(V): "You do agree greed is wrong?"

Yes, I agree greed is wrong, but I'm probably saying it's wrong for a different reason than you are. The reason I think greed is wrong is because in the long run it ends up losing what it hopes to gain, plus some.

Last year your country passed what has been described as a "millionaires tax". It's essentially the same kind of tax that Obama is pushing for in my country. But in only one year your new tax has backfired, and now your government will be taking in less money from your millionaire class than it did a year ago. On top of that there will be less money invested in your economy and fewer jobs will be created... whenever the wealthy are actively ingaged in business the result is always new jobs and more people who will be paying taxes.

Governmental greed has resulted in taking in less of a percentage from millionaires than they were getting a year ago. Greed hasn't gotten your governement more in revenue, it has created an environment where it will be getting less than it did before raising taxes on your wealthiest citizens.

Draconian measures can only work if you go all the way with it... make it illegal for millionaires and billionaires to retire or move away. Under the threat of fines and imprisonment your government should make it illegal for your millionaires to do anything differently. Hold a gun to the head of the goose that lays your golden eggs, that's what any despot who has absolute power would do. Half way measures simply do not work, and I gaurentee those millionaires won't cough up the extra dough if you don't make them do it by force and by threats.

Governmental greed (along with an amazingly stupid short sightedness) has caused your millionaire class to go from 16,000 millionaires down to 6 thousand in only one year. I'm talking about millionaires who have either left your country or have retired, and you can't tax someone who either no longer lives there or who is no longer generating new (taxable) income. The same thing happened in France (70% tax rate on millionaires) and many of their millionaires moved to a neighboring country... I learned this morning that many of them have taken up residence only 800 yards from the French border. That is truly hilarious... they wanted to move away, but not too far away. They still like France, and want to be near to it, but not actually be beholden to it in any significant way. It's like they are saying 'I love you my darling, but don't get too close'... LOL

HSBC has confirmed it is to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case.

A US Senate investigation said the UK-based bank had been a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations". Money laundering is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime so that the money cannot be linked to the wrongdoing. HSBC admitted having poor money laundering controls and apologised.

"We accept responsibility for our past mistakes," said HSBC group chief executive Stuart Gulliver in a statement. "We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again." The bank said it had spent $290m on improving its systems to prevent money laundering and clawed back some bonuses paid to senior executives in the past.

It also said it expected to reach an agreement with the UK's Financial Services Authority shortly. Last month it announced it had set aside $1.5bn to cover the costs of any settlement or fines.

The news followed the announcement of a similar but much smaller settlement with UK-based Standard Chartered bank, which will pay $300m in fines for violating US sanctions.

Iamon lyme: irrelevant.

"I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite."

Assumption.. like most of your post.

Most people expect some form of tax avoidance, as long as firms don't get too greedy.

You do agree greed is wrong?

(V): I'm assuming you mean it is immoral for big businesses to take advantage of legal deductions, or other legal means by which someone may pay less or even nothing in taxes... okay, you didn't say legal deductions, but that is what some people today are calling loopholes. They are not the same things.

I think we both know that when you say the word "immoral", it's the same as acknowledging the 'legality' of legitimate deductions. Legal deductions are... (drum roll please)... tum ta da da tum ta daaa... LEGAL, and are purposefully placed in tax codes to be used... legally. As in, not against the law. Was Starbucks breaking any of your tax laws? I don't think so, which is why I believe you are saying taking advantage of your tax code is 'immoral'... because you can't say it's 'illegal'.

I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite.

Anyway. loopholes are unintended "holes" found in the language of tax laws that allow some folks to be able to avoid paying taxes on money intended to be taxed. That's the difference. If you are calling legal deductions or any other legal means a company uses to avoid paying taxes "loopholes", then you are clearly mistaken. By the way, if you are so indignant over big business avoiding taxation, maybe you should think about boycotting Google. Are you aware of how much money they are currently sheltering in offshore island accounts? I could tell you, but why not do a google search and see for yourself?

... or maybe try using some other search engine, just to be sure you are able find that information.

*<(:op

Iamon lyme: irrelevant straw man argument.

Iamon lyme: Sorry, but I 'feel' the need to clean part of that up...

"Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for the same kind of prudent money management forced on businesses by competition and willing customers."

(V): How does morality play a part in demanding businesses pay more in taxes? Especially when the so called "need" for money is originally created by a governing elite intent on practicing poor money management.


