Mediaboss Marketing

22 February 2012 Last updated at 17:42 ET

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

David Cameron produces Labour briefing on NHS bill during PMQs

Labour leader Ed Miliband has told David Cameron he risks making NHS reform "his poll tax" - in noisy Commons clashes over the health bill.

Mr Miliband repeatedly accused the PM of refusing to listen to medics' concerns about the controversial bill.

But the government defeated, by a majority of 53 votes, a Labour bid to make it release an internal register of risks linked to the bill.

Mr Cameron said Labour refused to publish a register when in power.

The two leaders clashed at Prime Minister's Questions, ahead of the Labour-led debate calling for the publication of the government's risk assessment of the impact of the NHS shake-up in England.

Some 246 MPs voted for Labour's motion, compared with 299 who voted against following the Commons debate.

Four Lib Dem MPs - Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Greg Mulholland and John Pugh - voted with Labour and against the government.

'Not fit'

The controversial Health and Social Care Bill has passed through its Commons stages but has been amended several times by the House of Lords.

Crossbencher Lord Owen is expected to put down an amendment to the bill which would delay its passage through Parliament until after a Freedom of Information ruling on the "transition risk register" on 5 and 6 March.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

This will become his poll tax. He should listen to the public and he should drop this bill”

End Quote Ed Miliband Labour leader

In the Commons, Mr Cameron said Labour frontbencher Andy Burnham had blocked the publication of a risk register in September 2009 - when he was health secretary.

Mr Cameron said it showed Labour "absolutely revealed as a bunch of rank opportunists, not fit to run opposition and not fit for government".

But Mr Miliband accused the PM of having excluded the "vast majority" of health workers from a "ridiculous summit" on the Health and Social Care Bill on Monday.

Having previously said he wanted to listen to NHS workers "now he can't even be in the same room as the doctors and nurses" - suggesting he had "lost the confidence of those who work in the NHS".

He told the PM "nobody believes him and nobody trusts him on the health service" and claimed the bill had become a "symbol of his arrogance".

Referring to the hugely controversial policy seen as helping hasten the end of Margaret Thatcher's leadership of the Conservative Party, Mr Miliband added: "This will become his poll tax. He should listen to the public and he should drop this bill."

Lib Dem rebels

The government is appealing against a Freedom of Information ruling that it should be published in the public interest.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

You don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform”

End Quote David Cameron

Labour chose to use its opposition day debate to demand that the government "respect" the information commissioner's ruling and publish the report.

The vote is not binding but does increase pressure on the government.

An early day motion on the same issue has been signed by 15 Lib Dem MPs, including Duncan Hames - an aide to Energy Secretary Ed Davey. However, only four of the signatories chose to vote against the government.

Shadow health secretary Mr Burnham told MPs there had been "crucial differences" between the document whose publication he had blocked in 2009 - the strategic risk register - and the one Labour was now pressing the government to publish.

He said he had not initiated what he described as the biggest ever top-down re-organisation of the NHS at a time of its biggest ever financial challenge - and the information commissioner had not ruled in 2009 that the paper should be published.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has said it would be "completely misleading" to publish the register, which was put together before changes were made to the bill and had been intended as an "internal mechanism".

Past requests

In the Commons he quoted back Mr Burnham's own words from 2007, when he was a health minister, following a similar request for a risk register to be published - when Mr Burnham said that it would "be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents" which would "inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks".

Mr Burnham repeated that it was not a "comparable situation" as it had referred to a different document.

He claimed regional and local risk registers, which have been published, were "appalling and shocking".

Among them was a warning by South Central Strategic Health Authority, which said "the pace and scale of reform, coupled with savings achieved through cost reduction rather than real service redesign could adversely impact on safety and quality".

One of the Lib Dem rebels, Andrew George, said he acknowledged that if the register was published it was "unlikely to change a single mind on the issue".

But he said it was better not to take on the biggest reorganisation ever of the NHS "in the dark".

The bill has also been criticised by various bodies representing healthcare professionals.

