.
As many of you know, I founded a little business called Crowdscores, which crowdsources live football data. The benefit of this should be that: (1) we are quicker than traditional providers, and (2) we can cover more games (we have Frome Town vs Weymouth this evening, for example).
What we would really like is to get a university researcher or PhD student to do a quick (say over one Saturday and one midweek day) comparison of our service with a few other sources: say BBC, SkySports, and one or two apps. They should compare the coverage, speed and accuracy of the various services.
I guess it's probably one day of work to setup, two days of work to run the tests, and then two days to write it up.
We would really like to use the information in our marketing material and with prospective investors, so it's important that we can say "a study from researchers at the university of xx".
Does anyone know anyone who might be able to help?
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
It's not just that: the truth is that transfer pricing is complicated and hard.
What is the right price that - for example - Microsoft UK buys Windows licenses from Microsoft inc?
What about loans. If I take a loan from my parent (in another country), what is the right interest rate?
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
I quote agree, Mr.Vale. Unfortunately, as Cameron seeks to be the "Heir to Blair" we have a chancellor who seeks to emulate Brown. The UK tax code is rediculously and expensively complex, to the point where it is becoming arbitrary in a way that the UK hasn't seen for hundreds of years.
Mr. Eagles, that'd likely be bad for democracy (assuming a stupidly large blue majority).
I wonder if, should that happen, UKIP and/or the Lib Dems would make hay and take the first major step towards becoming the official party of opposition.
Edited extra bit: np, Mr. 1000. You're not a frequent tweeter
Mr. Eagles, that'd likely be bad for democracy (assuming a stupidly large blue majority).
I wonder if, should that happen, UKIP and/or the Lib Dems would make hay and take the first major step towards becoming the official party of opposition.
Edited extra bit: np, Mr. 1000. You're not a frequent tweeter
Too many tweets...
(You are right: I very rarely tweet. I am quite busy, generally )
I'd be a bit worried if I were a Labour supporter about the 19% of 2015 Labour voters who think that Jeremy Corbyn is a man with extreme left-wing views and unworkable policies who would be a threat to the economy and national security.
Why don't they just go and JOIN THE TORIES? They will? Carry on then.
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
It's not just that: the truth is that transfer pricing is complicated and hard.
What is the right price that - for example - Microsoft UK buys Windows licenses from Microsoft inc?
What about loans. If I take a loan from my parent (in another country), what is the right interest rate?
My memory is not what it was but as far as I can recall until the mid 1960s companies were taxed on income. What is now corporation tax was introduced as an additional tax on "excess" profits by the Wilson government having an attack of the clevers (doubtless because of some newspaper induced scandal). Perhaps it is time to revert .
Companies were acknowledged in law as a means of making it possible for them to sign contracts etc. and have the same rights in law as an individual. So fine, let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed, with one small exception.
Penalties for being found in breach of the law should be levied on the company directors (and public/Third Sector equivalents) personally and without mercy.
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
It's not just that: the truth is that transfer pricing is complicated and hard.
What is the right price that - for example - Microsoft UK buys Windows licenses from Microsoft inc?
What about loans. If I take a loan from my parent (in another country), what is the right interest rate?
My memory is not what it was but as far as I can recall until the mid 1960s companies were taxed on income. What is now corporation tax was introduced as an additional tax on "excess" profits by the Wilson government having an attack of the clevers (doubtless because of some newspaper induced scandal). Perhaps it is time to revert .
Companies were acknowledged in law as a means of making it possible for them to sign contracts etc. and have the same rights in law as an individual. So fine, let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed, with one small exception.
Penalties for being found in breach of the law should be levied on the company directors (and public/Third Sector equivalents) personally and without mercy.
If you mean "let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed" just a tax hike to 20/40/45% obviously we *could* do that...
Mr. 1000, hey, I tweet often! Even done a few Twitter panels (including one where I made a reasonably good triple entendre joke).
