Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

George Osborne changes corporation tax to stop firms moving overseas Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lmao, we get a new factory in 30 ****ing years, and 1,000 new jobs? Cheers George. If the corporations are happy, I'm happy!!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craiky1506)
    I haven't got the time to read through all that now, but I'll keep an open mind till I get the chance to read through them, thanks.

    However, they do still have free higher education, free healthcare, high progressive taxation and free housing which are all socialist principles.



    I was not recommending such a thing - I was merely questioning whether capitalism infact rewards hard work - equally if it does, someone who finds it harder to do a job but still does it as well as somebody who finds it easy, does this mean they should deserve more money, if capitalism indeed rewards hard work.
    Capitalism does not reward hard work, common misconception. Capitalism rewards RESULTS. [Which is the most practical thing to reward].
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Capitalism does not reward hard work, common misconception. Capitalism rewards RESULTS. [Which is the most practical thing to reward].
    That's fine then, it's what I was pointing out from another poster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But results come from hard work surely...both the same in my eyes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Is that really so? One of the things in ths year's Tory election manifesto was that they intended to repeal the Act forbidding fox hunting.

    Didn't they take a consensus before they included it? No wonder the Americans think that Cameron is inept.
    I don't think the Americans have much room to talk on the subject of being inept.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Capitalism does not reward hard work, common misconception. Capitalism rewards RESULTS. [Which is the most practical thing to reward].
    No. Capitalism rewards accumulation of capital. It doesn't matter if you received that capital via investment or whether you inherited that capital from your parents, you will receive reward if you have capital.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    lmao, we get a new factory in 30 ****ing years, and 1,000 new jobs? Cheers George. If the corporations are happy, I'm happy!!
    The article meant that GSK haven't had a factory here for 30 years, not that the new one will open in 2040!

    Hopefully this bodes well for them removing the ineffective 50p tax rate
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    lmao, we get a new factory in 30 ****ing years, and 1,000 new jobs? Cheers George. If the corporations are happy, I'm happy!!
    Try reading it properly:

    The pharmaceutical giant will open its first new factory in Britain in 30 years, with its chief executive declaring the change will “improve the attractiveness of the UK as a place for the private sector to locate and invest.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well yes a good idea in essence but this British economy was way over-valued yesterday. Osborne used the OBR's report to give his 'bullish' speech about how we're back on the mend! Really it is all guesswork and completely expected. This country is surrounded by a collapsing Eurozone and a struggling US Market, where exactly is our export led growth going to come from? Obama has already put his foot down in India, something Cameron failed to do a few months ago. His trip to China was a tad more successful but in order for that trade to pay off we need a highly appreciated Chinese Yuan, which just isn't going to happen. New companies coming here is a good, don't get me wrong, but this isn't all as rose-tinted as it has been made out to be over the past few days.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    No. Capitalism rewards accumulation of capital. It doesn't matter if you received that capital via investment or whether you inherited that capital from your parents, you will receive reward if you have capital.
    Tell me, how many people to do you believe have inherited the majority of their wealth from their parents? They surely must be a minority, just like people on jobseekers who are actually and genuinely looking for jobs. There are bad minorities in each section of society.

    The truth is the majority of wealth is gained through work, innovation, talent and luck. All these factors play a part.

    Apple make their huge sums of profit based on accumulation of capital yes? No, they make their money because they sell products that people want to buy. Supply and demand, if nobody wanted to buy their products they would go bust.

    Similarly, people in top end jobs do not get given them for the heck of it, like you seem to believe. The system of capitalism means that if you do not produce results, you WILL fail and you WILL go bust eventually.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Tell me, how many people to do you believe have inherited the majority of their wealth from their parents? They surely must be a minority, just like people on jobseekers who are actually and genuinely looking for jobs. There are bad minorities in each section of society.

    The truth is the majority of wealth is gained through work, innovation, talent and luck. All these factors play a part.

