Hundreds of bosses flee UK over 50% tax
MCP
Britain's financiers and entrepreneurs are quitting the UK at a rate of 10 a
week to avoid Labour's new 50% taxes.
The burgeoning exodus threatens to deepen a �178 billion black hole in the
public finances and leave middle-class voters with higher taxes for years to
come, figures obtained from Companies House reveal.
The number of directors of British businesses registered as living in the
low-tax centres of Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man has risen by almost
500 to 6,729 in the past 12 months.
The British Virgin Islands is also a popular destination, with 615 directors
of UK companies now based in the Caribbean tax haven - an 18% rise on a year
ago.
Those known to be fleeing the UK include hedge fund managers, property
tycoons, bankers and people who made their money setting up companies
organising private healthcare, call centres and luxury holidays.
"The UK model is broken," said Stephen Hedgecock, a partner in Altis, a �1
billion hedge fund company with 35 staff that has relocated to Jersey,
leaving only a small presence in London.
"It's not just the 50% rate - it's National Insurance, the treatment of
pensions ... everything. It's just a ridiculous amount of taxation."
Russell Newton and Danny Masters, co-founders of Global Advisors, another
hedge fund with hundreds of millions of dollars under management, also
abandoned London for Jersey's thriving finance community in the summer.
Another 100 Britons have begun working in the island's businesses since the
downturn began two years ago. The Jersey government said it had seen a 20%
increase in interest from people looking at moving to the island. A new
marketing brochure published by the island's authorities promises "in
Jersey, keep more of what you earn".
The authorities impose corporation tax at 10% and income tax at 20%. There
is no inheritance tax or capital gains tax. Property taxes are also low.
Jersey Finance, an agency set up to attract financial talent to the island,
has held a series of private dinners in London to woo new residents. Geoff
Cook, the agency's chief executive, said: "The 50% tax rate does seem to
have been the tipping point for many people." However, the island's
authorities maintain that the rich often favour Jersey because of the easy
access to London, the sandy beaches, low crime rates and the use of English
as the first language.
"There is a lot of interest right now," said Nigel Philpott, the Jersey
government's head of high net worth residency.
"Last year I was getting one or two calls a day from people who wanted to
come and join us. Now I get four or five on some days."
Paul Bater, 52, a former bank manager from Swansea, is so happy with his
move to Jersey that he has allowed himself to be used as a case study in
promotional literature for Jersey Enterprise. "I love living in Jersey. The
pace of life is much more civilised than anywhere else I have worked," he
said.
John George, the owner of Jag Communications, the UK's third biggest mobile
phone retailer, has moved to Guernsey, Jersey's neighbour.
The 48-year-old businessman now commutes by private plane to his company's
office at Perranporth, Cornwall. The journey takes just 30 minutes - and
ends at his privately owned airfield.
"It's very easy, very straightforward and I never get stuck at the lights or
any of that," said George. His office is fewer than five minutes from the
airfield.
His wife Susan, who joined Jag's board in March, is one of 498 directors and
partners of UK companies identified on a list from Companies House of those
who now give their addresses as Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man. A
further 91 UK companies have registered in these islands in the past year.
The research also includes islanders who have joined the boards of British
firms in the past year.
The tally, assembled by Philip Beresford, compiler of The Sunday Times Rich
List, represents one of the first attempts to quantify the scale of the
exodus.
For years considered little more than family holiday resorts, Jersey and
Guernsey have become a playground for the rich in recent years, with
Michelin-starred restaurants, luxury spas and hotels. Almost one in five of
the island's workers has a job in financial services. There are nearly 3,000
experts who help people set up trusts and companies - a rise of 12% since
the onset of economic downturn.
It is a similar situation in the Isle of Man, which says it has seen a 20%
growth in the non-banking financial sector.
The influx has also proved lucrative for Jersey's estate agents. James de la
Cloche, director of Edge, a property consultancy, said: "We love Gordon
[Brown] and Alistair [Darling] over here - we rather hope they get another
term."
Meanwhile, City bankers and dealers are turning to libel and privacy lawyers
to try to stop the media scrutinising their earnings, assets and lifestyle.
Bankers say the row over their bonuses means they are seen as targets.
They complain of being pursued by paparazzi, of reporters trawling through
their social networking sites and long-range telephoto lenses being trained
on their living rooms.
Marcus Aurelius
The USA should definitively do the same!
Why?
