Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell on form again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42833048

So much bullshit, populist stirring and delusion it's hard to know where to start...

Go on then... start..... i ll read your musings when i get in from work.

Long shift?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell on form again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42833048

So much bullshit, populist stirring and delusion it's hard to know where to start...

Go on then... start..... i ll read your musings when i get in from work.

Long shift?

yeah migrating an HP network to Cisco, in s.wales got in at 5 tonight.

i guess McD is just saying what a lot of people feel "why can some cut their tax bill, whilst those on PAYE cannot?" also, one of the R4 commentators explained all this very well, tax efficiency = what Gov intended ie ISA's etc. Avoidance = what Gov didnt intend but still within the law and evasion = fraud.

Maybe some of these firms are focus to much on avoidance? certainly seems that way and my ex (an accountant) thought so, though i do think Parliaments role is to limit this, not a firms.

Nothing wrong with being populist, its how folk get elected and why we ve got Brexit... hang on!

Aside, why are you getting tax refunds? your PAYE arent you? surely your tax acc is kept up to date? so there shouldnt be over payment? i hope you ve not got stung with the child benefit limits and pay back.

tangled_metal

If it's not legal its evasion, if it's legal it's tax efficiency / avoidance. An ISA is legal but it is still a form of tax accordance. Just like tax allowances many private individuals can make tax efficient choices to avoid tax. PAYE people can be tax efficient too it's just whether they have the knowledge and inclination.

With big business I'm guessing the higher savings is the issue. If I reduce my tax bill by a few hundred pounds that's OK. If a big business makes the same proportion of savings it's not.

Of course I'm just guessing because I'm one of the dumb schmucks who accept whatever tax is taken at PAYE without checking. I don't begrudge businesses making tax savings I just want confidence that they are according to the law but above all within the spirit of the law of there's such a thing.

All Labour are doing is feeding on the perception that not paying tax for business made in the UK is avoidance and other seemingly unfair practises. Then the "deals" made with HMRC. However they have no idea about how to actually do anything to help the situation. They keep making lame comments about making businesses do one thing or another that's against their interests.

mamba80

Not just income tax though is it? vat, council tax etc

Proportionately, dont the poorest 10% pay about 42% in taxes but the wealthiest 10% pay about 34% ?

whats rather surprising is mr/mrs average pay similar amount to the wealthiest....

Tax accountants dont only limit their expertise to income tax efficiency.

i do disagree with you on the eff/avoidance thing, an ISA is a method laid down by parliament to help a tax payer make additional savings on their tax burden and is available to all, schemes such as Jimmy Carr or Lewis H used though legal, are not what Parliament intended and are no available to many, that is a clear distinction in most peoples eyes.

tangled_metal

If it's legal what's the difference really? ISA is written in law but financial planning taking into account tax minimisation has to be kept within the law and rules of HMRC will take a look and it'll fail. If they break those laws then they're evasion. Carer's case was more evasion I think and was closed down by HMRC. If HMRC doesn't close a scheme down it must be within the law and no different from an ISA.

The laws regarding tax are very complex laws surrounding ISAs are a lot more simple. I can see how you feel they're more acceptable or more legal.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

McDonnell on form again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42833048

So much bullshit, populist stirring and delusion it's hard to know where to start...

Go on then... start..... i ll read your musings when i get in from work.

Long shift?

yeah migrating an HP network to Cisco, in s.wales got in at 5 tonight.

i guess McD is just saying what a lot of people feel "why can some cut their tax bill, whilst those on PAYE cannot?" also, one of the R4 commentators explained all this very well, tax efficiency = what Gov intended ie ISA's etc. Avoidance = what Gov didnt intend but still within the law and evasion = fraud.

Maybe some of these firms are focus to much on avoidance? certainly seems that way and my ex (an accountant) thought so, though i do think Parliaments role is to limit this, not a firms.

Nothing wrong with being populist, its how folk get elected and why we ve got Brexit... hang on!

Aside, why are you getting tax refunds? your PAYE arent you? surely your tax acc is kept up to date? so there shouldnt be over payment? i hope you ve not got stung with the child benefit limits and pay back.

The fact that I'm on PAYE and can reduce my tax bill just goes to show how wrong McDonnell and maybe public perception can be. Let's just say that tax efficient investment accounts for most of the rebate. Although part of that is coming to an end as I don't want to get stuffed too badly for going over the pensions lifetime limit. Ho hum.

