Finance Essays Tax Havens

Finance Essays Tax Havens Tax Havens Critical Analysis of Tax Havens within an International Context The following paper will offer a critical analysis of tax havens within an international context. Specifically, this paper will argue that there is both good and bad to tax havens and that favourable tax policies can both assist the host country and multinationals eager to optimize their earnings and savings. In particular, this paper will note how tax havens are often accused of creating unfair advantages for companies that are competing for public contracts; at the same time, tax haven policies in Bermuda have made that country a leading destination for e-commerce and technology firms. Moving onward, there is evidence that the offshore financial services offered by these states have given them an unimagined degree of affluence – even if it is true that tax haven status is frowned upon international organizations like the OECD. Moreover, being a tax haven is no guarantee that overseas companies will actually take the time to establish legitimate business activities in the country. Furthermore, the tax haven policies that grant generous tax rates to overseas operations have been accused of depleting the tax base of nations that are seeing their revenues drop as corporations flee for greener pastures; needless to say, this has grim consequences when one pauses to consider just how many social services are dependent upon public money for their survival. There are, of course, additional points that warrant a hearing, as well. Individuals – at least in the United States – who think they will profit from flocking to overseas tax havens may find that the long arm of the American tax code will track them down wherever they may settle; on an even more serious note, the lack of institutional transparency found in tax haven lands not only allows criminals to avoid paying taxes but allows them to carry out their nefarious money laundering schemes. Not least of all, this paper will also take the time to ponder how tax haven policies have facilitated tax avoidance on the part of the wealthy and have directly imperilled social services at the exact same time as they burden the middle class and lower class with a monumental tax burden; similarly, the generous tax policies of developing lands vis-a-vis foreign multinationals can unhappily deprive them of much-needed resources which can be put towards essential social services. Staying with the notion that there is both good and bad to be found in tax haven policies, this essay will embark on a brief discussion of the consequences upon corporations of utilizing the services of tax haven states. On one hand, tax haven states indubitably serve as a means of protecting the savings of corporations during difficult periods; on the other hand, the hidden costs associated with moving from a western land to a third world nation (all because of the tax benefits to be realized) can bear with it unexpected hidden costs that can harm valuation. One last thing this paper wishes to bring to the attention of its readers is that tax havens are not always found in developing lands – and these first-world havens can become the resting places for the savings of individuals who may not always have the best of reputations. In the end, tax havens certainly have a place in the world – but they will function infinitely better once definitive guidelines on their regulation can be drawn up by the international community and enforced rigorously by that same community. Critics of international tax havens often point to the fact that they create unfair advantages for companies competing for government contracts elsewhere. To put it another way, concerns (in the United States) have been raised that these contractors (those who have subsidiaries in tax haven countries) are at an unfair cost advantage relative to their competition insofar as they are able to lower their United States tax liability by shifting income to what is commonly referred to as ‘tax haven parent’. In a real sense, this means that powerful US corporations are shifting income from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates (subsidiaries) in low-tax countries so that they can reduce their overall tax burden. In 2002, the GAO revealed that 59 of the 100 biggest publicly-traded federal contractors were incorporated in a so-called ‘tax haven’ country that either did not tax corporate income or taxed the income at a rate below the American rate. Clearly, these countries have tax policies that attract American multinationals – with the technological and human resources they possess – but they also siphon money away from the US treasury at the same time as they give contractors prohibitive advantages during the bidding process. One notable example of how contractors who exploit tax haven policies in other countries have excited the wrath of American legislators can be found by looking at the case of Accenture and its ugly fight only a few years ago with Illinois law-makers. During 2004, at least four contracts awarded to Accenture were attacked by legislators because the company had taken full advantage of a loophole in the Illinois tax code that permitted corporations to shift profits to overseas locations so as to avoid paying taxes in the state of Illinois. The matter escalated in no time at all to the point where the State Comptroller was actually asking the Illinois Procurement Policy Board about the feasibility of blocking all payments to four Accenture contracts adding up to more than $2 