What is "monopoly capitalism"? In "Monopoly capitalism", capital is
exported from a nation instead of products produced by a nation's own
citizens.
What is "capital"? Capital is money, labor, and industry.
"Monopoly capitalism" tends to concentrate both economic power and
political power in a few individuals and entities.
"Monopoly capitalism" tends to impoverish the general citizenry.
'Monopoly capitalism" tends to destroy "true capitalism".
"True capitalism" is defined as possessing "competition" and "free
enterprise."
"True capitalism" tends to increase total wealth and distribute the
same more equitably and widely amongst the general electorate.
"True capitalism", also, tends to distribute political power more
widely amongst the general population.
Economic theorists assert that "monopoly capitalism" is the last
stage
of capitalism before some form of socialism replaces the same.
If we are to maintain our personal freedoms and maintain our high
standard of living, we must assertively and appropriately address the
evils of monopoly capitalism.
One of the other characteristics of “monopoly capitalism” is
aggressive, illegal, and criminal foreign wars
as a means to promulgate the aforementioned means and ends of
“monopoly capitalism.”
It is rather unusual for true capitalistic democratic republican
democracies to engage in wars of aggression.
One means to address the evils of “Monopoly Capitalism”, in my
opinion, is to change our current “winner take all”, “Gerry mandered”,
and “bought” form of electoral representation to some form of
“proportional” electoral representation. The same would make it much
more difficult for “special interest” groups to monopolize the
political and economic processes. The USA, the UK, and Canada are the
only world democracies that don’t utilize some form of “proportional”
electoral representation.
Andrew Usher
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954613.ece
Let me give a critique that should make a little more sense than that
of 'Marcus Aurelius' (not that he's wrong).
These taxes are not abnormally high. They are what you'd expect in a
modern country. It's the tax havens that are abnormally low. They, by
using their tax status to attract the wealthy, are just leeching off
productive countries. There simply needs to be some law changes to
make tax havens ineffective, e.g. collecting British income taxes on
all compensation paid by British companies, at least at the top.
Andrew Usher
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66a85a90-ba31-41da...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> MCP wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954613.ece
>
> These taxes are not abnormally high.
I disagree.
> They are what you'd expect in a modern country.
So? That only tells one that "a modern country" has
modern means of looting its residents. After all,
to be "a modern country" requires an expensive but
unneeded Nanny State apparatus along with an
expensive, productivity-sapping Welfare State
to act as the polygynous pseudo-husband to a harem
of sprog-whelping unfit and sexually irresponsible
females.
There's a lot of ruin in "a modern country" and
excessive taxation is how politicians raise the funds
to produce that ruin.
> It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
> They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> are just leeching off productive countries.
By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
"productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
> There simply needs to be some law changes to
> make tax havens ineffective, e.g. collecting British
> income taxes on all compensation paid by British
> companies, at least at the top.
Go right ahead, Britain. That might chase a lot of
banking, finance, and trading activity out of the tax and
regulation-avoidance haven that is the City of London
back across the Atlantic to Wall Street. (Or not,
because at least one dodge to your soak-your-betters
scheme is screamingly obvious, Andrew Usher.)
--
Government does not cause affluence.
Citizens of totalitarian countries
have plenty of government and nothing
of anything else.
P.J. O'Rourke
Andrew Usher
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954613.ece
> >
> > These taxes are not abnormally high.
>
> I disagree.
Well I don't. And I think the people actually governing probably have
a better understanding of what's needed. One can't evaluate government
solely by the bad things they (allegedly) cause.
> > They are what you'd expect in a modern country.
>
> So? That only tells one that "a modern country" has
> modern means of looting its residents. After all,
> to be "a modern country" requires an expensive but
> unneeded Nanny State apparatus along with an
> expensive, productivity-sapping Welfare State
> to act as the polygynous pseudo-husband to a harem
> of sprog-whelping unfit and sexually irresponsible
> females.
Red herring!
> > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
>
> Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
Another one.
> > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > are just leeching off productive countries.
>
> By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
And yet another. You would think it would be obvious that the subject
is tax havens, not social spending.
> > There simply needs to be some law changes to
> > make tax havens ineffective, e.g. collecting British
> > income taxes on all compensation paid by British
> > companies, at least at the top.
>
> Go right ahead, Britain. That might chase a lot of
> banking, finance, and trading activity out of the tax and
> regulation-avoidance haven that is the City of London
> back across the Atlantic to Wall Street.
