text:
Home Case Study Time To Invest In Toilet Paper?
HKSE - Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Time To Invest In Toilet Paper?
Johann Christoph Michalski is the chief executive officer (CEO) of Vinda International Holdings Limited (HKG: 3331). Vinda International is a major hygiene company and a key toilet paper supplier in China. He was incredulous when word started spreading on social media in early February that toilet paper was about to run out in Hong Kong. In an interview with the South China Morning Post, Michalski said that whatever shortage reported at the shops were "actually created by panic buying". The ability of the industry to produce the products is not affected.
The panic hoarding of toilet paper goes some ways to explain why Vinda's shares have soared 45.6% this year on the Hong Kong stock exchange. However, as rational investors, we should temper the excitement and assess if the company is worth an investment now.
(Source: Google Finance)
Vinda is a major hygiene company in Asia. The company was founded in 1985 by Mr. Li Chao Wang in Xinhu, Guangdong, and was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2007.
Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget (SCA), a major paper manufacturer from Sweden became a shareholder of Vinda in 2007. It invested CNY366 million for a 15% stake in the company after its IPO. SCA gradually increased its holdings on the open market in subsequent years. It finally acquired a stake of 31% from Vinda's founding shareholder and current chairman Mr. Li and public shareholders for HKD11 per share in 2013.
After becoming Vinda's majority shareholder in, SCA transferred its own businesses in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau to Vinda International. In 2016, Vinda incorporated SCA's business in Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea into the company. At present, Mainland China contributes three-quarters of Vinda's annual sales, with Malaysia and Hong Kong making up the biggest markets outside the country.
Vinda runs 4 core business segments, namely tissue, incontinence care, feminine care and baby care under key brands, Vinda, Tempo, Tork, TENA, Dr. P, Libresse, VIA, Libero and Drypers. Vinda's products hold market leading positions in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia.
(Source: 2019 annual results presentation slides)
Vinda has a total of 14 state-of-the-art production bases (10 in Mainland China, 2 in Malaysia, 1 in Taiwan, and 1 converting factory in Australia). Current capacity is at 1.25 million tons, which is expected to increase by approximately 10% in 2020 – 2021. Future capacity expansion will be directed at the premium tissue segment.
In 2019, sales through traditional channels (i.e. distributors) was the largest contributor of the company's revenue at 31%. E-commerce, key accounts (i.e. hypermarkets, supermarkets) and B2B (i.e. corporate clients) accounted for 29%, 25% and 15% respectively. Vinda's e-commerce channel is growing in prominence with double-digit sales growth. Its e-commerce channel now contributes more than 37% of China sales.
(Source: 2018 annual report)
Today, Essity Group Holdings BV is the largest shareholder of Vinda with a 51.95% equity stake. Essity Group Holdings BV is wholly-owned by Essity Aktlebolag (publ), a global hygiene and health company, with its headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden.
Essity was part of the hygiene and forest products company SCA until 2017, before the company spun off its hygiene operations and listed that as a separate company on Nasdaq Stockholm.
Meanwhile, Fu An International Company Limited (Fu An) is the second largest shareholder of Vinda with a 22.71% equity stake. Fu An is held by Sentential Holdings Limited, Join Pride International Limited and Daminos Management Limited, with equity stakes of 74.21%, 15.79% and 10.00% respectively.
Sentential Holdings Limited, Join Pride International Limited and Daminos Management Limited is held by Mr. Li Chao Wang, Ms. Yu Yi Fang and Mr. Dong Yi Ping, who serve as the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Chief Technology Officer – Mainland China of Vinda.
Vinda's key leadership team are as follows:
Mr. Li Chao Wang (Chairman) – Mr. Li is a founder of the company. In his current capacity, he spearheads overall corporate development and strategic planning of the company. Mr. Li has almost 30 years of experience in the household paper industry and executive business management.
Ms. Yu Yi Fang (Vice Chairman) – Ms. Yu is co-founder of the company, and has almost 30 years of corporate administration and financial management experience in China's household paper industry. She is responsible for the strategic development of the company.
Mr. Johann Christoph Michalski (CEO) – Mr. Michalski has over 20 years of experience in leadership roles in business development and strategy, consumer marketing and production innovation in the consumer goods industry.
Mr. Michalski was previously the President of SCA Global Hygiene Category overseeing the global marketing and research & development and the President of SCA's Asia Pacific business unit based in Shanghai, China.
Ms. Li Jielin Karen (Deputy CEO, President – North Asia & CHO) – Apart from Executive Director and Deputy CEO, Ms. Li also serves as the Chief Human Resources Officer and President, North Asia.
Mr. Dong Yi Ping (Chief Technology Officer – Mainland China) – Mr. Dong has over 20 years of experience in equipment operations and safety, quality control, and research & development.
Measure 1: Growth in revenue and profits
Vinda has doubled its revenue over the past 6 years from HK$7.9 billion in 2014 to HK$16.1 billion in 2019. Vinda's profits on the other hand, shot up significantly in 2018 and 2019 due to lower wood pulp prices and the company's focus on premium brand portfolio.
Measure 2: Profitability
Vinda's gross profit margins were relatively stable during the past 6 years between 28.1% – 31.7%. However, its net profit margins fluctuated between 3.9% – 7.0% for the same period. As pulp accounts for roughly 60% of Vinda's costs of sales, a surge in pulp prices could squeeze Vinda's gross profit margins. Separately, Vinda's return on equity ratios ranged between 6.4% – 11.8%, which is reflective of the capital-intensive industry in which the company operates.
Measure 3: Liquidity
Vinda gearing level is healthy at 0.4x in 2019. While the company's current and cash ratios are on the low side, it should not face liquidity issues since it has a cash conversion cycle of 63 days (roughly 2 months).
Round 4: Dividends payout
Vinda is a consistent dividend payer. Its dividend per share has increased from HK$0.16 in 2014 to HK$0.28 in 2019.
With a closing share price of HK$21.00 as at 6 March 2020, Vinda is trading at a price of earnings (PE) ratio of 22.06, with a market capitalisation of HK$25.14 billion. Vinda's products are evergreen, and investors searching for a defensive consumer company at these uncertain times can monitor it closely.
Vinda International Holdings
Previous article#14 INVESTING IDEAS – Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B)
Next articleHow To Invest During A Market Crisis?
An accountant by training, F.I.R.E 2030 is a student of value investing since 2012. She believes that successful investing requires discipline and patience. But with the right knowledge and temperament, ordinary investors can achieve extraordinary results. These articles are her journals on stocks and the investing journey toward financial freedom in 2030.
10 things to know about Aurelius Technologies Berhad before you invest
8 things to know about Coraza Integrated Technology Berhad before you invest


text:
Institute of Youth Development and Excellence
Youth Organization Mentor Partnerships
Child Enrichment Programs
Case Study – Jameel
One-Time Volunteer Opportunities
Flexible Volunteer Opportunities
The Importance of Gratitude on Your Well-Being
Community News October 13, 2021 October 12, 2021
We hear it all the time: the importance of being thankful, or showing gratitude. For some people, these words elicit an eye roll or a blank stare (at best). Sure, we know that gratitude is important in an abstract sort of way—but it can be hard to take seriously when our primary mode of interaction with the concept is the #ThankfulThursday hashtag on social media.
I said thank you – isn't that enough?
In many ways, as a society, we've lost touch with the true meaning of gratitude. And that's understandable—gratitude requires reflection and stillness, two things that can be difficult in our busy, overstimulated everyday lives. As a result, we're also missing out on the benefits of gratitude, which may be greater than many people realize. As it turns out, the effects of gratitude can be important for our overall well-being for several reasons:
Improved mental health. If you're struggling with anxiety or depression, gratitude might be the last thing on your mind. However, as it turns out, gratitude could be a key component of helping with your mental health. One study showed that participants who wrote gratitude letters regularly displayed significantly better mental health than those who didn't. In fact, brain scans suggested that gratitude might even have the power to rewire our brains for the better.
Improved physical health. Better sleep and immunity? Yes please! Fortunately, neither require a visit to the doctor's office or a new prescription. Gratitude has been shown to help with both, and may even be linked to reduced pain and improved cardiovascular health as well.
Stronger social bonds. It's no secret that people like to feel appreciated. Gratitude kept to yourself can have tremendous benefits. But expressing your gratitude makes it real to you and benefits the recipient. It is also tied to your physical and mental well-being. And importantly, expressing your gratitude often build connections and improve your relationships.
Resilience. Gratitude has the effect of helping us to refocus on positive emotions. It guides us to take an optimistic, solution-oriented approach to the challenges that we encounter in life. Both of which are hugely important to building resilience. Resilience, in turn, improves our overall quality of life by enabling us to bounce back from the hardships we face.
Practicing gratitude
If the idea of beginning a gratitude practice feels overwhelming or cheesy, keep in mind that it doesn't have to be difficult. You can start small by setting aside time each day to think or write about three things that you're grateful for, or writing a gratitude letter once a week. If you're comfortable expressing your gratitude, set a goal for yourself to tell someone that you appreciate them every day. After all—you've got nothing to lose, and so much to gain!
The Institute of Youth Development and Excellence (IYDE) strives for every youth in the world to have access to a trained mentor because of the impact they can have on a child's life. If you are looking for connection in your life, consider becoming a trained mentor through our organization. Our mission is to provide mentors in every community across the United States with the tools and training for successful and meaningful relationships with their mentees. Placing trained mentors in the lives of youths impacts critical life decisions and influences how they contribute to their communities and society as a whole. It also brings meaning and purpose to the lives of the mentors. Help us make a difference in the lives of children by joining us as a volunteer or donating to our cause today!
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up-to-date on news, programs and ways to get involved.
Join our newsletter and we'll keep you in the loop about all of our latest news, programs and ways to get involved.
We're preparing the next generation of mentors. We work to assist communities in building youth development programs based on positive and long-lasting mentorship.
The Institute of Youth Development and Excellence is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit registered in the US under EIN: 26-0752052.
We want to hear from you. Email us at info@iyde.org.
© Copyright 2022 Institute of Youth Development and Excellence | Privacy Policy
Nonprofit Website by Wired Impact