    Apple make their huge sums of profit based on accumulation of capital yes? No, they make their money because they sell products that people want to buy. Supply and demand, if nobody wanted to buy their products they would go bust.

    Similarly, people in top end jobs do not get given them for the heck of it, like you seem to believe. The system of capitalism means that if you do not produce results, you WILL fail and you WILL go bust eventually.
    Don't you see? It is precisley the fact that a minority hold all the world's wealth that we have such a problem. Something like 5% own 40% of the world's wealth. The Rockefellers will be wealthy for many years to come.

    And yes, Apple earn the wealth based on the accumulation of capital - or the CEO and various managers do anyway. As with any corporation, the wealth is created and extracted from the labourers. The labourers also have no say in how their product is distributed, what it is used for, how the company is run etc., etc. You would describe such a system based around hierarchy and authoritarian social relationships as libertarian (a word historically used by the left before it's meaning was distorted by the laissez-faire)?

    And no, I don't believe that "people in top end jobs ... get given them for the heck of it". I believe they get there because they are cunning and ruthless: they have a great knowledge of the market, how to exploit their workers, etc. What's more is they have huge control of the media (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) and that is probably why we all think things like "free-market = free society". It's all a sickening, huge mind game.

    They surely must be a minority, just like people on jobseekers who are actually and genuinely looking for jobs
    There are plenty on jobseekers who are genuinely looking for work. This level of arrogance astounds me.

    You forget that with the current benefit system, a poor man is better off unemployed than working - something Frank Skinner described as "the poverty trap". Naturally the typical Tory answer would be "Well take benefits off jobless then!" :rolleyes:

    If there has been one good thing about this Tory government, it has been the fact they are reforming the benefit system so people are either equally as well off or better off working than unemployed - by giving people benefits who are on a low income as well as those unemployed.

    Similarly, people in top end jobs do not get given them for the heck of it, like you seem to believe. The system of capitalism means that if you do not produce results, you WILL fail and you WILL go bust eventually
    You produce results under capitalism by getting your workers to do the work for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Try reading it properly:

    The pharmaceutical giant will open its first new factory in Britain in 30 years, with its chief executive declaring the change will “improve the attractiveness of the UK as a place for the private sector to locate and invest.”
    dammit

    Telegraph 1 - 1000 Me
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Don't you see? It is precisley the fact that a minority hold all the world's wealth that we have such a problem. Something like 5% own 40% of the world's wealth. The Rockefellers will be wealthy for many years to come.

    One extreme example much? The majority of wealth in the world in the current wealth generation is not that of families but of individuals. That will not change with the next generation, because money is finite, and in order for wealth to be of any use it must be spent. And when it is spent, it goes to others and those who have inherited get less rich. If they do not earn, they gain nothing, and their money runs dry.

    And yes, Apple earn the wealth based on the accumulation of capital - or the CEO and various managers do anyway. As with any corporation, the wealth is created and extracted from the labourers. The labourers also have no say in how their product is distributed, what it is used for, how the company is run etc., etc. You would describe such a system based around hierarchy and authoritarian social relationships as libertarian (a word historically used by the left before it's meaning was distorted by the laissez-faire)?

    How the hell is it the workers product? They did not develop or invent it, all they do is produce it. They did not acquire nor fund the acquisition of the materials, the development cycles, the modelling or any of the necessary parts prior to manufacture. The company does, therefore it makes it the company the owners of that property, and not the workers.

    And no, I don't believe that "people in top end jobs ... get given them for the heck of it". I believe they get there because they are cunning and ruthless: they have a great knowledge of the market, how to exploit their workers, etc. What's more is they have huge control of the media (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) and that is probably why we all think things like "free-market = free society". It's all a sickening, huge mind game.

    Excuse me whilst i go get my tin-foil hat good sir...



    Ok where were we?

    So, just why aren't you rich? Why don't you have a fancy car? Why aren't you tossing your lunch on Caribbean cruises? Why do you make rent payments instead of mortgage payments?