Possible, but they wouldn't be missing that much. Anyway, if the US,
Britain, and other rich countries agreed to enforce a common policy
against tax havens, they would all benefit.
> (Or not,
> because at least one dodge to your soak-your-betters
> scheme is screamingly obvious, Andrew Usher.)
And what's that? (Other than that above.)
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:66a85a90-ba31-41da...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MCP wrote:
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954613.ece
> >
> > These taxes are not abnormally high.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > They are what you'd expect in a modern country.
>
> So? That only tells one that "a modern country" has
> modern means of looting its residents. After all,
> to be "a modern country" requires an expensive but
> unneeded Nanny State apparatus along with an
> expensive, productivity-sapping Welfare State
> to act as the polygynous pseudo-husband to a harem
> of sprog-whelping unfit and sexually irresponsible
> females.
>
> There's a lot of ruin in "a modern country" and
> excessive taxation is how politicians raise the funds
> to produce that ruin.
One of the common arguments for feminism is that countries that tend to
have feminist tendencies tend to have high living standards.
In other words, correlation equals causation.
I love to retort that most of these countries have Christian histories
to them and that usually gets them to change the subject quickly. :-)
Or that these countries also tend to have a lot of white males in charge.
On the contrary, the welfare/nanny state nations have sucked away
resources that could have gone into delivering what dreamers at the
beginning of the 20th century imaged as a world to end poverty, war, and
enter the space age. We gave up our flying cars so that we could get
more women bureaucrats and DV shelters for college women who don't want
to pay for dorms.
> > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
>
> Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
to do and it's normal.
> > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > are just leeching off productive countries.
>
> By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
Do they then bring up Japan? ;-)
> Or that these countries also tend to have a lot of white males in charge.
But sometimes a black man at the top! ;-)
>
> On the contrary, the welfare/nanny state nations have sucked away
> resources that could have gone into delivering what dreamers at the
> beginning of the 20th century imaged as a world to end poverty, war, and
> enter the space age. We gave up our flying cars so that we could get
> more women bureaucrats and DV shelters for college women who don't want
> to pay for dorms.
Have you ever thought about the reality of a flying car---as opposed
to the dream? Think about air traffic congestion, fuel inefficiency,
noise pollution, then tell me you want one in your neighbor's
back yard. I don't want that. One of my neighbors has a helicopter
(Hughes 500C), which he occasionally lands in the parking lot of
his business---which is across my back fence. The thought of
a few dozen vehicles of similar efficiency all taking off for the
morning commute makes me shudder!
My personal wish for transportation improvement is maglev
trains for fast, efficient, intercity transportation.
>
> > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> >
> > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
>
> Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
Still? I didn't know the British ever had a nuclear aircraft carrier.
The French have just one. OTOH, both countries have multiple subs
with nuclear ballistic missile capability. That capability is a much
better deterrent than an aircraft carrier. Carriers are better for
power projection if you have to support a large force fighting in
someone else's country.
>
> I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
> and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
> to do and it's normal.
>
Perhaps he'd think it would be easier to conquer if the power were
more concentrated!
> > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> >
> > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
>
> Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
Don't need McCain for that. There are already plenty of Airbus aircraft
being flown by US airlines.
>
> > > There simply needs to be some law changes to
> > > make tax havens ineffective, e.g. collecting British
> > > income taxes on all compensation paid by British
> > > companies, at least at the top.
> >
> > Go right ahead, Britain. That might chase a lot of
> > banking, finance, and trading activity out of the tax and
> > regulation-avoidance haven that is the City of London
> > back across the Atlantic to Wall Street. (Or not,
> > because at least one dodge to your soak-your-betters
> > scheme is screamingly obvious, Andrew Usher.)
>
Mark Borgerson
Andrew Usher
> One of the common arguments for feminism is that countries that tend to
> have feminist tendencies tend to have high living standards.
>
> In other words, correlation equals causation.
>
> I love to retort that most of these countries have Christian histories
> to them and that usually gets them to change the subject quickly. :-)
> Or that these countries also tend to have a lot of white males in charge.
Now this is true - and the latter is definitely causal.
> On the contrary, the welfare/nanny state nations have sucked away
> resources that could have gone into delivering what dreamers at the
> beginning of the 20th century imaged as a world to end poverty, war, and
> enter the space age. We gave up our flying cars so that we could get
> more women bureaucrats and DV shelters for college women who don't want
> to pay for dorms.
