Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Money-making opportunities are available in the stock market for prudent investors, and the great thing is that there aren't any barriers to investing in the stock market. Invest in growing companies, stick with them for many years, and as long as an asteroid doesn't strike the Earth, you should have a decent nest egg in a few years down the road.

Here are some ideas to get you started.

Image source: Getty Images.

Some investors might be wondering if now is the best time to invest, especially given the markets have risen sharply over the past year. I believe the best time to invest is when you have cash to spare. It doesn't matter whether the markets are soaring to new highs or falling due to the latest panic on Wall Street.

To illustrate why, check out this chart that shows the performance of $10,000 invested in the S&P 500 at the height of the dot-com bubble at the end of 1999.

Data by YCharts.

Even if you had invested at a time when stocks were the most "overvalued" and crashed two times in the following decade, you still would have earned an annualized return of 7.1% per year on your money. At that rate, your money doubles every 10 years.

You could have an even greater return by adding $500 every month to your holding. Following this plan would have grown the value of your investment to $470,000. That's an internal rate of return of 9.6%, which is close to the average annual return of the marketgoing back decades -- and that return was from a starting point that every expert would say was the worst time to start investing.

Simply put, you can't go wrong by investing in a low-cost index fund, such as the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT:VOO), and consistently adding money to it.

If you're looking to do some catching up on your retirement goals, adding a handful of growth stocks can help. One secular trend to consider investing behind is the growing appetite for fitness and active lifestyles.

The athletic wear industry has been a sweet spot in the broader retail market for many years,fueling the growth of Nike(NYSE:NKE) specifically. But my favorite stock in this arena is lululemon athletica (NASDAQ:LULU). With only $4.4 billion in annual revenue, Lululemon is like buying a smaller version of Nike. It has vast opportunities to expand globally. Revenue from outside North America makes up only 14% of the business and is growing more than twice the rate as the rest of the company.

Another fitness stock that is experiencing phenomenal growth is Peloton Interactive (NASDAQ:PTON), which is capitalizing on the demand for convenient fitness solutions at home. It ended the most recent quarter with 1.67 million Connected Fitness subscriptions. The company's exercise machines are pricey, but management believes it can convert millions of gym-goers over the long term. Investors agree, with the shares up nearly 370% since it went public in September 2019.

One top stock that could offer upside in both the near and long term is Walt Disney (NYSE:DIS). The share price rebounded 78% over the last year, purely due to the growth of Disney's streaming business. Disney+ reached nearly 95 million subscribers in its first full year on the market, with 1.1 billion households identifying as Disney fans.

However, Disney's entertainment empire, which also includes ESPN, ABC, consumer products, and theme parks, is only operating at half strength right now. Revenue from parks, experiences, and products fell 53% in the most recent quarter. This segment is important to Disney, bringing in a whopping $26 billion in revenuein fiscal 2019. Once the parks fully recover, Disney stock could deliver more gains for investors.

The consumer shift to e-commerce is a secular trend that has already led to big gains for investors in stocks like Shopifyand Etsy, but with e-commerce still accounting for less than 15% of retail spending domestically,leading e-commerce companies stand to deliver above-average growth for many years.

Investors can't go wrong with Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN). The company built a powerful competitive advantage with fast shipping, excellent customer service, and a wide selection of goods. It now has more than 150 million Prime members and counting.Management believes the high engagement with Prime benefits in 2020, including free grocery delivery from Whole Foods and Prime Video, will have a lasting impact on the business.Amazon remains one of the best growth stocks to own, period.

Growing your money is not complicated like the experts make you think. It's as simple as sticking to a plan and ignoring short-term market volatility. That's all there is to it. Invest regularly in growing companies, or in an index fund, and you're on the way to financial freedom.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the official recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. Were motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

The rest is here:

Where to Invest $5,000 Right Now - The Motley Fool

The Weatherford Democrat recently reached out to candidates running in contested races in the May 1 election.Featured below are candidates running for the Weatherford city council Place 4 Ben Steiner, Kevin Cleveland and Jeanette Langley.

Candidates were given a platform to provide information about themselves and answer questions regarding their priorities, challenges and why they are running for office. Each candidate's response is published in the order their name will appear on the ballot.

Name: Ben Steiner

Age: 30

Occupation: Manager Program Management, Hospital Operations

Education/experience: Master of Healthcare Administration, University of Houston Clear Lake; Bachelor of Science in Public Affairs, Indiana University

Family: Wife, Olivia; Dog, Duke

QUESTION: Why are you running for office?

ANSWER: The government is best which governs least. Henry David Thoreau

The above quote summarizes my position on why I am running for Place 4 on the Weatherford City Council.

Lets get back to the basics and enjoy what it means to be a Texan and an American.

Lets be the catalyst that makes the decisions that shape our communitys future with less tax, less regulation, and more freedom!

Q: What are the top issues facing the city and how do you hope to remedy them?

A: Infrastructure Change and growth is headed to Weatherford thats irrefutable. We should be driving funds towards long term, sustainable investments in our infrastructure that will continue to allow Weatherford to continue rapidly grow.

Buildings The city is currently designing a new public safety building that is estimated to cost $14.5M and be approximately 36,800 square feet in size. The building size is 145% larger than the existing and 545% larger than the building that was vacated in 1997. I would strongly urge public officials to build what is truly needed (not wanted); and have a plan for the will-be vacated building once this is built.

A project like this should warrant collaboration across all our tax districts that creates a true public safety building (police, fire, EMS, training programs, etc) allowing for a larger building to be erected, while taking advantage of cost saving opportunities as a result of economies of scale.

It would be great to see government entities consolidate and eliminate their ever expanding footprint allowing businesses to utilize the shrinking available real estate in the community.

Regulation/economic development The citys municipal code is over seven hundred pages in total and continues to handicap small businesses and property owners. Small businesses have to divert precious resources and money to be in compliance with city code, instead of investing those resources into their core business.

Property owners pay a hefty bill every year for the right to keep their hard-earned property; only to have city dictate what they can and cannot do on their own property.

The municipal code needs thoroughly audited; leaving only the pieces that are for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens as intended; instead we have ordinances that directly conflict with state law.

Q: What are your top priorities if elected?

A: Property taxes Property taxes are skyrocketing and out of control. Our state leaders continue to do nothing but pass legislation riddled with loopholes, and our local tax districts take advantage of it every year ever wonder why residents can vote to create a tax district, but cannot vote to disband it?

The city has raised property taxes seven of the last eight years, resulting in a net increase of 45.23%. The citys budget has skyrocketed from $43,909,964 in FY2015-16 to $63,789,352 in FY2020-21; an increase of $20M in six years.

Theres little to no accountability or need for fiscal conservatism when our tax districts are given a blank check every year paid for by local residents. How many residents can say theyve enjoyed a 45.23% or greater increase in their salary?

Economic Development - Weatherford is primed for significant growth given the close proximity to the metroplex and the countless companies moving into the area. The city needs to be doing everything in its power to attract businesses, large and small, to our community. The city has already denied or revoted conditional use permits to prospective businesses; something that needs to end immediately.

