As a capital distribution the funds could be eligible for a claim to Entrepreneurs Relief, which effectively charges a tax rate of only 10%, and that is after the use of the annual exemption.  This is significantly better than a dividend, which with an underlying tax rate of 25% or even 36.11% that could be payable on the net dividend received makes a substantial saving.

Detractors have always had a problem with this ‘rich man tax saving’ and various Governments have tried to have the ESC C16 rules changed, with the current Government finally managing it.

Under the draft statute, only sums up to £25,000 could be distributed as a capital payment, if the sum is over £25,000 then it would have to be paid out as a dividend, to use the informal procedures.

What are your options?  Firstly, always try to draw down as much of your funds as you go along to keep the reserves low – but if that is not feasible then you could go down the formal liquidation procedures (and I’m sure a lot of companies will be doing ‘cut rate’ versions in the new year).  Whilst the formal liquidation costs (the Chancellor indicated from £7,500 – though cheaper deals would be available if your affairs are tidy) to be made, it could save you 36.11% in tax, so quickly becomes a reasonable option for companies with larger retained profits.

There will be some accountant negotiation with liquidators, crunching some numbers as they try to achieve the best results for their clients!

Has your Limited Company business already ceased?  If so, you may wish to try to get the ESC C16 application in and approved early in 2012, it could save you a lot of money.

It is truly a tragedy that the global economic crisis has made the gulf between the haves and have-nots in the UK has become wide that the reported sharp increase in numbers of people unable to feed themselves at most basic levels, through lack of enough money can hardly come as any major surprise.

Leading food charity FareShare, re-distributors of supermarket and major food producer waste foods to charities working in social care  has said that the number of people it is helping with food climb from 29,500 to 35,000 in the space of 12 months, many cursed by unemployment and business failures, from stable families once thought to  be recession proof.

Charities needing FareShare foodstuffs, from one of  17 sites the organization runs across the UK, have also increased from 600 to 700, over 40% recording increases in demand by half as much again by needy families.  

Lindsay Boswell, chief executive of FareShare, pointed out that it seems many people simply go to bed hungry, unable to afford to eat, an outrage when the thousands of tonnes of good food thrown away each year are factored in, high-lighting the illogicality and immorality of these problems co-existing in a modern society.

Food discarded through being out of date, surplus or through packaging or printing errors is estimated at 3 million tons annually, of which FareShare gets hold of a meagre three thousand, so the potential for solving the problems is very obvious.

Where once those in need were the single homeless and destitute,more and more families and working people, fallen on hard times, are now queueing up. Salisbury-based Trussell Trust, running more than 100 food banks has seen a rise from 41,000 to 61,500, featuring many normal working people whom the welfare state is just not helping soon enough.

With more than 20% of the UK workforce now earning less than what might reasonably called a living wage, the situation seems set to worsen considerably before any genuine improvements come on stream. Perhaps a much closer look at what positive action might be taken to address the food waste mountain problem is needed urgently, before the disgruntled poor decide that actions similar to the horrendous recent riots are their only way out.

Most of us have learned about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in school, and even if we haven’t learned in school we have learned it in life. The unfairness in the way that wealth is distributed does not pertain only to the lazy individuals who don’t want to earn their living and want everything given to them. What I am speaking of, concerns those who are willing to work hard and who do but who don’t earn enough. A person shouldn’t have to work only to pay bills and buy food. Other basics such as healthcare should also be provided and taken care of by the government. Yes, the government. I’m not suggesting a plunge into Communism, but something between Socialism and Capitalism would make for the ideal society.

It is hard to watch people suffer for lack of money. Harder still, knowing that there isn’t much you can do about it. Perhaps the hardest thing of all is to watch people who have too much money and who are too greedy with it. Certainly, it is their business what they do with their money, but rich people often have stepped on those less able in order to be as rich as they are.

There are people all over the world who don’t have enough money to buy food, while others have money to spend on vacations that they probably don’t need every month. I think the world would be a better place if more job opportunities could be given to the poor and the rich should have to assist with this. Also, I think that the government should have some type of responsibility in providing jobs and health care for individuals who need them.