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: How to load Bootstrap slider on base on click event (innerHTML javascript)

function createslider(){
document.getElementById("loadSlider").innerHTML='<input id="ex1" data-slider-id="ex1Slider" type="text" data-slider-min="0" data-slider-max="20" data-slider-step="1" data-slider-value="14"/>';
}

// Without JQuery
var slider = new Slider('#ex1', {
 formatter: function(value) {
  return 'Current value: ' + value;
 }
});
#ex1Slider .slider-selection {
 background: #BABABA;
}
<link href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bootstrap-slider/9.9.0/css/bootstrap-slider.css" rel="stylesheet"/>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bootstrap-slider/9.9.0/bootstrap-slider.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/bootstrap-slider/9.9.0/bootstrap-slider.js"></script>

<button onclick="createslider()"> Click me</button>

<div id="loadSlider">
<!--
<input id="ex1" data-slider-id='ex1Slider' type="text" data-slider-min="0" data-slider-max="20" data-slider-step="1" data-slider-value="14"/>-->

</div>

Problem: Bootstrap Slider is not display on click event javascript
Explain:
if i unhide slider HTML code (without onlclick event) its working fine but when i load  base on onlclick button slider is not display only input box is display

A: Your javascript has one major flaw :
var slider = new Slider('#ex1', {
    formatter: function(value) {
        return 'Current value: ' + value;
    }
});

nothing in your code calls this happen, the page will try to run the JS before the element with id #ex1 exists because it will run on page load. Once you do the click event nothing tells it to associate the slider with it. You need to use a callback. Try the below javascript.
function createslider(){
document.getElementById("loadSlider").innerHTML='<input id="ex1" data-slider-id="ex1Slider" type="text" data-slider-min="0" data-slider-max="20" data-slider-step="1" data-slider-value="14"/>';
addNewSlider(); // let the callback attach the new slider once the new node has been added to the dom
}

// Without JQuery
function addNewSlider() { // callback at work
var slider = new Slider('#ex1', {
    formatter: function(value) {
        return 'Current value: ' + value;
    }
});
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
IBM and AMD to continue Opteron partnership
By Justin Mann	 on July 21, 2006, 11:35
IBM continues to alter the business to suit the market as time goes on, and soon may be offering more Opteron-based servers. As early as this year. IBM's partnering with AMD could see the dual-core Opteron paired with DDR-2 RAM in another stab against Intel's server market dominance. While IBM has had a healthy relationship with Intel in the past, the Opteron is pushing its way into many segments of the market. The Opteron has made significant gains the past year and promises to continue doing so. AMD and IBM are expected to talk about the partnership in the coming weeks:
The companies are expected to tout the partnership Aug. 1 at a New York event featuring Hector Ruiz, AMD's chief executive, and Susan Whitney, head of IBM's x86 server group, sources familiar with the event said.
With companies like HP also on the Opteron bandwagon and the potential for even Dell to sell AMD worldwide, the future looks bright for the chip.


text:
Home / Business and Management / Application of Maxims of Equity
Application of Maxims of Equity
by Fiverr Tutors
Ezekiel Blaster, a Labour MP, made a will in 2012 in clause (a) of which he left "Cloudy Mansions", a block of flats worth £6.7m, which he owned, "to George Simpkins and Eric McNulty [two fellow MPs] to hold the property upon the terms which I have communicated or shall communicate to them". There were also three other legacies in the will as follows:
(b) All my landed estates in Lancashire and the property thereon and contents
thereof for such order of nuns, monks and teaching orders of the Roman Catholic
Church as my executors and trustees in their sole and absolute discretion shall
(c) I give the sum of £750,000 to the 'Old Lunecasters' Club', London, to be utilised as the Committee of the Club should think best in the interests of the club.
(the club is an unincorporated association)
(d) £5 million for the upkeep of my horses for their lives and any of their offspring
until such time as a good home is found for them.
The residue of his estate was left to Jenny and David, his (adult) children by his second wife Katherine (now deceased), who were also made the executors and trustees of his estate.
In January 2013, Ezekiel told George that he wanted him to hold the property on trust for Mistress Xena, a professional dominatrix whose services Ezekiel had regularly used for the past ten years. George agreed, but in March 2013, after hearing a speech on family virtues by the leader of the opposition in Parliament, he wrote to Ezekiel and told him that he was now converted to the importance of the family, and would be prepared to act as trustee for a widow, but not for a mistress. In July 2013 Ezekiel secretly married Xena, and then remade his will in identical terms; Xena was one of three witnesses to the will. In September 2013, Ezekiel for the first time told Eric of his desire that Eric should hold "Cloudy Mansions" for Xena. Eric immediately responded that he believed Xena to be immoral and would never do anything to benefit her. On hearing this Ezekiel had a stroke and immediately died. Following Ezekiel's death, George was informed of the marriage between Ezekiel and Xena.
In June 2013 Ezekiel had also:
(i) Given Xena authority to draw on his bank and building society accounts and wrote a memorandum for her telling her that from now on these "belonged to both of them equally, so that when he died they would belong to her".
(ii) Executed a share transfer of 2500 of his shares in Blaster Imperial Ltd., a private family company, to Xena, and a transfer of the title to his house (title to which is registered) into joint names with Xena. He handed both of these to his solicitor Bill Sleepy for transmission to the company secretary in the case of the shares and the Land Registry in the case of the house.
(iii) He also wrote to the Gigantica Assurance Co. plc. requesting them to change the nominated beneficiary on his life insurance from Jenny and David to Xena.
Bill Sleepy misfiled and forgot about the share and land transfers. Gigantica Assurance filed Ezekiel's letter, but owing to a clerical error did not amend the policy schedule or return to Ezekiel the form which, under their rules, was required to change the nominee.
Advise the executors and trustees (Jenny and David) as to the validity of the clauses in (b)-(d) inclusive.
And Advise Xena whether she can enforce the trust against George and Eric and the executors, and as to her rights, if any, in relation to the assets in (i) to (iii) above.
Angus, Bernard and Christine (A,B, and C) are the executors of John Langley's will and trustees of the Langley family trust all of whom were resident in the Channel Islands. Under the trust one half of the capital is held on trust for John's widow Elizabeth for life remainder equally to John's children David (aged 25), Katherine (aged 22) and Mary (aged 17). The property in this half of the trust capital comprises first of shares in three private family companies founded by John's grandfather and which John successfully built up into very successful businesses. The rest of the trust assets under this part of the trust consisted of shares in public listed companies and cash. The total value of this half of the trust was circa £22.95 million at the time of John's death.
John created the Langley family trust in his will. Prior to John's death in 2007 each company had a turnover of several million pounds and profits in the region of 10-25% pa. After the grant of probate of John's will A, B and C appointed themselves directors of the companies and the companies paid them directors' fees of £25,000 p.a. each from each company giving each trustee director an annual income from their directorships of £75,000.
The other half of the capital in the family trust is held on trust for David, Katherine and Mary in equal shares absolutely at the age of 28. Until then the income from the mostly public listed shares and bonds in this half of the trust was to be accumulated. There were also some shareholdings in private companies. A as one of the trustees of the Langley Family Trust, a major shareholder in these companies gained access to their account books and saw that several assets were undervalued. He tried to persuade the other trustees to purchase more shares in those private companies on behalf of the trust but they refused. A therefore purchased shares in the companies and was registered as a member having built up good relationships with the existing shareholders and boards of directors. He appointed himself director sold off the assets of the companies at a huge profit to the companies and helped make them more profitable. A made a total personal profit of £9.5 million from these activities.
The Langley trust also made considerable gains on their shares in those companies and the dividends received.
After approaches by David and Katherine and the retirement of Christine from her trusteeship, A and B decided to make an advance of capital to both David and
Katherine. They advanced £3 million of assets to David from the first half of the
trust (without consulting Elizabeth) to set up a small trust to help him maintain himself and his family. A further £1 million was advanced to Katherine from the second half of the trust to help her and her new husband in his business venture. Mary has also requested help towards her maintenance for university. A and B have also appointed a third trustee resident in the UK.
The private family companies in the first half of the trust now are suffering financially because of poor decisions made by A and B and the effects of the recession being exacerbated by their directors' fees. In addition A and C received secret payments which they did not disclose to the boards of directors of the family companies in
return for persuading the companies to enter into contracts which were not in the companies' best interests. The secret commissions amount to £497,000. The tax authorities have sent the trustees a huge tax bill because of their decisions to advance capital and appoint a UK resident trustee.
Advise the beneficiaries of the trust whether:
They have any potential remedy against the trustees including whether or not the private companies have remedies against the A, B and C as directors.
Whether the rule in Re Hastings-Bass [1975] Ch 25 (as restated in Futter vCMCR and Pitt v CMCR [2013] UKSC 26) may help to rectify the situation
Whether the beneficiaries may bring the trusts to an end and claim the property for themselves (Mary will be 18 years old on 30 July 2014)
Compare and contrast the nature of a mere expectation or 'spes' in terms of transferring property to trustees with a contract to transfer or sell property which the seller does not yet own. In doing so also explain the extent to which, if any, the benefits of a contract may be the subject matter of a trust.
Examine the application of the maxims of equity in the context of trusts.
Examine the relationship between contracts and trusts in three of the following:
Pensions,
Unincorporated associations,
The rule in Fletcher v Fletcher,
Commercial loans for a specific purpose,
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999,
Customer Trust Accounts,
Gifts in contemplation of marriage.
You are required on the front-sheets to certify the number of words used. If penalties were not applied, students who used excess words would gain an unfair academic advantage. A rough prima facie guide to length penalties on this course is as follows:
up to 10% over length: no penalty
10-50% over length 2-15 marks penalty
Above 50% over length 15- 25 marks or above penalty
This is a "rough prima facie guide" because discretion will be exercised at the borderlines of these classes. You may also escape penalties, though I hope none of you will be in this situation, if what you write is such nonsense that no academic advantage can have been gained by the excess words.
Footnote references are not included in the word count, nor are bibliographies (including Tables of Cases). For the sake of brevity in relation to footnotes you are therefore advised to use the "Harvard Citation system" of putting full details in the Bibliography and using only a short-form reference in the text. Alternatively you may use the law school's recommended footnoting style or a consistent style like that in the Conveyancer and Property Lawyer or similar journal
Presentation of CWAs
(1) All CWAs must be either typed or word-processed. You must submit two copies of each and an electronic submission.
(2) Feedback/Evaluation Forms Standard feedback forms will be used.
Pages: 8, double Spaced
Application of Maxims of Equity quantity
SKU: application-of-maxims-of-equity-in-the-context-of-trust-assignment Category: Business and Management
Benefits and Risks of Using Financial Derivatives Response: Fuel hedges seen hurting airlines Case
Intro to Women studies Chapter 6 Reaction
Imitation in Another Bullshit Night in Suck City
You're viewing: Application of Maxims of Equity $37.50


