ittle money was going to be collected, so it is right to draw a line and pull a line over it. However, there are a couple of other points that come from the debate. I think that it was Perth and Cairnross council when they gave evidence to the finance committee and they talked about having to pursue the poll tax, and that interfered with some of the collection that they had of council tax, and that some of the same families that were in debt those 20 years ago in terms of poll tax also had agreements in place and were paying back debts now in terms of the council tax. What that shows us is that some 20 years on, in communities, the same families, the same individuals are still today struggling with deprivation and social inequality that they were some 20 years ago. That has to surely tell us that there is more that we need to be doing to tackle inequality and to tackle poverty. The Deputy First Minister said that those paying off community charge debts include some of the poorest and most vulnerable who were unable to pay at that time and are still in arrears, having arrears deducted from their social security benefits. That should wake us up that other poverty strategies have been put in place and are still not working for many communities, many people and many families, and that is a generational thing. We have not been able to break that cycle of deprivation and poverty that should shame us all in this chamber. We need to highlight that today and look at how we are going to tackle that. It links to local government and the fact that we are talking about local government finance. The minister talks about council tax and we know that council tax in its current form, and certainly where we are at right now, is causing major difficulties out there in communities in terms of not being a sustainable way forward for financing local government. We need to find a way forward because the type of budgets that we are seeing local authorities announce this week in the type of cuts are biting into local government services right across Scotland. We need to find a way to properly fund local government finance, so some 22 years on, through the poll tax being scrapped, we still do not have in place a proper mechanism to funding local government finance. That brings me right back to my point about poverty, because I believe that you will not be able to tackle poverty and inequality in Scotland unless you have a national poverty strategy that links into a local poverty strategy. At the heart of that, and delivering that locally, is the community planning partners, and the key to that is local government itself. Local government is the body that can tackle inequality and poverty at the local level and change things. If it is not financed properly and if local government finance is broken, that will not work. Today, with pleasure, I think that we will see this bill go through and we can draw a line under the poll tax, but the message is that we have to sort local government finance. We have been against this bill from the very beginning. We have been critical of the way in which it was announced. We have been critical of the lack of consultation. We are against the bill in principle and we are concerned about the pragmatic aspects that could flow from it. Let me deal with a point that I tried to make in an intervention. The Government tried to paint that as some kind of high-minded safety for democracy that it has to bring in in order to protect democracy and the electoral role. It says that people should feel free to register without the fear of being chased for tax. What it does not say is that that only applies to community charge. If councils want to use the expanded electoral roles to chase up council tax debts of 17 or 18 or 19 years old, that is apparently okay from the Scottish Government. Not only is it okay, the finance minister is enthusiastic about councils using their powers and using that expanded electoral role to chase up old council tax debts. I think that the narrative behind it about how this is a protection of democracy falls some part when it applies only to one tax but not to another tax, which could be decades old. A tax about which, in years gone by, the SNP in particular has been pretty aggressive. It has said some pretty unpleasant things about council tax and is pretty close to the things that it has said about the community charge. It was very different last week when the finance minister was praising the council tax and said on the record how it is linked to the ability to pay. That is in stark contrast to what many SNP members said in the last session of Parliament where we can find a whole plethora of quotes about how awful they feel the council tax actually is. I said that we are against on principle. The principle is fairly straightforward. It is a principle espoused, I have to say many times, by John Swinney himself. People should properly pay the taxes for which they are liable. On this side of the chamber, we do not deviate from that in relation to the community charge. We think that that is the way it ought to be. We also think that there is a principle here. There should be a principle of equality between those who paid the tax and those who did not pay. What we have now, of course, is an idea of where, if you paid the community charge, even if you were against it, as I know many in the chamber or the majority in the chamber were, people may have paid it and made great sacrifices in order to do so, but those who did not pay it, some of whom probably could have paid it quite reasonably, are let off. There is an inequality between those. I looked through the finance committee notes and this is a live issue that has been sent to many MSPs. I know the convener of the finance committee who said on the record, I imagine that most, if not all MSPs like me received a number of communications from constituents who have said in effect what about those who paid at the time. He goes on to say this, we are all getting correspondence about it. I have not had anyone tell me what a great idea of the bill is, but I have had plenty of folk writing to me in the terms that I have just described. Those are not the words of a Conservative MSP. That is a direct quote from the convener of the finance committee who, I have to say, did far more consultation on this issue than the entire Scottish Government combined. We are against it in reasons of principle, but we are against it too for reasons of pragmatism. That was what the amendment that we lodged earlier today was about. Council after council, in giving written submissions to the committee and councils giving evidence to the committee, even those who were supportive of the bill, such as Dundee City Council, were