Fiscal Accountability - The city continues to spend money on vanity projects that have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, including construction of the Heritage Park south lot (~$1M) in the middle of the COVID epidemic when many households were financially impacted.

Im not opposed to quality of life projects, but the funding needs to come from additional sales tax revenues or through the many grants available for these projects; not via increases in property taxes.

Term Limits While I greatly appreciate the service of the many members of our boards, I believe refreshing the boards with new-

Q: Any final thoughts on why residents should vote for you?

A: By checking the box next to my name, you are voting for lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and sensible planning for Weatherfords social and economic future.

I bring a unique perspective to the city council as I have lived in several different areas across the Midwest and Texas, ranging from small towns to major cities.

My decision-making will be made using facts and figures, not based on feelings.

Every dollar spent and every decision made will be done so in the best interest of the community.

Name: Kevin Cleveland

Age: 45

Occupation: I am the owner of three companies. C&S Development Services is a commercial general contracting company that is registered and licensed in 7 states. Paradigm Plumbing is a new commercial plumbing company that specializes in ground up restaurants. Terra Firma Real Estate is a local real estate company that focuses on residential homes in Parker and surrounding counties.

Education/experience: I have been in a leadership role most of my life. Starting and maintaining several businesses has taught me to provide for personnel, balance budgets, needs, and growth while focusing on customer service. Specifically, my background in construction and development has given me a very wide view of how other cities in and around Texas are doing things. Weatherford is unique and should be kept that way. However, it never hurts to learn what is or is not working by watching others.

I currently hold:

- Texas Responsible Master Plumbing License

- Texas Real Estate Sales Agent License

- Private Pilot License

- Alabama Contractors License

- Arizona Contractors License

- Arkansas Contractors License

- Louisiana Contractors License

- New Mexico Contractors License

I have been part of:

- Weatherford Planning and Zoning Commission

- Weatherford Building and Standards (President)

- Weatherford Economic Development Board

- Weatherford City Council

- Weatherford Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program

- Weatherford Citizens Fire Academy

- Liaison for Weatherford Planning and Zoning Commission

- Liaison for Weatherford Historic Preservation Committee

Family: Asking about my family got me looking back at the last interview that you guys did. It also cost me a few hours. I got sidetracked looking at my timeline and photos of my family. It was five years ago, and my four kids had me and my wife Chelsea in running every direction. Fast forward to today, my family has grown and changed. My wife Chelsea still deserves recognition for being my partner that has walked beside me and being the rock that me and my kids all turn to. Three of our four kids have graduated high school and the last one is a senior at Weatherford. Our oldest Anthony is 24. He has brought us two great additions to our family. He and his wife Tori gifted us with our first granddaughter Ainsley about seven months ago. Anthony and Tori both work for Parker County Jail. They bought their first home here in Weatherford last year. Sydney our only daughter is now 20 and has her own apartment here in Weatherford. Our middle son Tristan turned 20 in January. Tristan is currently training with Nation Wide Aviation at Parker County Airport to become a commercial pilot. Andrew 17, will be graduating high school this year and plans to start his goal of becoming an accountant at Weatherford College. My family has changed a lot over the last five years. I am proud of them all. I look forward to what the next five years has in store.

QUESTION: Why are you running for office?

ANSWER: I am running for City Council to serve the community that has put their trust in me. I love this community and want to make sure it grows in a way that protects our heritage, rights, sense of community and future.

Q: What are the top issues facing the city and how do you hope to remedy them? What are your top priorities if elected?

A: Question 2 and 3 are similar so I will answer them together.

Keeping our identity

Protecting Downtown

Keeping infrastructure up with expansion without getting too far out financially

Maintaining a balance between service and property tax

Securing our resources for future generations

Preparing for the Unknowns

The above are issues that we face and will always face. The role of council is to create policies and hire a manager that will lead the community in a direction that reflects the citizens vision. This can only be accomplished by being connected to the community. I will always work hard to be accessible. I will hear the concerns of the community and will work to make sure we meet your goals, not mine.

Q: Any final thoughts on why residents should vote for you?

A: I am part of a team that is working extremely well for this community. This team is made up of thoughtful citizens, a qualified council, and professional staff. The proof that this team is succeeding is all around us. The last year has brought many unforeseen events that could have brought the unprepared on hard times. While areas all around Weatherford were struggling to keep water on during the freeze, we maintained water. When areas around us are concerned with availability of water, we have begun construction of a water reclamation pipeline that will increase our abundant water supply. While areas around us issue boil restrictions, we are adding infrastructure at our treatment plant to improve the quality of our safe water supply. While communities are defunding police, we are building a new police department. While government agencies are encouraging police departments to be better trained, in a state that has 1900 police agencies we already have 1 of only 172 accredited departments. While many tax entities raised tax rates last year, we lowered ours. This team that the citizens have put together is not just solving problems as they come. We are getting out in front of them. This team is no accident. I was elected by the people to be part of it. I have served the position well and will continue to give it my all.

Name: Jeanette Langley

Age: 46

Occupation: Housewife

Education: AAS Business Administration; Personnel Supervision Marketing Human Resources; Provisional Certificate for Preschool from AACS

Experience: Retail, banking, educator, bookkeeper, business owner

QUESTION: Why are you running for office?

ANSWER: I want to be more than just a voice. I want to be a vote. I care about the people of Weatherford.

I like the vision stated on the cities website; Inspire every person, family, and organization to reach their highest potential.

Q: What are the top issues facing the city and how do you hope to remedy them?

A: Im concerned about the number of people affected by the ever increasing taxes, the ordinances stripping us of our rights, and the never ending fees being imposed by the city.

Q: What are your top priorities if elected?

A:Property taxes are the number one issue and concern for many Weatherford residents. People are being taxed right out of their homes. I am not a politician. I will not pretend to understand how a government operates. I do know how a budget works and the importance of being fiscally responsible, I will work hard to be a vote for all citizens of Weatherford to ensure our constitution upholds its intention by protecting the minority including social class. Property tax was a means to provide revenue to the municipality and nothing more.

Q: Any final thoughts on why residents should vote for you?

A: Everything I have learned, experienced, or accomplished has been a tool to prepare me for this position. I am ready to be a vote for freedom. Someone said to me, Trust me its better to have a right than to ask permission. I believe the role of government is still, We the People.

Follow this link:

MEET THE CANDIDATES: Weatherford city council Place 4 | News | weatherforddemocrat.com - Weatherford Democrat

This summary was featured in Documenteds Early Arrival newsletter. You can subscribe to receive it in your inbox three times per week here.