But no country has done that in the 20th century. So are you resorting
again to the imaginary Libertopia? Things have gone wrong, no doubt,
but I have no confidence in your prescriptions.
> > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> >
> > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
>
> Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
How does the nuclear aircraft carrier benefit me? The US doesn't even
benefit anymore from having the strongest military in the world
because we don't use it in ways that would make a difference.
> > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> >
> > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
>
> Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
Whatever.
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
Japan's westernized values and social mores were imposed upon it by
General Douglas MacArthur. You might want to look that up. :-)
> > Or that these countries also tend to have a lot of white males in charge.
>
> But sometimes a black man at the top! ;-)
Well, we do have the Zimbabwe economic model going on...
> > On the contrary, the welfare/nanny state nations have sucked away
> > resources that could have gone into delivering what dreamers at the
> > beginning of the 20th century imaged as a world to end poverty, war, and
> > enter the space age. We gave up our flying cars so that we could get
> > more women bureaucrats and DV shelters for college women who don't want
> > to pay for dorms.
>
> Have you ever thought about the reality of a flying car---as opposed
> to the dream?
Sure. :-) I suppose it would a lot like if we all had private jets to
fly to Copenhagen to speak about the effect of people flying around in
jets destroying the environment. :-)
> Think about air traffic congestion, fuel inefficiency,
> noise pollution, then tell me you want one in your neighbor's
> back yard.
The same could be said for the original horseless carriage. Those evil
contraptions were strictly regulated due to their noise and smoky
belching and scaring the horses. :-)
In theory, it would be great if we had technologies to make flying cars
efficient, safe, and quiet but scientific merit has fallen low on the
backburner recently to PC dogma of feminism and global warming. If I
want science, I go to Catholic school.
> I don't want that. One of my neighbors has a helicopter
> (Hughes 500C), which he occasionally lands in the parking lot of
> his business---which is across my back fence. The thought of
> a few dozen vehicles of similar efficiency all taking off for the
> morning commute makes me shudder!
>
> My personal wish for transportation improvement is maglev
> trains for fast, efficient, intercity transportation.
Not necessary.
In Europe, people use normal electric trams and light rail to get around
as well as minibusses that are on an aggressive schedule (they leave
every 15 minutes or so) with several connections. Of course, the people
who use such transportation all dress appropriately and don't engage in
loud, obnoxious behavior and accuse those who ask them to behave as
"racists".
In addition, the middle class including liberals have moved out to
suburbs and out of the inner cities where such high density heavy rail
is useful.
> > > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
> >
> > Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
> Still? I didn't know the British ever had a nuclear aircraft carrier.
> The French have just one. OTOH, both countries have multiple subs
> with nuclear ballistic missile capability. That capability is a much
> better deterrent than an aircraft carrier. Carriers are better for
> power projection if you have to support a large force fighting in
> someone else's country.
Provided that their enemies are kind enough to use ballistic missiles
themseves and identify themselves for retaliation...
> > I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
> > and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
> > to do and it's normal.
> >
> Perhaps he'd think it would be easier to conquer if the power were
> more concentrated!
He needn't bother! :-)
> > > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> > >
> > > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
> >
> > Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
>
> Don't need McCain for that. There are already plenty of Airbus aircraft
> being flown by US airlines.
I was referring to the bidding war for the refueling tanker contract.
Granted, Boeing not having an operable prototype until recently hampered
them tremendously...
Mark Borgerson
Did he turn them into Christians?
>
> > > Or that these countries also tend to have a lot of white males in charge.
> >
> > But sometimes a black man at the top! ;-)
>
> Well, we do have the Zimbabwe economic model going on...
>
> > > On the contrary, the welfare/nanny state nations have sucked away
> > > resources that could have gone into delivering what dreamers at the
> > > beginning of the 20th century imaged as a world to end poverty, war, and
> > > enter the space age. We gave up our flying cars so that we could get
> > > more women bureaucrats and DV shelters for college women who don't want
> > > to pay for dorms.
> >
> > Have you ever thought about the reality of a flying car---as opposed
> > to the dream?
>
> Sure. :-) I suppose it would a lot like if we all had private jets to
> fly to Copenhagen to speak about the effect of people flying around in
> jets destroying the environment. :-)
>
> > Think about air traffic congestion, fuel inefficiency,
> > noise pollution, then tell me you want one in your neighbor's
> > back yard.