concerned about the impact that it could have on the collection of council tax. Does the member not think that a worse example is the big companies and the rich individuals who hide their tax overseas and there is a huge tax gap? Are they not the ones that should be pursued? We are happy to debate tax evasion and tax avoidance of any nature in this chamber at any time, but today we are debating stage 3 of a specific bill in front of us, which I am sure Mr Mason acknowledges. We are confined to talk about the contents and the impact of that particular bill. If he wishes to use his debating time to debate other stuff, so be it. We are happy to debate at any time, but our remarks have to be confined to the bill in front of us. As I said at the start, we are against it in principle, we are against it in practical terms too. It had no consultation whatsoever from the Scottish Government and there could be some unforeseen consequences. For that reason, we will not be supporting the bill and we will be voting against it at 5 o'clock today. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate and I call on Kenny McCaskill to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm four minutes please. What this debate is not about is the principle of paying taxation. It is about the final burying of the poll tax. Like many members in this chamber, I have recently filed my income tax and have paid my income tax. While it is not ecstatic to do so, I was happy to do so because it took cognisance of the ability to pay. It was banded and it went towards the protection of necessary public services. The poll tax was an entirely different entity. It was a political tax brought in by the Conservatives, brought in a year earlier in Scotland using us as a guinea pig for the taxation that ultimately bit the dust despite, as I say, the best endeavours to advise better counsel and wiser counsel and Margaret Thatcher, some from even within her own party, that she finally fell with it. So I was proud to take part in the can pay won't pay campaign because it was about ensuring that those who couldn't pay wouldn't ever have to pay. We did defeat the taxation and this bill finally puts to bed the last few remaining individuals who are being pursued for this iniquitous tax. It was an iniquitous tax. It was a tax upon the poor and the vulnerable. It didn't take into account the ability to pay. It was about marginalising society whereby if you weren't contributing to health or education, well, if you don't have a child at school, why should you pay for education? And if you don't have ill health because you're fortunate and healthy, why should you worry about those who are afflicted? It was about dividing and divvying up in the privatisation of our society that has sadly been continued through more recent Governments. It also was about the undermining of Government services at local level. Alex Rowley's been making appropriate points, but let's remember, and I touched upon this in the stage 1 debate, the gearing effect was all about either having councils ratchet up the poll tax to an unaffordable level or seek to privatise and dispose of council services, so that's why it had to go. Are there a few individuals who probably will escape who should have paid? Sadly, probably only a few, but what we're talking about, as I say, is an overwhelming majority after 20 years of people who just cannot pay. Why is that? Because this was a taxation where we had expedited powers, and I do know that we have expedited powers with the Inland Revenue to be able to deal with whether it's with MSPs or others who don't pay their tax, and that's rightly so, but, as John Mason was correctly saying in Inland Revenue terms, in income tax and other taxation are especially more complicated ones. Accountants in both tax avoidance and, sadly, tax evasion kicks in. For the ordinary man or woman in the street, the ordinary individuals struggling to pay their community tax was, in fact, imposed and dealt with quite simply by local authorities for those who were able to pay, because let's remember where it was dealt with by a summary warrant, an expedited procedure that didn't require the council to raise any particular action that was printed off on a computer. It was passed to sheriff officers who at one stage could use a warrant sale to intimidate and get money that way, but for the overwhelming majority of people it was dealt with by either a bank harassment or an earnings harassment. So the people who have left who have not been able to pay, those who are being pursued, are those who simply cannot pay, because councils tried to pursue them but couldn't, and the reason that they couldn't get anything from them is that, in the main, they simply do not have the wherewithal to pay and to seek to pursue them would be fundamentally wrong. The final point, Presiding Officer, is simply that it is about protecting the poor, but it's also about dealing with those councils who shamefully wish to intimidate and try to put people off the electoral register. There was a brazen political attempt after the outstanding sign-up campaign and politicisation of the referendum by Tories in particular to seek to do to people what has been done elsewhere in other jurisdictions to try to dissuade them from exercising their democratic mandate, and on that point I end, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Alex Salmond. Presiding Officer, I was very happy to support this bill very soon after it was published, and I think that it's the right thing to do. I think that we have to respond to the points raised by Gavin Brown, because the Conservatives are the only people opposing this today. I would say to him in terms of his fears about the council tax. I would remind him what Perth and Cynros council told us when we were on the finance committee that further attempts to collect would be expensive and could come at a cost to council tax collection. So I would invite Gavin Brown to consider this bill as the put all your energy into collecting the council tax bill, and if you look at it from that point of view, I think that it could well be very positive, even from his point of view. He talks about Perth and Cynros council, but he said as well that beyond this issue we have concerns about the potential impact of the on-going collection of council tax. That seems to contradict the quote that I've just given. Anyway, I think that the other more fundamental point that Gavin Brown was making that he doesn't regard the poll tax as different from other taxes. I suppose that most of us in the chamber do, and that's the fundamental dividing line between the Conservatives and other people in the chamber today. That's also why I don't