"The duties and functions of parliament are sacred, and of immense significance and importance," His Majesty The King said at the closing session of the second parliament yesterday.
Addressing the parliament, His Majesty said that in a rapidly changing world, the mandate and responsibilities of parliament are grave.
His Majesty said that Parliamentary discussions covered numerous and diverse issues in the interests of the nation and the people.
"The discussions and debate are not meant to settle individual or political differences. They go far beyond personal intentions, benefits, and motives," His Majesty said.
In the process of debate on issues of grave national importance, His Majesty said, it is inevitable that there would be differences of views, disagreements, and heated exchanges.
"The Parliament is also the institution that is responsible for the important task of balancing present needs and future goals," His Majesty said. While the Parliament must serve to the best of abilities, it should for the future, frame the best goals, policies, and plans.
An air of accomplishment and mirth pervaded the Parliament hall, which frequently erupted into chaos and harsh debates in the past four and a half years.
With their heads bowed towards the Golden Throne, members adorned a docile look, as their representatives took turns to thank Their Majesties, His Majesty The Fourth Druk Gyalpo, and the Members of the Royal Family for their selfless and continued service to the security, peace, prosperity and harmony of the country.
Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay, National Council Chairperson Sonam Kinga, Opposition Leader Pema Gyamtsho, and the National Assembly Speaker Jigme Zangpo thanked Their Majesties for gifting the nation with His Royal Highness The Gyalsey, who had impressed both the leaders and people of India and Thailand during the state visits earlier this year.
Lyonchhen Tshering Tobgay said Bhutanese are most fortunate to be subjects under the rule of the benevolent Kings in a sovereign and prosperous nation, enjoying peace and harmony.
He made special mention of His Majesty's involvement in resolving the recent situation at Doklam, which threatened the sovereignty of the country.
"Most Bhutanese don't know but His Majesty visited the place and resolved the tension for which I on behalf of the entire Bhutanese population thank you," he said.
Sonam Kinga added that the President of India, during Their Majesties' visit to India recently, conveyed deep appreciation for His Majesty's personal involvement and guidance and the support provided by Bhutan in addressing the recent situation in the Doklam area.
"Despite his age, HRH The Gyalsey has done in a matter of days what the ministries and agencies took years in strengthening the relations between Bhutan and India," National Council chairperson Sonam Kinga said.
His Majesty motivated people to vote in the first parliamentary elections in 2008, reminded about the nation's priorities on numerous public occasions, and supporting the decisions of the Parliament by granting assent to every legislation.
Opposition Leader Pema Gyamtsho said that as promised during His coronation, His Majesty has continued to rule the subjects as a parent, brother, and son.
He said that His Majesty The King continues to strengthen peace, security and sovereignty of the country, granting Kidu to the people in form of land to the landless, medical aid to the sick, homes to the homeless, scholarships to the destitute students, granting citizenships and many others.
Speaker Jigme Zangpo thanked His Majesty and His Holiness the Je Khenpo.
He said the clergy continues to serve for the wellbeing of the nation.
The Speaker updated the House on the Parliament's business in the last session. It enacted the Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, and Substance Abuse (Amendment) Bill 2017, Information, Communication and media Bill 2017, and Tourism Levy Exemption Bill of Bhutan 2017, the Audit Bill 2017, passed the Agreement between the Royal Government of Bhutan and the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income.
Led by the central monk body, the members of the Parliament offered Zhabtoen or prayers for the good health and long life of His Majesty The King, and Tashi Moenlam, a tradition that symbolises the fidelity between The Druk Gyalpo and the people of Bhutan.
His Majesty The King, Her Majesty The Gyaltsuen, and members of the Royal Family, graced the closing ceremony. Members of the international community, civil society organisations, civil service, armed forces, and the clergy also attended the closing ceremony.
Concerns on the increasing number of regional tourists in the country, minimum tourists during low seasons, domestic tourists visiting places outside Bhutan for pilgrimage and uneven distribution of tourism activities in different dzongkhags were shared at the joint sitting of the parliament on December 6.
However, economic affairs minister, Lekey Dorji, said that apart from the concerns, regional tourists have also benefitted the handicraft sector, small hotels and taxi drivers.
He said that when the government discussed the issue, small hotels and tourist guides shared their concerns on the impact of regional tourists to individual businesses. To monitor and regulate regional tourists in the country, mandatory entry fees in tourist sites and an e-permit system are in place in Phuentsholing.
Lyonpo said that a study is being conducted to assess if the e-permit system could also be set up in Samdrupjongkhar and Gelephu.
On concerns of less tourists visiting during low tourist seasons, Lyonpo Lekey Dorji, said that to increase tourist arrivals visit during low tourist seasons, special friendship offers were made to Thailand and Japan in the past.
Tourism Council of Bhutan (TCB) has reported to consolidate the programmes of local government of the 12th Plan with TCB's to integrate tourism activities in the Plan. It was also informed that TCB is working on opening a regional tourism office in the east and central region to facilitate tourism development.
A recommendation was made by Panbang MP Dorji Wangdi to fix a deadline for the completion of tourism policy, which is being drafted today. However, because tourism council has already submitted an action plan on the drafting of the policy, the need for a deadline was felt unnecessary.
The east-west double lane road widening works in Trongsa is set for completion before the onset of next monsoon. Officials from the Department of Roads Regional Office in Trongsa say about 60 per cent of the works are complete as of now.
The 100-kilomtetre east-west highway stretch in Trongsa starts from Chuserbu in Trongsa to Nangar in Bumthang.
The contractors too are optimistic about completing the works on time. "Last summer, we faced lots of problems due to the heavy rainfall," said Yogita Gautam, a Project Engineer with Raven Builders Private Ltd.
Besides issues related to machinery and funding, the other factor that leads to poor performance is contractors handling five works at a time "For example, if one contractor gets three to four works, then his resources are getting stressed," said Chief Engineer Tougay Choedup.


text:
'Talking Art' With Aaron Randolph III And Daniel Rairdin-Hale
By Carolyn Martin • Apr 23, 2019
QC Theatre Workshop rehearsing "The Little Prince"
Courtesy of QC Theatre Workshop
Carolyn Martin 'Talking Art' with Aaron Randolph III and Daniel Rairdin-Hale
The Little Prince is being performed by the QC Theatre Workshop for three weekends, from May 3 to May 19, 2019. Based on the beloved 1943 book by French author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, this all-ages story has been adapted for the stage by Aaron Randolph III, Artistic Director of the QC Theatre Workshop.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry wrote and illustrated "The Little Prince"
The production includes hand-made puppets and masks created by Daniel Rairdin-Hale, Theatre Chair and Associate Professor at St. Ambrose University. Mr. Rairdin-Hale also performs the role of the prince in this show through one of his meticulously crafted puppet creations and has been on sabbatical from St. Ambrose this semester to work on the project.
Listen to our conversation here with Aaron Randolph III and Daniel Rairdin-Hale about their collaboration on this production, the themes and deeper lessons of The Little Prince which contribute to its enduring appeal, and the original music and artwork that have been created specifically for this show.
The QC Theatre Workshop is located at 1730 Wilkes Avenue in Davenport. Reservations can be made online, where you can also view a complete listing of performance dates and times. The theatre has a "pay-what-it's-worth" policy, where viewers are asked for a donation at the conclusion of the show, in contrast to the traditional ticketed format.
All artistic elements of the QC Theatre Workshop's production of "The Little Prince" are locally designed, including the masks and puppetry.
Credit Courtesy of QC Theatre Workshop
The QC Theatre Workshop aspires to help members of our community live their best lives by providing financially and emotionally accessible theatre. Come see this show, where we are reminded that "one sees clearly only with the heart"!