million. On an even larger scale, the US House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the homeland security spending bill that effectively blocked Accenture from being a participant in the $10 billion US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program. One country that has an excellent tax policy (if you are a wealthy corporation) is Bermuda. The British island dependency has no corporate income tax and is ‘tax-neutral’ in terms of how it treats holding companies. A holding company that is actually incorporated in the United States and which receives cash dividends from overseas affiliates/subsidiaries can see its gross dividends pass directly to shareholders. Because of its generous tax policies, Bermuda is now marketing itself as an e-commerce center that is perfect for international technology companies located all over the world. Not surprisingly, the Bermudan approach to attracting technology firms (and the jobs and expertise they offer) has been picked up in countries like Ireland that are keen on targeting ‘preferred’ firms. The benefits that accrue to tax haven states are sufficiently appealing that the countries employing this practice are extremely reluctant to part ways with it – even if it curries the disfavour of the international community. Most of all, the provision of what are called ‘offshore financial services’ has given these countries a measure of affluence they could not have achieved otherwise; indeed, many small island economies (referred to most commonly as simply SIEs) view the emergence of an Offshore Financial Center (OFC) as a panacea for economic disadvantage – possibly because (though it is not stated explicitly in the articles this writer has encountered) the employment opportunities that become available within the financial sector of the SIE courtesy the arrival of multinationals looking for attractive tax and financial services are undeniable. Because examples give force and vigour to any argument, it is necessary to glance at the case study of Malta. Here, the tiny nation – which does not have an over-abundance of natural or human resources by any means – has become renowned for its status as a tax haven; more significantly, it has parlayed its generous tax concessions to foreign investors and companies into a situation wherein its financial services sector is burgeoning at a robust rate. Specifically, 12 percent of Malta’s GDP was to be found in the financial services sector in 2004 and the sector employed about 6,000 local residents. Another good example of a country that has rescued itself from a troubling financial situation by turning itself into a tax haven is the Isle of Man. Other research reiterates the idea that tax haven policies have a beneficial impact upon a country’s economic health. For example, whilst major tax havens have actually less than one percent of the world’s population (excluding the United States), and whilst they have (as of 2005) only about 2.3 percent of the globe’s gross domestic product or GDP, they nonetheless ‘host’ 5.7 percent of the foreign employment and 8.4 percent of the equipment, plant and property of American companies. At the same time, the per capita real GDP in the tax haven nations grew by a healthy rate of 3.3 percent in the years 1982-1999 – almost 2.5 times the world average. Furthermore, in spite of fears that the combination of small populations and relative affluence in these lands would precipitate the creation of even larger governments, the reality is that the ratio of government to GDP in these locations is fairly reasonable. Possibly prompted by the Bermudan example and by a few other states identified as ‘high priorities’, the OECD set about defining a tax haven in a seminal 1998 paper that continues to reverberate to this day. Most significantly, a tax haven country has a policy of not imposing taxes (or only nominal ones); offers itself or is viewed as offering itself, as a place that permits non-residents to escape taxation in their homeland (or nation of residence); does not have an effective exchange of information with outside parties; lacks transparency; and attracts businesses with no ‘substantial’ activities – these last two criteria, especially, will be touched upon at various points later in this paper. In the defence of these two states, each one does impose indirect taxes; for instance, Bermuda has a fairly hefty payroll tax and also places taxes upon on all goods purchased on the island. Nonetheless, only the most ardent supporter would suggest that these two countries fail to rise to the level of tax-haven states. In terms of attracting foreign multinationals, tax haven policies are difficult to beat. However, critics charge that countries like Bermuda do not simply attract ‘real’ economic investment but also ‘brass plate’ or ‘booking operations’ that are characterized by a lack of actual business activity; in other words, international organizations like the OECD become suspicious when they see companies locating to places like Bermuda (or even Ireland) which do not have a lot of business-related action taking place. For countries that are trying to attract jobs as well as foreign capital, it would seem as though having tax haven policies can be a bit of a double-edged sword in the sense that a) other countries are sharply critical towards their ‘preferential’ taxation practices and b) these policies may not attract the jobs the aforementioned countries are hoping for. In fairness, tax haven policies in the United Arab Emirates (specifically, in the port city of Dubai) have