'Delivering reform'

Lib Dem activists are preparing an emergency motion for their party's spring conference next month, urging the party to work towards defeating the bill, amid reports that grass roots discontent on the issue is now greater than that over student tuition fees in 2010.

But Mr Cameron said on Wednesday the bill would "abolish the bureaucracy that has been holding the NHS back".

He argues reform is needed to deal with the challenges of an ageing population and the rising costs of medical treatments and long-term conditions.

Accusing Labour of opposing changes it had once backed, he said: "You don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform."

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said that while both coalition partners were insisting the bill would continue, there were clear differences in tone from the two sides about the possibility of further concessions.

View original post here:
NHS 'will be Cameron's poll tax'

(MENAFN - Arab News) The Labor Ministry announced Wednesday that it would continue to allow expatriates working in premium and green category companies to change their professions and that there would not be any deadline for them to complete the procedure.

"The process of changing profession is still open for workers in premium and green categories," said Hattab Al-Anazi, spokesman of the ministry. "This is one of the incentives given to the two categories and it will not be restricted by any date," he said.

However, he pointed out that Feb. 22, 2012 was the last date for changing profession for those expatriates in the red and yellow categories. "We'll not give them any extension to change their professions," he added.

The ministry had allowed all private companies and establishments the provision to amend professions on the work permits of their foreign workers electronically without visiting the ministry.

Engineering and medical professions, which require special licenses, are excluded from the provision.

Foreigners might amend their professions to any other one with the exception of director of labor and laborers, personnel manager, personnel specialist, personnel clerk, employment official, HR clerk, timekeeper, receptionist at hotels and hospitals, complaint writer, cashier, special security guard, pursuer, and senior HR official.

The ministry warned private companies and establishments that if they were caught giving incorrect data about their foreign workers, it would suspend their operating licenses for five years and prevent them from foreign recruitment in future.

There are about 8 million foreigners in Saudi Arabia, representing about 30 percent of the country's population. Nearly 6 million expatriate workers are employed by the private sector.

See the article here:
Saudi- No deadline to regularize profession for 'green' expats

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday proposed a plan to revamp the U.S. corporate tax system, slashing the top tax rate to 28 percent, while eliminating many loopholes that companies rely on to cut their taxes.

Although the statutory top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, many companies pay nowhere near that much, with effective tax rates varying wildly because of the use of loopholes.

The administration's plan has little chance of becoming law with elections approaching in November and Congress deeply divided over fiscal issues. Still, the plan opens debate on overhauling the tax code, perhaps in 2013 and beyond.

Among the tax breaks Obama aims to cull are those specific to oil and gas companies, and also broader breaks including accelerated write-offs for business investments.

Below are potential winners and losers under Obama's plan:

LIKELY WINNERS

Likely "winners" under the Obama plan would be retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc and healthcare service groups like Aetna Inc which now pay close to the top 35 percent rate.

Electronics and electrical equipment companies also pay high effective tax rates, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning tax think tank and activist group.

Other companies already paying close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate, include health insurer UnitedHealth Group, motorcycle giant Harley-Davidson and Emerson Electric Co, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

LIKELY LOSERS

"Losers" might be big multinational companies such as General Electric Co and Boeing Co, which can now pare their effective tax rates using myriad tax breaks.

Other major companies paying a low effective or even negative rate, according to analysis by the group, include Baxter International Inc, Wells Fargo & Co and Honeywell International Inc.

According to CTJ, information technology, oil and gas, and utilities are among those paying far below the 35 percent rate.

Oil and gas companies in particular are likely to be losers, since the Obama administration wants to cut a major tax deduction now used by the industry.

Companies with major international components, specifically valuable intellectual property and other intangible assets, are likely to lose under the plan. Current tax rules let companies shift these assets abroad to trim taxes paid.

Many well-known corporations like Google Inc and Eli Lilly & Co take advantage of tax havens like the Netherlands and Puerto Rico to locate divisions and assets, which suggests they could be hit by the proposed minimum tax on foreign profits.