If there has been any immorality here it's in how the governing elite have foolishly spent the money coming from people they are supposed to be doing right by. If you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship then why can't you hold your goverment accountable for how it maganges your (the taxpayers) money?

Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for prudent money management forced on businesses by competion and willing customers. If Obama and the Democrats here are successful in getting the wealthiest to pay more than they already are, the increase in revenue will be enough to fund the US government for a whopping 8.5 days. Can you seriously argue that eight and half days out of every year is enough to offset cutbacks, loss of jobs and even loss of taxable revenue from a company that might choose to leave for a friendlier working environment? There is no law, moral or otherwise, that can prevent a business to relocate to another country if the tax burdon becomes rediculously high.

If your business is located in North Korea, then there probably are "incentives" for you to remain where you are.

Iamon lyme: Those that are British.. mainly embarrassed at their employers action. Probably hoping they can find an honest employer who has moral standards who pays their way rather than one that has no morals.

After all, there are other firms who will pay their taxes, like small mom and pop operations who with other coffee/restaurant chains who do pay their fair share.. and that of Starbucks. As tax rates have to be higher in order to offset immoral tax avoidance.

(V): How do employees at UK Starbucks feel about this? I'm assuming most of them are UK citizens, and employment at Starbucks either supplements or is their main income. I wonder if any of those protesters have considered what the law of unintended consequences may reveal if they get what they want... or are consequences that do not affect them too far removed from own their lives to be worth worrying over? If they've never worked there (or know anyone who does) or purchase anything there, or ever intend to, then they obviously have nothing to lose. It makes sense... if your actions do not impact your own life, then why should you care if it impacts anyone else? Liberalism is all about saying you care about your fellow human being... it doesn't actually mean you do, or need to, or must.

At midday dozens of protesters who'd been waiting quietly inside the store stood up, unfurled their banners and leaflets and began chanting: "Starbucks - pay your taxes! Starbucks sucks money from the UK! Boycott Starbucks - tell your friends!"

The cafe's manager appeared unsure how to react. At one point it looked as though he was going to lock everyone inside. A small group of police officers went in and after half an hour the protesters left - peacefully but noisily - to join another group at a second Starbucks nearby.

As far as UK Uncut are concerned, Starbucks' offer to pay £20m is a marketing stunt. Many passing Christmas shoppers we've spoken to seem to agree that the law needs to be changed to force multinationals to pay more tax in the UK.

Starbucks has paid £8.6m in corporation tax in its 14 years of trading in the UK, and nothing in the last three years. The company had UK sales of nearly £400m in 2011 but has reported a taxable profit only once in its 15 years of operating in the UK.

Starbucks now says it expects to pay around £10m in corporation tax for each of the next two years, a move described by tax experts as unprecedented.

Actually.. maybe that should be White Castles.... Harold and Kumar style..

Bwild: .... maybe a McD's chain would be better... suit the apparent system of smoking and fighting better.

(V): maybe they'll get a Starbucks!! lol

I'm seeing a number of posts and blogs on the net talking about Afghanistan being a big untapped mine.

As in.... there are about a trillion dollars of untapped (as the Afghans have never had any real mining industry) resources. Including lithium, the big must have metal of the mobile age.

The Russians knew it, hence their efforts to make Afghanistan a satellite state..... The arming of the Taliban in the 80's being sour grapes by US interests who did not want Russia getting hold of that wealth.

New surveys have confirmed the Russian records.

The Col: ... How are they doing it now.....It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.

It's decided not to use some of these as a method to reduce it tax liability, so far on it's royalty payments to the Dutch company.

HMRC (revenue and customs) is to get £77 million extra, which it thinks can help recoup £2 billion a year in tax lost through avoidance......

... imo, cut through the bull and give the HMRC twice that. The return would probably be in the £3.5 billion plus zone.

(V): Maybe a stupid question , but how did they avoid it in the past?

Starbucks is offering to stop it's aggressive tax avoidance in the UK, and pay corporation tax.

The threat of boycotting, sit ins and other protests as well as harsh criticism in the press has led them to the conclusion that although they operate 1/3 of the coffee shops in the UK.

... people in the UK don't like tax cheats. That the company should 'pay it's way', and being a multi national is no excuse.

The Col: Isn't everyone!!

