Printable View
Hi shipmates, This is the main reason our British merchant navy has gone into the history books? Tax dodging by the shipping companys/owners still happening today world -wide re flagging and third world wages payed to crews no health and safety laws, all saved them money.
I worked in a shipping office for a few weeks when home on leave in the late 50"s and rather than let you stay at home on leave had me in the shipping office. I saw the Ledgers for the previous 10 years or so with costs of ship, ship by ship. They were all written out with the old fashioned pen and ink. On the debits side of the book were Insurance, Food, Depreciation of Hull and Machinery, Crews Wages. The lowest thing was crews wages and was peanuts compared with the rest. The biggest thing was depreciation which was Tax Deductible, then came Insurance, then provisions which was higher that the wages Bill. The credit side of the disbursements was always real higher than the debit which of course was the profit the ship had made. If a 10,000 ton tramp ship in those days had only two cargos in a year it was well up in the profits margin. Usually most ships I was on had 5 or 6 cargos in a year so were always good money earners. For those who think that the high cost of wages was a cause of the decline of British Shipping are living on false premises. I also did a seminar on various flags and the only one lower than the British was the Greek, and it was a toss up as there was literally only pennies in it. All big businesses make use of what they can in the tax world, even I did by keeping out of the country when that was the requirement. Nowadays is different as are allowed more time than ever used to be, living in the UK. It would be a companys tax accountants job to keep constant watch on alterations in tax law, that's what he was paid for. Cheers (Pigs ears) courtesy of Jim B and Ginger beers. JS
John S
re: Greek seafarers wages.
The few years I worked for a major Greek shipowner I was amazed at the wages, especially the Senior Officers. The Masters basic salary was on a par or even slightly above that of the typical U.K. Master and at the end of his contract he would get a big bonus dependent upon how much he could screw down the provisions budget, deck spares etc.
The Chief Officer would also get a bonus if he kept the deck overtime down. The same occurred in the Engine Dept.
This owner expected very little routine maintenance to be carried out but would annually dry dock his ships in his own dockyard in Greece where literally every thing was almost stripped down, replaced or repaired, all paint work done with hull, deck, accommodation etc. shot blasted and then recoated, so that on emerging from dry dock the ship looked almost brand new.
All the time I was deep sea I never once sailed on a ship that did not cover its daily operating costs, despite nearly all of them being either on voyage or long term charters. Yet H.O. were always telling us they were making a loss and we all had to tighten our belts.
The loss that was being made was not an actual loss but more a paper loss. At the beginning of the financial year the company accountants would predict a surplus of income over costs of XXX million dollars yet when the final year figures came in they had only made XX million dollars profit so a "loss" of X million was declared. As the company was a PLC this meant that the dividends paid to its share holders was less than that of previous years , but they had STILL MADE A PROFIT. This lowering of share holder dividends supposedly made it more difficult to raise capital in order to invest in new tonnage, which seemed strange to me as at that time a number of new shipowners were springing up who seemed to have little or no capital behind them or certainly not enough to pay the shipyards the millions required for their new buildings. The Indian guy who built the Globtik tankers springs to mind, just where did all that cash to pay for those ships come from?
The traditional British shipowner were hood winked by bankers and investment accountants into venturing into areas that they had little or no expertise in, with often disastrous results. Instead they should have stuck to what they knew which was ship owning and invested the huge amounts of money that they had made in the good years in new and better ships.
As many of these ship owners had become PLC's they became beholden to their share holders, yet any one who invests in the stock market knows that shares can go up as well of down and the stock market is for long term investment not short term gain, something those ship owners threw out in their rush for profits. Shipping is a service industry the world cannot live without and if you are good at it, long term you will make handsome profits than you can re-invest in your ships and crews in order to stay at the top of the game.
Just as an example look at the likes of Tesco in the U.K. which due to fierce competition from the like of Aldi and Lidl have seen there profits halved, but they still made BILLIONS of pounds profit, so their share holders are still sitting on a relatively safe investment which meant that even after issuing PROFIT warnings their share price still held up.
