Moving house

We are moving tomorrow, which explains the lack of posts on my blog. From tomorrow onwards, I doubt I will have internet access for a couple of weeks - maybe even three! I will be back, however.

The police state within the NHS

I am not allowed a copy of my medical records. They contain information only about me, yet I am not allowed them. I asked if I could pick them up because I am moving to another country, and I was told they are the "property of the Crown" and I could not take them away. I then asked if I could take a photocopy of them, and I was told I could only make a copy of a part of them (not the whole lot) only if my new doctor I makes a specific request. It's a bit like the Freedom of Information Act - you need to know what to ask before you can get the information.

Fife Council

I have just received a threatening letter from Fife's Council Tax Department, informing me that if I don't pay my account in full, I will be taken to court. I sent them a letter 6 weeks ago informing them I was moving home and I requested a final bill. I stopped payments as arranging a refund would be a nightmare when living in Switzerland. Their excuse for this lack of joined-up-thinking was twofold. Firstly, there was a backlog in their department that dealt with people moving home. Secondly, the department that deals with payments is different to the department that deals with house moving - they are autonomous, and it seems, unable to communicate with each other.

The end result? I will get three bills in the post. I will receive a bill for the whole year as if I was not moving, I will receive a bill for the period up to the 20th December and another from the 21st December to 20th January. The fist bill I have to ignore, the second bill I have to pay and the third bill is for my records. All of these will be sent to Switzerland, at considerable cost to the council (why they just couldn't sent me a final bill, as requested, is beyond me). The problem is, they insisted I paid them on the phone, there and then. So even though I am to 'ignore' the first bill and 'pay' the second bill, I have in fact paid the first bill and will have to claim back my money with the second. I still don't know what the 3rd bill is for.

Joined-up-thinking at its best. And you know what - it's my taxes that pay for it.

The CAP and rebate conundrum

There has been a lot of press and blog coverage of the CAP/UK rebate in the last few weeks. For my first big politics post in a while, I thought I would discuss some of the issues that seem to have been forgotten. I was in favor of keeping our rebate and the only way I would be happy for it to be given up is if France (and others) give up the gravy train known as the CAP. In fact, my preferred outcome was no CAP, no rebate and an overall EU budget divided by two.

But let's just look at the figures before making any rash decisions.

Agriculture accounts for a variable percentage oF EU GDP, depending on who you ask. The BBC claim agriculture accounts for 1.6% of GDP whereas the CIA claim it is 2.2%. I could not find a consensus, so let's assume it is 2% (1). European GDP is 9060bn Euros (2), so agriculture accounts for 182bn Euros. Critics of the CAP argue between 40 and 50% of the EU's budget is spent on it, corresponding to 49bn euros (3). Now that is a *lot* of subsidy going into agriculture considering its constribution to GDP. On the other hand, if you take a look at the social security budget of Germany - one country within the EU - dwarfs the 49bn spent on CAP! There are arguments for and against the CAP and I was swayed by those against, but now I sincerely doubt the answer lies with these macroeconomic figures. One must look at the human cost, too.


There were 12,218,600 family members(4) and 6,352,690 full time employees (5) working on 6,770,690 farms (6). With just over 2600 euros going to each and every farm worker (or alternatively over 7700 euros to each farm), it would make a big dent in their pockets if the CAP was scrapped. The average income (7) for a farm in Germany is 33,600 euros, so stopping the CAP would be the same as reducing the farm's income by 22%. Would it be worth being a farmer in Germany? I would say not. Removing the CAP subsidies would decimate the landscape of Germany (8), and I would wager the rest of Europe too. Farming would be unsustainable.

We all remember what happened to those UK areas dependent on mining in the 80's and I for one would not welcome such drastic changes again. Although I think the state subsidy of the UK coal industry was wrong, I also believe that the way Margarate Thatcher went about changing the subsidies system, by having 20 uneconomical coalmine closures announced (20,000 jobs) which led to a yaer of strikes, was disastrous.