(V): I hear he's a sucker for good Yorkshire pudding

The Col: If he's good.. they might make him an offer.. .. .

Übergeek 바둑이: As long as it doesn't turn into "who's the daddy!" .. ... well maybe when it comes to certain stubborn bankers.

.. quote from Ray Winstone, in the film "Scum".. old brit film on borstals.

(V): He has stated he's returning to Canada after 5 years

The Col:

More like: 'morning Guv'

ketchuplover: Good news, they now as others do have to operate more above the table. More transparency.

The Col: If he's not turned into a lamb for the BBQ ... longer.

Übergeek 바둑이: Very true.

"The UK does not benefit from high demand for raw commodities (this is what has saved Canada's economy.) "

Ours is more of a service based country now, but we still build many items used globally, but more on the electronics side.

"If Carney fails to deliver, he will be torn to pieces by the British banking establishment that traditionally has looked down on "colonnials." "

No. Our press is quite good at highlighting blame, and the banking establishment is at it's lowest reputation for a long time.

It's our politicians that are at risk of being torn to pieces.

(V): I guess he'll be hearing 'G'morning Guv'nor!' for the next 5 years

This is very good news or very bad news or somewhere between.

(V):

> Any Canadians got a view on Mr Mark Carney...

I think there is a lot of hype about him just because he was appointed to the Bank of England. However, I am not entirely sure as to whether he is as good as the hype makes him to be.

Carney spent 13 years at Goldman-Sachs prior to going into public office. About his role there I found the following:

"He worked on South Africa's post-apartheid venture into international bond markets, and was involved in Goldman's work with the 1998 Russian financial crisis ... Goldman's role in the Russian crisis was criticized at the time because while the company was advising Russia it was simultaneously betting against the country's ability to repay its debt."

That makes Carney like most other bankers at the end of the Cold War. They all profitted from the destruction of the Soviet Union and throught the speculation on Russian currency. Nothing new there. It just makes Carney a banker in the same vein as George Soros. It is not surprising since studied at Harvard and Oxford, and the economics that people learn in these places are cutthroat capitalist economics.

From 2004 to 2007 Carney worked for the Department of Finance. "Carney was also the "point man" in the government's profitable sale of its 19 percent stake in Petro-Canada.[" This is in line with his right-wing conservative background, which is also evident in his good relationship with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Carney was appointed Governor of the Bank of Canada in February of 2008, several months before the Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis in the USA. Carney built his reputation because he acted quickly to privide liquidity to the Canadian financial markets as the crisis unfolded.

However, Canada was not exposed to the same degree of risk that other countries were exposed. Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien had refused to follow the American lead and de-regulate the sub-prime mortgage market in the way that George W. Bush did. As a result, the USA put itself in an untenable situation while Canada did not really have a crisis of its own. Carney rpovide liquidity to the market, but that liquidity was probably not needed because Canadian banks were not up to their neck in bad debt.

The Col:
> Nobody has a bad word to say about him

Most Canadians know little about him. I think that he was lucky to be the central banker of Canada. Had he been anywhere else, I am not sure that he would have survived unscathed. Canada has also benefitted from high demand for oil and natural gas. I am not entirely sure that the economic recovery here is the result of his policies or rather from Canada's economy being driven by commodity production.

Carney just attended the 60th Bilderberg Group meeting this year, and shortly thereafter he was named to the Bank of England. That shows Carney to be deeply entrenched on the world's financial elite. His appointment does not come as a surprise.

The real problem for him is that the UK is an entirely different economic beast. The UK is deeply exposed to bad debt across Europe (think Ireland, Iceland), and the regulatory framework is very different from what it is here in Canada. The UK does not benefit from high demand for raw commodities (this is what has saved Canada's economy.) If Carney fails to deliver, he will be torn to pieces by the British banking establishment that traditionally has looked down on "colonnials." If he succeeds he will be a big hero, if he fails he will be torn to pieces. The stakes are very high for him..

The Col: Good. As he's taking over (as you probably know) the Bank of England gov'nor job.

(V): He has a great reputation here in Canada
Nobody has a bad word to say about him

Artful Dodger: I didn't say they did.

"You don't know radical Islam."

Is it any different from any other radical terrorist group that's been around for the last 100 years? I still get confused over reasoning on such things, especially considering how fluent reality seems to be regarding if they are freedom fighters or terrorists.

Raygun loved supporting terrorists!!