The demise of the British Merchant Navy is, to me, more down to greedy bankers and investment houses hood winking those ship owners into thinking they could make even more profit by "diversifying" into unknown territory where instead they should have being more supportive if those owners in their own area of expertise.
just my thoughts
rgds
JA
As I have previously mentioned in other posts, I once sold an option for the movie rights to a novel I wrote [a], and also an option for an original movie script [b].
Part of my contractual terms [a] was cash payment for the rights for three years. Cash payment for a first draft screenplay and one percentage point from the gross profits of the movie. The production company could not raise the required capital to make the movie and the option lapsed. However, IF they had made the movie And it had been successful at the box office I WOULD HAVE MADE A FORTUNE. You see their attorney had made a mistake in drafting the contract. He had made it 'One percentage point of 'GROSS PROFITS' This meant what's left over after (what in movie business parlance was called ABOVE the line profits) normal cost of making the movie and before extraneous costs. I would have cleaned up!
Movie script [b], was more like it from the producers point of view. Option money and a percentage to me of the NET PROFIT. If the bleedy movie was a box office smash, won the Oscar, came out on DVD, and a TV movie of the week, I wouldn't see a dime. In the movie business they write-off the studios, sound stage and fully depreciate the tea wagon on every movie they shoot, these depreciations plus advertising and consultants (all are below the line costs) make sure there are no profits for distribution.
Still, with plan [a]: For a brief moment I felt like the character Marlon Brando played in 'On the Waterfront'..."I coulda been a contender."
Cheers, Rodney
does anyone on here believe that tax evasion will ever be stamped out ? I don't think so ?have an address in the channel islands and you can be well paid for registering a company some of the biggest companies are registered there from houses with one room as an office? if the tax was not as much from a greedy government it could rake in millions more so who's fault is it if you are being conned you are going to be the conman back and play the government at their own game a tax inspector friend once told me pay something and you go back around the system its the ones that pay nothing they are after? true..jp
#14..Rodney I like your example of the film Industry. When you combine them also with a news outlet and get involved with you are aware of what the public see on completion is not what one envisages at the time. The Documentary shown in 2013 re. the disaster in the North Sea (PA) was commenced making quite some time before shown. I don't know how many people they interviewed for the making of this Documentary, however I agreed to be interviewed for such, re my own personal reasons, really because I hoped to keep the Documentary true. However when the producers handed over the film with I should imagine a bill, to the news media that was going to show, they wanted me to return for some fine tuning, which I would assume would mean altering some of my account, which I would not have done in any case. My point is , that these people who make films cover themselves pretty well prior to going into the making of. I was asked to sign a paper saying I would have no claim on any monies or have any say on the final production now or in the future from any profits made, blah blah blah. My copy I threw away but wish I had now kept to make public. As there were only about 4 or 5 of the people involved shown in the Documentary, I can only assume others like me did not give some of the answers the News Media wanted. You should of maybe had your own lawyer present Rodney when handing over the rights to your book. Would imagine all these best sellers do. Cheers John S
#13... John I worked for a Company Chowgules Steamships Bahamas, the 2 ships that Fife Shipping managed for them were the Maratha Endeavour and the Maratha Envoy. I was on both vessels in excess of a year each. The Maratha Envoy was a fairly new build a 35,000 ton Deadweight geared bulk carrier. She was built in Yokohama by Mitsubishi. She was bought by Indian Owners and had an outstanding mortgage owed to Mitsubishi. There was a big Plaque in the chartroom to this effect, that the ship could not be sold as they had a lien on the ship. If an Indian shipowner can acquire a fleet of ships which I believe are still going strong, doesn't say much for the British Shipowner of years past. As regards the Greek shipowner was offered jobs twice on ships I handed over to, the salaries offered were always in excess of British wages. Free cigarettes and wine was also suppled, as I was a smoker in those days the cigarettes were a temptation. Cheers JS
AS long as there are countries willing to tax at a lower rate then the country you are in companies will continue to register there.
Steven Gerrard Liverpool FC player is going over to the States to play for LA Galaxy.It is reported that he is tobe paid £4.million a year that is net as LA Galaxy are to pay his tax and other expenses.
Regards.
Jim.B.
###mr balls will want to see his recieptsQuote:
Originally Posted by Jim Brady