attracted plentiful foreign investment on a scale that has (amongst other things) allowed the city to develop its communication and infrastructural capabilities while simultaneously wooing upscale tourists. One other problem with tax haven policies that offer low or non-existent tax rates is that international organizations like the OECD have asserted that they undermine the tax base (presumably of the countries that are seeing businesses flee elsewhere) and erode public services; in fact, ‘harmful’ tax competition has been compared to competitive devaluations and to tariff wars. To expand on this last point, the OECD (in 1998), released a study which argued that tax haven countries divert large amounts of foreign direct investment and ‘taxable income’ away from OECD member states. The tension between the OECD and tax haven nations has long threatened those lands trying to give corporations and individuals advantageous tax rates as well as the benefits of greater privacy. However, there is some sense that this tension is dissipating as more and more tax haven states belatedly embrace international best standards of practice. Be that as it may, only the most wildly optimistic person would dare say that the current hostility between the OECD and small tax haven states is not problematic; the willingness of the above-mentioned countries to cut multinationals ‘slack’ in terms of what they pay in the form of corporate taxes has raised the ire of the OECD and the powerful western nations which comprise its membership to such an extent that real political and even diplomatic problems could still linger in the future. To get to the heart of the problem, the OECD’s penchant for naming transgressors and then ‘shaming’ them in the court of international opinion has been perceived as bullying in some quarters; certainly, the nations that are targeted – or have been targeted – by the OECD are small, politically and economically weak and burdened with limited economic prospects, save for the financial services and tax breaks they offer to foreigners. One can maintain that a lot of this tension would simply go away if the countries engaging in tax haven policies and practices would cease their current practices – but that ignores the reality that these countries need the financial benefits that accrue from such activities; moreover, it is worth asking what the financial implications will be for multinationals and for the communities in developing lands that benefit – even if indirectly – from their presence. Individual Americans who think that tax havens are the perfect thing for them should give the idea a bit more thought: tax haven nations may be enticing in many respects, but US tax law makes it hard for individuals to spirit money somewhere else in the expectation they will not have to pay. For instance, US citizens are taxed on their world-wide income: the tax breaks found in places like the Caribbean, Luxembourg, or the Caymans do not apply to individual US citizens – just corporations. Furthermore, an offshore partnership aimed at mitigating the tax burden will not work for US citizens: the ‘rules’ simply assume that the private citizen earned so much money each year and do not view any profit from the partnership as being a simple long-term capital gain; as such, interest is added onto the taxes that the private US citizen must pay the government. As if that is not bad enough, the capital gains arising from the partnership is taxed as regular income and not as capital gain – which means higher tax rates in the end. Beyond what has been discussed above, individuals and companies using tax havens to avoid paying taxes may not simply be doing this sort of thing to spare themselves at tax time: money launderers like tax haven countries like the Bahamas because of the fact they disclose little information about the companies or individuals doing business within their environs; additionally, money launderers tend to exploit tax havens to the fullest extent possible. For all intents and purposes, tax haven policies really make life easier (though not trouble-free) for criminals eager to avoid the prying eyes of government. As an addendum, it must be mentioned that the United States government has recently taken action to reduce the ‘pay-off’ for wealthy individuals eager to exploit tax shelters. Remaining with America for just a while longer, the matter of off-shore tax havens has become so important to the United States government that exhaustive legislative hearings on this very matter have become de rigueur in recent years. Yet another challenge posed by tax havens is that they are so difficult to tackle from a legal point of view – something that clearly favours criminals at the same time as it grossly disadvantages law enforcement. To elaborate, at least one noted scholar has commented that it is well-nigh impossible to formulate a universal definition of a tax haven that can be used to effectively combat the fiscal abuses associated with this global phenomenon. Until such time as the international community comes to a universal understanding of the concept of a tax haven, criminals can feel reasonably secure that there will be at least a few places on earth willing to embrace them and their tawdry ‘business’ pursuits. Despite the conceptual challenges posed, the United States – as much as any nation – has decided that it has had quite enough of the tax evasion and money-laundering activities characteristic of tax haven nations with their generous tax avoidance policies. Recent court decisions in the US have