One of my favorite parts of my job is getting to know all of my clients. Every single one has a unique story whether I'm taking newborn photos, shooting a wedding or meeting a recently engaged couple, like the one in today's photo recap!
Lauren and Griffin are getting married in October and were engaged at the Fort Worth Botanical Gardens - so naturally, we returned there for our engagement session.
They brought their dogs for the session - just another perk of hanging out with awesome clients. Such a cute family!
Don't forget to stay updated on all things Angela Duncan Photography, including the latest session bookings and discounts, you can sign up for my newsletter.


Quarter of a football game. Half of a soccer match. Period of hockey game. Inning of a baseball game.
Chukka. The time period of a polocrosse tournament.
A polocrosse tournament. Is it polo? Lacrosse? While it has elements of both, it's a sport all its own.
Polocrosse can be played on grass or dirt field and teams score points by throwing a ball through the opposing team's goal posts – all on horseback, of course.
That may still be hard to understand without a visual. The American Polocrosse Association has a diagram of a regulation field on their website, www.americanpolocrosse.com.
I had the opportunity to play polocrosse when I worked as an English horseback riding camp counselor at Camp Waldemar in the Hunt, Texas. It's such a fun sport, and I learned a lot through working with the campers who had been playing at the camp previous summers.
In polocrosse, players catch, carry and throw the ball with their racquets. A polocrosse racquet can be described as a cross between a lacrosse stick and a polo mallet.
Each team has three players who play specific positions on the field, and there are strict rules that help ensure the safety of horses and riders. Each chukka is usually between 6 and 8 minutes in length, and games usually have between four or six chukkas.
"Polocrosse is my happy place," says Summer Kneese, a polocrosse player who has been involved in the sport for almost 20 years.
Kneese plays position 3, the defensive position.
The other two positions, as you might have guessed, are 1 and 2. Position 1 is the primary offensive player and the only player allowed to score goals. As a 1 approaches the goal line, he or she must bounce the ball to carry it into the area of the field closest to the goal – where scoring can happen. That bounce is crucial because the opposing team's defense (Position 3) is more than ready to snag that ball during the bounce.
While positions 1 and 3 faceoff as offense and defense, position 2 plays the midfielder position. (Now do you see the reason behind those Ralph Lauren polo shirts with the large 1, 2 or 3?
Kneese was a member of the USA Junior Polocrosse team and had the opportunity to compete in Australia. She now plays polocrosse with the Hunt Polocrosse team.
If you're interested in learning to play polocrosse, you have to start with the solid horsemanship skills.
You need to be confident in your hand, seat and leg aids before you bring a polocrosse racquet into the mix. You don't want to harm your horse while you learn to handle the racquet.
Kneese says the best skill to have as a polocrosse rider is a good horse and rider connection. You and your horse have to work together as a team.
There's a lot of finesse in the sport of polocrosse, and there's also a lot of fun in store. Visit www.americanpolocrosse.org to find current clubs and members.


text:
BOOMER Digital Edition
Wintry Trivia
Who's Funny?
Boomer Caption Contest
Easier Living Homes
What's Booming
Home » Contests » Ziggy Marley
So sorry, this contest ended on September 9, 2018.
He's fresh, he's upbeat, he's award-winning – he's Ziggy Marley. If that name rings a bell somewhere in the back of your brain, it might be because he's the son of Bob. You know, Marley.
And that son of Bob is coming to Innsbrook After Hours for a night of reggae pop that would make any legendary dad proud.
Wednesday, Sept. 12 at 6 p.m.
Thanks to all who entered! Sign up for our newsletter for weekly opportunities to win!
Other Chances to Win
Be the first to know about all of our contests and special offers on Facebook & Twitter. Our contests are open to residents in and around the metro Richmond area. Prizes are from local sponsors.
Upon entering, you are now eligible to receive a weekly newsletter featuring exclusive articles, contests, and happiness. If that's not really your thing, though, we will provide the opportunity to opt out.
Signup for BOOMER'S weekly newsletter
Copyright © 2021 Boomer Magazine Richmond, VA. All Rights Reserved.


A story of a man who fights to make his dream come true. He sets up an innovative and revolutionary bank, "the Grameen," in Bangladesh to lend tiny sums to the poorest people, without asking for guaranties. At the beginning nobody believes in him. Economists and scientists think he is a fool and will fail quickly. After 15 years, the world finally realizes his incredible invention, one of the most important of the 21st century. His invention has already saved millions of people from poverty.


Trump incited political violence in many of his own rallies. Trump formented hatred so much it made him win the closely contested presidential race and we currently face the repercussions daily with racial tension and animosities in every sphere of daily life in New Jersey and New York City. A day never goes by without a racist animosity exhibited towards us of African descent.
Cesar Sayoc's Van with some politicians in a crosshair. The Democrats are frequent targets of Trump. He tweets 'bomb stuff'. We are not sure what actions he's calling for.
Authorities look at thoughts, words and action.
Next Is Racism Embedded in Dog Whistle Racial Politics in America?
Thanks Best Temeka! I'm trying to be comfortable with the site, WordPress is a little tough to understand to make me monetize. You are right, thanks!
I have read so many articles or reviews concerning the blogger lovers however this article is genuinely a good article, keep it up.
Thanks for the encouraging words. We will keep improving, hopefully. Keep coming.
I was more than happy to seek out this net-site.I wanted to thanks for your time for this glorious read!! I definitely having fun with each little little bit of it and I've you bookmarked to take a look at new stuff you blog post.