    The last thing you want to do is to admit that this all may be your fault. You're convinced that your decision to hang out with your friends at night instead of getting some more education at the local community college was the right one. Hey! You work hard and deserve your fun, right?

    And just why should you have to work more than 40 hours a week? That's what you're supposed to work, right? Forty hours, no more. After all, you're not a slave, are you? What about your huge car payments? Sure, you could be putting that money into an investment account, but you need that fancy car, right? And the rims? Hey! A guy's gotta be cool, you know what I'm saying?

    So … those rich people? Did they get that way doing the things you won't do? Working the 60-hour week, continuing with their education, buying cheap cars with ordinary wheels and investing the rest? Do they have the nice homes and the fancy cars because they make good choices and aren't afraid of taking a risk now and then?

    No way! If a person could really get rich that way you would have done it already, right? No, that's now how they got their money. These people are rich because they exploited people. They got their money by climbing on the backs of working people like you! They were lucky! They inherited it! They didn't earn it. If it could be earned, you would have done it, right?

    You have to protect yourself here, don't you? If you accept that the vast majority of those you call "rich" got there through hard work and producing results, then don't you have to ask yourself why you're not one of them? It's just so much easier to cast them as callous, selfish monsters and evil exploiters of the working class while preserving the mantle of goodness and righteousness for yourself. Hey, you may be poor, but at least you're a nice person, right?

    They don't get given it for the heck of it, in capitalism if you don't produce results you fail. Simple.




    There are plenty on jobseekers who are genuinely looking for work. This level of arrogance astounds me.

    You forget that with the current benefit system, a poor man is better off unemployed than working - something Frank Skinner described as "the poverty trap". Naturally the typical Tory answer would be "Well take benefits off jobless then!" :rolleyes:

    If there has been one good thing about this Tory government, it has been the fact they are reforming the benefit system so people are either equally as well off or better off working than unemployed - by giving people benefits who are on a low income as well as those unemployed.



    You produce results under capitalism by getting your workers to do the work for you.

    Now here this ties back into my point about playing the victim. If said worker had an idea, said worker could save and develop that idea and become wealthy themselves. The point is that nothing is actually holding back the worker from taking the initiative on their own.

    Bolded
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    The FT has been on the wrong side of every major economic debate for the last forty years.
    Perhaps the most inept comment I've seen today - if it was an FT opinion piece then you would have at least a toe/leg to stand on (see below why you don't), but you have facts presented here and indeed opinions of leading city experts, in other words, individuals who study/work in such related sectors.

    Regarding the supposed ineptitude of the FT, I do believe it was Gillian Tett (and to a lesser extent, Martin Wolf, who made excellent observations on the real economy as a whole), who so superbly uncovered the foils of the shadow banking system and indeed the intricacies of the derivatives markets, which exaggerated and indeed started this financial mess.

    I didn't see the Telegraph come up with any such insightful analysis - I guess they're to busy being Robert Peston fanboys, as lets face it, the only thinking they're good at is explaining even the most basic of economics in the most moronic and childish fashion, using the most anachronistic of metaphors.