I have changed my mind. For me, the best outcome of Tony Bliars presidency of the EU is a stalemate. I don't know what the solution is, but at least in the short term, it can't be abolishing the CAP.




Notes:
(1) The BBC numbers are for 2005, CIA for 2004. It is highly unlikely there would be a decrease in agricultural GDP of 0.6% in 1 year - that corresponds to 50bn euros. We would know about that level of reduction!! More likely is that the calculations to estimate GDP are based on different methodologies.
(2) Figures for 2000 and 15 member states.
(3) Figures for 2005
(4) Of working age in 2000.
(5) Sum of all employees, including part time employees in 2000: e.g. two part time employees working 50% each have been summed up to make one full time employee.
(6) In 2000. The smallest 1% of farms were not surveyed.
(7) Figures for 2003/4. It seems a lot, but considering that there are on average two family members and one employee for each farm, that's 10,000 euroes each - about £7000!
(8) In Germany, 54% of the land mass is used for agriculture.

Switzerland

My wife has just found the following in our 'Moving to Switzerland' book:

"When you give birth in a Swiss hospital, you must provide the name or names of both sexes in advance from an approved list of names. The approved list of names may not apply to foreigners, although you may need to show that the name you choose is normal in your country"

How does one 'show that the name you chose is normal'? What an odd country!

The biggest prank in TV history

Is a hoax. Space Cadets is not what it seems. My wife spotted on the 'give blood' advert (Gordon Ramsey section) on of the 'cadets' who is supposedly an electrician. He has an easily identifiable Shaggy-style ginger afro. One of the real cadets is in fact an actor. This is the biggest prank in TV history, but the joke is on us.


Remember - you heard it here first!

***Update
Found a movie of the advert in question and took a screen grab:


Here is an image, taken from the Channel Four website of 'Ryan':


QED.


***Update 2
They just got out of a right hand drive bus. If it was a Russian bus, it would be left hand drive.

QED.



***Update 3
It appears our Ryan ain't the only actor in the bunch. Check this out:

from performersdirectory.com

Compare that photograph to this:


QED

The Halifax employ cretins

I would just like to point out that the Halifax employ stupid staff that don't know what they are talking about. My wife and I are making an investment from the proceeds of our house sale and will be resident of a non-EU country in a few weeks. We will not be UK tax payers as we will not be resident. So we want to invest the money in as tax efficient way as possible - i.e such that not a single penny ends up in Gordon's pockets. I wandered along to the Halifax for a chat with one of their financial advisors. He recommended a product that would add nothing to my tax burden unless I was a higher rate tax payer (in which case I would have to pay tax of 20%), as the Halifax pay corporation tax and thus, upon expiry, this investment could be returned to me with whatever growth it makes tax free. The product ticked all of the boxes AND I wouldn't have to pay any tax. He told me I would receive the money gross! PERFECT!

But hold on. This was too good to be true and it made no sense. I did some googling and happened upon this great website. For the particular product the Halifax recomended to me, bestinvest says the following:
"Returns are quoted 'net ' of standard rate taxation.
If the holder is a higher rate payer (40%), a further 20% tax is due, calculated on the income or growth.
As the returns are quoted 'net', they need to be grossed up to be compared with Bank and Building Society deposit rates, Gilts and National Savings.
The tax credit cannot be reclaimed, which makes these Bonds inappropriate for non taxpayers, overseas investors, pensions and company investments."

So they recommended a product that was inappropriate for non taxpayers and overseas investors to an overseas investor that doesn't pay any UK tax. Not only that, but the tax is taken at source, so they would give me a lower growth rate to pay for it. That could be many thousands when taking compound interest into account.

On another part of the website, I found the following:

In our experience investors commonly make three major mistakes when choosing funds.
.....[snip].....
3. Investing in funds from 'household name' investment groups, probably the best known financial institutions are banks and insurers, both of whom have a generally dismal fund management track record. One of the most successful fund groups in recent times has been Artemis, yet who had heard of them six years ago?"