>
> The same could be said for the original horseless carriage. Those evil
> contraptions were strictly regulated due to their noise and smoky
> belching and scaring the horses. :-)
>
> In theory, it would be great if we had technologies to make flying cars
> efficient, safe, and quiet but scientific merit has fallen low on the
> backburner recently to PC dogma of feminism and global warming. If I
> want science, I go to Catholic school.
Even the best of technologies seldom get to repeal the laws of
physics. It takes a lot of energy to lift a person and a car
out of your back yard. Expending that energy without generating
noise is a bit beyond the best of today's scientists.
>
> > I don't want that. One of my neighbors has a helicopter
> > (Hughes 500C), which he occasionally lands in the parking lot of
> > his business---which is across my back fence. The thought of
> > a few dozen vehicles of similar efficiency all taking off for the
> > morning commute makes me shudder!
> >
> > My personal wish for transportation improvement is maglev
> > trains for fast, efficient, intercity transportation.
>
> Not necessary.
>
> In Europe, people use normal electric trams and light rail to get around
> as well as minibusses that are on an aggressive schedule (they leave
> every 15 minutes or so) with several connections. Of course, the people
> who use such transportation all dress appropriately and don't engage in
> loud, obnoxious behavior and accuse those who ask them to behave as
> "racists".
>
> In addition, the middle class including liberals have moved out to
> suburbs and out of the inner cities where such high density heavy rail
> is useful.
They do have TGV's, though. The difference between intercity trains in
Europe and the US is that the cities are a bit further apart---
particularly in the Western US. In September, I took intercity trains
in the US from Albany, Oregon, to NYC. It took about 3-1/2 days!
That was only about 1000 miles per day---or 42MPH!
>
> > > > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > > > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > > > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > > > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
> > >
> > > Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
> > Still? I didn't know the British ever had a nuclear aircraft carrier.
> > The French have just one. OTOH, both countries have multiple subs
> > with nuclear ballistic missile capability. That capability is a much
> > better deterrent than an aircraft carrier. Carriers are better for
> > power projection if you have to support a large force fighting in
> > someone else's country.
>
> Provided that their enemies are kind enough to use ballistic missiles
> themseves and identify themselves for retaliation...
Hmmm, if Russia mounted an airborne invasion of the UK without nuclear
missiles, do you think the British would hesitate to use their SLBMs?
I think they might hesitate, but they would eventually use them.
>
> > > I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
> > > and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
> > > to do and it's normal.
> > >
> > Perhaps he'd think it would be easier to conquer if the power were
> > more concentrated!
>
> He needn't bother! :-)
>
> > > > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> > > >
> > > > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > > > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > > > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
> > >
> > > Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
> >
> > Don't need McCain for that. There are already plenty of Airbus aircraft
> > being flown by US airlines.
>
> I was referring to the bidding war for the refueling tanker contract.
> Granted, Boeing not having an operable prototype until recently hampered
> them tremendously...
There's also the A380 question. It's big, it's efficient, but it won't
fit on the runways and at the boarding gates of most US airports.
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
He imposed the values of Christian nations onto them including our
feminine idealization of women as the Virgin Mary. :-)
That wouldn't be possible today since the military is now too PC to go
that far even when it's amazingly paradoxical. (We liberated women in
Afghanistan to impose Islamic law upon them. But now it's a
CONSTITUTIONAL Islamic republic! :-)
Today's scientists were not picked primarily on technical merit...
(Especially at the climate change researching agencies. :-)
> > > I don't want that. One of my neighbors has a helicopter
> > > (Hughes 500C), which he occasionally lands in the parking lot of
> > > his business---which is across my back fence. The thought of
> > > a few dozen vehicles of similar efficiency all taking off for the
> > > morning commute makes me shudder!
> > >
> > > My personal wish for transportation improvement is maglev
> > > trains for fast, efficient, intercity transportation.
> >
> > Not necessary.
> >
> > In Europe, people use normal electric trams and light rail to get around
> > as well as minibusses that are on an aggressive schedule (they leave
> > every 15 minutes or so) with several connections. Of course, the people
> > who use such transportation all dress appropriately and don't engage in
> > loud, obnoxious behavior and accuse those who ask them to behave as
> > "racists".
> >
> > In addition, the middle class including liberals have moved out to
> > suburbs and out of the inner cities where such high density heavy rail
> > is useful.