Jenny Willott writes: Is Citizens' Income the answer to the failures of our social security system?
I recently wrote a piece for Lib Dem Voice about "Mending the Safety Net", the policy paper on social security which will be discussed at conference in Brighton. One of the issues raised in the comment on the piece was, understandably, why the group ended up not supporting a move to a Citizen's Income. Rather than a long comment on the original piece, I thought it would be helpful to explain the groups view in a separate post.
In a nutshell, the Citizen's Income pays the same amount to every resident, regardless of whether they are in work or not. There is no means testing and no conditions apply to those receiving the payment. Every citizen receives the same amount, although in some schemes there are different amounts for children, working age adults and pensioners. There are a number of different monikers and different ways of doing similar things, such as Negative Income Tax and Universal Basic Income, most of which we looked into, but for simplicity I'm just going to refer to 'Citizen's Income' throughout.
At first glance it seems simple and easy to administer, and could help put an end to the divisive 'them versus us' narrative that has infected the debate on welfare.
That is why I and many others on the social security group were initially very attracted to the idea. We read a lot about it and invited a number of people who have advocated the policy to give evidence to the group.
Like a lot of people who responded to the survey produced by the working group, many of us still find the theory of Citizens' Income attractive, but once we started investigating the details, however, it quickly became clear that the Citizen's Income simply wouldn't work in practice. One of the great things about the Party's system of working groups, is that it allows us to really dig down into the detail of a policy, rather than our initial reactions. I've always believed that the fact that Lib Dems work to develop policy that can work in real life sets us apart from so many other parties.
The main problem is that different people have very different needs, which a single rate of benefit can't support. Housing costs differ significantly across the country, family sizes vary, and those will disabilities need more to live on than those without. This means it is effectively impossible to set a level of Citizen's Income that ensures everyone has enough to survive.
Most proposals for a Citizen's Income set the amount at about the same rate as currently paid in Jobseeker's Allowance – around £70 a week. But that's just not enough to support the many disabled people who face higher living costs as a result of their condition. The highest rate of Disability Living Allowance is currently set at £139.75 per week – far above where most proposals for a Citizen's Income are set. Those currently receiving disability benefits would therefore lose out hugely, even though they are precisely the people who most need support, and who can least afford have it reduced.
Similarly, our housing market means there are huge differences in housing costs from area to area. If you are in inner South East London, a three-bedroom house costs £330.72 a week, whereas in Merthyr Tydfil the equivalent property is £87.75 a week. The UK has far more variety in the cost of housing than those countries where Citizens' Income has been tried.
If you want to keep the simplicity of a flat rate benefit, then it either has to be set high enough to ensure people can afford to live in more highly priced areas, which becomes extremely expensive, or it is set at a more affordable level, in which case no-one who is living just on the Citizen's Income could afford to live in London and the South East, or in a number of other cities around the UK.
There are also challenges relating to different types of family. With a flat rate per adult, a couple does better than a single parent, which could have worrying implications for child poverty.
The system can be made more complex to reflect differing housing costs across the UK, and different family make-up, and disability, but it then loses the simplicity which is the whole point of the Citizen's Income. Complexity also makes the scheme much more expensive to operate.
And the overall cost of a Citizen's Income is another serious problem with the policy.
The UK currently spends about £214 billion on benefits. Divided equally, that's a Citizen's Income of just £3,300 per person each year.
If the entire cost of delivering the current system was abolished this would allow each person to receive only £13 more – giving a total Citizen's Income of £64 per week. This is compared to the average amount paid to households in receipt of tax credits and benefits of £7,500 in 2010.
The only way that amount could be increased to a level on which people could survive would be through tax increases or cuts to other services.
Even the biggest supporters of Citizen's Income accept that significant tax hikes across the board would be required to provide a decent level of Citizen's Income. As a result, those on lower incomes could actually lose out under the system. The most fully formed model that was presented to us, from the Citizen's Income Trust, proposes a rate of £71.70 per week for adults, £56.80 for children and £145.40 for pensioners as well as retaining separate Housing Benefit, Council Tax benefit, DLA, PIP, Carer's Allowance and maternity pay.
Such as system would require a 5p increase in all income tax levels, the abolition of personal tax and National Insurance allowances entirely, and a hike in National Insurance for middle and higher earners. Even after all this, and assuming huge administrative savings within DWP, the system would still be short by £2 billion, which would have to be found from other public services.
These tax increases would hit ordinary people, not just the best off. In the modelling given to us, almost 1 in 3 of the poorest households would actually lose over 10% of their income. On this model, a single mother in Kettering with 2 children, one of whom is disabled and for whom she acts as a full time carer, would lose around £6,000 a year.
A single father with two children in Eastbourne who earns £15,000 before tax would lose almost £2,000 under the same system.
That can't be an outcome Lib Dems want to see.
The aim of a Citizen's Income is good: we all want a system that supports everybody's ability to choose what they do with their life. But we are a political party who have a responsibility not just to accept good aims, but to see how they would work in practice for the people we want to represent.
The simple fact is that in every model for Citizen's Income that we examined, the choice was between a Citizen's Income that is affordable but set at a level so low that vulnerable households would see their income fall, or set so high as to require huge tax rises for everyone – including the lowest earners.
So ultimately the Working Group decided we couldn't support the policy. We didn't all agree, but almost everyone who started out supporting a Citizen's Income ended up believing that having seen the evidence, it just wasn't workable. The idea is noble, I like it a lot in principle, but I just don't believe it would do what we want it to do in the UK in 2016.
* Jenny Willott was the Lib Dem MP for Cardiff Central and chaired the working group on working age social security policy in 2016.
Read more by Jenny Willott or more about autumn conference 2016, citizens income or social security.
The most glaring error in this article, is Jenny Willott's assumption that the core principle of Basic Income is paying everyone the same flat rate.
The core principle is providing support to everyone unconditionally – whether that support comes in the form of a uniform flat rate or not depends on which model for implementation (of which there are several) you use.
I could live with the policy paper if it rejected conditionality (e.g. the system where people ate forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops or face being left to starve if they fail to jump through them well enough) in favour of providing unconditional support to those in need – which is the core principle behind support for basic income.
But instead the paper actually comes out in favour of retaining conditionality and benefit sanctions and therefore continues to support the principle that there are "undeserving" poor people who the state should abandon to homelessness and starvation.
I cannot see how that is in any way liberal or inkeeping with our party's values.
How many were examined? Which models were examined? Why not favour a pilot of CI to see how it would work in the UK context if we are really interested in evidence as a party? After all Jenny's and those members of the working group who rejected a CI object, from what I can gather from this piece, on practical grounds and not on a point of principle.
It's a big and important idea and the fact that Jenny has written over a 1000 words saying why she is against it suggests Jenny agrees with that. Why, therefore, not at least be in favour of gathering evidence from a pilot regarding it and then making a decision as a party? Other countries are planning pilots, such as the Netherlands (or part of it), so why not us as well? Or are we all so sure that we know all the answers already?
Agreed with George Potter here. Conditionality needs to go. Anything else can be up for negotiation, but as a society we can afford to provide everyone with at least enough to eat and a roof over their heads, and to deliberately choose otherwise is, frankly, obscene.
I have some questions, as a proud non-expert on economics!
1. Could quantitative easing assist with the difficulty of funding UBI?
I agree with Andrew Hickey. I am left with the lingering suspicion that were the NHS not currently in existence, the article above would be arguing that it was not appropriate to instantiate it.
We don't insist that people be working in order to receive lifesaving (or life-improving) medical treatment. We should not insist that people be working (or jumping through the ridiculous DWP hoops to demonstrate that they are looking for work) in order to have a roof over their heads and enough food to keep them from starving. Retaining conditionality and sanctions is the very essence of that meanness of approach.
I wonder how our conclusions differ from this….
I'm absolutely with George, Andrew and Adam here – for too long we have been slaved to the "work ethic" approach that Gordon Brown brought in with his tax credits (both an exercise in Empire building for the Treasury to take power away from the DWP and to disguise benefits as negative taxation in order to keep within his own spending limits).
"No one should starve" ought to be the starting point for a decent Liberal welfare policy.
So rather than fall into the trap of "it's too complicated" or "it's too expensive", perhaps we could try to work out what we could do unconditionally to start with and see how we go from there.
Not an expert, but my guess is that had this article formed part of the working group paper, the tone of the debate would have been better.
I'm with those saying that we have to make sanctions a red line – I've had a couple of awful examples of casework in my ward. That would do more than anything else to mend the safety net – we should speak against leaving people with nothing to eat and sanctions are the most direct way the Government does this.
Thank you Jenny for a very clear summary of the conclusions of the working party. I sat on this working group and was one of those on the group who were very positive about the Citizens Income at the start of the our investigation. However the more we discovered about the options relating to any type of Citizens Income, the clearer it became that there were just too many losers if we were to move to that system. The problem is that the current system is complicated because it tries to target support on those most in need. The Citizens Income is not complicated, but it fails to target support, and thus those who loose are likely to be those with the highest needs, particularly the disabled and those with young families.
It would be possible to introduce a system where there was a basic Citizens Income, set at a very low level, with a whole bunch of top-up benefits which would be added on to make it possible for people to live, but that would negate the main point of moving to a Citizens Income.
The point George makes about conditionality is not entirely the same question. It would be possible to reduce the conditional elements in the current system of Universal Credit. The working group did spend quite a lot of time discussing conditionality, and there was a strong view from other members of the group that some type of conditionality was needed to retain public support for the social security system. The working group also tried hard to come up with more supportive and less punitive ways of retaining some type of conditionality. I think the argument about how we treat those on benefits is extremely important, but it could be tackled within the UC system.
As George ha clarified that even if we stayed in the EU , in his and other opinions, it would be possible to have a basic income for all permanent residents , I would now consider it .