It appears the Halifax 'household name' has dismal investment advice too. I opted for an investment where capital gains tax is due when it is cashed in. We can either use our £20,000 CGT limit if we live in the UK or cash it in whilst still living abroad.

I now understand how so many people have been taken for a ride. I always thought they were stupid to part with money if they didn't understand what they were purchasing. The problem is, the products and tax rules surrounding them are incredibly complicated, and the people selling the products are stupid. Unfortunately, the advisors don't know they are stupid.

Mr Blair

With thanks to Gav, I have sent Mr Blair in response to the Democracy Movement's virtual march. My message is below:

I am writing to you Mr Blair to inform you I do not wish the British rebate to be frittered away. Any surrender of funds to the corrupt EU coffers would not send a helpful signal to the other member states who benefit unfairly from the CAP. The EU's accounts have not been signed-off in 11 years and I object to paying even more of my taxes into it without something in return.

I am happy for you to relinquish our rebate if, and only if, it is in return for a relinquished CAP. If France (and others) can be selfish by refusing to even consider a reduction in CAP, then our great nation can be equally as selfish.

Apologies

For not writing many posts this week. A London trip, coupled with a broken computer, made life difficult.

To any scientists (with macs) out there: DO NOT INSTALL CERN MATHLIB!! The installer over-rights /var /usr and /opt!!!! These three directories contain the system information - i.e the operating system. To the Windows buffs out there, that is like deleting c:\Windows! It does the computer no good at all.

I am not impressed.

London

Having recently returned from London, I have come to realise it's a completely different world to where I live now (and will be living in a couple of weeks). I had a meeting with someone from the Queen Mary's Physics Department (Univ. London). Not only does the building have a keycard entry system, the office doors must also be locked when unoccupied. The keycard system is there to prevent people from the outside getting in and stealing. The locked offices are required to stop people on the inside stealing! Not only that, but the guy I met recently had his diary stolen from his pocket - a diary? What possible monetary value would a half-used diary have to a thief?

Even with the problems with crime, I have decided my wife is correct. She has wanted to move (back) there for a number of years - but I always remained to be convinced. I now am - it would be wonderful to live in London. I think the next move will be to the metropolis. We'd better make some money so we can afford a house!

Off and away

I will be in London for the next couple of days, so posting will be infrequent.

Fuckwhit accountants

The expenses claim form where I work has changed from a simple A4 page that can be photocopied and distributed with ease to an online all-in-one Oracle powered monster.

It:
a) Requires information I do not possess and complains vigorously when I try and skip these parts. I mean, what exactly is the 'cost centre', 'analysis code', 'detail code' and 'pay element' for each thing I am trying to claim for? No one has told me this. When I ask the finance clerk in our department, I am told I have to find out. BUT THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO BY ASKING YOU!!!! The old form I could just leave blank at let someone else deal with it - and it always worked.
b) Takes about an hour to fill in, as it asks me things that I do not know (see a) and I have to chase people up to get the information required. The old form took me 5 minutes to fill in. When I asked the accounts clerk why they introduced it, as it really doesn't improve my efficiency, she said that she used to have to look the codes up in a book for everyone who submitted a claim. It takes me an hour to find this shit out. I'd wager it takes everyone else an hour to find this shit out. It takes her 5 minutes per claim to find this shit out. Ergo, it is 12 times less efficient than the old paper system.
c) Has *HUGE* technical issues with anything remotely non-MS. I work with computers - all day. I have six computers at my disposal with 4 operating systems spread liberally amongst them. Not a single one of them has, or ever will have, Windows installed on it. In fact, to get access to a windows computer, I literally have to walk to the other side of the building. Ergo to use this online form......
d) Generates a PDF that has to be PRINTED. This is because the head of department needs to sign all the claims off. It's not as if this silly form offers online submission of expenses - I still have to trundle upstairs and give it to the finance clerk.