    I'll leave it that shall I? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    One extreme example much? The majority of wealth in the world in the current wealth generation is not that of families but of individuals. That will not change with the next generation, because money is finite, and in order for wealth to be of any use it must be spent. And when it is spent, it goes to others and those who have inherited get less rich. If they do not earn, they gain nothing, and their money runs dry.
    Hmm...I think you tend to interpret most of my ideas as jealousy of the fact some people are richer than me (which materialistically they may be, though I have no such desire to be immersed in obscene wealth) rather than a critical analysis of authoritarian relationships between two classes and the effect this has on society as a whole. When I say it is a minority who hold all the wealth, you tend to think "Oh well, that's not so bad, it's only a minority after all", whereas I tend to think of the power and dominance such wealth brings these individuals and the consequent influence they therefore have over society. I realise this example is extreme but then, it is a particularly extreme scenario. Families as wealthy as the Rockefellers will have a huge impact upon the banks, the state, the means of production, economy, global relations and so forth and so forth. What's more is that when you tend to think of wealth, you tend to be thinking about cars, nice houses, furniture, etc., but when I think of wealth, I am think of land, private property and technology. There is credibility (though I am by no means saying it is certain) to the theory that we, as a society, in the 21st century already own enough technology that we could be living in a post-scarcity society (again I am not saying this is definite). A post-scarcity society is one in which technology can cover the demands of society (edit - to the extent that labour is unnecessary, or for the most part unnecessary and goods and services can be free). If this is the case, then it proves that capitalism is not going to provide for the world's poor because with the product of technology being sold for a profit and only being produced in the first place if it is likely to induce profit then it is far less likely to have its potential maximised. I personally think that there will still be demand for labour but I am positive that with the world's capital (this includes, land, technology and general wealth) privatised and or publicised (as opposed to being under common ownership) it is not reaching its true potential. Just to reinforce what I have said in other threads, I do not wish to destroy capital, rather I wish to see the end of private accumulation of capital.

    How the hell is it the workers product? They did not develop or invent it, all they do is produce it. They did not acquire nor fund the acquisition of the materials, the development cycles, the modelling or any of the necessary parts prior to manufacture. The company does, therefore it makes it the company the owners of that property, and not the workers.
    You forget that it was workers who produced these materials and modelled necessary parts. The other attributes that you mentioned are managerial qualities which could be easily effected collectively by the work force (taking the load off one or two people appointed as 'manager', though they could elect a manager if they felt it necessary). These workers can work in co-operation with the workers who produced the necessary materials, etc., etc. Moving away from the example of Apple (as computers may or may not be listed amongst the immediate needs of a society) and using the example of a localised energy station, the community nearby would desire to organise the production of said energy station because it is beneficial to the workers who live there. Whereas under capitalism, you sell your goods for a profit, under communism you co-operate with groups in society to create a pool of wealth that is beneficial to everyone (including yourself).

    So, just why aren't you rich? Why don't you have a fancy car? Why aren't you tossing your lunch on Caribbean cruises? Why do you make rent payments instead of mortgage payments?

    The last thing you want to do is to admit that this all may be your fault. You're convinced that your decision to hang out with your friends at night instead of getting some more education at the local community college was the right one. Hey! You work hard and deserve your fun, right?

    And just why should you have to work more than 40 hours a week? That's what you're supposed to work, right? Forty hours, no more. After all, you're not a slave, are you? What about your huge car payments? Sure, you could be putting that money into an investment account, but you need that fancy car, right? And the rims? Hey! A guy's gotta be cool, you know what I'm saying?

    So … those rich people? Did they get that way doing the things you won't do? Working the 60-hour week, continuing with their education, buying cheap cars with ordinary wheels and investing the rest? Do they have the nice homes and the fancy cars because they make good choices and aren't afraid of taking a risk now and then?

    No way! If a person could really get rich that way you would have done it already, right? No, that's now how they got their money. These people are rich because they exploited people. They got their money by climbing on the backs of working people like you! They were lucky! They inherited it! They didn't earn it. If it could be earned, you would have done it, right?

    You have to protect yourself here, don't you? If you accept that the vast majority of those you call "rich" got there through hard work and producing results, then don't you have to ask yourself why you're not one of them? It's just so much easier to cast them as callous, selfish monsters and evil exploiters of the working class while preserving the mantle of goodness and righteousness for yourself. Hey, you may be poor, but at least you're a nice person, right?