Mr. Royale, not taken with Soubry. Greening or Patel, however, are clearly prime ministerial material.
What's so interesting about the Tory women is how ambitious they are.
Absolutely a positive thing and my only objection is their politics: if they are pro-EU, liberal on immigration and new-Labour lite on social policy then that's a dealbreaker for me.
In an ideal world, all companies large and small would get exactly the same treatment. The reality though is the megacorps have large numbers of expensive tax lawyers while HMRC has small numbers of relatively poorly paid staff. Often HMRC is going into battle with one hand tied behind its back.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
It's not just that: the truth is that transfer pricing is complicated and hard.
What is the right price that - for example - Microsoft UK buys Windows licenses from Microsoft inc?
What about loans. If I take a loan from my parent (in another country), what is the right interest rate?
My memory is not what it was but as far as I can recall until the mid 1960s companies were taxed on income. What is now corporation tax was introduced as an additional tax on "excess" profits by the Wilson government having an attack of the clevers (doubtless because of some newspaper induced scandal). Perhaps it is time to revert .
Companies were acknowledged in law as a means of making it possible for them to sign contracts etc. and have the same rights in law as an individual. So fine, let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed, with one small exception.
Penalties for being found in breach of the law should be levied on the company directors (and public/Third Sector equivalents) personally and without mercy.
If you mean "let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed" just a tax hike to 20/40/45% obviously we *could* do that...
Yes, and I am waiting for the bit that comes after the three dots.
As this site is an infinite source of wisdom, I would like some help.
As many of you know, I founded a little business called Crowdscores, which crowdsources live football data. The benefit of this should be that: (1) we are quicker than traditional providers, and (2) we can cover more games (we have Frome Town vs Weymouth this evening, for example).
What we would really like is to get a university researcher or PhD student to do a quick (say over one Saturday and one midweek day) comparison of our service with a few other sources: say BBC, SkySports, and one or two apps. They should compare the coverage, speed and accuracy of the various services.
I guess it's probably one day of work to setup, two days of work to run the tests, and then two days to write it up.
We would really like to use the information in our marketing material and with prospective investors, so it's important that we can say "a study from researchers at the university of xx".
Does anyone know anyone who might be able to help?
Many thanks, Robert
Hello all: any luck with this?
It may be worth joining a student or post grad forum and seeing if anyone would be interested. Possibly contact local unis as I remember local firms would offer various types of work/experience through my department.
Anecdote suggests that Starbucks are not very good at negotiating rents.
Maybe I'm a bit too suspicious, but when a large company is overpaying market rates for rent I always assume they're getting some benefit/kickback that's not immediately obvious in the accounts.
eg; The value, to starbucks, of not having a costa shop in the same managed complex is quite high.
Anecdote suggests that Starbucks are not very good at negotiating rents.
Maybe I'm a bit too suspicious, but when a large company is overpaying market rates for rent I always assume they're getting some benefit/kickback that's not immediately obvious in the accounts.
Mr. 1000, hey, I tweet often! Even done a few Twitter panels (including one where I made a reasonably good triple entendre joke).
Mr. Royale, not taken with Soubry. Greening or Patel, however, are clearly prime ministerial material.
What's so interesting about the Tory women is how ambitious they are.
Absolutely a positive thing and my only objection is their politics: if they are pro-EU, liberal on immigration and new-Labour lite on social policy then that's a dealbreaker for me.
Applications for Oldham West Labour selection close on Friday at noon. Shortlisting interview takes place on Monday. Selection on Thursday
Who does the selecting?
How long do they have to have been Oldham West members ?
Outrageous that "Registered supporters" of the Labour Party in Oldham West won't get a say methinks. I'd demand my £3 back if I lived there. Enough for some chips and a night out on the tiles.
Mr. Dodd, I'm confounded by the array of beverages, all apparently coffee.
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
They do a mean hot chocolate
If by 'mean' you mean horrible then you are correct.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Labour costs related to the product most definitely do form part of the accounting for cost of goods sold. The baristas wages would form part of COGS for Gross Profit.