(V): I'm a realist.  It's Pollyanna to think that the terrorists care about a bridge.  You don't know radical Islam.

Any Canadians got a view on Mr Mark Carney... re the Bank of Canada. It is reputed he ain't bad and can think outside the box... Hence Canada having less of a problem than the USA or UK now.

Truth or Manure?

Artful Dodger: nooooooooo.... really?!?!

But.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Peace_Bridge_Derry.jpg/800px-Peace_Bridge_Derry.jpg

.... This giving up by everyone... Do you think this bridge (see pic) could or would have been built if everyone kept giving up?

...........................
The Troubles were brought to an uneasy end by a peace process which included the declaration of ceasefires by most paramilitary organisations and the complete decommissioning of their weapons, the reform of the police, and the corresponding withdrawal of army troops from the streets and from sensitive border areas such as South Armagh and Fermanagh, as agreed by the signatories to the Belfast Agreement (commonly known as the "Good Friday Agreement"). This reiterated the long-held British position, which had never before been fully acknowledged by successive Irish governments, that Northern Ireland will remain within the United Kingdom until a majority votes otherwise. The Constitution of Ireland was amended in 1999 to remove a claim of the "Irish nation" to sovereignty over the whole of Ireland (in Article 2), a claim qualified by an acknowledgement that Ireland could only exercise legal control over the territory formerly known as the Irish Free State. The new Articles 2 and 3, added to the Constitution to replace the earlier articles, implicitly acknowledge that the status of Northern Ireland, and its relationships within the rest of the United Kingdom and with Ireland, would only be changed with the agreement of a majority of voters in both jurisdictions (Ireland voting separately). This aspect was also central to the Belfast Agreement which was signed in 1998 and ratified by referendums held simultaneously in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. At the same time, the British Government recognised for the first time, as part of the prospective, the so-called "Irish dimension": the principle that the people of the island of Ireland as a whole have the right, without any outside interference, to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent.[27] The latter statement was key to winning support for the agreement from nationalists and republicans. It also established a devolved power-sharing government within Northern Ireland, which must consist of both unionist and nationalist parties.

These institutions were suspended by the British Government in 2002 after Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) allegations of spying by people working for Sinn Féin at the Assembly (Stormontgate). The resulting case against the accused Sinn Féin member collapsed.

On 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA declared an end to its campaign and has since decommissioned what is thought to be all of its arsenal. This final act of decommissioning was performed in accordance with the Belfast Agreement of 1998, and under the watch of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and two external church witnesses. Many unionists, however, remain sceptical. This IRA decommissioning is in contrast to Loyalist paramilitaries who have so far refused to decommission many weapons. It is not thought that this will have a major effect on further political progress
......................................

It has been tried before, it was a hard process, it did work.

(V): It's been tried b4.

Artful Dodger: Just twelve..

Uganda is looking to extend it's laws on homosexuality. From being illegal and a punishable by upto 14 years, to being illegal and punishable by life imprisonment.... the death penalty clause dropped .. just. Some in the Ugandan parliament are still seeking the death penalty.

Three US evangelical groups have been named as spreading anti homosexual views based on the Bible that have led to this stage. And are still working to spread homophobia as harshly as possible.

The bill is still to be passed, and it's looks like the President of Uganda is the only one to stop it passing.

Artful Dodger: Nahhhhh, just how hard it is. 'Quick fixes' are unlikely to do any good. Step by step, compromise and respect that basically... they all just want to live normal lives without the violence.

(V): Well I think that just goes to illustrate just how hopeless the situation is.

Artful Dodger: And the only real way to kill Hamas ... all of them I mean, is to go in street by street.

No force likes cleaning streets out. With over 1.7 million people in Gaza ... .. it's a MAD decision to make.

... The kids and his father were not Hamas btw.

(V): Appeals to emotion are nonsense.  Hamas has to stop attacking first.  If they keep it up, they will be hunted down like the dogs they are and killed. 

My friend and colleague Jehad Mashhrawi is usually the last to leave our Gaza bureau. Hard-working but softly spoken, he often stays late, beavering away on a laptop that is rarely out of arm's reach. He has a cool head - unflappable, when others like me are flapping around him. He is a video editor and just one of our local BBC Arabic Service staff who make the office tick.

But on the Wednesday before last - only an hour or so after Gaza's latest war erupted with Israel's killing of Hamas military commander Ahmed al-Jabari - Jehad burst out of the editing suite screaming.