Take distribution for example.  When you think about licensing your intellectual property, especially if it is a product or service, you should consider how it is distributed. It’s important to remain aware and have a basic understanding of how your intellectual property applies to the marketplace. One way of understanding how your intellectual property applies to the market is understanding where  it fits -  and in this case understanding what the best distribution channels are helps determine who may be the best type of licensee.

Consider consumer products. There are a number of property categories out there – licensing categories if you will – each with different distribution channels For example, if  you have invented a product, think beyond it just being a specific type of product, such as a toy item, apparel, video game or gift item.  Perhaps there are multiple channels  - say gifts and toys, or specialty and online – that could apply to different formats or configurations of the product.  If so, then these other channels may offer licensing opportunities for additional licensees.

1.    Economic Activity: This refers to all forms of activities that are undertaken by mankind to enable him make a                                     living for himself for which a reward is received either in kind or in cash. The activity must                                         be a legal activity or within the laws of the society or state.

2.    Production:         This is the process of creating goods and services to satisfy both collective and individual                                        wants or needs.

3.    Distribution:        This refers to the act of making goods and services available to people who need them or                                     prospective buyers.

4.    Consumption:      This refers to the act of using up or making use of goods and services to satisfy human                                         needs.

5.    Economics:          This is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and                                               scarce  means which have alternative uses.

But while self-interest in free markets has been a principal force in driving our economy, guiding it to an optimum distribution of goods and services and a steady growth or accumulation of wealth, there is no doubt that a certain instability pervades any free-market society, whereby periods of economic growth, marked by increasing productivity, employment, and prosperity, can be followed by periods of recession in which productivity falls, unemployment rises, and the overall standard of living worsens.  As Karl Marx in his work Das Kapital observed, the free-market society tends toward a growing disparity between rich and poor, or between a diminishing population of wealthy capitalists owning the means of production and a burgeoning population of workers who own little except the value of their own labor.  In positing capitalism’s downfall in favor of communism, what Marx failed to account for are some of the corrective forces that are available to combat a weak or failing economy.  In fact, Marx’s theory of class struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat has been supplanted, in the U.S. especially, by the political struggle between left and right, or liberal and conservative. 

In our nation’s history, the struggle between the liberal and conservative wings of government has centered on the role, if any, government should play in addressing the weaknesses of a free market and encouraging economic growth.  The conservative view of government’s role has been generally that of “laissez-faire” or to leave the free market to correct itself while stimulating the supply-side of the economy through tax incentives and management of the money supplied through the financial system of banks and other lenders.  The conservative solution would also include relieving businesses of burdensome regulations that hamper profit and incentive.  The liberal view has been to stimulate the economy’s demand-side via the government’s direct injection of money, which it either borrows by issuing government debt or collects by imposing income taxes, into specific economic sectors.  A liberal policy would also include managing the supply of money through banks and other lenders and encouraging regulations to police business practices that would be unfair or harmful to the public at large.  While both the liberal and conservative sides would, through the Federal Reserve Bank, manage the money supply, their tax policies could differ significantly, with Liberals emphasizing that the income tax burden should be borne primarily by those with greater ability to pay it, but with Conservatives emphasizing a lesser degree by which those of greater ability to pay the income tax burden should in fact bear it.  The controversy thus centers on the role of government in the free-market economy.

A – 61% B – 59% C – 60%

Let’s eavesdrop into their conversation…

A – “I heard someone out there got a perfect score (100%), I don’t believe it! The exam was so difficult and confusing. I believe there’s many of us who got a failing grade.

B — “Yeah, I heard that many failed, but regarding the one who got 100%. I’ll ask around if it’s true.

C — Keeps quiet

Next Day:

A — “ So is it true someone got a perfect score?”

B — “ Confirmed, student D got a perfect score. He’s really good huh.”

A — “D? Oh come on! What a nerd. No way.

B — “But I’ve double checked, it’s true.”