think that it will lead to the effects on the council tax. There's never been a mass non-payment campaign about the council tax, because people, even those who are concerned about it, recognise that it's a fundamentally different tax because it is related in various ways to the ability to pay. The collection rates show that. We have very high rates for the council tax and much lower rates when the poll tax existed. I believe that his fears are uncounted. I believe that, in principle, we have to regard the poll tax as a fundamentally different tax, certainly different from any tax that I've ever known in my lifetime, the most unfair and inequitable tax. Of course, large sections of Gavin Brown's own party realised that at the time that it split his own party and united the rest of the country against it. I think that this is a historic day when we put the final nail in the coffin of the poll tax, and for those of us with long political memories, of course, it reminds us of the campaigns that we were involved in in the late 80s and early 90s against it. It was fundamentally different from any other tax that we have ever seen. Of course, there are people outside as well who may have concerns about this and may have written to us about this, so I would make to them some of the points that I've made to Gavin Brown there. However, I think that it's also important to people who have concerns to put the whole thing in perspective. One thing that I say to people is that this is just a Scottish issue. They haven't been collecting poll tax in England for 10 years. I realise that there are legislative reasons for that, but it does help to put it into perspective. Of course, the other point that members have made is that there isn't much left to collect anyway. I think that we should remind people that 10 local authorities don't collect it. Anyway, only £327,000 was collected last year. That just helps to take a little bit of the heat out of the argument, because I understand that some people will feel very intensely about this particular issue, but I think that that helps to put it into perspective. I'm glad that most people in the chamber are united behind this bill today. I accept the Conservative Party, perhaps, because they introduced the poll tax and have a certain affection for it still, and I don't wish to separate it from the other taxes that succeeded it. I understand that, but I think that most people in Scotland will be very pleased that today we're finally drawing a line under that whole era of unfair taxation. Of course, as Alex Rowley said, the important matter now is to fix local government finance. We haven't come up with the best solution yet, but I think that everyone has agreed that the council tax was a big improvement on the poll tax. Let's make sure that all our energies are devoted to collecting the council tax in, because my goodness to the local government needs it. Let's cast into the history books and the dustbin of history, The Unfair and Unwanted Poll Tax. Many thanks. I now call on Alex Salmond to be followed by John Mason. I speak not so much as the member of the Scottish Parliament from Aberdeenshire East, but as Alex from Strickan, who was moved to phone the call-K phone-in programme on this very subject. What moved me to do that was the enthusiasm being displayed by councillor Jim Gifford, the leader of Aberdeenshire council, who seemed to want to use the magnificently enlarged electoral register as a means of hounding down people for debts that were 20-year-olds old and more. There were three particular difficulties that I found with councillor Gifford's argument. One, he seemed oblivious entirely to the fact that the pittance that was being collected by Aberdeenshire council most certainly meant that they were in the position that Alex Rowley outlined. It was costing more to collect than it was being collected. He seemed unaware that much of the outstanding debt was an illusion. It was either owed by people who never existed in the first place or who had long since demised in the last 23 years. It was a mythical debt in terms of its total. Thirdly, he seemed unaware that people who were either collecting the debt collected from them had probably paid it many times over, as the minister indicated, because of the cumulative charges. People who hadn't been paying the debt, by definition, if it was new debt, it was outlawed by the 20-year rule, since by definition, poll tax debt is more than 20 years old. All of those things, councillor Gifford, was unaware of. Hence, I was moved to enter the debate in the call-K programme. It strikes the importance and the connection between non-payment and voting. It has been widely reported in the press that the Liberal Democrats owe £800,000 to the Scottish Police Service, an £800,000 debt that they are refusing to pay. The Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party—for all I know the Scottish Socialist Party—pay for the security at their party conferences and have no debts outstanding. However, it has been widely reported that the Liberal Democrats owe £800,000. It has even been reported that the Conservative Party has an outstanding debt to the Scottish Police Service. I do not know whether that is a non-payment campaign, or in the case of Liberal Democrats, maybe they are short of money. The Conservatives cannot be short of money by definition, since their tax-evading donors make sure that they are not short of money. However, I would never, even given those circumstances, draw the conclusion that those people should be stopped from voting in this parliamentary chamber because they are engaged in a non-payment campaign deliberately or otherwise to the Scottish Police Service. Mind you, the Liberal Democrats look like they beat me to it in terms of not turning up to vote or to debate in the first place. It is a very dangerous connection to draw, and I was certain that day by all means. You are going to tell us— It is true that the member is criticising others for not being here to vote or debate, but let us move past that. If it is so iniquitous, why is it okay for the Scottish Government, why is he so enthusiastic for the Scottish Government to use the electoral role to chase up a 19-year-old council tax debt? Because of the three reasons that I outlined, first, that the poll tax was costing more to collect in many circumstances than could be collected. Secondly, because it is a mythical debt that many of those people either never existed or no longer exist. Thirdly, the important point I made, the small amount that is being paid were from people who have already paid many times over, and by definition, Mr Brown, if it is new debt, it is caught by the 20-year rule on the poll tax. All