expanded the power of US states to tax the income of corporations that do not have a ‘physical lexus’ with the state. In essence, the courts have taken the position that an out-of-state corporations so-called ‘in-state economic presence’ renders the absence of a physical presence (headquarters or office buildings or any kind of physical structure at all) entirely irrelevant as to determining the state’s capacity to pursue that corporation for money. Another problem that tax haven policies bring is that they give the wealthy one more means by which they can avoid paying their full weight in taxes. In essence, tax havens provide tax avoidance options to companies and to wealthy individuals; as a result, the tax burden ultimately ends up being borne (more and more) by the middle class and by those with fewer financial resources. Suffice it to say, as the rich grow richer while the poor grow poorer (courtesy onerous tax burdens), the ability of the poor to invest in education plummets. Over time, this can lead to a general decline in productivity – a decline causing great harm to the country that is unable to keep the rich from exploiting one tax avoidance scheme after another. The grim consequences of tax havens upon nations that are seeing the ‘flight’ of capital resources to far-off places reaches beyond just imposing a greater burden upon those ill-equipped to shoulder that burden; tax havens also imperil social services that are already under attack in an age of neo-liberalism. For example, in early 2005, it was reported that Canada’s top 5 banks shifted about $10 billion to offshore tax havens in the period from 1991 to 2004. According to the academic who headed up the study, the utilization of offshore tax havens and shelters is tantamount to engaging in economic terrorism insofar as the monies lost make it difficult (with the potential to be impossible) for the government to finance social programs that need public funds to survive. Despite the protestations of the banks in question that their foreign-based subsidiaries located in tax-haven lands such as Malta, Barbados and the Cayman Islands are simply a means of taking advantage of the competitive tax policies located overseas, the report stresses the aforementioned dollar figure and the fact that the total number of subsidiaries for the ‘big five’ stood at 73 as of the end of 2004. Nor is the problem of tax avoidance confined just to wealthy western nations that are finding it increasingly difficult to provide appropriate social programs in an era when their populations are aging at an alarming rate: in countries that feature (or have featured in the past) tax haven policies, the government is often unable to collect all the taxes it would like to service all the social programs it would like. For instance, whilst Chile has long been the most attractive country in the world when it comes to mining and direct investment in this field, the world’s leading copper producer also does not charge a royalty on the extraction of its most precious natural resource and its taxes are incredibly low – and sometimes non-existent because of legal accounting loopholes that allow for generous write-offs for things like equipment. Tax haven policies appear to offer many positives and more than a few negatives – something this paper has noted time and again. While it can be argued a number of different ways, one would be remiss not to point out that private equity firms (or maybe any firm) doing business in a country in the midst of a financial downturn can – and certainly have – used offshore tax havens to shelter the profits on their investments; American equity firms, as a matter of fact, did precisely this during the late 1990s to protect their investments in Korean financial institutions. Given what has been described in the last paragraph, it is tempting to say that companies which move their operations abroad to escape paying taxes at home benefit handsomely from the transfer; after all, why leave the technologically-advanced, human resource-rich and affluent west for a small or developing peripheral economy unless (amongst a few other reasons) the organization’s senior thinkers were intent upon saving as many dollars as possible from the taxman? Unfortunately, the expected tax savings do not automatically exceed the non-tax costs associated with the above-mentioned move; if anything, the decision to set up new subsidiaries (or to pick up stakes and move elsewhere) has manifested negative repercussions in the form of hidden and unexpected costs that negatively impact firm valuation. Proceeding along, it is commonly heard – maybe less so than in the past – that tax haven nations are predominantly nations that are less developed than those countries found in the west; the truth, though, is rather more different. Difficult as it may seem, even affluent western nations can properly be described as tax havens – the United Kingdom being the best example. In London in particular, the favourable tax laws are such that many Russian elites – who, in some instances, have reputations that warrant a bit of polishing – have injected vast sums of capital into the local economy. At the same time, London (and the United Kingdom in general) is not alone: Switzerland has also attracted plenty of Russian capital and it seems as though the two are responsible for the staggering flight of roughly $102 billion from Russia between 1998 and 2004. Again, the money that flows out of Russia now is the kind of money that could be directed towards such things as social programs and the like.