An accountants salary OTOH could be Overhead. But either way when it comes to taxes we quite rightly include Overheads as legitimate costs as they are unavoidable. Good luck selling a coffee without a premises that thus attracts business rates. Or without electricity or water.
Hmm, Interesting. When I was CEO of a small company, admittedly some years ago, Gross Profit, according to our (chartered) accountants was sales plus stock in hand minus (invoice costs plus cost of good at start of the year)/. Overheads such as wages,rent, light, heat transport etc etc came out of the gross and the end product of GP - OH was Net Profit.
In my day job I do the accounts for a small business (which then go to Chartered Accountants to finalise) and we definitely include labour costs as a part of COGS (and thus Gross Profit). My wages though are part of Overheads, a distinction is drawn between different labour categories. This is I believe standard practice, it is the practice in prior companies I have been involved in too.
Wikipedia (admittedly not a perfect source and too American) counts 'labor' as part of COGS: 'direct labour costs for workers who produce the products' (ie the Baristas in this conversation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_goods_sold
In Catalonia it looks like the pro-independence parties are pushing ahead with plans for separation from Spain despite not winning a majority of the vote and despite most Catalans being opposed to UDI. The central government is vowing to use all judicial means to prevent them In the end that could mean seeking court orders to prevent Junts and CUP MPs from taking office. If these were granted they would then have to be enforced. That could get pretty tasty.
If it goes as you indicate it may, would they reinforce the pro-independence sentiment by creating a siege mentality, or cause it to wither, do you think?
Any smart brains able to do an educated guess on GE2015 if:
(1) AV had gone through (2) We'd had 2-4 member STV constituencies, just for the lolz?
I would guess for (1) Labour would have won approximately 30 more seats and the Liberal Democrats 20, mostly at the expense of the Conservatives. So we would have had a Parliament that was hung higher than Haman.
For (2) as we have very little data on that we can't be sure. However, given the way the swing in the marginals favoured the Conservatives it's hard not to believe that Labour would probably have picked up more seats particularly in suburban areas than they actually did. So for example, in Gloucestershire the Conservatives currently hold all six - under STV that would surely be three Tory, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat, given the Labour vote in Stroud, Dursley, Gloucester, Coleford and Cinderford. Here in Staffordshire, if Cannock, Lichfield, Tamworth and either South Staffordshire or Stafford were merged, Labour would definitely have one seat at least (probably two if it was Stafford). At the moment, they don't have any.
So Labour were definitely hit hard by the electoral system. The irony is though that had they implemented such a reform prior to 2005, they would have been considerably harder hit then!
EDIT - I haven't mentioned UKIP. They might have picked up a few seats under multi-member constituencies, but probably not many as I'm guessing they would rank low down on transfers. On AV, as I don't suppose they would have been many people's second choice ahead of the winning candidate, it's not difficult to imagine that they would have actually lost their only seat via Labour transfers to the Conservatives and have been left with precisely nothing.
If it goes as you indicate it may, would they reinforce the pro-independence sentiment by creating a siege mentality, or cause it to wither, do you think?
The Spanish constitution allows for an autonomous region's government to be suspended. That may well end up happening. The problem the Catalan independence side has is that right now most Catalans do not support independence, far less UDI. But what could change that is heavy-handedness from Madrid - something that the PP specialises in. They will lose their overall majority at the GE in December and may lose power if PSOE and Ciudadanos come to an arrangement (that looks slightly more likely than it did as far as I can tell). If nothing too drastic happens between now and the GE things will probably calm down next year. But a confrontation may well suit both sides.
The electoral reform society did a report and said
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
In reality these changes for GE2020 probably only tip 15-20 from Labour to Tory. Helpful to the Tories, but not exactly a total wipe-out for Labour.
The 20 or so Tories who will lose out will need sweeties of course, unless they're altruists.