The people who designed this farce work for a department called "Business Improvements". Firstly, how is a university a business? IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION! And secondly, THIS FORM ISN'T AN IMPROVEMENT!

Fuckwhits the lot of them.

Pensions and the public sector

According to the Times today (couldn't find it on timesonline - but reference to it is here on a random google find), the pay gap between the public and private sector have increased to almost £1. The average hourly wage in the public sector is £12.67 compared to £11.75 in the private sector. Nope - it's not a typo. The ONS release the statistics in a few days.

What is the justification of the public sector unions resisting proposals to increase retirement age to 65? Why are they threatening to strike over pay, pensions and conditions, when they are already better than you can get in the private sector?

The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period.

Over on Wonkotsane's blog, I found the following:
On the 8th of June, Simon Burns MP asked Traitor Blair "Will the Prime Minister tell us if the UK rebate is negotiable?"

Traitor Blair replied "The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period."

It appears the BBC have picked up on this little gem - or so we are to believed by the introduction of the Sunday AM this morning. Unfortunately, the Minister for Europe was not asked about it. Why mention it if you aren't going to follow it up, Mr Marr? Bring back Frost (and On The Record) is what I say.

This week, Bliar offered a £1bn per year reduction in our rebate for what appears to be very little in return. That was put to the Minister for Europe. He failed to answer the questions put to him regarding whether we loose the £1bn if the budget deal was not made - can we just take that £1bn off the table if Bliar's compromise isn't accepted? The minister just said "our rebate will grow not diminish, whatever the outcome of the talks". Fuckwhit.

Tax

Below are a list of policy announcements/ideas, leaks from government departments or speeches from Labour politicians since the 2005 General Election. The list probably isn't complete. It doesn't include the additional taxes we pay due to inflation (e.g stamp duty or inheritance tax or taxes on fuels). They may not be all 'official policy' yet, but it does point to a worrying direction. I wonder what we have in store over the next six month.

Land tax - a new tax on land sold for development is reported.

Windfall tax on banks - Brown is reported to be making moves on banks offsetting their tax bill against bad debt.

National Lottery funds diverted - an example of this was money spent on improving school meals, traditionally paid for out of the Education department's budget. What other departmental budgets have been subsidised?

Flood tax - a tax increase to pay for flood defences.

Insurers' surplus funds - a tax without consultation, on the money insurers need to keep in reserve in the event of a large number of claims.

Council tax - double figure increases announced.

Scenery - yes, sea views, proximity to golf courses or swimming pools could be taxed.

Any more for any more?

Land Tax

How is being "committed to making housing affordable, both through helping to increase the supply of housing and measures to help home buyers, especially first-time buyers" compatible with charging a 20% tax on the sale of land for housing development?

A £3bn per year tax, charged at 20%, indicates total yearly land sales of £15bn. In 2001, 175,000 new houses were built. Assuming the new build rate has remained relatively constant, with an average house price of £194,589, total new sales are £34bn per year.

In conclusion, Gordon Brown thinks increasing new house prices by levying a 10% tax (in addition to stamp duty) will make houses more affordable and increase supply. What a plonker.

Update 7pm:
It seems Brown isn't the only plonker in politics. Salisbury district council has taken a house owner to court for refusing to smear poo on her house. She was also asked to smear yoghurt and soot, and complied, but neither of the two substances were in keeping with the surroundings. She could be fined £20,000.

Oh, and Prescott seems to think he can help the housing market respond better to demands. What part of the word "housing market" doesn't he understand? One would hope that, since he lives (and works) in a house, he would know what one of those is.

A solution

The CSA costs 50% more to run than it recovers. For every £1.85 that gets through to children, £1 is spent on bureaucratic costs. The solution? Sack every CSA civil servant and sell the office space it uses. Use the money saved to support single parents.