MANUFACTURING WILD CARD

The administration plan seeks a special 25 percent rate for manufacturing. It would do this by expanding a current tax break for manufacturing to 10.6 percent, from the current 9 percent, and focusing it more narrowly.

Obama also wants to double the credit for what he calls "high-tech" manufacturing, though which sectors would qualify is unclear.

Companies with big research and development costs could also benefit, given the plan's bid to expand that popular credit.

(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Matthew Lewis)

Read the original here:
Factbox: Winners, losers in Obama corporate tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cutting corporate tax rates and deleting loopholes is just what most economists prescribe for the tangled U.S. tax code.

So why isn't everyone cheering the plan President Barack Obama unveiled Tuesday to slash the top corporate tax rate and end breaks that let some companies pay little or nothing in taxes?

Economists note that Obama's plan would upturn the very playing field the administration says it wants to level. It would give manufacturers preferential treatment: Tax breaks would effectively cap their rate at 25 percent. Other companies would pay up to 28 percent.

The current top corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

Some say such varying rates can distort the economy by diverting investment into some industries and away from others that might pack a bigger economic punch.

"The administration is not making sense," says Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at publisher Tax Analysts. "The whole idea of corporate tax reform is to get rid of loopholes, and this plan is adding loopholes back in."

Other economists oppose a separate plank of the Obama plan: a minimum tax on foreign earnings of U.S. multinational companies. No other country imposes such a tax on its companies, they note. U.S. businesses would face a competitive disadvantage.

Facing resistance from Republicans and many businesses, Obama's plan is in any case a longshot proposal so close to Election Day.

"For anything that Obama recommends during an election year and with a divided Congress, the best one can say is, 'Good luck,'" says Henry Aaron, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "Those who stand to lose are really upset and will work hard to defeat it."

Just about everybody agrees something has to change. When Japan enacts a corporate tax cut in April, the United States will be left with the highest tax rate in the developed world.

That puts the U.S. companies that actually pay the official corporate tax rate at a disadvantage against their foreign competitors. (Many U.S. companies effectively pay lower rates because of tax breaks.)

The loophole-riddled U.S. tax code now benefits numerous industries over others. One tax break, for example, lets oil companies write off drilling costs immediately instead of over time, as most businesses must.

In the end, different industries can pay far different effective rates. The Treasury Department says U.S. utility companies pay an average effective tax rate of 14 percent. By contrast, retailers pay an average 31 percent.

The administration says the point of its tax plan is to make the system fairer and more efficient — not to squeeze more overall tax revenue from corporations. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner calls the current tax code "fundamentally unfair." But the administration also needs to end some loopholes to help pay for a lower corporate tax rate.

The White House argues that tax breaks for manufacturers could ultimately pay off for the economy. When factories expand, for example, the benefits tend to spill into other businesses: Shipping companies and warehouses must add jobs, too, to transport and store the goods that manufacturers are producing.

Economists also note that manufacturers account for a disproportionate amount of the research and development that create innovative products and new ways of doing business. The National Science Foundation has found that manufacturing companies are nearly three times likelier to introduce a new or significantly improved product than other companies are.

"Does manufacturing deserve special treatment? This is a hot debate," says Elisabeth Reynolds, executive director of the Industrial Performance Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "A case can be made that there's a reason to encourage more manufacturing in the United States because of its links to innovation."

Other economists say that argument is overstated. Among the skeptics is Obama's own former economic adviser, Christina Romer, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. In a column this month in The New York Times, Romer argued that there was no economic justification for the government to favor manufacturers over service-oriented companies.

"Our earnings from exporting architectural plans for a building in Shanghai are as real as those from exporting cars to Canada," Romer wrote.

Analysts are also divided over Obama's plans to impose a minimum tax on companies' foreign earnings.

Sullivan of Tax Analysts says the current system allows some companies — especially technology and pharmaceutical firms — to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting their earnings to tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Other multinationals can indefinitely avoid paying U.S. taxes by keeping their earnings overseas.

Lacking such tax breaks, companies that do all their business in the United States suffer a competitive disadvantage.

The minimum tax proposal, Sullivan says, "would level the playing field."