of that and more that this was the most iniquitous tax of recent modern times, and if I were the Conservative Party, I would be trying to forget the poll tax, not to make everyone remember it. I noticed that Mr Brown did not take the opportunity to deny that there might be an outstanding debt from the Conservative Party to the Scottish Police Service. If so, I am sure—if that is not the case—I am sure that I want to come to the chamber and explain why that bill does not seem to have been paid. I would never draw the conclusion that, therefore, Mr Brown or his colleagues should not be allowed to vote in the chamber. Mr Deptigriding officer, democracy is a precious thing. We have a 98 per cent registration on the voter's register. We have an 85 per cent turnout in the referendum. That is so much more precious than any of the normal political arguments that take part in this chamber. We should defend it at every available opportunity. That is embracing a huge democratic experience. If I have one criticism—it is not of this minister. The criticism is of myself as First Minister. I should have brought forward this legislation years ago. I wish that I had. Now that we have, let us put it through and bury this iniquitous tax for good. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased that this bill has got to stage 3 today and that it has the widespread support that it obviously does. This was a bad tax, and my colleague Kenny MacAskill put that very eloquently, and others, I am sure, are as well. In the first place, this is not just any old debt that is being written off. There is a much stronger argument for writing off this tax debt compared to any other run-of-the-mill tax, because it was so unfair all along the line. However, the reality is that all debt needs to be evaluated at times. For example, especially can it be collected at all, whether the cost of collecting it makes it worthwhile, and whether chasing it is detrimental to other objectives? I suggest that, on all three of those points, this bill passes the test. Firstly, clearly the vast bulk of it cannot be collected, as people do not have the money that has died or are not traceable. Secondly, some councils have already decided that it would be throwing good money after bad to pursue it and have stopped trying to collect it. Thirdly, councils such as Glasgow have decided to pursue the council tax primarily rather than diverting limited resources to the poll tax. We should not really think that writing off debt is that unusual. Both private and public sector debt is first provided for if there is any doubt about its collectability. That often occurs by providing 25 per cent or 50 per cent and so on, as the debt gets older without being collected. Once any debt has been provided for 100 per cent, it can still be sitting in the accounts, but the net effect is nil as the provision matches the asset. Effectively, that is what has already happened with community charge, as I understand that all councils have provided 100 per cent of the outstanding debt. Writing it off then merely reflects the reality that this debt to all intents and purposes is irrecoverable. Again, it is not unusual that those who pay tax or any cost for that matter are cross-subsidising others who do not or cannot pay it. Anything that we buy in the shop includes the cost of shoplifting, and when we pay for gas or electricity, that will include the cost of those who default. The Conservatives might try and make a big song and dance out of this situation, but in reality we are only doing what any business, any utility or whatever does on a pretty regular basis. Of course, as has been mentioned, there is a tax gap and for the UK we gather that this is some £34 billion. If we are starting off from scratch to close this gap, would we look at the few pounds here or there that we could get by people who are struggling?  I think that there is a moral question in here. Are we pursuing unpaid tax from the rich and powerful with the same enthusiasm as from the poorer and weaker? I think that the SNP, Labour, the Greens and the independence are pretty clear on that point, but I fear that the Conservatives tend to side with the rich and the powerful against the weaker and poorer, and I really have no idea where the Liberal Democrats are at all. So I am more than happy to support this bill today. I am delighted that it has reached stage 3. This is not just about a few thousand pounds or a few hundred thousand pounds, this is also a symbolic message that we are sending out today, that this Parliament does not approve taxes like the poll tax, this Parliament will not introduce taxes like the poll tax in future and this Parliament will do what it can to make our society fairer and help those most in need. I congratulate the Government on introducing this bill and I look forward to it being passed today. Many thanks. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Cameron Buchanan, four minutes Mr Buchanan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I apologise for speaking out of turn, and as they say in the radio programme, I'll sorry, I'll read that again. I'm going to be very nervous now pressing this wee green button again, I can assure you. The Government seems to have little desire to listen to most people's views on removing liability to pay this community charge. I've said before that there are many worrying questions and I am actually compelled to ask them yet again. How is this bill fair to the people who paid the charge? Will it stand up to the legal challenge from those who will understandably seek compensation? I think that's a very important question. Will the compensation be offered to local authorities to be reviewed to match the true cost of this policy? What will be the total effect of the worrying precedent that this bill sets on tax avoidance? For example, what about the council tax? We've heard from people about paying arrears of council tax and I think this will definitely be effective on that. I think that there are many worrying questions and as ever this Government won't give many answers. It seems obvious that removing the liability certainly. Russell? I think that the answer perhaps that the member is seeking but why this Government is so passionate and passionate at her to speak is very simple. Gavin Brown was I think 14 when the poll tax came in. There are many members in this chamber who fought against the poll tax as the most iniquitous tax ever seen in Scotland. That is the answer to the member's question. I was not 14 but I think it's a question of principle rather than anything else, rather than the age. It's a question of principle about paying taxes, not about whether the tax is fair or unfair. I