President Joe Bidens aides are facing both internal and external pressure as they try to shelter thousands of unaccompanied migrant children, with more arriving every day. Three officials said Susan Rice, Bidens domestic policy adviser, has been hard on Health and Human Services staffers because she believes they are doing an unacceptably slow job of releasing children to sponsors. Shelter systems are overcrowded, forcing children to stay in packed border holding stations for far longer than is legally allowed. Its tense, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But its a healthy tension with high-powered folks aligned around the mission of making sure these kids are well-taken care of. Reuters

In other federal immigration news

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nudged Biden on Thursday to increase the amount of refugees being accepted into the U.S. She said the U.S. has a responsibility to welcome foreigners facing danger at home. We have a moral responsibility in the world as every other country does, too to receive refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution or harm [if they] return to their own country, Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. Back in February, Biden vowed to quickly enhance the badly damaged refugee resettlement program. The current refugee cap is at 15,000, the lowest its ever been since the Refugee Act in 1980. Biden promised to raise the number to 125,000 at the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. The Hill

House Republican leaders accused Vice President Kamala Harris of not being present in immigration issues, presenting the image of a milk carton with her face on it to allege shes missing at the border. Biden has placed Harris in charge of handling the border influx, and House GOP Whip Steve Scalise (La.) wanted to know why Harris wasnt personally visiting the area. If shes the vice president of the United States and the president put her in charge of this, Vice President Harris needs to go down to the border and see this for herself, he said. However Harris did hold a White House meeting regarding immigration and announced plans to visit Mexico and Guatemala. She also met with experts on why so many migrants are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. HuffPost

Support the work of Documented

Documented was founded with the goal of making sure the people affected by our stories were also the people reading them. Immigration reporting is often extractive and isnt produced or published with the main protagonists as the intended audience. Through our reporting and out outreach via WhatsApp, weve created award-winning journalism that is created with and for New Yorks immigrant communities. This work is not easy and it is not cheap. Consider becoming a member today to help fuel this work. By joining the Documented Community, you can not help only provide us with the financial freedom needed to fulfill our mission but also meet others who are passionate about immigration in the New York area. Become a member today.

More:

Pressure Increases as Migrant Shelters Become Overcrowded - Documented NY

This TAXguide written by Allan Cinnamon, Cintax Ltd, author of Practical International Tax Planning publisher by Croner-I and Tax Faculty volunteer, analyses the impact of Brexit on those main areas of UK corporate tax law that are derived from EU legislation enacted while the UK was a member of the European Union. This TAXguide written by Allan Cinnamon, Cintax Ltd, author of Practical International Tax Planning published by Croner-i, and Tax Faculty volunteer, analyses the impact of Brexit on those main areas of UK corporate tax law that are derived from EU legislation enacted while the UK was a member of the European Union. These laws have been effectively transposed into UK law and the body of law is known as Retained EU Law.

As well as discussing the UK implications of Brexit, the TAXguide necessarily also considers the corresponding situation in the jurisdictions of the EU member states.

This TAXguide originally appeared as an article in Issue 64 of Croner-is Tax Update on 10 March 2021 and is reproduced with the consent of the publishers.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 converts the body of EU law existing at the end of the transition period into UK domestic law (Retained EU Law). This body of law includes those UK tax laws made for the purposes of implementing EU obligations (principally, freedom of establishment and, to a lesser extent, free movement of capital). While the UK was a member state, these obligations were fulfilled through UK transposition of Directives (such as the Parent Subsidiary Directive) and through direct tax laws (such as controlled foreign company rules and group relief for terminal losses of EEA subsidiaries).

By far the most relevant piece of legislation relating to the retention of EU tax laws and regulations is The Taxes (Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 made on 26 March 2019 (The Regulations). While continuing the Retained EU Law concept, these Regulations make amendments to UK legislation in order to adjust it where necessary.

So far as the topics covered by this article are concerned, the only relevant amendments made by the Regulations are the amendments to s140A onwards, Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) which transposed the EU Merger Directive into UK tax law. In short, the amendments retain the merger legislation by making it applicable to the UK as well as the member states (see Mergers and Reorganisations at paragraphs 22 and 23 below).

In continuing the Retained EU Law concept, no amendments have been made to legislation covering other areas such as CFCs, group relief, intra-group transfers of assets and exit taxes. This legislation therefore continues to apply to EU-related transactions.

So all in all, EU-inspired legislation, directives and regulations remain enshrined in UK tax law for now. But with two exceptions: s758, Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA 2005), which freed the 20% UK withholding tax on interest and royalties paid to an EU associated company, has been repealed as from 1 June 2021. The UK has also decided to opt out of most of the reportable hallmarks under the DAC6 reporting requirements.

It is possible that further amendments will be made to UK tax law in the future to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer bound by EU law. However, the commentary below is based on the existing UK laws and any changes announced to date.

It remains to be seen whether the EU Commission or the member states will amend their EU-derived tax laws to admit the UK into them now it is no longer a member state. A sample of four jurisdictions, namely Belgium, Germany, Italy and Netherlands, indicates that they have made no amendments so far to extend their EU-related corporate tax legislation to the UK. The fifth, Ireland, is the exception having extended its group relief treatment to Irish groups directly owned by a UK parent company (see paragraph 15).

This TAXguide analyses the corporate tax impact of Brexit on the typical cycle of outbound and inbound business operations within the UK and the EU as from 1 January 2021. It analyses them from the viewpoint of both the UK and the member states of the EU. The relevant transactions are considered in logical sequence, beginning with setting up a branch in an EU member state (see paragraph 1) and concluding with mergers and reorganisations involving an EU member state (see paragraph 23).

There is necessarily some repetition since each step in the business cycle is separately considered.

Since the branch is not a separate entity, there is no asset disposal for UK tax purposes. Even if an election has been made for the branch profits and gains to be exempt from UK tax, a gain is deferred until the branch has disposed of the asset (s18A(6), Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009)).

The deferral does not arise from EU law and there are therefore no EU implications to the transaction.

In contrast, it is likely that a taxable gain on transfer of the assets will arise in a number of those EU jurisdictions where the UK branch profits are tax exempt. However, in this case the gain was deferrable following a number of ECJ cases on freedom of establishment principles including Commission v Portugal (Case C-38/10); Commission v Spain (Case C-64/11) and Commission v Denmark (Case C-261/11); as well as consequent EU-compliant legislation within the specific EU jurisdiction.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may continue to allow an EU companys asset transfers to its UK branch to be deferable now that the UK is no longer a member state.

It was arguable that a UK companys EEA branch terminal losses could offset its UK profits in cases where the UK company had elected for the foreign branch exemption and was therefore unable to offset foreign branch losses. This principle, following Marks & Spencer plc v C & E Commrs (Case C-309/06) was a upheld by the ECJ in the case of a Danish company's foreign branch, A/S Bevola & Jens W Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Finance, Denmark) (Case C-650/16).

Now that the UK is no longer a member state, it seems unlikely that EU branch terminal losses incurred after 31 December 2020 could offset UK profits when a UK company has elected for the foreign branch exemption.

In the reverse situation, a claim to deduct post-Brexit UK branch terminal losses (in an EU jurisdiction where foreign branch profits are tax exempt) will be inapplicable now that the UK is no longer a member state.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may nevertheless allow UK branch terminal losses to be deductible from the domestic profits of a company in an EU member state.

The simplest process for an EU companys tax-neutral EU branch incorporation gain on transfer of its assets to an EU company is under s140, TCGA 1992.

However, assuming that reliance on the Merger Directive is preferable, a UK companys incorporation gains arising on transfer of its assets to an EU company may still be mitigated under s140C, which transposes Art 10.2 of the Merger Directive.