He sprinted down the stairs, his head in his hands, his face ripped with anguish. He had just had a call from a friend to tell him the Israeli military had bombed his house and that his 11-month-old baby boy Omar was dead.

Most fathers will tell you their children are beautiful. Omar was a picture-book baby.

Standing in what is left of his burnt-out home this week, Jehad showed me a photo on his mobile phone. It was of a cheeky, chunky, round-faced little boy in denim dungarees, chuckling in a pushchair, dark-eyed with a fringe of fine brown hair pushed across his brow.

"He only knew how to smile," Jehad told me, as we both struggled to hold back the tears. "He could say just two words - Baba and Mama," his father went on.

Also on Jehad's phone is another photo. A hideous tiny corpse. Omar's smiling face virtually burnt off, that fine hair appearing to be melted on to his scalp.

Jehad's sister-in-law Heba was also killed. "We still haven't found her head," Jehad said.

And his brother is critically ill in hospital with massive burns. His chances are not good.

Jehad has another son Ali, four years old, who was slightly injured. He keeps asking where his baby brother has gone.

Eleven members of the Mashhrawi family lived in the tiny breezeblock house in the Sabra district of Gaza City. Five people slept in one room. The beds are now only good for charcoal. The cupboards are full of heaps of burnt children's clothes.

On the kitchen shelves, there are rows of melted plastic jars full of Palestinian herbs and spices, their shapes distorted as if reflected from a fairground mirror. And in the entrance hall, a two-foot-wide hole in the flimsy metal ceiling where the missile ripped through.

Despite the evidence pointing towards an Israeli air strike, some bloggers have suggested it might have been a misfired Hamas rocket. But at that time, so soon after the launch of Israel's operation, the Israeli military says mortars had been launched from Gaza but very few rockets.

Mortar fire would not cause the fireball that appears to have engulfed Jehad's house.

Other bloggers have said that the damage to Jehad's home was not consistent with powerful Israeli attacks but the BBC visited other bombsites this week with very similar fire damage, where Israel acknowledged carrying out what it called "surgical strikes".

As at Jehad's home, there was very little structural damage but the victims were brought out with massive and fatal burns. Most likely is that Omar died in the one of the more than 20 bombings across Gaza that the Israeli military says made up its initial wave of attacks.

Omar was not a terrorist.

Of course every civilian death on either side - not just Omar's - is tragic. The United Nations says its preliminary investigation shows that 103 of the 158 people killed in Gaza were civilians. Of those, 30 were children - 12 of whom were under the age of 10. More than 1,000 people were injured.

The Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said every non-combatant death or injury was tragic and an "operational failure".

In Israel, too, there were fatalities: four civilians and two soldiers. There were also many injuries. But the fact the Israeli Ambulance Service was also reporting those suffering from anxiety and bruises is an indication of the asymmetric nature of the conflict.

Jehad's baby Omar was probably the first child to die in this latest round of violence. Among the last was a six-year-old boy, Abdul Rahman Naeem, who was killed by an Israeli attack just hours before the ceasefire was announced.

Abdul Rahman's father, Dr Majdi, is one of the leading specialist doctors at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital. The first he knew of his son's death was when he went to treat a patient, only to find it was his own boy.

Apparently, Dr Majdi had not seen Abdul Rahman for days. He had been too busy dealing with the wounded.

(V):Actually in this case, yes.

Artful Dodger: Yes.. killing always solves the problem.

Of course, we could just kill every Israeli and then the Muslims could just change their target to another group.  Eventually, when every people group is killed, then the Muslims would just start killing themselves (as they already do).  

(V): But it has nothing to do with Hamas bombing Israel.  Israel reacts to protects its citizens.  I say kill all of Hamas.   That will end the problem.  The if another group pops up, kill them all.

Artful Dodger:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/pfe/lowres/pfen274l.jpg

"Yeah well what about when the US kicked the Indians out of their native land and killed them indiscriminately?"

It's a parody on a peaceful nation..

Legitimate On Topic Poster:  But the Palestinian terrorists are dropping bombs on women and children in Israel and then hiding in homes and hospitals!

Red Herring Poster:  Yeah well what about when the US kicked the Indians out of their native land and killed them indiscriminately? 

(V): well what you consider spam I consider a legitimate response when someone tries to drag a red herring across the trail.