wasn't really arguing that. I pointed out that the collection rate was approximately 88 per cent which makes it clear that most people paid for their contribution. I'm still baffled by this Government's position. I'm aware that they wish to cover new ground but actively legislating to make all taxpayers compensate for the tax evasion of others I think reaches new heights of responsibility. This Government is stubbornly refusing to rush this bill, is stubbornly choosing to rush this bill through Parliament no matter the consequences. No responsible Government would trample over fairness for the honest majority but I think this Government is doing exactly that certainly. John Wilson? Thank Mr Cameron for giving way. What would he say to his colleagues in Westminster who have actively supported those who have been offshoring their accounts to avoid paying tax in the UK? Thank you. I think that that was more the point that John Mason has made. I wouldn't say anything at this stage because it's not what we're talking about here. This is a bill. No, it's not. We're talking about the principle of paying tax and it's talking about the principle of paying this cancer test. Many of my constituents have also contacted me to express their opposition to the community charge debt bill and they're absolutely right I think that it is unfair. No matter that the spin that is offered, it cannot in any way be fair to some people to be excused of their obligations while others are not. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hard-working taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise other people's tax avoidance and the SNP's irresponsible rhetoric. For this policy to have any semblance of equal treatment, those who paid the tax would have to be reimbursed. This is also a fundamental point. The government's retort to this may be that such remuneration would be unaffordable, yet this would only surely undermine the recklessness of the bill as a whole. The only practical, affordable and fair thing to do is to scrap the bill altogether. This is obvious to so many of my constituents and others throughout Scotland. It is important that we fully understand the consequences for local authorities' finances compared to the compensation on offer. £869,000 is only 0.2 per cent of the total uncollected £425 million, which despite the government's protests about collection, the cost is far from adequate. The compensation is far from adequate. It still doesn't accommodate informal payments made to local authorities unless somebody has said that those taxes are still being collected, albeit slowly. It ignores also the potential knock-on effects regarding future tax payments to local authorities. The risk of losing council tax as a result of people expecting their debt to be cancelled at a later date has been highlighted repeatedly, yet this government has explicitly ruled out compensation being given to local authorities that suffer from a knock-on effect in council tax collection. With that in mind, Gavin Brown's amendment to require reporting on the effect of provisions on council tax revenues would have provided much needed information. At the time of significant financial difficulties, the last thing councils need is a Government that removes debt that they are owed, however difficult it is to collect it. It offers only a tiny settlement in compensation, which I think is also a point, and encourages tax avoidance. The people of Scotland deserve to be treated fairly, which means that the honest majority should not be discriminated against in favour of tax avoiders and made to cover the cost of compensation. The only fair thing to do is to scrap this policy. According to the Presiding Officer, I will be voting against that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Unlike others, I start by thanking the Finance Committee and the clerks to the committee for scrutinising the bill in the run-up to this final stage 3 debate this afternoon. I think that there is little descent, aside from the Conservatives, to the intention behind this legislation. As the architects of the poll tax, I am quite surprised that they are still intent on clutching on to it, given how discredited it is. However, I have to say that the question of whether the legislation is needed has been raised several times before. I absolutely agree that the increase in voter registration during the referendum is to be celebrated. Using that increase to pursue historic poll tax debt would have sent absolutely the wrong message about democratic participation. Let me quote the former First Minister, not something that I am sure he has heard me do often, but this is clearly a case of absence making the heart grow fonder, and certainly for Alex from Stricken. Even he noted that the bill, which was hurriedly introduced, has no practical effect because, and repeated it today, there is already a legal bar on chasing debts that are more than 20 years old. Cozler itself did not believe that the bill was necessary. I am very pleased that the minister acknowledged that a substantial and very welcome element of the increase in voter registration was among 16 to 18-year-olds who were not born when the poll tax was introduced. Indeed so. I wonder if the member might care to just clarify what she said. There is a 20-year bar to recovering debts rather than chasing them. Isn't that the point? You are quite right. There is a 20-year legal bar on recovering debts, but most local authorities, I think that you will find, said that practically it was too difficult to actually chase down those debts after such a significant period had elapsed. However, the Government, having decided to legislate, wasted no time in bringing the bill forward, and we support the bill. I understand the need for speed given the circumstances, but it is clear that consultation was sacrificed as a consequence. A more detailed conversation, indeed. Since I am here to reciprocate for Jackie Baillie, the point about the practical effect that she rightly touched on, and perhaps she should reflect on the point, is about the messages, as she said, that were being sent out. The reason I phoned up the phone in programme was because of the messages that were sent and being sent out by the Conservative leader of Aberdeenshire Council. Those messages could have resulted in people being frightened to stay on the electoral road. Does she accept that point? Jackie Baillie. Yes, I do, and I happened to tune in to call K. I was very surprised to hear yourself described as Alex from Stricken, but there you go. By that time, I think that you'd announced that you were retiring to the back benches, and I suspect that you were enjoying phoning in something that you