I favoured it once upon a time , but feel now , or did once the immigration levels increased significantly , that it would be impossible and a magnet.
As someone whose father settled here from Italy , it is immigration that puts down roots here that I am happy to see as part of our welfare system , but otherwise , not so, not at all. We cannot have refugees who are genuine and suffering, made scapegoats by thousands of economic migrants who would be very drawn to the notion of a basic income and the right to work too!
Holism is , for me ,Liberalism that is thought through. It is the only kind I want. If we can legally have a citizens or PERMANENT residents basic income conditional on marriage partners or residents of five plus years , fine , it is better than the in the sycophancy to second rate job centre martinets , deciding peoples fate , appalling !
To add something further, as I recall the working group discussed precisely one model of Basic Income – one by the Citizens Income Trust which I will happily say is not a particularly good model.
However, we did not discuss the numerous other models which have been proposed by other bodies such as the Royal Society of Arts. Nor did we look at the models in use in basic income trial schemes past or present (Canada ran a "Mincome" trial in the 70s which didn't use a flat rate for everyone but used variable payments based on the poverty thresholds for different household sizes, for instance).
Nor did the working group reconsider the issue after the consultation and survey results showed significant support for the idea by members. The decision was made very early on in the workin group, on the basis of one particular model, that Basic Income was a bad idea and at no point was that view reconsidered or different models looked at.
That does not represent detailed, considered policy making in my book, despite what Jenny Willott might say.
Lucy: you say "some type of conditionality was needed to retain public support for the social security system". Could you elaborate?
We're heading into a scenario where it's possible for machines to do a large proportion of the work currently done by humans, and the current government response is to encourage make-work jobs and to force (under threat of starvation) the poor to make increasing efforts at competing for the remaining jobs. Sooner or later the public (and maybe even eventually the tabloids) are going to need to come round to the idea that joblessness is not a vice requiring punishment.
But in fairness to Jenny Willott, if you look at only one model of Citizens Income which proposes a flat rate payment, if you say that Citizens Income must also act as a replacement for housing benefit, if you insist that there can't be a penny of extra spending on social security and that the public won't possibly stand for giving people unconditional support, then yes I'd agree with her that Citizens Income won't work in practice.
If, however, you change some of those core assumptions then I'd give you a very different answer. The problem was that the working group never really questioned those core assumptions and after that the outcome was inevitable.
Maybe we've got different recollections but I distinctly remember the policy paper saying that sanctions are bad but that we'll keep them and make up for it by giving an extra £10 a week to those claimants who work really, really, really hard at proving they're looking for work.
Am I wrong or is that not the policy we're proposing?
Thank you to the working group for giving your time and energy to this – and thanks Jenny for your thoughtful response.
I do feel though that if the Liberal Democrats aren't rejecting conditionality, they've really lost their way.
I'd be in favour of a universal income – sufficient but not necessary.
Conditionality though is entirely necessary.
I am alarmed to now learn that only one model of CI was looked at by the working group. But then I suppose 'The simple fact is that in every model for Citizen's Income that we examined . . ' sounds a lot better than 'The simple fact is that in the single model for Citizen's Income that we examined'.
Typo – rejecting conditionality is entirely necessary!
Was the RSA's proposal discussed by the working group at all? https://www.thersa.org/action-and-research/rsa-projects/economy-enterprise-manufacturing-folder/basic-income This appears to meet a lot of the objections the article raises and was published while the group was doing its job, so ignoring it seems a very odd way to go about making policy. The RSA – a network of thousands of people interested in improving society, and generally liberal-minded – is exactly the sort of organisation we should be building links with and not ignoring if we want to build a true liberal movement in this country.
I'm glad that there is a real discussion going about CI, but I have to challenge one of George's assertions. It simply isn't true to say we only looked at one model: the Working Group had evidence on the Canadian mincome experiment, took oral evidence from the Citizens' Income Trust and the Adam Smith Institute on Negative Income Tax, had a phone conference with a member of our sister party in Finland about the pilot they are running there, considered the RSA paper and looked at various models of both CI and NIT. In addition I, and I'm sure other members of the group, did a huge amount of reading around the subject to make sure we were as well informed as possible on what is an important and complicated subject.
We considered flat rate options and proposals for tiered payments, but as I explained in the original article, and as Lucy has laid out, the more add-ons you build into the system the more it becomes like the current system and the more expensive it becomes.
If the only reason for a CI is to get rid of conditionality, as George seems to be suggesting, then you can get rid of that in the current system, but as Lucy says, after much debate, on a number of occasions, the majority of the group decided to recommend that the party keeps conditionality.
I hope this reassures people that we did a lot of research and looked at a number of different options before ruling out CI. We all took very seriously our responsibility to evidence-based policy making and ensuring that we put forward what we thought was the best, most appropriate policy package for the Lib Dems.
I defy any adult to live perpetually as a contributing member of society on an income below £150 a week.
The proposal also suggests that housing and disability support should be integrated into the CI as fixed universal payments. But why? Each disability brings different costs. Each home has different costs. Keep disability support individual, and operate it through the patient's doctors. Add £100 a week to my proposed £150, and direct to Bank of England to give fixed price mortgages at £100 a week. Let the country share the cost of housing, which would be much less than the hidden current costs of housing benefits and homelessness.
Then we could agree to abolish income tax, VAT, council tax, etc in favour of a single simple Comprehensive Business Withholding Tax at a flat rate of say 40% on salaries, dividends, etc with substantial savings in administration, costs of compliance, and tax avoidability.
The left of the party seems to be pretty anxious at the moment and doubling down on radicalism, but most people don't have faith in its electability or deliverability.
If you introduce UBI and are pro immigration then you need to increase foreign aid, otherwise the refugee crisis would get worse.
The policy platform would begin to look like the Green Party under Natalie Bennett and even foreign aid alone wouldn't solve the refugee crisis because it requires a military element too.
It is sad that the whole debate is revolvng almost exclusively aroud Citizens/Basic Income, when there are many other aspects to cosider.
I personally like the return to the insurance principle – reminding people that what they pay in is for anyone who falls into hardship, and that can mean anyone – not just a to an allegedly idle underclass (as stereotyped by the Tories and their friends in the right-wing press) – though the insurance element should not be modelled too closely on the private sector as it could become unaffordable for people who need it most.
If we demand that jobseekers should do just that and seek work, then there must be consequences for failing to do so – but these sanctions must be proportionate to the offence (such as fines in a magistrate's court) and no-one should ever be left without the fundamentals – food, housing, heat, clean water, clothing etc – so a "penalty" rate of benefits should afford people these basics and kick in automatically when a sanction is applied (not as, at present, asking people to apply and wait, then be told it's a loan that they have to repay).
We must get back control of the narrative that we lost to the Tories whilst in coalition, as evil flourishes when good people remain silent. Them saying that social insurance encourages bad "lifestyle choices" is as ridiculous as saying that motor insurance encourages bad driving!
Also: the right of the party seems to be pretty anxious at the moment and doubling down on centrism & managerialism, but most people don't have faith in its electability or deliverability.
I think it is those of us in the centre of our party , not right or left , that struggle the most to even get heard !
Shouldn't benefits be for people who can't earn enough to support themselves or their families?
Simon: do you say the same about medical treatment or education (that it should only be for those that can't afford it themselves)? If not, why the difference in approach?
Citizens income seems to be one of those admirable ideas that have too many 'but what ifs', and also take little account of human nature. If it's possible to screw a system, [CI or otherwise], people will do just that. That said, could maybe, an incremental CI over a lifetime work.? Here's my outline idea for an Age Related Incremental CI : ?
(Say),.. Child benefit stops at age 16, and instead every child [age 16], gets a CI of £5 per week. The proviso is that, that £5 per week must go into a pension pot for the benefit of that child's retirement. At age 17 the CI increases by £3 to £8, again that sum compulsorily going into that persons pension pot. Each subsequent birthday, the weekly CI increments by £3.
So age 20 the person has £17 per week (£884 annual), CI into their pension pot.
Age 30 they have £47/wk (£2444 annual) CI going into pension plan.
Age 40 they have £77/wk (£4004 annual) CI going into pension plan.
Age 50 they have £107/wk (£5564 annual) CI going into pension plan.
By age 66 they will have £155/wk CI which (by design!), exactly matches their state pension. So now at age 66 the £3 CI increments will stop, and only increase thereafter by the annual CPI rate, ( maybe, Triple Lock would go ?).
There is much flexibility in such an lifetime incremental CI system linked to a personal pension plan. It overcomes the reluctance of youngsters to start or even think of their pension. Of course, some further thought would have to go into the amount of an employer's contribution but that is eminently do-able.
Also as people reach age 50, we could say to them that they can retire [at any year post age 50 ], if they wish and take their CI of [£107/wk at age 50], as actual income instead of as previously into their pension, and also they could take (if they wished), the lump sum pension accrued of £101,920 to invest as they wish. Deciding to retire early [at 50], also has the added advantage of freeing up employment opportunities for younger folk. If they decided to carry on working to age 66, then they would have an income equal to today's pension of £155/wk with the added advantage of an investment pot of £ 212,160 to either spend or invest as they wish. There could also be early pension pot drawdown times for people of disability factored into this system.?
Might his style of Age Related Incremental [ARI], CI system be worth further investigation.?
George: you saw the group discussed only one model. I can't recall if you were at the evidence session where we went through this, but at that we had several models presented and discussed (and indeed you'll recall my comments at subsequent meetings made reference to multiple models).
Those who presented their models also did put forward the idea of the same rate being central to most models – because it's having one uniform rate which serves up many of the savings (in time, money and stress) from having a system that gives different people different amounts. So whilst you may well feel the central principle of universal income is lack of conditionality, that's not the view of many who promote it.
Nick: I certainly read the RSA model too, and it doesn't overcome the concerns I too had as someone who went from 'very interested in idea' to 'the details don't work'.
I was at the evidence session and we had exactly one organisation present us with a coated, detailed model. The chap from the ASI advocated the principle of NIT but didn't have any detailed proposals. The chap from CIT had a paper which considered two possible implementations and recommended and expanded upon just one model. Also circulated, by myself, was a summary document of conclusions from the Canadian Mincome experiment.