As for the assumption that the big 4 business is principally avoidance - I already commented above. Tax isn't even the majority of their business never mind a particular 'type' of tax advice. A lot of it is simply getting guidance on how to get things done sensibly and legally in what is a hideously complex area for corporates.

tangled_metal

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Aside, why are you getting tax refunds? your PAYE arent you? surely your tax acc is kept up to date? so there shouldnt be over payment? i hope you ve not got stung with the child benefit limits and pay back.

Giving money to charity and a higher rate tax payer?

https://www.gov.uk/donating-to-charity/gift-aid

Why wouldn't you claim a tax refund?

Stevo_666

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Aside, why are you getting tax refunds? your PAYE arent you? surely your tax acc is kept up to date? so there shouldnt be over payment? i hope you ve not got stung with the child benefit limits and pay back.

Giving money to charity and a higher rate tax payer?

https://www.gov.uk/donating-to-charity/gift-aid

Why wouldn't you claim a tax refund?

That as well.

surrey_commuter

Does not look like the fragrant Theresa has long left now, even her "supporters" are damning her with faint praise. If the nutters drive her from office will the other side let it go or will we have another election and would JC stroll to victory?

His road to glory is littered with opponents voting for him - will they finally stop or is the momentum (pun intended) too strong.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Does not look like the fragrant Theresa has long left now, even her "supporters" are damning her with faint praise. If the nutters drive her from office will the other side let it go or will we have another election and would JC stroll to victory?

His road to glory is littered with opponents voting for him - will they finally stop or is the momentum (pun intended) too strong.

Lets see shall we. Your first prediction has to come true first and then the polls are pretty even at present. As for 'nutters driving her from office', how can the left wing of Labour do that?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Does not look like the fragrant Theresa has long left now, even her "supporters" are damning her with faint praise. If the nutters drive her from office will the other side let it go or will we have another election and would JC stroll to victory?

His road to glory is littered with opponents voting for him - will they finally stop or is the momentum (pun intended) too strong.

Lets see shall we. Your first prediction has to come true first and then the polls are pretty even at present. As for 'nutters driving her from office', how can the left wing of Labour do that?

though its true TM is bereft of ideas and policies, tied up with brexit? who would replace her in the middle of brexit negotiations? a GE would be a high risk strategy for the Tories and throw brexit onto the back burner.... the EU/Rest of the world would think us mad and they d have a point too.

Havin said that, the Tories have form for stabbing leaders in the back, their recent actions have hardly been in the national interest.

mamba80

Tangled Metal wrote:

With big business I'm guessing the higher savings is the issue. If I reduce my tax bill by a few hundred pounds that's OK. If a big business makes the same proportion of savings it's not.

only way an individual on paye can reduce their tax bill is by ways Parliament has decided ie ISA's rent room scheme etc

the amounts are relatively small for the individual... Amazon or Apple having convoluted schemes as to where profits are taxed is a billion £ industry and is not what Parliament intended... its tolerated by governments, maybe even encouraged buts thats changing, certainly the EU dont seem impressed. and the paye is getting more p1ssed off with it, esp as more public services fail.

as for the amounts, the individual still pays tax at the nominal rate on the money put into the isa, its the interest that is tax free and tbh rates are so low, most people wouldnt get into the TH anyhow on the interest they are earning.

sgt.pepper

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Does not look like the fragrant Theresa has long left now, even her "supporters" are damning her with faint praise. If the nutters drive her from office will the other side let it go or will we have another election and would JC stroll to victory?

His road to glory is littered with opponents voting for him - will they finally stop or is the momentum (pun intended) too strong.

Lets see shall we. Your first prediction has to come true first and then the polls are pretty even at present. As for 'nutters driving her from office', how can the left wing of Labour do that?

though its true TM is bereft of ideas and policies, tied up with brexit? who would replace her in the middle of brexit negotiations? a GE would be a high risk strategy for the Tories and throw brexit onto the back burner.... the EU/Rest of the world would think us mad and they d have a point too.

Havin said that, the Tories have form for stabbing leaders in the back, their recent actions have hardly been in the national interest.

It's weird to see the UK with two pretty unelectable leaders, normally it's only been one at a time crushing the other, since pretty much the late 70s. I thought TM would walk the last election, but she had just hidden her awfulness well by avoiding too much public attention. I think the tories are letting her take all the Brexit bullets before they stab her in the back, which makes sense.