But big U.S. companies complain that they already pay taxes to foreign governments on the income they earn in those countries. A U.S. tax on that income, they argue, would amount to double taxation.

That would raise costs for U.S. companies operating overseas, making them less competitive. Instead, the United States should move toward a "territorial" tax system, business groups argue. Tax would apply only to income earned within the United States.

"No other developed country imposes such a 'minimum tax' on the foreign earnings of their corporations," said the Business Roundtable, a trade group of chief executives of large U.S. companies.

Some economists agree.

The minimum tax proposal for international earnings "is totally misguided both from a competitive standpoint and a jobs standpoint," said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Obama's plan, if enacted, will shrink the U.S. footprint in world markets and lose jobs."

Link:
To close tax loopholes, Obama would open new ones

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday proposed a plan to revamp the corporate tax system, slashing the top tax rate to 28 percent, while eliminating many tax loopholes that companies rely on to cut their taxes.

Among other changes, the proposal seeks to curb oil and gas company tax breaks while expanding deductions for manufacturers.

Major business groups largely applauded the lower corporate rate, but criticized the plan for focusing solely on corporate taxes.

Many businesses - such as law firm partners and investment managers - file through the individual side of the tax code, and Obama wants to raise the top rates on high earners.

At least one group representing small businesses applauded the plan for creating a more "level playing field" with larger rivals.

Unions and liberal groups said the plan doesn't go far enough in asking corporate America to pay its fair share.

Here is a snapshot of reactions to the proposal:

BUSINESS GROUPS

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue:

"It's appropriate for the White House to acknowledge that the corporate tax code stifles economic growth, undermines the competitiveness of U.S. firms, and needs reform."

However, he said, "We will be forced to vigorously oppose pay-fors that pit one industry against another or lavish favors on some while punishing others."

Small Business Majority President John Arensmeyer:

"The president's framework for reforming the tax code will eliminate dozens of loopholes that consistently leave small businesses paying an unfair share of taxes. It will also simplify the tax filing process for small business owners, whose valuable time needs to be spent building their business."

National Retail Federation President Matthew Shay:

Called the proposal a "positive first step," but criticized the creation of new tax benefits favoring select industries.

"Tax reform is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and we need to get it right. Reform needs to address small businesses as well as corporations, and needs to be fair to all industries rather than favoring one over another."

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Vice President Kenneth Bentsen:

"The president's proposal is partially undermined by a number of proposed tax increases, such as the proposal to create a new global minimum tax for American companies."

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard:

"It is the tired old policies of the past that discriminate against the oil and gas industry. Let's do corporate tax reform, bring the corporate rate down and treat everybody consistently and in a balanced way - don't pick winners and losers."

UNIONS, CONSUMER GROUPS

Richard Trumka, president of union umbrella group AFL-CIO:

"The Obama administration's proposal to reform the corporate tax code takes a number of steps in the right direction, but should have asked more from corporate America."

Bob McIntyre, president of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning tax activist group:

"We can and should collect more tax revenue from corporations. Right now, America's biggest and most profitable corporations are paying, on average, a ridiculously low amount in federal income taxes, and many of them are paying nothing at all."

OTHERS

Martin Sullivan, a former Treasury tax official and editor at Tax Analysts:

"The president deserves high grades for a much needed reduction in the corporate rate. And a blanket rule preventing multinationals from parking profits in tax havens is long overdue. But by only suggesting - and not spelling out exactly and endorsing - what other tax breaks could pay for the low rate, he has left the hard part of tax reform undone."

Michael Mundaca, former top Treasury tax official under Obama, now with accounting firm Ernst and Young:

"A lower rate could benefit U.S. businesses, encourage investment in the United States, and create U.S. jobs. At the same time, because under this framework overseas earnings would continue to be subject to U.S. tax upon repatriation, U.S. multinationals will continue to be concerned about the U.S. tax cost of accessing their earnings overseas and the competitiveness implications of that cost."

(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Eric Walsh)

Continued here:
Factbox: Reaction to Obama's corporate tax proposal