We may have heard from one or two more sources in favour of Citizens Income in addition to the above but the CIT's paper was the only detailed and costed model which we looked seriously at.
I'm attracted to the idea of CI/UBI and so was interested to read this. However in my mind I never imagined it would be priced to cover disability and housing benefits as well. Of course if you try to do this it is very expensive and unnecessarily generous to those without additional needs or in lower cost housing.
Did the working group run some numbers if housing and disability benefits were excluded, and treated separately according to need?
I was also slightly disturbed by Lucy Nethsingha's comment – "there was a strong view from other members of the group that some type of conditionality was needed to retain public support for the social security system". Surely a Lib Dem working group should not feel constrained from aiming to do the "right thing" by untested concerns that the public at large wouldn't like it. Shouldn't we decide on the best policy first, and then set about persuading people we are right?
Nick – I was also distributed by Lucy Nethsingha's comment that "there was a strong view from other members of the group that some type of conditionality was needed to retain public support for the social security system".
Was it even within the remit of the working group to consider the electoral implications of a certain policy? If not, such thoughts should have been put to one side and policies should have been judged on their own merits and not what someone presumes the electorate will think.
There have been a couple of questions about my comment on the public perception of social security and conditionality. I believe it was certainly within the remit of the group to consider the electoral implications of any policy we were proposing, but my recollection is that there were also a number of members on the group who were in favour of conditionality, as well as some members who would have preferred an unconditional social security offer, one of whom was George. I personally was undecided, and liked the idea of an unconditional offer. After discussion those who favoured some form of conditionality were in the majority, but there was also a great deal of sympathy for the view that the conditions must be proportionate. There was a strong recognition that the current system is far too punitive and I hope the paper reflects this view.
I really appreciate Jenny responding to the comments on UBI. I'm not sure she's got it right on the rates of payment though – the purpose of UBI is to give everyone a safety net for a good standard of living, upon which they can add wages from a good, secure job. Eddie struck an interesting note on immigration: I'd like to see UBI, a higher, smarter foreign aid budget and investment in the housing, transport, schools etc required to integrate people in a managed system, preventing the undercutting of wages.
Good, sounds like you did a thorough job and came up with a sensible conclusion.
The basic problem we are facing here is the newspaper induced belief that there are millions of people fiddling the benefit system and that the world is full of people who want to avoid work and get paid for it. It seems to me that continuing with a conditional system of benefits is pandering to that prejudice.
The truth is that most people want to work and earn a living, but that there are some people who can't work and others who are forced to work for a pittance. The aim of any benefits system should be to provide a safety net below which people can't fall and this should be an income sufficient not to need to claim other benefits.
I am surprised that the working party did not give more consideration to the policy that was favoured by the Liberal Party, namely Negative Income Tax. It is a simple system where individuals pay tax if their income is above the minimum level and receive rebates if it is below the minimum level. In effect there is one means test, namely the income tax return.
Such a system would enable the abolition of whole swathes of the current benefits system and would of course be paid for by a progressive income tax system – probably more progressive than the one we currently have. In short the rich would pay more and the poor would get more. In one fell swoop most people would be taken out of poverty. Of course there will be a few people who spend their money unwisely, but in a free society that is their right.
What all this means is a wholly different approach to work and benefits and I suspect that those who favour conditionality do so because they fear what the right wing press and their elitist owners will say.
I believe that if we truly want to foster a Liberal Society in which none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity, then we need to propose a radical alternative to the punitive regime built up over the years by successive governments and we need to prose that all shall have a basic income sufficient to live on without resorting to loan sharks, borrowing from relatives or being called out as scroungers or whatever epithet the media are currently using.
Nick: For me, the question of housing, parenting and disability costs is central to why a good idea at first look ends up not working when you get into the detail.
You can either have a simple model – which brings savings both financial (administration costs) and, perhaps even more importantly, in terms of reduced errors and stress – or you can have a model which caters for the huge variation in people's living costs depending on number of children their responsible for bringing up, their health and where they live. Once you get into catering for those variations (and as liberals, understanding the huge variety of individuals should be central to our approach), you very rapidly lose the benefits of simplicity. For example, even as simple a question as extra money for people responsible for bringing up children spawns rules and complexity over who that is – not always the birth parents, not always two people and not always people at the same address.
A 'universal income' or a safety net that is then really only one for healthy, childless people in certain parts of the country (bearing in mind housing costs issues mentioned above) isn't very universal or a great safety net.
George: you both complain that we didn't look at the Canadian model and also point out that information about it was circulated (by you, thanks).
Unless you're suggesting that no-one looked at what you sent I'm not quite sure therefore what you mean 🙂 (and again, I'd point you to the comments I made myself in our discussions which made reference to it amongst others – so it did come up in our discussions in that sense certainly).
What I mean is that, while some people read it and while a very small number of people made reference to it in comments, there was point where the group sat down and specifically discussed other models (like the Canadian experiment) and their pros, cons and financial implications before the decision was made that the whole field of BI/NIT/etc should be off the table.
George, I think you're right to highlight conditionality as a fundamental concept to debate, quite separate from the more complex Citizen's Income ("CI") question. CI does many things beyond removing conditionality, e.g. turbo-charged redistribution, rejection of needs-based resource targeting, removal of concentrated "tapering" away of benefits as income rises, etc. (extent depending on particular scheme). Jenny's piece explains the working group's rejection of CI schemes pretty well based on the bluntness of a flat rate system and/or the tax rises required.
If the fundamental problem is conditionality, presenting CI as the proposed solution is unhelpful because it has so many other effects that many people (members, voters) object to. Changing conditionality (and treating claimants in a more dignified manner generally) can be addressed within the current UC structure.
Looking purely at conditionality – people can make varying valid judgements on this. The working group devoted time to debate this principle in its own right. After hearing evidence from poverty charities, academics, etc. the majority of the group felt that some conditionality is necessary, based on fairness, public support, and as positive for claimants themselves IF DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY.
Conditionality is not binary – it's a matter of degree and approach. Much of the public feel out-of-work claimants who are fit and able should do their best to look for work. But the Policy Paper makes clear that the group think the current regime is too harsh, inflexible and negative. Hence they propose reducing conditionality, though not to zero, through ditching fixed penalty sanctions, safeguarding child and housing payments, strengthening appeals, and moving to positive encouragement.
Others will disagree and think that anything less than unconditional payment of unemployment benefit without some attached responsibilities is wrong. That is a fair enough debate, but "money for nothing" is a position that I think the public rejects and could divert attention from more winnable and effective policy changes that could genuinely reduce poverty.
Btw – full disclosure – I am a party member but was temporarily seconded to the party to help staff this policy working group, among other things helping to arrange evidence for the group. I was not a voting member and aimed to remain as neutral as possible.
Also for the record, the working group heard oral evidence on CI/NIT and were given papers covering numerous schemes in advance of a dedicated group discussion (including RSA, Citizens Income Trust, Reform Scotland, the Adam Smith Institute, Joseph Rowntree Foundation and yes the Green Party). RSA/CIT/Reform Scotland/Green Party were fully costed.
I would add that since the group completed its work Compass and the Fabian Society have produced reports looking into CI/NIT. Both reject full CI/NIT schemes. The Fabians also reject unconditional payments.
Personally, I think it's disappointing that the motion to Conference does not repeat all the words of the Policy Paper, which makes clear the party remains open to learning from evidence on CI trials happening in other countries in the future, but nonetheless the motion does endorse the paper in full. It's worth noting other proposals in the Policy Paper that I hope are not eclipsed – ie. long term aim of increasing benefit rates in line with earnings rises, scrapping the benefits cap, abolishing the bedroom tax, etc..
Citizen's Income falls within the same category as flat rate income tax, Universal Credit, free love, the money tree, and Donald Trump's Mexican wall. They are all simplistic fantasy concepts which attract gullible politicians, but just don't blooming well work.
Thanks Jenny Willott for doing grown-up politics.
I think a lot of this depends on whether you believe people are fundamentally lazy and, given the chance, would rather live a meagre existence sitting on their arse at home with a citizens income, or would choose to boost their income and standard of living by working given a reasonable and beneficial chance.
In my personal utopia we would have a modest citizens income coupled with abolition of the basic tax allowance. I think this would increase the overall tax take and improve productivity and efficiency. Every paid hour worked would make the worker better off and result in the government receiving some tax income.
Temporary, part time and casual work would become more attractive since the worker would always be better off without any reduction in benefits or any hassle of declaring the paid work. With no tax free allowance, all employers would deduct basic rate tax at source through PAYE. This would be a legal requirement for all paid work, no matter how casual, and the calculation would be very simple.
As an added bonus, companies would be less able to treat their employees badly, since there would be a limit to how much exploitation and humiliation would be tolerated before staying at home with your CI would seem a better bet.
There are surely far too many people ( 30 million? ) paid benefits of some form by the state. They should be paid largely on the basis of need. The tests imposed on those who are disadvantaged are too harsh. but that is not an argument for citizens' income.
So something for nothing, why bother working ?
Well said Philip Rolle. A safety net yes, but more than that is bad for all.
It's a Utopian concept. If you want to spend your life making wobbly pottery mugs that leak then, my friend, do so with no fear of others criticising you for the rest of us will feed, clothe, house, and heat you and be extremely pleased to do so.
Alas, if we all chose our hearts over our heads in respect of how to spend our days we would surely starve or freeze in houses that you can't maintain because the plumbers and roofers are all now sculptors and ballet / belly dancers. They're not fundamentally lazy but an unconditional and sufficient income allows anyone and everyone to engage in economically pointless activity. And, of course, some people are fundamentally lazy.