My friend the other day said he hoped Davis doesn't take over as he didn't want them to have a 'likable face.'

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

rick_chasey

Speaking of privatisation.

You'd think one of the cornerstones of privatisation is pricing transparency, right?

As in, it's easy for customers to see what all the different services cost and to compare them. That way, the 'market' can efficiently allocate the resource as appropriate.

Only, every single person who works on the trains cannot identify the cheapest way to travel from x to y at certain times.

What's galling is, they all seem to know which ticket will fine you, and they won't hesitate to do that.


So here's this for pricing.

First, identify what ticket you are entitled to.

Travelling to Cambridge from kings cross on the 18:14 on a Friday.

Travelling back from Cambridge to Kings cross on a Saturday.

So, first, I need to identify which train company runs the line. Despite Cambridge being in East Anglia, it’s not run by Greater Anglian Trains. Arguably it’s in the South, so perhaps Southern Trains? Nope. Greater Northern, as it turns out.

Now I need to go to their website.

Buried deep on the website is this:

Evening peak time
The return part of an Off-Peak ticket can’t be used on northbound services that leave King’s Cross or Moorgate between 16.30 and 19.01 – but you can use a single Off-Peak or the outward part of a return at these times.
You can use your Off-Peak ticket at any time if:
• You’re travelling northbound to Ely or beyond
• Your journey starts and ends south of Stevenage
• Your journey starts and ends north of Finsbury Park

Now, I’m interested in an off-peak OUTBOUND train from kings cross, which isn’t covered. Can I buy off-peak outwards for my 18:14? My guess is yes, but I’m not sure.

I go to the ticket office to enquire. They say they don’t know, so suggest “to be sure” I should be a more expensive peak ticket.
I then ask to buy my single off-peak journey back from Cambridge to Kings cross on Saturday. But I’m not allowed to do that, because then I would have to go to a different queue and book an “advanced ticket” which would then bind me to a specific train. So I’m told it’s best to then buy an off –peak single on the Saturday on the way back.
I ask how much that would cost and the say they don’t know because the price may change between Friday night and Saturday afternoon.



THIS IS A F*CKING JOKE.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE COST OF THE CHEAPEST COMBINED JOURNEY COST IS.

rick_chasey

On a related note, a summary of the good bad and the ugly of the current state of trains.

https://www.ft.com/content/d82848ca-f7b ... 65a6ce1a00

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Aside, why are you getting tax refunds? your PAYE arent you? surely your tax acc is kept up to date? so there shouldnt be over payment? i hope you ve not got stung with the child benefit limits and pay back.

Giving money to charity and a higher rate tax payer?

https://www.gov.uk/donating-to-charity/gift-aid

Why wouldn't you claim a tax refund?

Gift Aid is a crazy idea.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

Any council and Government can take private property, ask those along the HS2 route or the draconian doubling/trebeling of CT for people who having worked hard to get a property or inherited one, dont want to let it or sell it, you can argue for more house building but financially penalising people for what they want to do with their private property..... ? its not just socialists who do these things but its suits folks agendas to forget what ALL Gov's do..when its convenient.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

Any council and Government can take private property, ask those along the HS2 route or the draconian doubling/trebeling of CT for people who having worked hard to get a property or inherited one, dont want to let it or sell it, you can argue for more house building but financially penalising people for what they want to do with their private property..... ? its not just socialists who do these things but its suits folks agendas to forget what ALL Gov's do..when its convenient.

You have been mugged off if you think they have taken people's houses off them to build HS2

I am genuinely surprised that you object to soaking the rich through increased CT on second homes. It does seem wrong when it is meant to pay for local services, I have never understood why the rich are deemed to use more local services.

mamba80

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

Any council and Government can take private property, ask those along the HS2 route or the draconian doubling/trebeling of CT for people who having worked hard to get a property or inherited one, dont want to let it or sell it, you can argue for more house building but financially penalising people for what they want to do with their private property..... ? its not just socialists who do these things but its suits folks agendas to forget what ALL Gov's do..when its convenient.

You have been mugged off if you think they have taken people's houses off them to build HS2

I am genuinely surprised that you object to soaking the rich through increased CT on second homes. It does seem wrong when it is meant to pay for local services, I have never understood why the rich are deemed to use more local services.