    They don't get given it for the heck of it, in capitalism if you don't produce results you fail. Simple.
    Firstly, I am not particularly wealthy but I am not particularly poor either, I have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that I am happy. My ideas don't stem from a jealousy of the rich (which would make no sense in any case as I could not possibly accumulate wealth under the system I propose in any case) but they stem from a hatred of hierarchical institutions in society: the state, capitalism, the church (as an institution, not as a peaceful place to worship), etc. and the effect I believe these institutions have on society as a whole. If you read my signature you understand why I believe self-governance helps the individual (and therefore society) to grow. If the individual is placed with the task of managing his own labour (for instance) he develops new skills, new abilities, new personal attributes and a new sense of energy fueled by a sense of responsibility and political/economic power s/he never previously knew s/he could possibly wield. Do you see where I am going with this. The alternative is that we lean upon hierarchies, whether they be the state or whether they be the capitalist economic order and depend upon such systems to act for us, to make decisions on our behalf, to manage our labour for us, etc., etc. Such a system can only stunt the growth of the individual and dull down his intellectual.

    You will probably argue that I have not answered your point but I have done so on purpose as I desire to show you the broader level on which I view both systems of capitalism and statism and how I feel they affect and divide society. Even the most wealthy cannot truly be free under such a system for they will always have to bear the resentment of the underclasses and never fully understand what means to co-operate.

    In any case, your points assume that I think it was purely by luck that people make it to the top, which, with the exception of inheritance, I don't. I don't feel that reward is measured according to labour value, or even necessarily productivity, though and I feel that that exposes many of the arguments and ideals those pro-capitalists have about capitalism rewarding hard work. Looking at the views of those who hold Libertarian view points (in the modern day, right-wing sense) I am drawn to the conclusion more and more that the ideology is actually a reaction against capitalism, against the status quo, etc. You recognise that capitalism is an injust system but you seek to fix the problems of the world by trying to channel the greed of the minorities into something that you feel will see social and economic progress. In any case, I think it is good to see so many people thinking on a deeper, fundamental level about politics and not necessarily going along the dumbened down route of "It's either Tory or Labour!"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hmm...I think you tend to interpret most of my ideas as jealousy of the fact some people are richer than me (which materialistically they may be, though I have no such desire to be immersed in obscene wealth) rather than a critical analysis of authoritarian relationships between two classes and the effect this has on society as a whole. When I say it is a minority who hold all the wealth, you tend to think "Oh well, that's not so bad, it's only a minority after all", whereas I tend to think of the power and dominance such wealth brings these individuals and the consequent influence they therefore have over society. I realise this example is extreme but then, it is a particularly extreme scenario. Families as wealthy as the Rockefellers will have a huge impact upon the banks, the state, the means of production, economy, global relations and so forth and so forth. What's more is that when you tend to think of wealth, you tend to be thinking about cars, nice houses, furniture, etc., but when I think of wealth, I am think of land, private property and technology. There is credibility (though I am by no means saying it is certain) to the theory that we, as a society, in the 21st century already own enough technology that we could be living in a post-scarcity society (again I am not saying this is definite). A post-scarcity society is one in which technology can completely, or for the most part, cover the demands of society. If this is the case, then it proves that capitalism is not going to provide for the world's poor because with the product of technology being sold for a profit and only being produced in the first place if it is likely to induce profit then it is far less likely to have its potential maximised. I personally think that there will still be demand for labour but I am positive that with the world's capital (this includes, land, technology and general wealth) privatised and or publicised (as opposed to being under common ownership) it is not reaching its true potential. Just to reinforce what I have said in other threads, I do not wish to destroy capital, rather I wish to see the end of private accumulation of capital.



    You forget that it was workers who produced these materials and modelled necessary parts. The other attributes that you mentioned are managerial qualities which could be easily effected collectively by the work force (taking the load off one or two people appointed as 'manager', though they could elect a manager if they felt it necessary). These workers can work in co-operation with the workers who produced the necessary materials, etc., etc. Moving away from the example of Apple (as computers may or may not be listed amongst the immediate needs of a society) and using the example of a localised energy station, the community nearby would desire to organise the production of said energy station because it is beneficial to the workers who live there. Whereas under capitalism, you sell your goods for a profit, under communism you co-operate with groups in society to create a pool of wealth that is beneficial to everyone (including yourself).