The Regulations have now amended s140C so that it refers to a UK companys transfer of assets to a company resident in a (rather than another) member state. The transferee EU company will continue to be in that category and so s140C will continue to apply.

As far as mitigation in the EU branchs jurisdiction is concerned, it is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions will reciprocally amend their equivalent transposition of the Merger Directive to include the UK now that it is no longer a member state.

A number of EU jurisdictions already permit a tax-deferred branch incorporation outside the ambit of the Merger Directive. Examples are Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Netherlands.

Article 6 of the Merger Directive provides that, in a merger between EU companies (which includes a branch incorporation), the foreign branch losses should be carried over to the transferee company on incorporation, provided a carry over would apply in a merger between two companies in the same jurisdiction where the EU branch is located. Should the specific EU jurisdiction provide for the carryover of losses through the ambit of the Directive (rather than in some other way), the loss carryover will no longer apply when a UK company incorporates its EU branch in that jurisdiction.

It is not yet known whether EU member states may reciprocally amend their loss carryover rules to include the UK as a non-member state.

Loss carryovers apply, for example, in Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Section 171, TCGA 1992 provides the simplest deferral process for an EU companys tax-neutral UK branch incorporation gains on transfer of its branch assets to a UK company.

However, assuming that reliance on the Merger Directive is preferable, an EU companys incorporation gains arising on transfer of its branch assets to a UK company may be mitigated under s140A, which transposes Art 10.2 of the Merger Directive.

Again, the Regulations have been amended so that s140A now refers to transferors and transferees resident in a member state or the UK (rather than a member state as previously).

Section 140A therefore continues to apply to an EU companys transfer of its UK branch assets to a UK company.

On incorporation, a UK branchs accumulated losses carry over to the UK company under s944A, Corporation Tax Act 2020 (CTA 2010), section 944A, irrespective of whether the transferor company is resident in an EU member state.

This facility will therefore continue to the benefit of an EU company that incorporates its loss-making UK branches.

As far as the EU companys jurisdiction is concerned, it is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may reciprocally amend their equivalent transposition of the Merger Directive to include a UK branch incorporation now that the UK is no longer a member state.

Having said that, many EU jurisdictions allow for tax-neutral incorporation of all foreign (including UK) branches outside the ambit of the Merger Directive, or through a foreign branch exemption or a tax treaty.

There has been no change to the group relief rules. Following Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (C-446/03), the EU subsidiarys terminal losses will continue to qualify for UK group relief under Ch 3, Pt 5, CTA 2010.

In the reverse situation when the UK is no longer a member state, a claim to deduct terminal losses of a UK subsidiary following the ECJ decision in Marks & Spencer is likely to be inapplicable. Most EU jurisdictions follow the judgement in restricting the loss relief to EEA subsidiaries.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may reciprocally amend their laws so that a UK subsidiarys terminal losses continue to be deductible in a consolidated return, fiscal unity, group relief claim or profit and loss transfer agreement.

Following National Grid Indus BV (Case C-371/10), Sch 3ZB, Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970) complies with the Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) requirements for removal of a UK companys residence to an EEA state. Tax arising on deemed exit disposals is deferred with interest over a period of no later than five years and nine months from the end of the accounting period in which the exit occurs.

There has been no change to these rules so that the deferral option will continue to apply when a UK company migrates its residence to an EU member state.

In the reverse situation when the UK is no longer a member state, deferral of tax is likely to be inapplicable. ATAD requires EU jurisdictions to defer the tax arising only when residence is migrated to an EEA jurisdiction.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may reciprocally amend their laws so that tax deferral applies when residence is migrated to the UK.

In compliance with the Interest and Royalties Directive, freedom from withholding tax on the EU subsidiarys payment of interest to the UK company will no longer apply since the UK is no longer a member state.

It appears unlikely that EU jurisdictions will amend their laws to continue freedom from withholding tax under the Directive in view of the UKs repeal (see paragraph 12).

In the absence of any change, the downloadable Table indicates EU states rates of interest withholding tax under the UKs treaties with all 27 EU member states. Most rates are zero but there are some exceptions marked in bold.

Section 758, ITTOIA 2005, which freed the 20% UK withholding tax on interest paid to an EU associated company, is repealed as from 1 June 2021.

As a result of the repeal of s758, it will be necessary for EU lenders to rely on the relevant treaty with the UK for reduction of withholding tax on the interest received.

Under the Interest and Royalties Directive, freedom from withholding on the royalties paid to the UK company will no longer apply since the UK is no longer a member state.

It appears unlikely that EU jurisdictions will amend their laws to continue freedom from withholding tax under the Directive in view of the UKs repeal (see paragraph 14).

In the absence of any change, the Table indicates EU member states rates of royalty withholding tax under the UKs treaties with all 27 EU member states. Most rates are zero but there are some exceptions marked in bold.

Section 758, ITTOIA 2005, which freed the 20% withholding tax on royalties paid to an EU associated company has been repealed as from 1 June 2021.

As a result of the repeal of s758, it will be necessary for EU licensors to rely on the relevant treaty with the UK for reduction of withholding tax on the royalties they receive.

A number of EU member states permit tax consolidation/ fiscal unity etc. grouping for offsetting profits and losses when local subsidiaries are directly owned by a foreign EU company rather than by a domestic parent. Examples are Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. This treatment often extends to tax-neutral asset transfers between fellow local subsidiaries owned by a foreign EU parent company (in cases where legislation does not permit EU ownership, a claim could nevertheless be made based on the ECJ decisions below).

This EU parent treatment follows from the decisions in Socit Papillon v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique (Case C-418/07); and Netherlands v SCA Group Holding BV (Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13).

A UK company will no longer qualify as a parent company for tax consolidation purposes as it is no longer resident in an EU member state. As well as grouping going forward, this disqualification may have other repercussions in that the underlying subsidiaries will leave the existing group.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions will amend their laws so that ownership by a UK parent company continues to permit tax consolidation/ fiscal unit etc. One exception is Ireland, which has extended its group relief treatment (for domestic loss offsets and asset transfers) to Irish groups directly owned by a UK parent company.

However, not all EU jurisdictions restrict group treatment to EU-owned subsidiaries. For example, the Netherlands permits ownership by a partner country with a treaty non-discrimination article. Spain permits ownership by a company resident in any country that is not a tax haven. A UK companys direct ownership of EU subsidiaries in those jurisdictions should therefore continue to allow for tax consolidation, etc.

However, where direct ownership by a UK company disqualifies consolidation, the non-discrimination article of a UK tax treaty with the EU regime in question may still permit tax-consolidation of subsidiaries without the interposition of a local holding company. The claim could arise under a tax treaty based on Art 24.5 of the OECD Model Treaty, which prevents discrimination arising from foreign ownership. This principle was established in R & C Commrs v FCE Bank plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1290 where disqualification of group relief because of foreign ownership was held to be discriminatory. (That was because pre 2000, UK group relief rules required UK subsidiaries to be owned by a UK parent, whereas the FCE subsidiaries were owned directly from the US).