Its still seizing private property though, even if they give 125% of its value, it really doesnt compensate in many cases.

Why? i m not a socialist, i ve never considered myself one, its the tory party and their supporters that have shifted far to the right and abandoned the middle ground. eg imho Thatcher would, on balance, be on the left of todays tory party.

Tax should always be levied on ability to pay, a wealthy bankers holiday home in Rock? fine tax him, a family home left to a son or daughter on a low ish wage, dont tax em so much.

sgt.pepper

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

Any council and Government can take private property, ask those along the HS2 route or the draconian doubling/trebeling of CT for people who having worked hard to get a property or inherited one, dont want to let it or sell it, you can argue for more house building but financially penalising people for what they want to do with their private property..... ? its not just socialists who do these things but its suits folks agendas to forget what ALL Gov's do..when its convenient.

You have been mugged off if you think they have taken people's houses off them to build HS2

I am genuinely surprised that you object to soaking the rich through increased CT on second homes. It does seem wrong when it is meant to pay for local services, I have never understood why the rich are deemed to use more local services.

Its still seizing private property though, even if they give 125% of its value, it really doesnt compensate in many cases.

Why? i m not a socialist, i ve never considered myself one, its the tory party and their supporters that have shifted far to the right and abandoned the middle ground. eg imho Thatcher would, on balance, be on the left of todays tory party.

Depends how you measure it. There were still a lot of the One Nation old-guard in the 80s that had generally accepted the post-war consensus. Tory social policy is more liberal now, economic policy somewhat similar to the Thatcher, but Euroscepticism is also comfortably dominant (Thatcher was actually something of a Europhile).

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

His concerns are at best misplaced - or more likely it is cynical populism that deliberately ignores the facts.

'Aggressive tax planning' may have been more commonplace in the ops, 90s and maybe the early part of the last decade but not any more. I met the big 4 tax partner on our account this morning and showed him the article - he laughed.

McDonnell is stuck in the socialist dogma that all businesses are tax avoided and the accountancy firms are their evil henchmen. Given who is trying to claim this, it is a perfect example of leftiebollox

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Can't privatise private companies.

Anyway him and his boss have proposed seizing private property so if you use that as a benchmark anything is up for grabs

That is concerning - not just nationalisation but now the expropriation of private property. It's good they know what is good for us :roll:

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps they should stop referring to them as the big 4. Anything big and successful is fair game to socialists (except for huge unions of course).

Ironically socialists want to replace successful private operations with big state monopolies in many sectors.

yes soooooo successful that kpmg gave Carrilion a clean bill of health and now they (kpmg) face an investigation of both the company and individual accountants.... over 3 accounting periods... this is the real "comedy"

Fine, let the investigation take its course. But that's not a justification for wholesale nationalisation of either infrastructure firms or accountancy firms.

Nor does it address the point about lack of competition for state monopolies - how would you address that?

You both stated McD/Labour were a comedy act blah blah blah however, it appears his concerns over their conduct are well placed... fyi he never called for privatisation, just that they should stop aggressive tax avoidance or similar.

His concerns are at best misplaced - or more likely it is cynical populism that deliberately ignores the facts.

'Aggressive tax planning' may have been more commonplace in the ops, 90s and maybe the early part of the last decade but not any more. I met the big 4 tax partner on our account this morning and showed him the article - he laughed.

McDonnell is stuck in the socialist dogma that all businesses are tax avoided and the accountancy firms are their evil henchmen. Given who is trying to claim this, it is a perfect example of leftiebollox

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Big 4 accountant partner laughs at McD article... outrageous who d have thought such a thing????? i hope you walked straight out of the room in disgust ?

As seen in the Carillion debacle, they are not innocuous, they do certainly seem to wield alot of power/influence.

Sure rules are tighter, but i lived with an accountant, one of my best friends is married to one, both spend a heck of alot of time advising clients how to reduce their tax bill, often to single digit levels, no doubt all within the rules but as i said McD is just tapping into public opinion, cynical? of course, thats politics unfortunately.

See my points above - what period are you talking about and did these people in your anecdotal evidence work for the big 4?

He laughed because it was leftiebollox. Just as I did. If you think you have a point, come up with some figures for how much of the big 4 revenue is from 'aggressive tax avoidance' and then explain how this would work given the DOTAS regs that apply to any tax 'scheme'.