1. Has Mr Bush actually modelled the effects of individual voter registration, or just mentioned it? 2. There is also the impact of a major reduction in union political resources, cash and people, for the Labour campaign in 2020. Overall a triple whammy on top of the Corbyn effect.
The electoral reform society did a report and said
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
Interesting. Especially surprising that Labour does so badly under both methods. You would have thought they would have picked up a fair number of second preferences, but apparently not. Of course, it is from the Electoral Reform Society.
ydoethur, my gut feel is that UKIP would have got a lot of seats from their 2nd places as they had a strong base of protest votes to build from. Much more likely to gain than LDs but I would like to see the models and happy to be proved wrong.
ydoethur, my gut feel is that UKIP would have got a lot of seats from their 2nd places as they had a strong base of protest votes to build from. Much more likely to gain than LDs but I would like to see the models and happy to be proved wrong.
That's the problem, isn't it? We don't really have any models.
My impression based purely on personal experience round here was that those people who voted for UKIP voted for them because they liked what they were saying rather than as a protest. And that those people who did not like what they were saying, really, really hated it. So I was guessing that they would not actually get many second preferences and their own second preferences would not be used (or would go to some random nutjob party e.g. Yorkshire First).
Meanwhile, I thought the surviving Liberal Democrat voters and the Greens would break for Labour, which is why I am surprised TSE has found this report saying that Labour would still have done shockingly badly under other systems.
The electoral reform society did a report and said
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
Interesting. Especially surprising that Labour does so badly under both methods. You would have thought they would have picked up a fair number of second preferences, but apparently not. Of course, it is from the Electoral Reform Society.
Once I get my mojo back and start writing threads again, I will publish my thread on AV/electoral reform and we can consider that the definitive piece on how the election would have turned out under different voting systems.
The electoral reform society did a report and said
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
Interesting. Especially surprising that Labour does so badly under both methods. You would have thought they would have picked up a fair number of second preferences, but apparently not. Of course, it is from the Electoral Reform Society.
Once I get my mojo back and start writing threads again, I will publish my thread on AV/electoral reform and we can consider that the definitive piece on how the election would have turned out under different voting systems.
Mr. 1000, hey, I tweet often! Even done a few Twitter panels (including one where I made a reasonably good triple entendre joke).
Mr. Royale, not taken with Soubry. Greening or Patel, however, are clearly prime ministerial material.
What's so interesting about the Tory women is how ambitious they are.
Absolutely a positive thing and my only objection is their politics: if they are pro-EU, liberal on immigration and new-Labour lite on social policy then that's a dealbreaker for me.
Much worse. Writer's block. I struggled to write stuff recently, I checked and I've done over 200 pieces for PB this year so it might be I've hit my limit this year. I knew I had problems when recently I struggled to write a thread that was to troll the Kippers, normally I can do that in my sleep.
So have gone on a bit of a sabbatical and that should refresh me.
College principal £304,000 payoff 'may be tip of iceberg' A Scottish Parliament committee hears that other college principals were offered large exit deals similar to that given to John Doyle, the head of Coatbridge College.
The electoral reform society did a report and said
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
Interesting. Especially surprising that Labour does so badly under both methods. You would have thought they would have picked up a fair number of second preferences, but apparently not. Of course, it is from the Electoral Reform Society.
Once I get my mojo back and start writing threads again, I will publish my thread on AV/electoral reform and we can consider that the definitive piece on how the election would have turned out under different voting systems.
I think you have to bear in mind that the nature of the electoral system might well influence how people vote.
In a low interest rate environment, you need to have a bigger savings pot to ensure you are able to retire. Low interest rates can, therefore, encourage higher savings rates, and therefore have the opposite effect of what central bankers desire.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Not necessarily. Not sure if absorption costing is a requirement of US or IFRS GAAP..., in the books I'm doing right now some wages are absorbed, others aren't !
Labour costs related to the product most definitely do form part of the accounting for cost of goods sold. The baristas wages would form part of COGS for Gross Profit.