A contrary ruling was given by the Netherlands Supreme Court in the case of the Dutch fiscal unity regime (Verdrag Nederland Israel NL Fiscaal (16/02919)). This ruling arose as a result of the specific wording of the Dutch regime.

Clearly, each tax consolidation/fiscal unity regime needs to be closely analysed in determining whether a UK-parented EU group qualifies as a result of a non-discrimination article.

There is no change in the group relief position. Sections 131 and 152, CTA 2010, allow for foreign (and not just EU) ownership of a UK group in establishing qualification for group relief. Section 171, TCGA 1992, similarly allows for tax-neutral asset transfers between fellow UK subsidiaries owned by a foreign parent company (whether or not EU resident).

Freedom from withholding on the dividends paid to the UK company under the Parent Subsidiary Directive will not apply since the UK is no longer a member state.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions may reciprocally amend their laws so that freedom from withholding tax continues to apply.

In the absence of any change, the Table indicates rates of dividend withholding tax under the UKs treaties with all 27 EU member states. Most rates are zero but there are some exceptions marked in bold.

At the UK level, dividends received are generally exempt from UK tax on a worldwide basis.

There is no UK withholding tax on outbound dividends.

At the EU level, some EU jurisdictions give preference to dividends received from EEA subsidiaries. For example, Poland exempts from corporate income tax only dividends from EEA (and Swiss) subsidiaries. France exempts 95% of dividends, but increases this to 99% for dividends from EEA subsidiaries. These EEA benefits will no longer apply. A Polish company receiving dividends from its UK subsidiary will then be taxable (but with a credit for the underlying UK corporation tax). A French company will then be exempt on only 95% of dividends received from its UK subsidiary.

It is not yet known whether these and any other relevant EU jurisdictions may reciprocally amend their rules to give continuing preference to dividends received from UK companies now that the UK is no longer a member state.

It is assumed that a UK company owns a holding company in Luxembourg that receives dividends from its US subsidiaries. It will suffer the full 30% US withholding tax rate. That is because, unless the treaty is amended, the Luxembourg company will fail the Limitation on Benefits equivalent beneficiary test of Art 24.4 LuxembourgUS treaty which requires it to be 95% owned, inter alia, by a resident of the EU (or in some cases the EEA)).

The same equivalent beneficiary provision is included, for example, in the USs treaties with Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

It is not yet known whether these countries treaties with the US will be amended to extend the 95% ownership test to UK companies.

The First-tier Tribunals (FTTs) 25 March 2019 decision in Gallaher Limited [2019] UKFTT 0207 (TC) held that immediate UK tax should not apply to a UK companys transfer of shares to a Dutch group member. It would violate the right to EU freedom of establishment since a transfer to a UK group member would have been tax-neutral under s171, TCGA 1992.

The Upper Tribunal has now referred the case to the ECJ (Gallaher Limited [2020] UKUT 354 (TCC)), which will retain jurisdiction since the referral was made before the end of the transitional period on 31 December 2020.

Following the FTT decision, Sch 3ZC was added to TMA 1970 and allows UK companies making asset transfers to group companies in EEA states to defer payment of corporation tax with interest over a period of no later than five years and nine months from the end of the accounting period in which the asset transfer takes place.

There has been no change to these rules.

The Gallaher disposal took place when no instalment plan existed. The FTT therefore ruled that the entire gain should be deferred. Taxpayers in a similar situation could make the same assertion, subject to the outcome of the ECJ decision. However, this may depend on whether the relevant claim has been made before 1 January 2021.

Subject to the ECJs decision in Gallaher (see above), it may be possible in principle for an EU company to transfer assets to a UK group member without immediate taxation.

This seems unlikely to apply now that the UK is no longer a member state. However, it is not yet known whether EU states may reciprocally permit deferral of tax on assets transferred to a UK group member.

Article 2(a) of the EU Merger Directive broadly defines a merger as the dissolution of a company, with the transfer of its assets and liabilities to another company in exchange for its shares issued to the dissolved companys shareholders.

Assuming the foreign branch exemption does not apply, s140F, TCGA 1992, which transposes Art 10.2 of the Merger Directive, provides that the gains arising on UK2s transfer of its EU branch assets to the EU company may be mitigated. Naturally, this is the same treatment that applies under s140C to a UK companys EU branch incorporation (see para 5).

The Regulations have now amended s140F so that it refers to each of the merging companies being resident in the UK or a member state (rather than only in a member state). The merging EU company will continue to be in that category and so the sections will continue to apply.

UKCo will have disposed of its shareholding in UK2 as a result of the merger. The gain arising, based on the market value of the shares, would normally be covered by the substantial shareholding exemption. If not, s140G, TCGA 1992, which transposes Art 7 of the Merger Directive, would apply to exempt the gain.

Once again, the Regulations have been similarly amended so that s140G continues to apply to exempt a UK companys gains on dissolution of its shareholding in the EU company.

As far as mitigation in the EU branchs jurisdiction is concerned, the position is outlined in paragraph 5 in relation to a UK companys incorporation of its EU branch.

It is not yet known whether EU jurisdictions will reciprocally amend their equivalent transpositions of the Merger Directive to include the UK now that it is no longer a member state.

The merger process is the opposite of the diagram above, namely: An EU company (EU1) owns an EU subsidiary (EU2) whose sole activity is carrying on a branch business in the UK. EU2 is dissolved with its UK branch assets and liabilities transferred neutrally to a UK company in exchange for an issue of shares or debentures by the UK company to EU1.

The simplest process for a tax-deferred transfer of EU2s transfer of its UK branch assets to the UK company is under s171, TCGA 1992.

However, assuming that reliance on the Merger Directive is preferable, the relevant Art 4 Merger Directive transposition is s140E, TCGA 1992. Again, the Regulations have amended s140E so that it refers to transferors and transferees resident in a member state or the UK (rather than only a member state as previously).

The section therefore continues to apply to an EU companys dissolution of its UK branch into a UK company.

Assuming the EU jurisdiction does not apply a foreign branch exemption to the gain on transfer of the UK branch assets, its transposition of Art 10.2 of the Merger Directive might provide relief in theory. In practice, it appears to be ineffective because Art 10.2 provides a hypothetical credit for the UK tax that would have been payable but for the Merger Directive. Even before Brexit, this relief appears to be ineffective. UK neutrality applies to the branch transfer as a result of s171, TCGA 1992 (below), not as a result of the Merger Directive.

Under the terms of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the UK has committed to implementing BEPS deliverables and not to dilute UK provisions on automatic exchange of information, interest limitation, controlled foreign companies and hybrid mismatch below the OECD minimum standards in place on 31 December 2020.

In compliance with ATAD, the UK has where necessary amended or implemented its rules relating to the ATAD requirements, namely; controlled foreign companies, interest limitation, exit taxation, general anti abuse rules and double tax switchover.

At this stage, the UK has made two meaningful changes to its corporate tax rules as a result of Brexit.

On the one hand, there has been a UK continuation into the Merger Directive (see paragraph 22). On the other hand, legislation implementing the Interest and Royalties Directive is to be repealed (see paragraphs 12 and 14). And as mentioned, the UK has withdrawn from most of DAC6.

