Mark Twain's oft-quoted assertion that "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" was first disputed by reputable scientists during the mid-forties, when General Electric Corporation, in conjunction with the Armed Forces, began serious attempts at weather modification by "seeding" cumulus cloud formations with solidified carbon dioxide or "dry ice."' Now, after a decade of experimentation, scientists still cannot agree on the effectiveness of major weather modification attempts. However, it is generally conceded that under certain atmospheric conditions, precipitation can be artificially induced with a relatively high degree of success and accuracy in a given local area, and this fact has given rise to a recent growth of the surprisingly ancient trade of "rainmaking." Thus, in the summer of 1951, western ranchers and farmers spent more than $3,000,000 with rainmaking companies in order to increase precipitation on some 350,000,000 acres, and the majority of the subscribers thought they had received their money's worth.
In this paper we examine, using the NatWest/Manchester Business School (MBS) tax models, the impact of taxation on the small business sector over the last few years. Because it is known that a small number of growth businesses provide most of the new wealth and additional employment created by the small firms sector, consideration is given to the combined effect of the different elements of the tax regime on small firms, with particular reference to the tax implications of business growth. The NatWest/MBS tax models, for incorporated and unincorporated small businesses, contain accounting data for a stratified random sample of almost 4000 small UK firms. These data are employed to estimate the total tax burden borne by small firms in the United Kingdom, including the total value of taxes collected from this sector by the Exchequer and the aggregate value of compliance costs borne by small businesses. Unincorporated firms employing fewer than 20 staff contribute just 5% of government revenues, and small limited companies with fewer than 100 employees provide 15% of total taxes collected. These figures of total tax revenues together with estimates of the compliance costs borne by small firms are assembled into tax indices for incorporated and unincorporated firms, set at 100 in 1994/95. Changes to the total tax burden are traced from 1994/95 (the base year in the models) up to 1996/97 in the light of the changes introduced in successive budgets. Although the index for small companies falls by 2.5 points across this period the position of unincorporated firms remains virtually unchanged. The reasons for these differential effects are considered and explained. We identify three important areas in which the growth and development of small business is restrained by the tax regulations currently in force: sales growth, employment generation, and investment for the future, We conclude that the fiscal barriers in these areas could be reduced by raising the VAT registration limit (initially to £100 000), by compensating small businesses for the cost of collecting tax on behalf of government and by reducing the level of taxation on profits reinvested in small businesses.
FMSR (Austria) ; Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) ; FWO (Belgium) ; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) ; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) ; Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) ; MES (Bulgaria) ; CERN (China) ; Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) ; MoST (China) ; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) ; COLCIEN-CIAS (Colombia) ; MSES (Croatia) ; Research Promotion Foundation (RPF) ; Academy of Sciences (Estonia) ; National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics (NICPB) ; Academy of Finland ; ME (Finland) ; Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP) ; Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) ; Institut national de physique nucléaire et de physique des particules (IN2P3/CNRS) ; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) ; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) ; HGF (Germany) ; General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) ; Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) ; NKTH (Hungary) ; Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) - India ; Department of Science and Technology (DST) - India ; Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) ; Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) ; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) ; National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) ; LAS (Lithuania) ; Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV) ; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) ; SEP (Mexico) ; UASLP-FAI (Mexico) ; Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) ; SCSR (Poland) ; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) ; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) ; MST (Russia) ; MAE (Russia) ; MSTDS (Serbia) ; MICINN (Spain) ; Centro Nacional de Física de Partículas, Astropartículas y Nuclear (CPAN) ; Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland) ; NSC (Taipei) ; Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) ; Türkiye Atom Enerjisi Kurumu (TAEK) ; Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) ; DOE (USA) ; National Science Foundation (NSF) - USA ; European Union ; Leventis Foundation ; A. P. Sloan Foundation ; Alexander von Humboldt Foundation ; During autumn 2008, the Silicon Strip Tracker was operated with the full CMS experiment in a comprehensive test, in the presence of the 3.8 T magnetic field produced by the CMS superconducting solenoid. Cosmic ray muons were detected in the muon chambers and used to trigger the readout of all CMS sub-detectors. About 15 million events with a muon in the tracker were collected. The efficiency of hit and track reconstruction were measured to be higher than 99% and consistent with expectations from Monte Carlo simulation. This article details the commissioning and performance of the Silicon Strip Tracker with cosmic ray muons.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.