An accountants salary OTOH could be Overhead. But either way when it comes to taxes we quite rightly include Overheads as legitimate costs as they are unavoidable. Good luck selling a coffee without a premises that thus attracts business rates. Or without electricity or water.
Hmm, Interesting. When I was CEO of a small company, admittedly some years ago, Gross Profit, according to our (chartered) accountants was sales plus stock in hand minus (invoice costs plus cost of good at start of the year)/. Overheads such as wages,rent, light, heat transport etc etc came out of the gross and the end product of GP - OH was Net Profit.
In my day job I do the accounts for a small business (which then go to Chartered Accountants to finalise) and we definitely include labour costs as a part of COGS (and thus Gross Profit). My wages though are part of Overheads, a distinction is drawn between different labour categories. This is I believe standard practice, it is the practice in prior companies I have been involved in too.
Wikipedia (admittedly not a perfect source and too American) counts 'labor' as part of COGS: 'direct labour costs for workers who produce the products' (ie the Baristas in this conversation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_goods_sold
I understood that Gross profits did not include overheads such as salary... But, it is not my expertise...
Mr. Eagles, I get that with my blog (less often with book-writing, although it can be a bugger for short stories).
Perhaps you could leave that field fallow, and try harvesting another crop?
[Nice thing about having 'serious' and comedy writing is that when one seems difficult, the other can seem easy].
Thanks, I think it just that 2015 was an exceptional year, General election, Tory majority, Lib Dem wipeout, Ajockalypse Now, potential Grexit, the migrant crisis and the cherry on the parfait Labour choosing Corbyn, it might just be a come down from that.
A lot has happened this year, hard to keep up with it all.
Mr. Eagles, I get that with my blog (less often with book-writing, although it can be a bugger for short stories).
Perhaps you could leave that field fallow, and try harvesting another crop?
[Nice thing about having 'serious' and comedy writing is that when one seems difficult, the other can seem easy].
Thanks, I think it just that 2015 was an exceptional year, General election, Tory majority, Lib Dem wipeout, Ajockalypse Now, potential Grexit, the migrant crisis and the cherry on the parfait Labour choosing Corbyn, it might just be a come down from that.
A lot has happened this year, hard to keep up with it all.
Much worse. Writer's block. I struggled to write stuff recently, I checked and I've done over 200 pieces for PB this year so it might be I've hit my limit this year. I knew I had problems when recently I struggled to write a thread that was to troll the Kippers, normally I can do that in my sleep.
So have gone on a bit of a sabbatical and that should refresh me.
I suspect the tax credits farrago will be quickly forgotten though not perhaps the Conservative reaction. It seems curious that when any group (the BBC, the Church, the Lords etc) tries to stand up to or argue against Conservative power, they are threatened with oblivion, destruction, abolition and extermination (not necessarily in that order).
It's curious for a supposedly democratic party to want to negate any and all forms of Opposition save that which is self-generated within its own ranks.
The Conservatives had a strong presence in the Lords after 1997 (probably a hundred more peers than they had MPs at the time, the same jibe they make about the LDs now) and even the 2015 Manifesto recognised the importance of the Lords as a forum for scrutiny.
If you undermine that scrutiny and remove the checks and balances in order to facilitate the passage of your legislation and remove Opposition, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite when you no longer have the power. It's foolish, short-sighted and petty to seek vindicative redress to those who seek to argue against you legitimately and who dare to point out the flaws in what is being proposed.
Comments
As this site is an infinite source of wisdom, I would like some help.
As many of you know, I founded a little business called Crowdscores, which crowdsources live football data. The benefit of this should be that: (1) we are quicker than traditional providers, and (2) we can cover more games (we have Frome Town vs Weymouth this evening, for example).
What we would really like is to get a university researcher or PhD student to do a quick (say over one Saturday and one midweek day) comparison of our service with a few other sources: say BBC, SkySports, and one or two apps. They should compare the coverage, speed and accuracy of the various services.