It remains to be seen whether EU member states will reciprocate the UKs continuing tax reliefs for EU-related areas such as group relief (where Ireland has made changes see paragraph 15), exit tax, and merger rules. And whether the UK may make further amendments to its rules to exclude the EU should reciprocity not be forthcoming.

The author would like to thank the following colleagues for their contributions to the article:

Read more from the original source:

TAXguide 09/21: Brexit The corporate tax implications - economia

The Idaho Legislature may not go home for weeks, but already, the sessions prize for blatant hypocrisy has been claimed.

And this year, that distinction goes to the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Last week, the IFF successfully called for defeating the Idaho Division of Welfares annual budget. Included within that budget and the source of IFFs ire was federal coronavirus relief for the states struggling child care operators.

The idea behind this aid contained within the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act signed by former President Donald Trump was to maintain the infrastructure of child care providers during the pandemic. Much as it propped up the airline industry and colleges and universities, the federal government decided it would be cheaper and less disruptive to keep these businesses alive than to attempt to rebuild them once the economy recovered.

Not only did the initial response to COVID-19 shutter many child care providers, but the ongoing pandemic ultimately reduced the number of children who were enrolled, further depressing revenues. Costs kept rising, however, while staff continued to turn over.

As a result, child care providers have been running out of reserves. Since September, approximately 200 Idaho child care facilities have closed their doors. Working Idahoans already face child care shortages, a situation that can only get worse as the economy recovers and the job market improves.

So the Trump administration package authorized $58 million in relief for Idaho child care. Lawmakers approved spending $24 million of that in the fiscal year that expires on June 30.

The Division of Welfare budget was authorized to distribute the remaining $33.7 million for the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

But Idaho House members had other ideas.

By a 42-to-27 vote, they killed the budget. Joining them were five of north central Idahos six House members Priscilla Giddings of White Bird, Mike Kingsley and Aaron von Ehlinger, both of Lewiston, Brandon Mitchell of Moscow and Charlie Shepherd of Pollock.

Rep. Caroline Nilsson Troy, R-Genesee, not only voted for it, but was the unlucky floor sponsor.

What could account for such a turn of events?

As Clark Corbin of Idahocapitalsun.com noted, the Freedom Foundation gave the bill a thumbs down which meant anyone supporting it would get dinged on its Idaho Freedom Index.

The overall increase for this budget is 20.2 percent over prior years, with a 28.8 percent increase in federal funds, IFF Vice President Fred Birnbaum wrote. Put simply, we are passing on debt to our children and tomorrows children to pay for child care today. This is not sound public policy, and no way to ensure a bright future for our children.

When the House vote concluded, IFF tweeted: Great news.

Missing from all this angst about passing on debt to our children and tomorrows children was the IFFs enthusiasm for its own slice of federal coronavirus bailouts.

A year ago, IFF collected $129,883 from the federal governments Paycheck Protection Program.

That was more than a little out of character for this bastion of libertarianism, but IFF President Wayne Hoffman said he had no choice; the socialists made him do it.

The government shut down Idahos economy, Idaho businesses, and therefore the donors who we depend on to generously support our work. Meanwhile, we also knew that pro-socialist groups would have no problem whatsoever accepting all the money they could from the government. We decided it only made sense to do the same. Thats not our preference, of course, but the actions of the government left us little choice, Hoffman said.

When he got called on it, Hoffman railed at this page and other media outlets and then added: Government compensation for economic loss is consistent with the principles of liberty. We believe in limited government. And we also are well aware that there are times that the government deprives people of their freedom, and for that they must be compensated.

Hoffman insists PPP was a loan and perhaps IFF will be among the small handful of bailout recipients who repay that loan. But until that day, the source of IFFs coronavirus aid was every bit as borrowed from our children and tomorrows children as the assistance for child care operators.

The only question is what is more essential to ordinary Idahoans the availability of care outside the home for their children? Or the survival of another Boise-based political think tank? M.T.

Here is the original post:

And the 2021 hypocrisy award goes to ... | Opinion | lmtribune.com - Lewiston Morning Tribune

LONDON, April 13, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- As vaccination program rollouts gather momentum in certain countries, the resumption of regular international travel is no longer an abstract hope. The latest results from the Henley Passport Index the original ranking of all the world's passports according to the number of destinations their holders can access without a prior visa provide exclusive insight into what post-pandemic travel freedom might look like as countries around the world selectively begin to open their borders to international visitors.

Without taking temporary and constantly evolving Covid-19 travel restrictions into account, Japan firmly holds onto the number one spot on the index which is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association(IATA) with Japanese passport holders theoretically able to access a record 193 destinations around the world visa-free. Singapore remains in 2nd place, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 192, while Germany and South Korea again share joint-3rd place, each with access to 191 destinations.

As has been the case for most of the index's 16-year history, the majority of the remaining top 10 spots are held by EU countries. The UK and the US, both of which continue to face steadily eroding passport strength since they held the top spot in 2014, currently share joint-7th place, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 187.

The latest results indicate that the gap in travel freedom is now at its largest since the index began in 2006, with Japanese passport holders able to access 167 more destinations than citizens of Afghanistan, who can visit only 26 destinations worldwide without acquiring a visa in advance.

Although there has been very little movement in the Henley Passport Indexfor the past five quarters since the outbreak of Covid-19, taking a step back reveals some interesting dynamics over the past decade. Q2 2021 saw China entering the biggest climbers in the past decade for the first time. China has risen by 22 places in the ranking since 2011, from 90th position with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of just 40 to 68th position with a score of 77. The most remarkable turnaround story on the index by far, however, is the UAE, which continues its stellar ascendance. In 2011, the UAE was ranked 65th with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 67, while today, thanks to the Emirates' ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties with countries across the globe, it is ranked 15th with a score of 174.

Dr. Christian H. Kaelin, Chairman of Henley & Partnersand the inventor of the passport index concept, says the past year has demonstrated that no government is infallible even the world's superpowers and wealthiest nations floundered and many failed their citizens. "While nobody expects a return to pre-pandemic mobility levels anytime soon, the outlook now is certainly more hopeful than it was even a few months ago. The latest ranking is a reminder that economic recovery and development are dependent on global mobility, including personal travel freedom, and that passport power should never be taken for granted."

Looking ahead to what the rest of 2021 holds, experts commenting in the Global Mobility Report 2021 Q2 released by Henley & Partnerstoday, suggest that adaptability and responsiveness will be critical to future survival and success. Dr. Parag Khanna,Founder and Managing Partner of FutureMap, says the second half of the year may well see millions of people scattering again. "The shifting patterns of migration in the post-Covid world (when it comes) will be non-linear and perhaps unpredictable. They will mimic the reality of a world in which there are many unfolding crises, from pandemics to climate change to political polarization. Countries facing fiscal pressures as well as skilled labor and investment shortages will seek to attract and recruit everyone from start-up entrepreneurs who can stimulate innovation to doctors and nurses who can boost public health services. The global war for talent is now well underway."

Read the full Global Mobility Report 2021 Q2 and the full Press Release.

