Points to Ponder

[SteveH]

"Looking at that list (below), it would seem that there aren't many new businesses that have setup without some form of grant from WG. I'm personally ok with offering money to support such things, but it should be treated as a loan and repaid, even if interest free, over a period of 10 years."

My thoughts exactly.

[Fester]

Private businesses getting taxpayers money??

Erskine Arms getting £140,000,  then raking it in from a packed pub 7 days a week???   

[Ian]

I think it may be more complicated than it appears at first sight. Investing government money into businesses with the longer term aim of increasing employment and wealth for the society isn't that rare.

[DaveR]

I think it may be more complicated than it appears at first sight. Investing government money into businesses with the longer term aim of increasing employment and wealth for the society isn't that rare.

The problem is that businesses become complacent and rely on grants instead of applying for a bank loan/venture capital that would rigorously test their business model before handing over any money. Looking at the list of grants, the employment created must surely only be low end minimum wage, whilst the wealth created flows pretty much only to the business owners. As I said earlier, I see no reason at all why the money cannot be invested as a long term interest free loan, instead of just given away.  It is, after all, the taxpayers money that is being spent.

[born2run]

Hit the nail on the head. I would also add, like Dylan's, a lot of their staff for whom this loan has gone to create work for will either not earning above the minimum tax threshold so not putting anything back in, or even worse are part time to the extent that they will need various 'top up' benefits. So is it really solving a problem at all?

[SteveH]

I found this link which explains the WG's  thinking......I have only copied a section, link below for full details.

Tourism Investment Support Scheme (TISS)
Guidance Note

What is TISS?
• It’s a discretionary Welsh Government Visit
Wales fund supporting priority tourism
products (existing and new) including:
4 and 5 Star hotels; top end serviced
accommodation experiences; destination
restaurants; spa and meetings facilities;
attractions and activity products; high
quality self catering, camping and caravan
park products. The list is not exhaustive.
• Eligible expenditure includes
building work and fixtures &
fittings (for existing businesses an
improved grading must result).
• Revenue, purchase of a property,
purchase of antiques, maintenance
& repair costs, and local facilities
(eg. retail) are not eligible.
• It targets viable, sustainable and
high quality private sector tourism
capital projects in Wales that:
(a) meet the objectives of the
Tourism Strategy ‘Partnership
for Growth 2014 -2020’;
(b) create and safeguard jobs, realising
economic benefit & growth,
 and
(c) deliver quality, innovation
and sense of place.

Please read full link.......
 https://businesswales.gov.wales/sites/business-wales/files/tourism/160608tiss-guidance-note-en.pdf


Google search pages... https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+to+get+a+wales+tourism+grant&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enES433ES433&oq=how+to+get+a+wales+tourism+grant&aqs=chrome..69i57.20247j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Ian]

I think it may be more complicated than it appears at first sight. Investing government money into businesses with the longer term aim of increasing employment and wealth for the society isn't that rare.

The problem is that businesses become complacent and rely on grants instead of applying for a bank loan/venture capital that would rigorously test their business model before handing over any money. Looking at the list of grants, the employment created must surely only be low end minimum wage, whilst the wealth created flows pretty much only to the business owners. As I said earlier, I see no reason at all why the money cannot be invested as a long term interest free loan, instead of just given away.  It is, after all, the taxpayers money that is being spent.

I'd perhaps argue that the business owners have become adept at choosing locations with an eye to potential grants. I'm not saying they don't become complacent after getting one, merely that they know their way around the system and aim to place their business in an area which qualifies for the maximum amounts.

The UK film industry is a prime example. The UK is now one of the biggest production countries in the world, and their expertise is renowned industry-wide. The reason is simple: the UK makes it cheaper to make films here than in Hollywood. And much cheaper. Cheap enough to make it feasible to fly the US actors, writers and producers here, and house them.

While the system obviously works in that instance quantifying its success is something else entirely. It's nowhere near as simple as trying to count the number of jobs created, because Modern Monetary theory dictates that modern society is totally dependent on the complex interconnectivity of production, sourcing,  creation, sales, supply and demand. On a simple level few jobs are lost when  single person gives up milk.  But if there's a significant rise in veganism, the effects are felt throughout industry, from the companies who make spares for milking machines to the Oil and farming industries. 