I guess it's probably one day of work to setup, two days of work to run the tests, and then two days to write it up.
We would really like to use the information in our marketing material and with prospective investors, so it's important that we can say "a study from researchers at the university of xx".
Does anyone know anyone who might be able to help?
Many thanks, Robert
Abolish dividend taxation as well; tax dividends as regular income.
Treat dividends paid from any company in any given state as income earned within that state.
An accountants salary OTOH could be Overhead. But either way when it comes to taxes we quite rightly include Overheads as legitimate costs as they are unavoidable. Good luck selling a coffee without a premises that thus attracts business rates. Or without electricity or water.
Read more: How is absorption costing treated under GAAP? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/how-absorption-costing-treated-under-gaap.asp#ixzz3psa5OcNc
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
as I said my inclination to is lay all!
There's a touch of Thatcher about her.
50/1 to be next Tory leader
Let us take for the moment accept your hypothesis that the really big boys are "whiter than white". If that were true what was the need for the meetings between Vodaphone and the head of HMRC? Just clearing up a misunderstanding or negotiating a settlement?
A small company/sole trader just gets a bill from the taxman. Furthermore, after these new rule changes, passed by a Conservative Government no less, HMRC can just seize the money from bank accounts even though their is an on-going dispute involving accountants and lawyers.
When I read that HMRC is treating the big boys in the same way that they treat SMEs I will concede you have a point. Until then I will continue to laugh when people mention the concept of "equal before the law" and I will hold HMRC in contempt.
A little too much information thank you…
That said I've followed Antifrank in and laid Trump... Have to admit it is alot easier to do this move when you've backed him at 28-1 with Hills too !
I take it black [as an aside, research seems to suggest black coffee drinkers are apparently more likely to be psychopaths]. Presumably there's a ridiculous fancy name for a black coffee?
You should be able to make a handsome profit on that.
(Not that I dispute Starbucks must be profitable.)
Mind you, I'll devour any shade of chocolate.
Don't eat nuts, though.
If the Government really wanted to help HMRC, the way to go would be to focus on tax simplification.
Have you considered sending a message to Mark Hopkins? Sounds like the sort of thing he might be able to do.
What is the right price that - for example - Microsoft UK buys Windows licenses from Microsoft inc?
What about loans. If I take a loan from my parent (in another country), what is the right interest rate?
I wonder if, should that happen, UKIP and/or the Lib Dems would make hay and take the first major step towards becoming the official party of opposition.
Edited extra bit: np, Mr. 1000. You're not a frequent tweeter
And I will contact Mark. Thanks
(You are right: I very rarely tweet. I am quite busy, generally
Mr. Royale, not taken with Soubry. Greening or Patel, however, are clearly prime ministerial material.
Companies were acknowledged in law as a means of making it possible for them to sign contracts etc. and have the same rights in law as an individual. So fine, let us now tax companies in the same manner as individuals are taxed, with one small exception.
Penalties for being found in breach of the law should be levied on the company directors (and public/Third Sector equivalents) personally and without mercy.
Absolutely a positive thing and my only objection is their politics: if they are pro-EU, liberal on immigration and new-Labour lite on social policy then that's a dealbreaker for me.
UKIP candidate is selected by the NEC at by elections, local branch in general elections
eg; The value, to starbucks, of not having a costa shop in the same managed complex is quite high.
In reality these changes for GE2020 probably only tip 15-20 from Labour to Tory. Helpful to the Tories, but not exactly a total wipe-out for Labour.
The 20 or so Tories who will lose out will need sweeties of course, unless they're altruists.
(1) AV had gone through
(2) We'd had 2-4 member STV constituencies, just for the lolz?
Wikipedia (admittedly not a perfect source and too American) counts 'labor' as part of COGS: 'direct labour costs for workers who produce the products' (ie the Baristas in this conversation).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_goods_sold
If it goes as you indicate it may, would they reinforce the pro-independence sentiment by creating a siege mentality, or cause it to wither, do you think?