Democratic legislatures Essay

â€Å"The Republican party is unreservedly for sound money. It is unalterably opposed to every effort to debase our currency or disturb our credit. It resumed specie payments in 1879, and since then it has made and kept every dollar as good as gold. This it will continue to do, maintaining all the money of the United States, whether gold, silver or paper, at par with the best money of the world and up to the standard of the most enlightened governments. Towards the middle of the week the group of gentlemen participating in these conferences was increased by several accessions from the number of Mr. McKinley’s friends in other states, among whom may be mentioned Mr. Henry C. Payne, William R. Merriam and Melville E. Stone. After his arrival Mr. Henry C. Payne became particularly active in getting the conference together and in having the platform typewritten anew, after every change, and in having copies supplied to each participant. On Friday morning Mr. H. H. Kohlsaat of Chicago joined the conference, having come over from Chicago in response to a telegram particularly for that purpose. Mr. Kohlsaat’s relation to the whole matter was peculiar. The next step for Mr. Hanna and his assistants was to secure some strong endorsements by the State Conventions. Ohio was already in line, having endorsed McKinley for the nomination in the State Convention of 1895. The Convention of 1896 met at Columbus on March 10. Mr. Foraker, who had recently been elected United States Senator, made a lengthy speech, as temporary chairman, enumerating the many reasons why McKinley should receive â€Å"the united, hearty, cordial, enthusiastic, and unqualified support of Ohio. † The platform contained a ringing endorsement, which was greeted with a volley of cheers, and a resolution was adopted instructing the delegates-at-large to vote and work for his nomination. A telegram was received from the Kansas Convention assuring their support of McKinley, to which Ohio replied with enthusiasm. Wisconsin followed nine days later, and then came Oregon, Nebraska, North Dakota, and even Vermont. Indiana fell into line at an early date. Charles W. Fairbanks, who was to preside as temporary chairman of the convention, called upon General Harrison early in the year, and said to him frankly, â€Å"If you, General, wish to be a candidate, I shall help you. If not, I am for Major McKinley. † Harrison replied that he had wanted the nomination in 1892 and desired to succeed himself, but after four years of Democratic administration the thought of reorganizing the Government was intolerable. He added with twinkling eye, â€Å"Your friend Cleveland is making my administration luminous. † Indiana soon after declared for McKinley. McKinley wanted to retain the system’s mobility and diversity, to let men fulfill their talents. He championed tariff protection specifically and the Republican party generally because he rightly understood that both promoted national interests. Naturally and honestly echoing the rhetoric of responsible individualism, he did not seek to advance at society’s expense. The belief that material security fostered social responsibility might be as idealistic as facile self-sacrifice based on man’s alleged innate goodness and rationality, but it at least accepted limitations in democratic politics, and the understandable reluctance of men to abandon old ideals. Some Republicans, and many Democrats, represented only business interests, but McKinley’s background, personality, and constituency opened his mind to change and moderation. As a congressman, he favored civil service reform, federal protection of voting rights, and workable business regulation, reflecting the needs and aspirations of an expanding middle and working class. Like Mark Hanna, he had many friends in organized labor, and protection heightened his appeal in shops and factories. He visited the mines, warehouses, forges, and plants in his district, and got a warm welcome from most workers. His uncertain district, which Democratic legislatures regularly gerrymandered, was a blessing in disguise. He never had the luxury of safety. In American politics, a safe constituency was the kiss of death, since it isolated leaders from change and new demands. McKinley’s whole congressional career sharpened his talents for compromise. In his own time, he was a liberal Republican, as many followers who later became reformers readily attested. â€Å"I always felt that McKinley represented the newer view,† Robert La Follette recalled. â€Å"Of course, McKinley was a high protectionist, but on the great new questions as they arose he was generally on the side of the public and against private interests. † By 1896, the Ohioan well represented the elements that could give the GOP a long lease on life.