>
> They do have TGV's, though. The difference between intercity trains in
> Europe and the US is that the cities are a bit further apart---
> particularly in the Western US.
I've heard this rationalization before but it doesn't apply especially
to blue state rust belt sections which are mired in gridlock. Those
middle class white women don't want to ride on the bus for some reason...
More on this in a bit:
> In September, I took intercity trains
> in the US from Albany, Oregon, to NYC. It took about 3-1/2 days!
> That was only about 1000 miles per day---or 42MPH!
The intercity trains in Eastern Europe also have wide expanses of
wilderness. Didja ever hear of the trans-siberian railroad? (I highly
suggest you take it. My wife is a travel wimp but I would love to see 9
time zones in 2 weeks. Lions, Tigers, and bears oh my! (Literally.
Ok, no lions :-)
> > > > > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > > > > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > > > > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > > > > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
> > > >
> > > > Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
> > > Still? I didn't know the British ever had a nuclear aircraft carrier.
> > > The French have just one. OTOH, both countries have multiple subs
> > > with nuclear ballistic missile capability. That capability is a much
> > > better deterrent than an aircraft carrier. Carriers are better for
> > > power projection if you have to support a large force fighting in
> > > someone else's country.
> >
> > Provided that their enemies are kind enough to use ballistic missiles
> > themseves and identify themselves for retaliation...
>
> Hmmm, if Russia mounted an airborne invasion of the UK without nuclear
> missiles, do you think the British would hesitate to use their SLBMs?
Hahahaha!
Russia perhaps should just send over refugees to go on welfare. That
seems to be working for the other invaders! :-)
> I think they might hesitate, but they would eventually use them.
> >
> > > > I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
> > > > and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
> > > > to do and it's normal.
> > > >
> > > Perhaps he'd think it would be easier to conquer if the power were
> > > more concentrated!
> >
> > He needn't bother! :-)
> >
> > > > > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > > > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > > > > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > > > > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
> > > >
> > > > Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
> > >
> > > Don't need McCain for that. There are already plenty of Airbus aircraft
> > > being flown by US airlines.
> >
> > I was referring to the bidding war for the refueling tanker contract.
> > Granted, Boeing not having an operable prototype until recently hampered
> > them tremendously...
>
> There's also the A380 question. It's big, it's efficient, but it won't
> fit on the runways and at the boarding gates of most US airports.
Or military landing strips...
Mark Borgerson
Hmmm, I wonder if he was responsible for the common fetish for
young women in school uniforms? ;-)
>
> That wouldn't be possible today since the military is now too PC to go
> that far even when it's amazingly paradoxical. (We liberated women in
> Afghanistan to impose Islamic law upon them. But now it's a
> CONSTITUTIONAL Islamic republic! :-)
I've wondered for years whether we really liberated anyone in
Afghanistan. While I'm sure they've 'liberated' billions of
US dollars, I think we've only pushed around the boundaries of
the tribal conflicts.
On what basis do you think they were picked? Remember that
most of today's influential scientists started their careers
in the 70's and have survived through a lot of different
administrations in Washington.
My own opinion is that nobody picks scientists. They're pretty
much a self-selecting group. The scientists in academia are there
because they want to be there. About half the oceanography
students with whom I was in grad school picked someplace other
that academia to make a living. Some eventually transferred into
management and politics (My former office mate is the Director
General of Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research.)
Scientists in academia survive on two things: scientific
merit and political acumen. Many that I've known would
give up the politics part if they could do so. However,
politicking and proposal writing are necessary to support
the research group through grants. A scientist who no longer
feels the need to support a research group can often give
up the politics and get by through writing, teaching and,
perhaps, an endowed position.
>
> > > > I don't want that. One of my neighbors has a helicopter
> > > > (Hughes 500C), which he occasionally lands in the parking lot of
> > > > his business---which is across my back fence. The thought of
> > > > a few dozen vehicles of similar efficiency all taking off for the
> > > > morning commute makes me shudder!
> > > >
> > > > My personal wish for transportation improvement is maglev
> > > > trains for fast, efficient, intercity transportation.
> > >
> > > Not necessary.
> > >
> > > In Europe, people use normal electric trams and light rail to get around
> > > as well as minibusses that are on an aggressive schedule (they leave
> > > every 15 minutes or so) with several connections. Of course, the people
> > > who use such transportation all dress appropriately and don't engage in
> > > loud, obnoxious behavior and accuse those who ask them to behave as
> > > "racists".