A — “Ok, ok, I believe you. But I’m not surprised. He practically live for those books. Plus, I think he has special access to the teachers. I’m sure he’s got plenty of reviewers and who knows, some leakage on test questionnaires.”

C — All during the conversation, he just listened and kept quiet.

B — “Reviewers or no reviewers, still to get a 100% you have to be good. After all this is not a test that requires memorization, it takes a lot of understanding and smarts to do that. Regarding the leakage, I don’t think so. I’m going to take a look at his test papers, talk with him, maybe he can help me, maybe I can get to improve in my next coming exams.

A — “It’s your call. As for me no way I’m approaching that nerd. What arrogant kid. Acts as if he knows everything. By the way, did you heard he got a very low score in the English exam. Ha ha ha, he’s not even at par with us on that subject.”

So each went their separate ways. A continue to avoid D. B however was humble enough (and desperate enough as well) to approach D. Student D turned out to be a very nice guy. He is just a little quiet and reserved. A little aloof should we say, the type of guy who if you don’t greet him, he won’t either, which a lot of times can be misinterpreted as being cocky and feeling superior. Eventually B got close to D and A upon sensing this starts to feel resentment.

A — “Look at that guy (referring to A discussing math with D while talking to C). From now on, he’s out of our group already.” C in his usual quiet unassuming way didn’t say anything and moved on.

2nd grading exams Trigo test results

A — 60% B – 79% C — 61%

NOW A begins to feel heavier resentment towards B. C talked for the 1st time.

C — “Hey friend, way to go (talking to B).”

B just smiled.

C — “I see you’ve been close with D lately, maybe you can help me approach him. Hey, I can’t keep on getting this kind of grades. I’ll be screwed.”

B — “Ok, let’s go. I’ll introduce you to him”

So C begins approaching D as well and just like what B discovered, contrary to what A said he’s real nice guy. Humble and approachable, while very patient in explaining the details of the questions at hand. D by the way also improved on his English exams by hanging out with B and C. Now A is left all alone, but obviously he’s not seeing the picture clear. Instead of reaching out to his friends, he began to distance himself from B and C while hanging around with another crowd and started (even relished) in back-stabbing his former friends.

3rd grading exam results

A – 59% B – 88% C – 77%

Now A is really angry (and panicking as well), he felt betrayed, he felt deserted. B and C continue to reach out to their former friend (A) mates but A has shut the door already. Eventually the friendship drifted off.

So what’s the point all this student A,B,C stuff ? Apply it in real life.

Student A

The type of person who cannot accept that there will be someone out there who is better and smarter than he is. If there really is, he will always be in denial. When someone did something good, he always has a convenient answer “luck, reviewers and leakages”. He felt he’s always better and smarter and to see the bottom line result that he is not is inconceivable to him. To tell the truth, he’s a real smart-aleck but his attitude is stagnating his growth. His inability to accept certain realities and that “better-than-you” attitude, put in “pride” into the mix and you see a perfect example of a wasted potential.

Why did he thought of D as “arrogant”? Because he is looking at a reflection of himself. When you are conceited and snobbish , you’ll always feel that others are just as well. Then when you meet then, you’ll start bragging, the surest way to drive others away. So when others did drift off, you’ll begin to say “See I told you!” not knowing that it was you who really drove him away.

Student B

The humble type of person, he’s always a willing learner, always believe it’s really how you approach a guy. He doesn’t feel that he is degrading himself when he humbled himself (to approach D). The results of his exams are testament of “how far humility can take us”. If he can continue to take that attitude with him as his guiding-motto, he can go a long way. Talent/Intelligence wise he’s a little notch below A but here’s someone who believes that it’s by learning and listening (and not comparing) with the better and smarter guys that’s the key to continuous improvement.

Student C

The normally neutral guy who gets to see 1st hand how pride and “better-than-you_ attitude destroyed A and how humility and willingness to learn elevated B. Now it’s so obvious to know where to go. He’s the quiet type who sees and observes everything.