#Barclays avoided nearly £2BILLION in tax via an arrangement in tax haven Luxembourg: it paid less than 1% on profits since 2009, when it booked profits from the $15bn sale of a fund management business there rather than the UK.
Barclays employs only 54 staff in Luxembourg, but it is currently the bank’s third most profitable jurisdiction behind the US & UK, with turnover of £1.1bn last year. Low staff costs mean Barclays can turn nearly all of that income from corporate & investment banking into profit.
The bank has 46,000 staff in the UK & nearly 10,000 in the US. Cumulatively, Barclays’ Luxembourg operations have made £6.6bn in profits since 2013, according to annual tax documents.
Thanks to the generous tax arrangement, it has paid just £46m on those earnings, or about 1%.
In 2013 it was reported that as much as £1bn a year of Barclays' annual profits in the years leading up to the banking crisis is believed to have come from the prolific & secretive tax avoidance factory at the heart of Barclays' investment banking arm.
In 1950s USA, legislation barred the teaching of “subversive” doctrines: teachers were forced to take loyalty oaths & were required to teach the “American way” of “free enterprise”.
With the banning of anti-capitalism discussion in schools, are we heading the same way?
Interesting 2020 article by historian Dr Jennifer Luff, who correctly points out that in Britain, anticapitalism wasn’t banned in English classrooms during the cold war – so why is it now?
Each Government shapes the school curriculum, & in 2020, the UK Government explicitly banned from English classrooms materials produced by groups with “extreme political stances”.
Most of these extreme principles – racism, antisemitism & authoritarianism – are uncontroversial.
In March 2017, the Electoral Commission fined the @Conservatives £70,000 following an investigation into Party spending during #GE2015 (the same Electoral Commission that oversees free & fair elections, & which the antidemocratic Tories have just removed independence from).
During #GE2015 coaches of activists were transported to marginal constituencies, enabling its candidates to gain a financial advantage over opponents. In consequence, Karl McCartney was investigated by Lincolnshire Police over spending rules.
I'd like to see evidence for this claim, but if it's true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), this is fucking appalling - but sadly not surprising.
If, like me, you're generally appalled by the pathetic state of public political debate - reduced to absurd polarising soundbites & culture war rhetoric from people seemingly incapable of accepting evidence that challenges their views - below is some recommended reading:
'Our deep desire for change is continually thwarted by the limiting political choices on offer.'
Neil Vallely, author of 'Futilitarianism: Neoliberalism & the Production of Uselessness', digs into the roots of apathy & polarisation:
In 'This Is Not Normal: The Collapse of Liberal Britain', William Davies explores the deeper roots, expressions & manifestations of interlocking recent crises in British politics, addressing some of the most pressing & perplexing questions facing the UK.
Facts don't change our minds. "The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight." New discoveries show the limitations of reason. This thread is based on an article by Elizabeth Kolbert.
People are often reluctant to abandon personal beliefs that are directly contradicted by new evidence.
This tendency has been well demonstrated for opinions, impressions of people, social stereotypes, scientific hypotheses, & "common sense" ideas
Belief perseverance is puzzling as it is commonly assumed that beliefs are based on evidence.
If it's rational for people to form a belief based on evidence, then why are people reluctant to modify the belief when confronted with evidence that invalidates the original evidence?