Art History Formal Analysis – Comparison

Formal Analysis Paper The pieces Ann Whitley Russell, done by an unknown artist in around 1820 and Lady Frances Knowles, also done by an unknown artist, in the mid-late 17th century are both examples of portraits that portray the sitters in diverse yet insightful ways to viewers. Both Ann Whitley Russell and Lady Frances Knowles are works of art composed of oil paint on canvas. Although these portraits are different, the aspects of space, color, and composition are all important elements that must be considered while comparing the woman in these two pieces.The significant element of space comes into play while analyzing the portrait of Ann Whitley Russell. The figure of Ann Whitley Russell herself is very flat and appears to be two dimensional, rather than three. The two dimensionalism of this portrait says something about the skill level and amount of training that this unknown artist holds; they were most likely self-trained. Since there is a shallow depth of field in this piece th e viewer is automatically drawn to the sitter, Ann Whitley Russell, who is positioned in the foreground of this piece.Ann Whitley Russell is illustrated sitting on a chair with a decorative cloth draped over the left arm, which is positioned in the middle ground of the portrait. The background is monochrome, blurry and is indistinguishable to make out other than the column to the side of the portrait. The column looks as if the artist based it on Greek and Roman architecture due to its rounded appearance and indented texture. These columns would have been found in Europe throughout the early to mid eighteen hundreds, which was around the same time that this portrait was created.By including this type of column in the background the artist may be trying to portray the sitter, Ann Whitley Russell, as someone who is elite, wealthy and privileged enough to live in a place where this type of architecture exists. Although the artist made this column visible, it is still impossible to dete ct a specific setting in the background of this portrait. Furthermore, although the significance of the element of space also effects how viewers perceive the portrait of Lady Frances Knowles it does so in a different way.The viewer is automatically drawn to the center of this piece, which is the vivid three-dimensional figure of the sitter, Lady Frances Knowles. While studying the portrait Lady Frances Knowles I was able to detect a clear distinguishable foreground, middle ground and background. The artist positions the sitter in the foreground of the piece sitting on a stone bench with one arm resting upon the ledge of a stone fountain which is positioned in the middle ground.The stone fountain in the middle ground which has a statue of a Roman mythological winged figure attached has water flowing down from it and appears to be solid in space and volumetric due to this. The statue of a winged figure appears to be an angel, which is a symbol of love, peace, and protection. The back ground of this piece has trees with flowering leaves which may be where the flowers upon the lap of Lady Frances Knowles and the bench she is sitting on came from.The background seems to be slightly shallower compared to the sitter who is lifelike and three-dimensional. The background is less defined than the sitter is however the trees, fountain and flowers are distinguishable and give evidence that she must be sitting somewhere outside. The artist may have positioned the sitter somewhere outside in order to show the importance of nature and natural beauty because the sitter herself is so naturally beautiful.The artist of Lady Frances Knowles and of Ann Whitley Russell both use space to visually demonstrate what type of person the sitter is in the portrait, even though the way the space is represented is different in both. Another very important aspect that must be considered during the analysis of the portrait of Ann Whitley Russell is color. In this portrait the artist tends to u se a narrow array of colors that are bland and monotonous. The artist uses the same colors of black, white, brown, grey and red throughout the entire piece.The background is incredibly dull and the shades of brown get darker as it moves further away from her head. In this portrait the red is only bright and exciting color, it is found used for the plain velvet looking chair, the red accents on the cloth draped over the chair, the stone in the center of her necklace and the thin line of lipstick on Ann Whitley Russell’s lips. The black of the sitters dress contrasts her pale white skin and due to the incredibly dull background color more attention is given to her.By using these colors the artist shows how although Ann Whitley Russell is a woman of great wealth, she is a plain woman and instead of embellishing her with vibrant colors he focused on maintaining the sitters true essence. Additionally, while analyzing the portrait of Lady Frances Knowles the importance of color is also used however it is to express different meanings. It is easy to see that the artist of this piece finds color very important due to the vast color pallet he uses in order to contrast the colors of the sitters dress and her skin tones.The pallet consists of a diverse amount of blue, white, pink, red, grey, brown, and black shades, which are used to illustrate the sitter and her surroundings. The artist uses flowing brush strokes to engage viewers in Lady Frances Knowles, a strong example of these brush strokes can be seen in the sitters long brown flowing hair that she is trying to show off. The background of the portrait, which contains a variety of red and pink accents against a darker black background, deeply contrasts the white and pink shades of the sitters skin tone and the shades of blue on the sitters dress.Shadowing is used on the skirt and sleeves of the sitters dress to create realistic folds and wrinkles in the expensive fabric. The shades of red and pink are used fo r the flowers held by and surrounding Lady Frances Knowles, and are emblems representing femininity, beauty and fertility. The artists use color in contrasted ways in the portraits of Lady Frances