India's Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee has proposed the setting up of fast-track courts to deal with the issue of illegal money and tax evaders.
Mr Mukerjee said the government had already brought five bills in the parliament to deal with the problem.
The minister presented a "white paper" on illegal money in the lower house.
It did not name any offenders or give any estimates for illegal money but earlier reports have said $500bn was deposited in overseas tax havens.
Outlining the various proposals to deal with the problem of black money, the minister suggested that anti-corruption ombudsmen be appointed at the central and state levels.
"While these measures will set the tone for an equitable, transparent and a more efficient economy, there is much that we could do, both individually and collectively, to strengthen the moral fibre of our society," Mr Mukerjee said.
In the past, officials have said that illegal funds were often sent to tax havens such as Mauritius, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and the British Virgin Islands among others.
Analysts say this flight of capital has helped widen inequality in India.
According to one estimate, India's underground economy accounts for 50% of the country's gross domestic product.
In recent months, India's Congress party-led government has been on the back foot on the issue of black money and corruption.
The Supreme Court has also chided the government for not doing enough to unearth illicit money.
Can giving up the supermarket shop save me money? - The Guardian
Like most people I want to save money on groceries, but I don't seem to be able to reduce the cost of my supermarket shop. As I dash around slinging things in the trolley it seems like every product is on offer and will be a value buy. When I get to the till, however, it's a different story: how do all of those discounts end up costing so much?
I like to think of myself as relatively money-savvy, yet under the bright glare of the supermarket lights I am capable of buying three things I didn't need in the first place just because they are only the price of two.
It's not as if I like supermarkets anyway. Most of us know it is farmers and food manufacturers who pay for the "generous" discounts offered by supermarkets. Food packaging would be vastly reduced if we ate locally produced food, and it doesn't seem right that the four giant supermarket chains apparently control nearly 80% of food retail.
Two months ago I made a decision – I had ethical qualms about shopping in a supermarket, and it's not even that cheap, so why bother? For a year or so, then, I'm trying to live supermarket-free.
I'm hoping I will save money. The average family with two children spends about £70 a week on food shopping, according to figures from the AA, and my household (two adults, two children) spends a bit more than that when you throw in school dinners, coffees at work and the occasional trip to a cafe or restaurant.
While I'd like to purchase everything from farmers markets, artisan bakeries and the local organic deli – and I support ventures like Go Local – I don't think these are particularly cheap and I hope to make significant savings. Ideally, I want to knock a third off my annual shopping bill, so I'm working out what to buy where.
To start with, I joined a wholesaler (I don't claim they're more ethical than all supermarkets but at least buying in bulk saves on packaging and they sell fair trade products) and stocked up on the basics. Membership cost just under £30 but I'm sure it will pay for itself over the year.
Although it sells fresh meat and dairy products, for now I've gone for the long-life staples. The cupboard under the stairs is stuffed with six months' worth of everything from pasta and basmati rice to baked beans, tinned tomatoes, coffee, tea bags, flour and loo rolls.
It's easy to make savings. For example, I bought eight packets (500g) of Garofalo spaghetti for £4.99, whereas it can cost as much as £2.05 a pack in supermarkets (a saving of £11.41, and it will last for months), and lentils and pulses are about half price. I'm saving a couple of pounds a week in tea and coffee, which sounds small but does add up.
There's no point spending more money in petrol than I'll save in food costs, so I do a weekly shop for fruit, vegetables and dairy products, including large free-range eggs (£1 for six, compared to £1.70 or so at supermarkets) when passing the local greengrocers. I'm surprised to find I'm spending about £5 less a week even though I'm buying local, high-quality fresh produce. To further cut costs, I've started growing a few things: lettuce, strawberries, raspberries, herbs, tomatoes, broad beans and purple sprouting broccoli. I'm not expecting a bumper crop in my first year, but even a few salad leaves would be nice.
Non-food items such as cling film, washing powder and shampoo also push up the cost of my supermarket trolley, so I've started using bargain household shops and using sites like ChemistDirect for 20% off the same brands I've been buying from supermarkets.
It's taken a while to organise, but buying staples in bulk and using local shops actually compares well to the weekly supermarket ordeal, and it's definitely making me think about how much food I used to buy. Before, I would decide on what I felt like cooking and inevitably pop to the supermarket for missing ingredients. Now I look in the cupboard (or under the stairs) to see what we've got before I decide what to make.
