President Barack Obama announces the head of the US tax agency has quit, after it emerged his staff singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny.
Originally posted here: US tax chief resigns amid scandal
The Top Penny Stocks newsletter for active penny stocks investors looking for penny stocks and pink sheet stocks
Richemont chairman Johann Rupert to take 'grey gap... Billionaire 62-year-old to take 12 months off from Cartier and Montblanc luxury goods groupRichemont's chairman and founder Johann Rupert is to take a year off from September, leaving management of the...
Cambodia: aftermath of fatal shoe factory collapse... Workers clear rubble following the collapse of a shoe factory in Kampong Speu, Cambodia, on Thursday
Spate of recent shock departures by 50-something CEOs While the rising financial rewards of running a modern multinational have been well publicised, executive recruiters say the pressures of the job have also been ratcheted upOn approaching his 60th birthday...
UK Uncut loses legal challenge over Goldman Sachs tax... While judge agreed the deal was 'not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue', he ruled it was not unlawfulCampaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its high court challenge over the legality...
Eurozone crisis live: Japan's strong growth figures... PM Shinzo Abe's stimulus package could generate feelgood factor needed to end two decades of stagnant growthPhillip Inman
Category : Business
If it’s fair to limit taxpayers’ expense for retirement money being set aside by “the rich,” it’s vastly more fair to limit taxpayers’ expense for Obama’s own package.
View post: The problem with Obama’s retirement plan
Analysis ahead of new legislation cites greater birth rate and labour force participation to upend anti-immigration arguments
An overhaul of immigration laws could boost economic growth and cut the federal budget deficit, according to new analysis by a conservative thinktank.
The report by the American Action Forum, published on Tuesday, is part of growing strategy by high-profile conservative groups to deploy economic arguments in the battle for immigration reform.
It challenges the view put forward by some conservatives that immigrants would take jobs from US citizens, drive down wages and would add to the deficit by the need for government assistance.
Legislation on comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, by the bipartisan “gang of eight” senators could be available as early as this week, according to senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York.
Research published on Tuesday by the AAF, cites the greater birth rate, labour force participation and entrepreneurial bent among immigrants compared to native-born Americans as key factors that could raise gross domestic product growth by a percentage point every year over the next decade. In what it acknowledges are “ballpark” estimates, it said: “A benchmark immigration reform would raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the near term, raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal deficit by over $2.5tn.”
The analysis, by Douglas Holtz Eakin, an economist and president of the AAF, argues that in the absence of immigration, the population and overall economy would decline as a result of low US birth rates. It argues that immigration reform should be evaluated in economic terms and compares the US unfavourably with the UK, Canada and Australia, countries which focused their immigration reforms on economic growth.
Groups such as Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and the Hispanic Leadership Forum, which aired ads in March promoting an immigration overhaul, have been gearing up for the next critical phase of the immigration debate, and some are using similar messages to that of the AAF.
Norquist, in an interview with Politico last week, said: “We’re doing it to make sure … that Republican congressman and senators feel comfortable.”
“They look out and hear the guys on talk radio, and they go: ‘Oh my goodness, everybody out there thinks this. That’s not necessarily where I was, but I guess if everybody thinks that way, I’ll either be quiet or go along, or I’ll listen to them so they can convince me.’ They’re now hearing the other side of the issue.”
In addition to the proposals for immigration reform to be put forward by the “gang of eight” senators, a bipartisan group from the House is working on its own version.
If the Senate and House bills pass their respective chambers, they would have to be reconciled and a final version voted on, before being sent to President Barack Obama for signing into law.
First class, business class, fat class. Is this another step closer to weight-apartheid?
At first I thought it was a late April fool. Samoa Air has become the first airline where people pay not by the seat but by what they weigh. The airlines say this is the “future of aviation”, that airlines run on weight rather than seats, that families will find their children cost less, and thin people won’t have to pay for fat people.
When booking, customers estimate their weight, and are then weighed again at the airport. If they weigh more than they’d suggested, then presumably they’ll be charged more, or perhaps flogged and dragged to Fat Jail? Alternatively, they could save money by chopping off an arm or a leg. Not their heads though – that would be inhumane.
It serves them right, doesn’t it? The super-fatties, taking up too much space, oozing into the neighbouring seat, like an impertinent flesh-blancmange. When are they going to bring in legislation that prohibits the obese from travel altogether? When can we start throwing nets over them at check-in? Perhaps I should stop there, before someone mistakes me for somebody being serious. As I said, initially, I presumed this was an April fool. I’m still half-hoping it might be.
First class, business class, fat class. Is this another step closer to weight-apartheid? In fairness, Samoa Air deals in small planes that are affected by weight. I’ve been on such a plane, where people were asked to move seats for balance. However, safety isn’t the driving force here. (Big people can move too.) It’s money. Nor is “pay only for what you weigh” presented as peculiar to small-plane airlines; rather, as the future of the aviation industry, an idea that swiftly seems to be gaining credibility. The implication being that this could lead to an across the board air travel fat tax, even though that’s absurd. An individual’s weight does not have the same relevance for larger, sturdier, commercial passenger aircraft.
If a weight tax were rolled out throughout the aviation industry, it wouldn’t just affect overweight people. It would affect tall people, muscled people, pregnant women, and men generally, as they tend to weigh more then women. However, no prizes for guessing the group it would really be aimed at, and no weighing scales required for how much public sympathy they could expect. ‘Tis the most disturbing feature about this development – that it’s a symptom, indeed a rubberstamping, of an ever-creeping culture of intolerance.
It’s as if an airplane door suddenly flew open, revealing previously unscaled heights of pan-global intolerance and commercially sanctioned bigotry. First, it’s overweight people on planes, then who? How about kids on planes? Some people find them annoying. The elderly and disabled? Why should they be allowed on first, and get priority seating?
It’s easy to see how intolerance towards large people on planes could be viewed as a microcosm for intolerance in society generally. How intolerance could start with the overweight, and end up just about everywhere. Human nature is such that people have a tendency to go along with things (even things that make them feel uneasy), so long as they, personally, are not directly affected. Hence the flourishing attacks on “benefit culture”.
Which is all very well, so long as these people can be sure they’ll remain gloriously unaffected, unmarked by life. That they won’t become old, poor, unemployed, disabled, or indeed overweight to the point where people think they should be institutionally penalised at every commercial opportunity. If their circumstances do change for the worse, they could only expect the kicking they were once casually doling out themselves.
Alternatively, if and when the time comes, we could all loudly object to such ugly divisive notions as a fat tax for huge commercial airlines that don’t need it. Otherwise, never mind the future of aviation, this could be the future, full stop.
Greater Manchester Police has decreed that being attacked for being a goth, punk or similar is a hate crime, on a par with race or religion (coming off the murder of 20-year-old Sophie Lancaster, in 2007).
If the message is: “Don’t pick on people for looking different”, that seems fair enough. On a lighter note, there will be “trained officers”. Officers trained in goth? Amazing.
Most ex-goths furiously deny dabbling in gothdom. Others, like myself, were never goths, despite what my colleagues say. Dark-haired, pale, perhaps a tad sullen, we were the first WAGs (wrongly accused goths).
I preferred the term “positive punk”. I’m not saying it was pretty – I
Category : Business
US President Barack Obama is prepared to offer cuts to Americans’ pensions to strike a deficit deal with Republicans, a White House official says.
Read more from the original source: Obama ‘offering to cut US pensions’