hadn't done previously as First Minister. However, I do believe that a more detailed conversation with key stakeholders would have been helpful, and I welcome therefore the evidence taken by the Finance Committee. I agree with the majority of members in this chamber. The poll tax is totally discredited and has been overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland. It has finally run its course, and tonight we have the opportunity to consign it to the dustbin of history. Members across the chamber recognise that people who paid their poll tax and who, in many cases, struggled to do so will feel that the Government's decision is unfair. I think that Malcolm Chisholm has got it absolutely right. The amount actively being collected is small. It is practically hugely difficult to track down and collect the rest, and let's be clear, local government is rightly focused on making sure that council tax collection rates are high, and we should applaud them on their efforts. I want to turn to Alex Rowley's concluding comments, because I think that he hit the nail on the head. The real debate is not about the bill. It is important, though it is, but the real debate is about how we finance local government, not as some abstract thing, but how we properly fund schools and education, how we properly fund our home-helps and our care homes, how we properly fund the maintenance and repair of something as basic as our roads, and never mind the range of services provided by local authorities. Members will have heard me saying in this chamber before that local government has borne the brunt of the Scottish Government's cuts. Real strain has been placed on their ability to provide a range of services needed by our local communities. The cabinet secretary has been fond of pointing out that the cut from the UK Government to the Scottish Government is 10 per cent, and that is a matter to be regretted, but what he's done is passed on in some cases 20 per cent to 22 per cent cuts to local government. I welcome the commission on local government funding. I believe that it meets next week. It is essential, but we need to look at the wider issue, not just of the council tax, but how we fund local government in a much more sustainable way. If the Scottish Government is up for doing that, it will have the support of those benches. In the meantime, I am pleased to support this bill and banish the pull tax from Scotland forever. Let me begin with a response to some of the remarks that Alex Rowley made. Mr Rowley identified an important point at the outset of this debate in my response. As we take the final steps to abolish the outstanding debt arising from the pull tax, we should remark on the fact that many, many people in Scotland—and there is a point made by the Conservatives as well—paid their pull tax, many of them through financial hardship, many of them as a response of taking part, as my friend and colleague Kenny MacAskill did, as many of us did, in the non-payment campaign, but fulfilled our obligations once the pull tax had been abolished in the early 1990s. However, people made genuine sacrifices to ensure that public services were properly funded. I appreciate and I have had correspondence from members of the public who paid their pull tax and who are concerned about the fact that the Government is acting to abolish the last remnants of the pull tax today. We appreciate and welcome and value the contribution that those individuals made to the public services of Scotland and to funding those public services. The point that I advanced in the finance committee, which addresses many of the issues that have preoccupied the Conservatives' position, is that there is a false comparison made here between the pull tax and the council tax and the issues of collection that may arise. The difference between the pull tax and the council tax is that the pull tax is a dead tax. It is no longer functioning. The council tax is a currently operating tax for which our local authorities have a commendable and constantly improving success rate at collecting the council tax. The average in-year collection rate for the council tax in Scotland is 95.2 per cent. Mr Biagae, the minister, in his opening remarks made the point that in the local authorities in Scotland who are no longer voluntarily collecting the pull tax have a higher in-year collection rate for the council tax than the average rate in Scotland, which demonstrates that the issue that somehow non-collection of the pull tax and its outstanding arrears in any way affects the council tax collection is a myth, which is not substantiated by the evidence. Seven of the councils that gave written or oral evidence to the finance committee make that point. That is a question that Mr Brown can ask the seven councils concern, but for me the evidence demonstrates that where councils stopped collecting the pull tax, where they still have outstanding arrears of pull tax, it is not in any way undermining their ability to collect the council tax. The pull tax is now uncollectible as the data would show with the fall-off to a collection in 2013-14 of just £327,000. One of the other issues that was raised in the debate was the whole issue of tax compliance and the importance of people paying their taxes. We have wrestled with many of those issues as a Government in the steps that we have taken forward on land and buildings transaction tax, on landfill tax and on the Revenue Scotland bill. What we have done in the cold light of day, and I think that it is a point that resonates with what Mr Mason was making in his argument, we in the cold light of day decided to set the highest possible standard we could by applying a general anti-avoidance rule in the Revenue Scotland bill to ensure that the signal was sent out very clearly that we expect people to pay their taxes, and that is the approach that will be taken by Revenue Scotland in the period going forward. One of the interesting things about this debate tonight, this last and final debate, in which I hope leads to a vote tonight, in which the last remnants of the pull tax are abolished, is that the debate has been graced by contributions by the two remaining members of the Scottish Parliament who actually took part in the parliamentary votes about the pull tax when it was conceived into legislation in the late 1980s, Malcolm Chisholm and Alex Salmond. I thought that both of them I should point out voted against the introduction of the pull tax, but just for the sake of the record. Malcolm Chisholm made a fascinating point that, after all those years of the miserable impact of the pull tax on the reputation of the Conservative Party in Scotland, here we have in 2015 the Conservatives desperately