So far, it's the freezer that seems particularly bare. There are times you just need to sling in some oven chips, frozen peas and sausages for the kids' tea. That's the sort of stuff I bought in the supermarket and my freezer capacity doesn't allow for a 10kg bag of frozen chips from the wholesalers.
I'm also struggling to find snacks for my children's lunchboxes. Homemade treats only cut it so far in the canteen and, occasionally, I'd like to give them healthy snacks like cereal bars or mini oat crackers. I can't find this kind of thing at the wholesaler.
Does anyone have any tips on where I might get it? Or any other advice on how I can make it through the year without ending up in the supermarket?
EU finance ministers haggle over bank rules - Yahoo Finance
BRUSSELS (AP) -- European Union finance ministers are to meet in in Brussels Tuesday to hammer out an agreement over how high banks should build their defenses against future financial shocks, with the U.K. running the risk of being isolated over who should set the height.
The EU's 27 members agree on the need to increase capital reserves of banks, following an international agreement called Basel III, which was negotiated by the world's largest economies to avoid another financial meltdown such as the one brought on by the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers in 2008.
But the U.K. wants national regulators to be able to set requirements significantly higher than those of the EU — a position opposed by almost all other EU members, who fear investors might then prefer UK banks and flee from those in other countries.
On his way into the meeting Tuesday morning, George Osborne, the British chancellor of the exchequer, was non-committal about the possibility of reaching an agreement.
"This is a time of considerable uncertainty in the eurozone economies," he said, referring to the 17 countries — the U.K. not among them — that use the euro currency. "And that uncertainty is undermining the entire European recovery. And I think we're reaching a point where we've got to make a decision to see the eurozone stand behind their currency. A very important part of that, of course, is strengthening the entire European banking system. And that is what we intend to do today."
Once enacted, Basel III would require lenders to increase their highest-quality capital — such as equity and cash reserves — gradually from 2 percent of the risky assets they hold to 7 percent by 2019. An additional 2.5 percent would have to be built up during good times. All members of the G-20 have agreed to implement Basel III; if the European Union succeeds, it would become the first entity to institute the new requirements.
The U.K. is arguing that, because national taxpayers have to bail out banks when they fail, national authorities should be able to set more stringent requirements to guard against such failures. A compromise proposal offered by the Danes, who hold the rotating presidency of the European Union, would allow national authorities some leeway to increase requirements beyond those called for in the Basel III agreement. That proposal has broad support — except, so far, from the U.K.
The finance ministers can approve the compromise proposal without British support, through what is known as qualified majority voting, in which member countries have different numbers of votes according to their populations. However, there is a tradition in the EU that changes that would affect an industry in a particular country — such as the banking sector in the U.K. — are not forced into effect over the objections of that country, and consensus is sought.
"I think there should be a unanimous decision on such an important issue," Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg said on his way into the meeting.
Champions League exclusion costs Spurs - Football
Published: 21 May 2012 - 16:47:06
Tottenham's exclusion from the Champions League due to Chelsea's triumph in the tournament will cost Spurs up to £35million in cash - but the real damage could be far greater in terms of keeping their stars, say football finance experts.
Brendan Guilfoyle, a football expert at P&A Partnership, said the headache for Spurs will not just be about balancing the books.
"In terms of the effect financially, Spurs is a well-run club but revenues will inevitably be lower so they will have to adjust that in terms of the wages they can offer and the transfer fees they can pay and still remain in the black," he said.
"The perhaps more immediate worry for fans, and I am a Tottenham fan myself, is that in terms of signing top players we won't be as attractive as we cannot promise the highest level of club football any more.
"There is also the worry that some of those star players, having tasted the Champions League already, will want to do so again and look to move elsewhere."
Spurs finished fourth in the Barclays Premier League, which would normally guarantee a place in the qualifying rounds of the Champions League, but they lose out because Chelsea take that fourth English place as European title holders.
Tottenham will earn only around £5m in media rights from the Europa League instead of a guaranteed £25m from the Champions League. There is also a significant loss in associated matchday, merchandise and sponsorship income that could see a further cost to the club of around £10million.
Even more concerning for fans is the possibility of star players such as Luka Modric and Gareth Bale pushing for a move to clubs that are in the Champions League next season.
Spurs fans have reacted furiously to missing out on Europe's elite club tournament but UEFA say their competition rules, brought in after Liverpool won the competition but finished outside the top four in the Premier League, are clear.
Tottenham earned 31.1m euros (£25.1m) in TV money and bonuses from their 2010/11 season in the Champions League. An English club making the Europa League quarter-finals earns a total of 6m euros (£5m).
No comments:
Post a Comment