Knowles and Ann Whitley Russell in order to illustrate the sitter’s unique personal attributes. The aspect of composition is one of great value while discussing the portrait of Ann Whitley Russell.Ann Whitley Russell’s figure takes up the majority of the piece and viewers are pulled into the portrait by the way the sitter’s head is slightly tilted in a contrapposto pose causing her gaze to fall upon us. The way the artist positioned the sitter with both of her arms resting over one of the arms of the chair seems uncomfortable and awkward, however this may have been seen as a proper way of sitting in 1820. Ann Whitley Russell’s portrait is a half body portrait from the waist up rather than a full body portrait that would have been more expensive at the time.The a rtist also focuses on the importance of lines by making them very defined so the viewer is able to depict where everything is easily. Due to the blurred and empty space in the background the sitter appears to be placed in an empty environment the artist may have done as to draw more attention to the subject (the sitter). Moreover, while analyzing the use of composition again in the Lady Frances Knowles portrait it is evident that it’s use is different.The artist gains the viewers full attention by the way the sitters face is held up gently by her hand and her soft eyes connect with the gaze of the viewer, drawing us even closer to the work of art. The way the artist positioned the sitter looks as if the sitter is going to get up at any moment due to how comfortable and relaxed her position is. The figure is directly centered with the background however her arm resting on the edge of the fountain on the side brings the main focus from herself to the intricate fountain.The back ground of the portrait is cluttered and the brush strokes are heavy and dark so the viewer will keep their focus on the sitter rather than the background. The proportions of the sitter in the portrait are accurate and almost entire the body of the sitter is portrayed, showing how she is willing to pay more for something more elegant. The artists for Ann Whitley Russell and Lady Frances Knowles both communicate diverse and very distinct characteristics about the sitter to viewers through the use of composition.After analyzing both of these portraits in excessive detail I have found that although they are unique in a variety of ways, both artists concentrations of work are the same. Some contrasts between the two portraits are that Ann Whitley Russell is two dimensional with a bland color pallet and is a half body portrait; while Lady Frances Knowles is three dimensional with a broad expanse of a color pallet and it is almost a full body portrait. The use of the elements space, color, and composition all influenced how the artists created the portraits of Ann Whitley Russell and Lady Frances Knowles and the themes within them.The unknown artist of the Ann Whitley Russell portrait used all three elements in order to illustrate how the sitter is a simple woman yet wealthy and elite as well. In the portrait of Lady Frances Knowles the artist, who is also unknown, uses these aspects to portray the natural beauty, femininity and wealth. Both themes are similar because they relate to how both sitters for each portrait aspired to be portrayed by the artists as attractive and wealthy.

Causes and effects of recession in uk Free Essay Example, 1500 words

This helped to accelerate the recession of the country. One of the factors that kept the economy of the UK booming was credit. However, with the uncertainty and the atmosphere of decreasing confidence banks stopped lending to one another both locally and even on the international scene. This led to a financial freeze. Prior to this many banks in the UK have contributed to sub primed investments and had to lose substantial amounts of funds. Another cause of the UK recession is the housing crisis that has been affecting the country in recent times. In September 2008 it has been reported that the United Kingdom has seen the worst housing crisis in thirty years. As banks tried to beat the problem of inflation one way of trying to restrict their capital is by restricting supplies of home loans. Since the housing crisis of 1993, 2008 saw the lowest number of new mortgages. Described as a drought by the Tribune Business News the low numbers were blamed on marked hardening in bank lending policies amid a world financial freeze. Inflation is also a contributing factor to recession in the UK. We will write a custom essay sample on Causes and effects of recession in uk or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now In 2008 the Office of National Statistics reported that consumer price inflation rose to 4.7 per cent in August of the same year. This was attributed to the sharp increases in gas and electricity bills. This prompted a letter from the governor of Bank of England, Mervyn King to Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling. He outlined that the high cost of food among other amenities have pushed the inflation to its highest rate in sixteen years. After the UK government announced a bail out plan in January 2009 the shares in banks sharply decreased. The second largest bank of the UK, the Royal Bank of Scotland went down to sixty seven percent and was described as been the lowest in the last twenty five years. The UK recession can be partially blamed on international events and situations. As the world becomes a large market place any negative action that takes place with large trading partners and in this case rich industrialized countries such as t he USA is bound to ricochet in other countries. There are steps, however, that all countries can put into place to minimize the effects of financial downturns. Unfavourable government policies have been described as possible contributory factors to recession in the UK. The ruling government, however, refused to take the blame for contributing to the recession and blamed it instead on global crises. The BBC quoted Prime Minister Gordon Brown that "Every recession in the last sixty years in Britain has been caused by inflation and has been domestically generated, " he said.