Suppose I choose to carry on working hard in business to provide for dependents and my retirement, I would not be incentived by having to cough up substantially more taxes to pay for wonky pot throwers and belly dance practitioners. I might choose to move myself and my business to a country that hasn't gone stark raving mad. Or I could join in the madness and become a full time jigsaw puzzler.
Of course I could be grossly misrepresenting the situation but not how the vast majority of people would see it. I am glad the Working Group spotted some of the obvious flaws. What amazes me is that enough people took it seriously enough to set up a Working Group given the end result was obvious from the start. What next? The potential to use pixie dust in key marginals to influence floating voters. Discuss.
Maybe one day technology and automation may mean work is a hobby not a necessity. I suspect that this will not be in my lifetime nor that of anyone posting here.
I wonder if anyone has studied Basic Income funded by a Land Value Tax – a variation on the Georgist principle of communal ownership of the land. The Greens support both policies but don't seem to tie them together.
This has to be considered in the context of a changing employment landscape. Jobs for life are long gone, and whilst computerisation has been having an effect for decades the increasing usability of machine learning and artificial intelligence may be a step change: once self driving vehicles are road legal taxi and HGV drivers will be out of work virtually over night, and I doubt their professions will be the last to vanish.
Andrew Kerr – That's very interesting. I was thinking we could fund a huge house building programme and end homelessness with a land tax, clamp down fully on corporate tax evasion to fund an end to SME rates, and introduce a basic income, but doesn't it just replace the current welfare state in terms of costs and the administrative savings made?
I don't think they are fundamentally lazy, but I do think that if people were given money unconditionally they would spend their time on their hobbies and having fun, rather than on anything useful.
The world does not need more amateur musicians.
How do you get to be on a working group ,and does the party like people on them who have experience in the field being investigated ?
I wonder if George or Mark could answer this , are they particularly experienced in this area ? They seem to be engaging well here which is good , as with Jenny Willot, very welcome.
As someone who is experienced in this area , having been both client , in a precarious field of professionalism when young, and as a result of a car accident that has left disability issues and caused terrible stress for my wife and I , but then as an adviser for a private company contracted to the job centre plus organisation , I am keen to know. As a seminar leader I have seen real motivation amongst unemployed clients, having worked sometimes,as a specialist creative industries adviser, I can assure you such clients are keen to work !
The quality of unemployed clients is greater , with regard to wanting to work and employability, than people suppose , and with regard to motivation, for example, though the energy is sapped by the dreadful atmosphere and mentality of staff and public stereotypes, alike . Many long term unemployed have been through a lot. A few are taking the Mickey , only a few in my view.
I have seen very good quality job centre plus advisers , those that there are,and many very poor ones , with no skill in the field whatsover. It is terrible to think that a middle aged man or woman,with qualifications and enthusiasm to work , can be told that they pretty soon should consider Macdonalds , or else ! This happens all the time, to some.
Has anyone stopped to think , that there is irony in the job centre staff only having a job that often involves forcing other better qualified and experienced people to get a job ?! Do not think most are given the remit to give actual advice , they usually are not. The system is a target driven encouragement of nervousness and low morale.
The system needs radical change. Conditionality implemented by gifted , vocational , experienced advisers would be justified. As it is it is most definitely not.
Basic income need not cover housing nor disability , the latter even UKIP think should be decided by evidence supplied by the clients GP! It is basic income , and it is rather basic to me ,to mean a minimum to cover food and bills.
Stevan Rose and Tim – I imagine CI would be set at a level that would allow you feed, clothe and house yourself but not much more. It wouldn't fund hobbies (that cost money, and most do). If you want to do ballet or throw wonky pots you would have to do some work to earn the money to pay for your ballet shoes, tutu and that spinny thing pot throwers use.
I still think that the vast majority of people, even on CI, would choose to work if they could in order to afford a better lifestyle (including "fun" and belly dancing lessons).
We must be thinking of different people.
It's always good to get back to the original question after a long discussion. There is no single answer and it's far from certain that the social security system is a failure. For many people who lose their jobs the system provides the necessary support to keep them going until they find another one. What's wrong with that?
It is a failure if it doesn't do that, and for many others it doesn't. We have a class of people who have previously lost their jobs and for whatever reason they find it just about impossible to find another one. They don't want to be on social security. That means they don't want to be paid for doing nothing. There are some young people who may have never had a full time job and, even if they happy at the prospect of being paid more under a UBI it still cannot be good for our society if we offer them the prospect of being paid more , but, essentially still for doing nothing.
So instead of a UBI, as it is currently understood, we should perhaps be thinking more of a UBI linked to a Job Guarantee. For young people this JG could be an apprenticeship which would offer an alternative to several years of higher education with the debt problems it brings. It would in fact be a form of higher education, only one that is linked with work.
For older people, a Job Guarantee could be anything that is defined as doing something for the Public purpose – although there is no reason why an older person shouldn't do an apprenticeship if they chose to. Why not? A JG could be self defined. If there's a local park in need of some extra help then why waste available labour-hours by creating unnecessary unemployment?
A JG should be paid at a living wage. Once we do that we define a floor for wages and conditions for everyone else. A Job Guarantee would prevent the problem of long term welfare dependency. Although the costs may be higher in the short term, the costs in the longer term will be lower for a variety of social reasons which should not require further explanation.
I should emphasise that I am not advocating workfare as advocated by the political right. I am, though, advocating that we do not waste the labour power of those who are willing to work.
I work with homeless young people and I feel that the current system of benefits fails them completely. When benefits are stopped, Government assumes that people have friends or family to fall back on – but many of the young people I meet don't have this. I feel that a system offering carrots, rather than sticks, would work far better. Similar to the idea of a Citizen's Pension, but on a much smaller scale, I would suggest that there should be a basic amount of benefit that anyone who is out of work receives, whatever. This should be £30 – 40 a week, mainly to cover food & basic clothing. Housing costs should continue to be covered by Housing Benefit, because that can vary according to housing costs in a particular area. Extra needs, for disability, dependent children etc. should be covered by other benefits.
On top of that, there should then be "carrots": additional payments for turning up to sign on (making the amount of benefit up to current levels of £57.90), for attending training etc.
@petermartin2001 – I think variants of your Job Guarantee have been looked at before, and I think there are a couple of problems.
Firstly, where do you magic all the extra apprenticeships from? If they are not created as a result of genuine industry-driven need (in which case they should already exist) then they will end up being (ab)used as a source of cheap, subsidised labour.
For older people, assuming the Job Guarantee is subsidised by the Government, how do you stop it displacing people already in regular company-funded employment?
If the Government undertakes to subsidise all unemployed people into employment as part of a Job Guarantee, eventually all low or unskilled jobs will be subsidised at huge cost because why would any company choose to pay full whack themselves?
But why should people get bonuses for doing stuff they should be doing anyway?
This is like giving the class bully sweets for every day he manages to go without hitting another kid, and claiming a successful anti-bullying policy.
Because otherwise they wouldn't get their workforce. They would have to pay more than the JG rate to entice workers to work for them directly – which means they are no longer JG workers of course. It would be allowable to have JG workers working on an "agency" basis forcompanies . In which case the payment would be to Government. As with all agency workers there'd have to be an additional charge to cover overheads.
The "full whack" would be relaxed according to the degree of training involved. So the wages of apprentices would be only partially covered by the company.
There is always a need for well trained workers. The problem that any company has is that if they spend money training young people they may well quit after that training and go off to work for another company who hasn't provided any. So there does need to be some government involvement to make sure we don't have free-riders on the system.
Citizens income seems to be one of those admirable ideas that have too many 'but what ifs', and also take little account of human nature.
I do think this aspect – human nature – hasn't been properly addressed. Whilst we can think people are basically good, we have to accept the reality that even in the current system there are relatively large groups of people who 'happily' live in the benefits system. Hence the key challenge CI has is: will it make a mindset difference to this group, or will they continue to avoid contributing to society?
Which brings us to a rather important point; we have a society that drew inspiration from the Protestant work ethic and thus this ethic has permeated everything including our education system. I suggest for CI to work, we need to think carefully about the ethics that we need to embed in our society and the motivations for work and thus modify our education system and expectations accordingly.
That's a good question. There are always going to be a few who aren't. So while we may say, on the one hand, we can provide a UBI, but on the other there is a requirement that everyone should, if possible, do something in return.
It's a case of "From each according to their abilities". So there would be no requirement for people to send old people down the mines for example!
The longer people are unemployed the more likely they are to become unemployable so we need to do whatever is needed to arrest a downward spiral.
Is Citizens' Income the answer to the failures of our social security system?
Actually no. It's the answer to the chaotic way in which our tax and benefits systems interact. That is why a working group that cannot consider tax cannot come up with a sensible version.
Those who do not use up their IT and NI allowances are allowed to claim 20% and 12% of the unclaimed part. If they are on JSA , Tax credits or Universal Credit then the amount is claimed for them and deducted from the base amount of their benefit.
This means no change for anyone who is paying taxes and not receiving benefits and no change for anyone on full benefits. There would be significant rises for those who currently fall through the gaps in between.
That would need funding but much less than our 2010 promise to raise tax thresholds and we had no difficulty finding taxes we were prepared to raise to fund that. My preferences would be Land Value Tax, Inheritance Tax and bringing investment income and capital gains up to the same rate as earned income. Any of those would more than fund it.
Is it a hopelessly impossible task to persuade everyone that taxes don't fund spending?
If we consider the introduction of a new currency it is clear that spending, by Govt, comes first then we have the taxation once there is something out there in the economy to tax. The Government doesn't tax because it needs what it created in the first instance. Why would it? It taxes to create a demand for the currency, make it worth something and so prevent inflation.
So the question you should be asking is: would the proposed changes create too much inflation if they were adopted or would higher taxes be needed to slow down the economy?