Media Contact:Sarah NicklinGroup Head of Public Relations[emailprotected]

SOURCE Henley & Partners

https://www.henleyglobal.com

See the rest here:

Japan Has the Most Powerful Passport but Only in a Post-Pandemic World - PRNewswire

On April 6, 2021, Governor Lamont issued Executive Order 10E, which pertains to 1) absentee voting, and 2) municipal and regional school district budget adoption timelines.

ABSENTEE BALLOTS: Executive Order 10E largely extends the provisions addressing expanded absentee ballot eligibility contained in Executive Order 10, which applied to special elections and municipal primaries and were set to expire on April 20, 2021; however, Executive Order 10E makes these expanded absentee ballot provisions applicability to any election, primary or referendum held before May 20, 2021.

These extended absentee ballot provisions allow for any eligible elector to vote by absentee ballot in any such election, primary or referendum held before May 20, 2021 if the elector is unable to appear at his or her polling place during the hours of voting because of the sickness of COVID-19. What does that mean? As noted by the Governor in his press release, this essentially entitles ALL voters to use absentee ballots (not just those who happen to be sick with COVID-19), similar to the elections held during 2020.

In light of this expansion of absentee voting, Executive Order 10E allows municipal clerks to mail absentee ballots within 48 hours of receiving applications for absentee voting (instead of the usual 24 hours). Executive Order 10E allows for absentee ballots to be deposited into secure drop boxes designated by the municipal clerk, beginning on the 20th day before the election at issue and each weekday up until the close of the polls. Executive Order 10E provides that beginning with the 14th day before the vote, the municipal clerk may begin to sort such absentee ballots.

BUDGET ADOPTION TIMELINES: Unlike last year, when the usual budget adoption processes were suspended in their entirety (and municipalities and districts were empowered to adopt budgets without a vote by eligible electors), Executive Order 10E is simply focused on extending the timelines for adopting a budget for the 2021-2022 fiscal year. Executive Order 10E provides that notwithstanding any contrary state statutes, municipal charters, ordinances, regulations or policies, a municipality or regional board of education, upon a majority vote of its legislative body (or in a municipality where the legislative body is a town meeting, the board of selectmen) or of the regional board of education, as applicable, may alter its budget adoption dates, provided 1) such vote to alter budget adoption dates is taken before May 20, 2021, and 2) the final budget is approved before June 30, 2021 or at a minimum the first town meeting, district budget meeting, or referendum to approve such budget is conducted before June 30, 2021. The fact that Executive Order 10E only requires that the first such meeting or referendum to approve a budget take place before June 30, 2021 is a recognition that it is not uncommon for budgets to be initially rejected by the voters. Indeed, with the return in 2021 of the pre-pandemic ability of eligible electors to approve budgets comes the ability of such electors to reject budgets.

Executive Order 10E provides that such budget adoption dates subject to the Order may include, but need not be limited to, applicable dates relating to an executive presentation of a proposed budget, public hearings, fiscal authority action, publications, referenda or final budget adoption. Any vote by the legislative body or of a regional board of education pursuant to Executive Order 10E must include a specific reference to the Executive Order. PLEASE NOTE: For the purposes of Executive Order 10E, municipality is defined as any town, city or borough, whether consolidated or unconsolidated, and any school district, regional school district, district, as defined in [Connecticut General Statute] section 7-324, metropolitan district, and each municipal corporation, organization or authority and taxing district.

SO HOW CAN ONE GET ABSENTEE BALLOTS? Unlike the usual rules, absentee ballots for a referendum held before May 20, 2021 merely must be available not less than four business days prior to the referendum; applications and absentee ballots may be mailed by the municipal clerk provided that the clerk determines that the application or ballot will reach the voter no later than the day before the referendum. In addition, a municipal clerk or regional board of education may make available on municipal or regional board of education websites digital versions of absentee ballot applications for download and completion by any person eligible to vote in an election, primary, or referendum subject to Executive Order 10E.

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS (I.E., WHAT ABOUT TOWN MEETINGS?) It is important to remember that the Executive Order provisions addressing absentee ballots apply to elections, primaries, and referenda. These absentee ballot provisions do not apply to town or district meetings and the votes that may take place at these meetings. The conduct of such town and district meetings are currently governed by Executive Order 9H, which permits remote and hybrid meetings, and allows for persons to participate (and even vote) remotely. In light of recent action by the Connecticut General Assembly and the Governor via Special Act 21-2, Executive Order 9H has been extended until May 20, 2021. However, there are at least two bills pending before the General Assembly that would revise the Freedom of Information Act and extend the Executive Order/pandemic era remote meetings provisions into the future as part of a new status quo.

[View source.]

See the article here:

Executive Order 10E and the Municipal Budget Process in 2021: Similar (But Not Quite Back) to Normal - JD Supra

The Back the Blue bill deprives Iowans of basic rights and subjects Iowans to serious harm.

Tate Hildyard

Citizens march through downtown Iowa City as part of the the Back the Blue protest on Friday, September 25th, 2020. Citizens marched through downtown Iowa City to show solidarity with the local police force and as a counter protest the Black Lives Matter activity that took place over the past few months.

In response to racial justice protests last summer, Republicans in the Iowa Legislature have introduced bills that ramp up penalties on protest activity and limit local government discretion in dealing with protests and public safety issues.

Iowa House Republicans have bundled into House File 1345, multiple bills previously passed by the Iowa Senate (SF 476). The new Back the Blue bill is broad, affecting everything from sick leave for public safety officers to punishments for riots and eluding police. Although some parts of this wide-ranging bill are fine, others are dangerous and disturbing. It will likely chill the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly, punish harmless activity, and escalate and immunize violence. In short, this bill will make us less free and less safe.

While the bill is targeted at protests in Iowa City and Des Moines following the murder of George Floyd last summer, it is not unique. Across the country, some 91 similar bills have been introduced into state legislatures, according to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. This is part of a concerted, nationwide effort to crack down on protests and to strip law enforcement and local government of any discretion to respond to them.

The House bill subjects protesters, and perhaps others perceived as protesters, to severe harm and penalties:

In addition to imposing severe punishments for a wide range of conduct, the House bill strips away local discretion by preventing law enforcement or local government from deciding, based on circumstances, not to enforce a provision of state, local, or municipal law. A local government found in violation would be denied state funds for the following fiscal year. In other words, the bill effectively defunds both law enforcement and municipal operations for exercising discretion they have always had.

It is impossible to enforce every single law all the time. Given limited budget and personnel resources, local discretion to determine enforcement priorities is critical to keeping the public and law enforcement officers safe. Tying the hands of law enforcement giving them no choice but to enforce is a recipe for increased tensions and conflict.

Many parts of the Back the Blue bill are extreme and unnecessary. Existing state laws are more than adequate to deal with protests. By ramping up penalties for vaguely defined crimes, this bill is likely to chill First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. It also subjects young people and others to serious harm, and it prevents law enforcement from exercising critical discretion on how best to respond to fluid, quickly moving, and potentially dangerous situations. A bill supposedly about law and order will ultimately deprive us of our rights under law and make our communities less safe.