clinging on to the last discredited vestment of the pull tax. What does that say about the Conservative Party in Scotland? It says that they haven't changed one eye OTA since the late 1980s and the early 1990s. I do think that it is important that the debate has heard the contribution of our former First Minister, the member for Aberdeenshire East, and as he may be affectionately known as Alec from Strichen. The fact that we are here today considering this legislation is a direct result of the determination of Alex Salmond, as in so many other areas of policy, to ensure that the right thing was done to address an injustice in our society. And the tenacity and determination of Alex Salmond to bring this issue to the fore in the circumstances that he himself recounted of seeing the democratic enthusiasm of our country somewhat challenged by an enthusiasm to go back to the late 1980s and 1990s to collect historic debts on a discredited tax. And it's to Alex Salmond's credit that he has forced the pace of this issue and got us to the position that we are in today of being able to take the decision that we will be able to take at five o'clock to abolish the last elements of the pull tax. And finally, Presiding Officer, can I respond to the points that Jackie Baillie made about properly funding local authorities and make a point to the Conservatives that this the financial agreement that we reached with the convention of Scottish local authorities of £869,000 as a final payment was an agreement that we reached with the convention of Scottish local authorities. We don't always manage to reach agreements with the convention of Scottish local authorities, but on this occasion I'm delighted that we were able to do that. But this government remains committed to ensuring that local authorities are properly and fully funded to undertake the responsibilities that they are allocated. We know that the financial climate is difficult. We are wrestling with that financial climate into the bargain. But at a time when the Government's budget has been under real strain, we have taken the decision to properly and to fully fund local government in Scotland, and that is the way it will stay under this Government. That concludes the debate on the community charge debt Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 12343.2 in the name of Claudia Beamish, which seeks to amend motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead on the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12343.1 in the name of Alex Ferguson, which seeks to amend motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead on the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12343 in the name of Richard Lochhead, as amended twice. On the national marine plan to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12344 in the name of John Swinney on the community charge debt Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12344 in the name of John Swinney is as follows. Yes, 98. No, 15. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the community charge debt Scotland Bill is passed. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.


your piece of the rock on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Abe Lee. I have been a licensed real estate agent since 1973. I'm the owner of Century 21 Eye Properties Hawaii and work with close to 100 wonderful agents in real estate sales. I started Abe Lee seminars in 1980. I have taught over 11,000 students to help them get the real estate licenses and I teach continuing education for licensed agents to continue to get their license every two years. Our show is dedicated to helping buyers and sellers understand the process involved in a real estate transaction. A special guest will talk about legal issues, escrow, title, getting a loan, surveys, home inspections, insurance, contracts, wisdom trust, and much, much more. We're really privileged today to have Brian Lee for the third time because what he talked about was so interesting, we ran out of time. So Brian, thank you so much for being here today. You're welcome. Glad to have you. So in case the viewers didn't see the first two videos, give us a little background about where you grew up, your family, and how you got interested in insurance, and specifically estate planning. Well, I'm a local boy, grew up in the housing and come from very humble backgrounds. My father was a carpenter and basically I was in the insurance business in 1970, 71. And I guess most people would say that I was successful, but I got disenchanted not with the business so much as the fact that I wanted to help people. So even though I was making a very good living selling insurance, I changed my operations and went into the service area and doing corporate planning, succession business planning. I eventually got trained and got certified to teach all the CPAs in America for accreditation, for CE credit, as well as the CFPs in America and also ended up teaching for the Hawaii Association of Realtors and currently are teaching the GRI courses. So I've been around for a long, long time. I knew Brian when he first started, but actually he started before me. We worked for the same company many, many decades ago, like in the early 70s. I've known Brian that long, if you can believe it, but I have found that over the years, Brian is a self-taught expert in certain areas that very few people have working knowledge of. And even things like ESOP, preschool, what the heck is that, or succession planning, or things of that nature that Brian works on and he's excellent at it. So Brian, about how many estate plans have you done so far? Closes I can think is the design work will 5,000. Amazing. Amazing. Okay. So the last time we talked, we ended up on number five on our 15 point estate planning. So we can start off with number six, which is distribution of who gets what and when and where. So maybe you can start us off with that number six point distribution of assets. Okay. Well, Abe, you know that unfortunately, just to give you some background, over 99% of all the estate plans in America is the same thing. Basically, set up husband and wife, for example, and something happens to the husband, the estate plan was designed to take care of the wife, something happened to the wife, then everything will be split up among the children. As a consequence, the estate plans in America does not accomplish what the parents really want because the options was not given to them.  