    Firstly, I am not particularly wealthy but I am not particularly poor either, I have a reasonably comfortable lifestyle that I am happy. My ideas don't stem from a jealousy of the rich (which would make no sense in any case as I could not possibly accumulate wealth under the system I propose in any case) but they stem from a hatred of hierarchical institutions in society: the state, capitalism, the church (as an institution, not as a peaceful place to worship), etc. and the effect I believe these institutions have on society as a whole. If you read my signature you understand why I believe self-governance helps the individual (and therefore society) to grow. If the individual is placed with the task of managing his own labour (for instance) he develops new skills, new abilities, new personal attributes and a new sense of energy fueled by a sense of responsibility and political/economic power s/he never previously knew s/he could possibly wield. Do you see where I am going with this. The alternative is that we lean upon hierarchies, whether they be the state or whether they be the capitalist economic order and depend upon such systems to act for us, to make decisions on our behalf, to manage our labour for us, etc., etc. Such a system can only stunt the growth of the individual and dull down his intellectual.

    You will probably argue that I have not answered your point but I have done so on purpose as I desire to show you the broader level on which I view both systems of capitalism and statism and how I feel they affect and divide society. Even the most wealthy cannot truly be free under such a system for they will always have to bear the resentment of the underclasses and never fully understand what means to co-operate.

    In any case, your points assume that I think it was purely by luck that people make it to the top, which, with the exception of inheritance, I don't. I don't feel that reward is measured according to labour value, or even necessarily productivity, though and I feel that that exposes many of the arguments and ideals those pro-capitalists have about capitalism rewarding hard work. Looking at the views of those who hold Libertarian view points (in the modern day, right-wing sense) I am drawn to the conclusion more and more that the ideology is actually a reaction against capitalism, against the status quo, etc. You recognise that capitalism is an injust system but you seek to fix the problems of the world by trying to channel the greed of the minorities into something that you feel will see social and economic progress. In any case, I think it is good to see so many people thinking on a deeper, fundamental level about politics and not necessarily going along the dumbened down route of "It's either Tory or Labour!"
    I have not forgotten about you, but I need to post on something other than my iPhone to give your post a good reply. Will do it tonight
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    But results come from hard work surely...both the same in my eyes.
    It is very naive to think that results come from hard work because arguably in the vast majority of cases, they definitely don't. A combination of hard work and luck or forutunate circumstances tends to equal results, but just hard work alone ... very seldom.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
    It is very naive to think that results come from hard work because arguably in the vast majority of cases, they definitely don't. A combination of hard work and luck or forutunate circumstances tends to equal results, but just hard work alone ... very seldom.
    Yes. It is about working smart, not working hard in capitalism. For instance a man can theoretically labour just as hard digging holes and filling them back in again as a main who builds a well but the man who builds the well has been more productive. Unfortunately, under capitalism, there is also the chance to exploit labour of others and gain money as a result of owning capital. If it was really productivity and not capital that was rewarded, I would have little or no problem with capitalism (though I would still feel that it was necessary to provide welfare for those genuinely unable to provide the fruits of labour to society due to physical or mental handicaps).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How do Osborne's changes to UK corporation tax compare with our neighbours?

    Are there any nearby countries who have lower corporation tax?
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
      How do Osborne's changes to UK corporation tax compare with our neighbours?

      Are there any nearby countries who have lower corporation tax?
      I believe Ireland had the lowest corporation tax at 12.5% prior to Osborne's change.

      The EU were trying to make it a condition of their loan to Ireland that they reduce it, as it made it impossible for any other EU country to compete with them. Ireland refused, and Osborne raised the stakes.

      We'll have to wait and see if Germany or France follow Osborne and jump on the competitive wagon by reducing the tax to even lower levels. Corporation tax could well end up being removed totally by an EU country.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.