Christina Bohannan, State Rep. House District 85 and University of Iowa Law professor

Janice Weiner, Iowa City City Councilor

Link:

Guest Opinion | 'Back the Blue' bill will harm rather than help Iowa - UI The Daily Iowan

The Bishops of Scotland call on Catholics to put human life and dignity at the centre in next elections.

By Lisa Zengarini

Ahead of the next Scottish Parliament Election, due on May 6, Bishops of Scotland are calling on Catholics to put human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre, in the context of the Covid-19 crisis.

In aPastoral Letterissued on April 11, they also call the attention on five other key areas needing particular consideration by Catholic voters and candidates. These include: Family and Work; Poverty, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery; Environment; Free speech, free expression, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Catholic schools.

Referring to life issues, the Scottish bishops remind that it is a the duty of parliamentarians to uphold the most basic and fundamental human right to life from the moment of conception to natural death. In this regard, they ask the faithful to be mindful of a further attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, likely to happen in this Parliament. It is incumbent upon our parliamentarians to show compassion for the sick and dying, bishops stress. This is not achieved by assisted suicide or euthanasia but by ensuring support is provided through caring and attentive politics, including investment in palliative care.

The letter also highlights the need to protect and promote the family with policies creating economic and fiscal advantages for families with children and to ensure job opportunities with just wages to provide a dignified livelihood for workers and their families, especially in times of crisis like the present one.

Noting that poverty now affects 24% of children in the country, the letter stresses that Scotland needs elected representatives who respect a preferential option for the poor. According to the bishops, the Scottish government must also work with the international community to adopt an even more effective strategy against human trafficking and modern slavery.

Reminding that in November Glasgow will host the COP26 international climate change Summit, they say that Scotland should listen to Pope Francis call to hear the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor by lifting up the voices of the global south and coming together to rebuild our Common Home in a way that leaves no-one behind. According to the bishops, it can also demonstrate global leadership by strengthening its commitment to becoming a carbon neutral country.

The letter also calls on the next group of MSPs to uphold freedom of speech, free expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while protecting citizens from hate speech. This must include, among others, the freedom to express belief in the biological reality of sex and gender, bishops say.

Finally, the letter calls on parliamentarians to continue to support an open and diverse state education system which includes Catholic schools, so to guarantee the right of parents to choose a school for their children which corresponds to their own convictions is fundamental.

Read the original:

Scottish Bishops: 'Put life at centre in upcoming elections' - Vatican News

Treasure Coast Newspapers Published 4:00 a.m. ET April 14, 2021

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Thank you, Laurence Reisman, for yourApril 11column, "Businesses lose liberty by order of DeSantis. Reisman was addressing the bizarre order of Gov. Ron DeSantis forbidding Florida businesses from requiring proof of vaccinations for COVID-19.

Why does DeSantis think that he has the right to tell Florida businesses that they are not allowed to have policies to protect their customers and employees? In my opinion, he shouldn't have that right.

At the same time, Miami-based Norwegian Cruise Line is trying to resume business. In order to do that, they are requiring passengers and crew to show proof of being vaccinated weeks before cruising. Why? The cruise industry remembers ships, passengers, and crew stuck at sea for months because no country would allow them to dock due to active COVID-19 cases aboard the ship.

Ironically, at the same time, DeSantis is suing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to lift its no-sail order for cruise lines before Nov. 1. How does he expect that to work if he does everything in his power to prevent cruise lines from operating safely and in a way to ensure that they can dock in other countries?

The Republican Party appeals to those of us who believe in less governmental intrusion. Perhaps DeSantis should reconsider his dictatorial banana-republic style of governing.

Jim Weix, Palm City

Gov. Ron DeSantis issued an order Friday, April 2, 2021 prohibiting Florida businesses from requiring customers show proof that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. (Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun Sentinel/TNS)(Photo: Amy Beth Bennett, TNS)

The United States lowered its corporate income tax rate to 21%from 35%in 2017. We needed to stop our corporations from moving abroad where taxes were lower. Also, state corporate income taxes range from 2.5%to 11.5%. Assuming an average 5%state tax, that's 26%for the U.S.versus 19%for the U.K., 12.5%for Ireland, 25%for China, 21.4%for Sweden, etc.

Dropping corporate tax rates made us competitive, but not the most competitive. If we were to raise our rate to Biden's target of 28%, we'd be out of the competition rate-wise, particularly when one includes our state taxes.

Governmental stability is also crucial. When making decisions on investments, CEOs can't gamble on uncertainties that endanger their profitability. Frequent changes in tax rates create instability.

Why should we be concerned with competitiveness? Because it attracts capital, which brings economic growth, jobs, new technology and higher wages. This is elementary economics.

The big payoff comes in the form of higher revenues. As a country lowers taxes, the economic pie grows, and the lower tax on the larger pie yields more than higher taxes on a contracting pie. The tax rate cut of 2017 brought economic growth. Corporate tax revenues soared in fiscal year 2019. The same thing happened with JFK's tax cut in the early 1960s. Higher tax rates don't work. They create a vicious cycle higher taxes, more spending, lower growth, more taxes.

Biden's proposal also taxes foreign earnings, which we tried before; companies were reluctant to bring profits home where they would be taxed a second time. This locked up trillions abroad before 2017.

Bottom line: Our corporate tax rates are barely competitive now. Please, Mr, President, don't raise them.

Tom Miller, Vero Beach

Receiving my copy of the April 10newspaper, I scanned the first section looking for an article regarding the death the previous day of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Instead of front page coverage of the release of. rehabilitated pelicans, I would have thought the death of the husband of Queen Elizabeth would have deserved more than a Page 9 write-up.

Prince Philip was an exemplary man, married for 73 years (quite a milestone in today's society, where divorce is so prevalent ), carried out his responsibly to the country, loved by the people of England. Yes, he was not an American! But I think in today's society, and the world in turmoil, he deserved a better place in the newspaper than a Page 9 review of his death.

Joyce Dance, Port St. Lucie

Thompson(Photo: Thompson)

Do we have freedom of speech and expression?

I have been thinking about this question for the last few months and I am coming to the conclusion that freedom of speech and expression is being curtailed not by the governments, federal or state, but by those entities that for profit use the free internet and airways to curtail the freedom of speech and expression that has been so precious since the 1700s. I am talking about the likes of Facebook, YouTube, and others.

For centuries, our citizens, and others, have been able to say the most outrageous statements with impunity because of freedom of speech. They have been allowed to call police officers pigs and even worse. This of course left it up to the reader, viewer or listener to make his or her decision as to the truth or falsehood of the statement.

Slowly but surely this has eroded away in the last couple of years. Remember the warning of our Founding Fathers that one may not always be in the majority and at some point can find your rights disappearing when that happens.

Is it always important that the truth perceived by the majority is always right? If so the we would still think the world is flat, only birds can fly and the earth was made in seven days.

It is incumbent on the federal government and the anti-trust division to open freedom of speech again lest we start burning witches again.

Edward Marasi, Port St. Lucie

Read or Share this story: https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2021/04/14/letters-editor-april-14-2021/7199723002/

Go here to read the rest:

Letters to the Editor: April 14, 2021 - TCPalm