For (2) as we have very little data on that we can't be sure. However, given the way the swing in the marginals favoured the Conservatives it's hard not to believe that Labour would probably have picked up more seats particularly in suburban areas than they actually did. So for example, in Gloucestershire the Conservatives currently hold all six - under STV that would surely be three Tory, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat, given the Labour vote in Stroud, Dursley, Gloucester, Coleford and Cinderford. Here in Staffordshire, if Cannock, Lichfield, Tamworth and either South Staffordshire or Stafford were merged, Labour would definitely have one seat at least (probably two if it was Stafford). At the moment, they don't have any.
So Labour were definitely hit hard by the electoral system. The irony is though that had they implemented such a reform prior to 2005, they would have been considerably harder hit then!
EDIT - I haven't mentioned UKIP. They might have picked up a few seats under multi-member constituencies, but probably not many as I'm guessing they would rank low down on transfers. On AV, as I don't suppose they would have been many people's second choice ahead of the winning candidate, it's not difficult to imagine that they would have actually lost their only seat via Labour transfers to the Conservatives and have been left with precisely nothing.
that under analternative vote system, where voters' preferences are reallocated until one candidate gets over 50%, the election result would be similar to that of 7 May, with the Conservatives winning 337 seats - an increase of six.
The research showed that under a single transferable vote (STV) system, similar to the kind currently used in Scottish local elections, the Conservatives would have won 276 seats (-55), Labour 236 (+4), the SNP 34 (-22), the Lib Dems 26 (+18), Plaid Cymru 3 (nc), UKIP 54 (+53) and the Greens 3 (+2)
http://electoral-reform.org.uk/press-release/report-launch-2015-general-election-voting-system-crisis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32954807
2. There is also the impact of a major reduction in union political resources, cash and people, for the Labour campaign in 2020.
Overall a triple whammy on top of the Corbyn effect.
My impression based purely on personal experience round here was that those people who voted for UKIP voted for them because they liked what they were saying rather than as a protest. And that those people who did not like what they were saying, really, really hated it. So I was guessing that they would not actually get many second preferences and their own second preferences would not be used (or would go to some random nutjob party e.g. Yorkshire First).
Meanwhile, I thought the surviving Liberal Democrat voters and the Greens would break for Labour, which is why I am surprised TSE has found this report saying that Labour would still have done shockingly badly under other systems.
The threads in the post ....
So have gone on a bit of a sabbatical and that should refresh me.
Perhaps you could leave that field fallow, and try harvesting another crop?
[Nice thing about having 'serious' and comedy writing is that when one seems difficult, the other can seem easy].
I understood that Gross profits did not include overheads such as salary... But, it is not my expertise...
A lot has happened this year, hard to keep up with it all.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/659402929540104192
Sepp Blatter: World Cup 2018 was going to Russia regardless of vote
Do you want him back ?
http://www.trainingandcourses.com/west-yorkshire/reading-and-writing-literacy-courses/qualification/study/all/default.html
I suspect the tax credits farrago will be quickly forgotten though not perhaps the Conservative reaction. It seems curious that when any group (the BBC, the Church, the Lords etc) tries to stand up to or argue against Conservative power, they are threatened with oblivion, destruction, abolition and extermination (not necessarily in that order).
It's curious for a supposedly democratic party to want to negate any and all forms of Opposition save that which is self-generated within its own ranks.
The Conservatives had a strong presence in the Lords after 1997 (probably a hundred more peers than they had MPs at the time, the same jibe they make about the LDs now) and even the 2015 Manifesto recognised the importance of the Lords as a forum for scrutiny.
If you undermine that scrutiny and remove the checks and balances in order to facilitate the passage of your legislation and remove Opposition, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite when you no longer have the power. It's foolish, short-sighted and petty to seek vindicative redress to those who seek to argue against you legitimately and who dare to point out the flaws in what is being proposed.