> > >
> > > In addition, the middle class including liberals have moved out to
> > > suburbs and out of the inner cities where such high density heavy rail
> > > is useful.
> >
> > They do have TGV's, though. The difference between intercity trains in
> > Europe and the US is that the cities are a bit further apart---
> > particularly in the Western US.
>
> I've heard this rationalization before but it doesn't apply especially
> to blue state rust belt sections which are mired in gridlock. Those
> middle class white women don't want to ride on the bus for some reason...
Nice change of subject. How many people ride inter-city trains to
work?
>
> More on this in a bit:
>
> > In September, I took intercity trains
> > in the US from Albany, Oregon, to NYC. It took about 3-1/2 days!
> > That was only about 1000 miles per day---or 42MPH!
>
> The intercity trains in Eastern Europe also have wide expanses of
> wilderness. Didja ever hear of the trans-siberian railroad? (I highly
> suggest you take it. My wife is a travel wimp but I would love to see 9
> time zones in 2 weeks. Lions, Tigers, and bears oh my! (Literally.
> Ok, no lions :-)
How many wild animals come near the railroad? In 3000 miles across the
US, I saw only a few antelope and bison. Wild animals don't like to
hang out near busy railroad tracks any more than tame people.
I'd love to take that Trans Siberian trip sometime . There was a time
when the USSR, North Korea,China, and Cuba were restricted for me due to
my job in the Navy. Since the USSR doesn't exist any more, I don't know
if they'd mind if I traveled in Russia 35 years later.
>
> > > > > > > It's the tax havens that are abnormally low.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, I suppose you could say that because the tax havens
> > > > > > rarely support a military of their own but rely on friendly
> > > > > > overseas powers to protect them. Oh wait, that makes
> > > > > > the U.K. one of your tax havens, Andrew Usher.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the UK still have a nuclear aircraft carrier? Or is that FRANCE?
> > > > Still? I didn't know the British ever had a nuclear aircraft carrier.
> > > > The French have just one. OTOH, both countries have multiple subs
> > > > with nuclear ballistic missile capability. That capability is a much
> > > > better deterrent than an aircraft carrier. Carriers are better for
> > > > power projection if you have to support a large force fighting in
> > > > someone else's country.
> > >
> > > Provided that their enemies are kind enough to use ballistic missiles
> > > themseves and identify themselves for retaliation...
> >
> > Hmmm, if Russia mounted an airborne invasion of the UK without nuclear
> > missiles, do you think the British would hesitate to use their SLBMs?
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Russia perhaps should just send over refugees to go on welfare. That
> seems to be working for the other invaders! :-)
Well it is a lot easier for folks from the remnants of empire. I don't
think Russians qualify. They have to do what other Europeans do---get
temporary residence by importing large bags of money.
>
> > I think they might hesitate, but they would eventually use them.
> > >
> > > > > I wonder what Hitler would think of a Europe which is based in Brussels
> > > > > and France and Germany (and the Bildebergs) tell Poland and others what
> > > > > to do and it's normal.
> > > > >
> > > > Perhaps he'd think it would be easier to conquer if the power were
> > > > more concentrated!
> > >
> > > He needn't bother! :-)
> > >
> > > > > > > They, by using their tax status to attract the wealthy,
> > > > > > > are just leeching off productive countries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By definition, Andrew Usher, Welfare States are not
> > > > > > "productive countries." Again, the U.K. fits the
> > > > > > description of what you're dubbing "the tax havens."
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, they are making the Airbus if McCain manages to get us to buy it.
> > > >
> > > > Don't need McCain for that. There are already plenty of Airbus aircraft
> > > > being flown by US airlines.
> > >
> > > I was referring to the bidding war for the refueling tanker contract.
> > > Granted, Boeing not having an operable prototype until recently hampered
> > > them tremendously...
> >
> > There's also the A380 question. It's big, it's efficient, but it won't
> > fit on the runways and at the boarding gates of most US airports.
>
> Or military landing strips...
Hey, but with that capacity, you could fly most of a brigade to Karachi!
Just think what the airline could collect in fees for all those duffel
bags too big for the overhead rack! ;-) Better yet, you could
fly 600 troops BACK from Karachi----and tell them to leave the
duffel bags behind and just issue new uniforms when they return.