Long term loans are already available to companies (unless they bank with RBS...) but in general I agree there ought to be some sort of recouping mechanism. But as for it being taxpayers' money, MMT suggests "a monetarily sovereign government is the monopoly supplier of its currency and can issue currency of any denomination in physical or non-physical forms. As such the government has an unlimited capacity to pay for the things it wishes to purchase and to fulfill promised future payments, and has an unlimited ability to provide funds to the other sectors. Thus, insolvency and bankruptcy of this government is not possible. It can always pay". And don't we own the Royal Mint?  D)

[SteveH]

Luxury hotels, chocolate and trips to Zip World: Welsh Government's 'out of control' spending revealed
Credit cards were used to pay for scarves, whisky and Michelin-starred restaurants.

Welsh Government credit cards have been used to pay for hundreds of pounds worth of scarves and chocolates, while thousands have been spent on luxury dining and hotels, figures reveal.

More than £1.8m was spent on Government credit cards in 2016/17, including £1,652.50 on seven visits to the Michelin-starred James Sommerin Restaurant in Penarth, South Wales, where a six course taster menu costs £70, or £110 with wine.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/luxury-hotels-chocolate-trips-zip-13588973

[SteveH]

This struck me as funny (not ha ha) 

People caught twice carrying acid in public should receive a mandatory six-month prison sentence, the Home Office has proposed.

Ms Rudd said the government was sending a message that "the cowards who use these [acids] as weapons will not escape the full force of the law".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41614990

[Hugo]

It does seem absurd Steve, why would anyone carry acid around in public in the first place?         If anyone does have a genuine reason for carrying acid around then it can easily be explained to the Police

[Ian]

I was surprised to learn some shops sell Sulphuric and Nitric acid. I suppose I'd always assumed they were controlled substances.

And it's on Amazon:

[smg id=3373]

[Hugo]

Steve,  I think it was you that posted another article to ponder on.   I can't find the actual posting, but if my memory is correct it was about dog owners being approached by Kingdom Security and if they did not have sufficient dog poo bags on them to clean up after their dog they would be prosecuted.

Now how many would they call "sufficient" ?    I normally use one or two when I have taken my dog for a walk, but with one of my previous dogs I had to use six, but I still had plenty spare even after that marathon effort.

Surely if someone is walking their dog in a public place and they have no dog bags on them, then it is obvious that they will not be able to pick up after their dogs have made a mess.    By all means prosecute them, but why not check to see if the dog is micro chipped also because they are obviously not responsible dog owners.

[Nemesis]

re the last 2 subjects :-

Acid

When I worked in my Dad's chemist shop, probably in the 1960s anything of that nature had to be entered into the 'Poisons Book' and signed for.

Dog poo bags.

Every coat in our house has loads of bags in its pockets, " got enough P.B.s ? " we ask each other.

As an aside, one hot summers day our daughter was walking her large Staffie through Huddersfield town centre when she was approached by a bloke who demanded to know if she had facilities to clean up after the dog. She smiled sweetly at him and produced a wad of bags from down her bra ! He shuffled off muttering !!!

[SteveH]

It was to do with new rules in Flintshire, used by K.S. that could make there way here in the future, sorry the number of bags needed was not mentioned.....I have no problem with enforcing rules, but the tactics used by K.S. are underhand, and this just seemed like another way to make people pay.

They are in the DP this morning.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/kingdoms-400000-bonanza-targeting-dog-13751843

[born2run]

Surely if someone is walking their dog in a public place and they have no dog bags on them, then it is obvious that they will not be able to pick up after their dogs have made a mess.    By all means prosecute them, but why not check to see if the dog is micro chipped also because they are obviously not responsible dog owners.

I disagree. I don't think even under civil law you can prove that by not having bags it's more than likely that they wouldn't clean up their dog mess. they may have their own way of cleaning it using something else, or even their hands if it came to it.
Sounds like they are on shaky ground with that one to me.