They will always say yes. How many of you would go into business with your brothers and sisters? Oh, no, I don't want to go into business with my brothers and sisters. Well, guess what happens? Because of the fact when more husband and wife dies and your estate plan says upon the second death, everything is divided equally among the children, then you get the problem. Well, what primarily causes the problem? Well, basically real estate. Now, what people don't realize is real estate has a very unique aspect to it. It is the only assets in America, which I say has its own bill of rights. As you know, the bill of rights is connected through the Constitution and gives every citizen the right to do certain things. One of the things is that it basically tells us what the United States government will do for its citizens. Well, real estate has that same management controls. For example, if three people own a piece of property and one of them wanted to sell and the other said no, under what is called summing of petition rights, if the other two people don't want to sell them, then they can actually go to court and the courts would probably, 90% of the time, when you're moving higher, permit the property to be sold as an auction. These are rights that you got in real estate as a landowner. Because it says, paraphrasing, no landowner could keep all the other landowners captive. These problems are what you inherit as a sibling when mom and dad dies and the properties are divided equally among the children. Many of them say, well, our children, we get together. Oh, yeah.  So sibling rivalry is a big issue. The majority of the civil lawsuits, pretty close to 40%, is allocated to sibling rivalry and the great majority happens to do with real estate. So you love your children, you want to treat them all equally. And one of the things is we split everything equally. But you know, divorces are pretty prevalent in America today. If your estate plan says that upon second death, everything will be split equally, you're asking for problems. You could use the trust as part of the estate planning tool because the trust is the only vehicle that you can convert a wish and a desire and in fact make it enforceable. Oh, what does that mean? Can I treat my children equally? Yes, you can. Can I treat my children equally and make sure that the property is governed by the trust and not by the individual beneficiaries? Yes, you can. Can I make it so that in case one of my children get divorced, that it was not, the property would not be affected by a divorce? Yes, you can. So these are some of the things that you can include in your trust document if you do correct design planning. Most people say, oh, gee, but my kids, they get along. They get along just like all the other people in the world until they don't. And divorce can be very, very costly. I'm sure there's people in this room, in this telecast, that has been through a divorce I've heard and it becomes a very big problem. So distribution becomes one of the most major important parts of estate planning, protecting your children. What about some other issues in distribution?  Proper planning can eliminate or minimize some of these issues. And that's very, very important. You must have the language. Here's something else for you to consider.  Well, why is two hours such an important factor? Because the average estate plan takes two hours. So in other words, you're taking two hours to make the decision that can last 80 to 90 years. And that, to me, is impossible. There are so many pieces of information that you need to glean from your estate planning. Remember what I said in the past for those of you who has been on this telecast or has heard me speak somewhere. It is not the answer that you should be concerned with. It's the question. The most important part of any educational system is redundancy, because that's the basis of learning to be redundant. On the same token, though, the most important part of my classes is to make sure you ask the right questions at the right time. If you do not know the right questions to ask, how do you know if the answer is going to solve your problems? But then again, this is where we come to the crossroads. If you don't know what options are available to you, how do you know how to solve the problem? And that's a big question. If an estate plan takes you two hours to complete, how can you answer some of these questions and go over it and get educated? You can. So it's really important to sit down with somebody who will take the time to understand that family dynamics and where you want to go. You see, all of you who have more than one child will face that problem. You will always face that problem. And if you have real estate, you compound that problem.  Hey, Mr. Lee, I want to make sure that I'm fair and I want to make sure it's equal. But when you think about it, we are never equal. We don't spend the same amount of time. We don't spend the same amount of money. Somehow our maker made all of us different. For those of you who have children, you know you might have three children. All of them are different. They have different needs, different wants, different talents. And we tend to go under the squeaky wheel theory. There's a squeaky wheel who will pay attention to it. Some of us have children with exceptional talents who spend more time or money. On the other hand, some of us might have a child that has challenges. Again, we spend more time, more money. So the estate plan cannot be the same for everybody. And that's why distribution is such an important factor in the estate planning. You must take into consideration if you want your plan to work, to take individually how your children can benefit. And it takes time, several meetings. So if you want your estate plan to work, spend the time, devote the time to getting it correctly. You must invest the time. Remember this. This is probably the most important decision you make for the benefit of your family.  I congratulate you because it takes a big step to buy real estate. The single most largest asset for the average family is your home. Don't mess it up by dividing it equally between your children. No, I didn't say don't give it to your children, but don't give the real estate as a whole and divide it by the children. Leave it in the trust. Let the trust control the property so that in the event your children should get sued, they go through divorce, go through bankruptcy, get sibling rivalry, or alienation, which means something coming from the outside trying to get their assets. The trust can provide the correct protections for the benefit of your family. In some cases, your children may not like it. I can tell you, in every case, if they're going through a divorce, they're going to wish they had it. So take the time, spend the time, the effort, and maybe a little bit more money to have the design done the way that you would like to have it, because it's really important for you to address those issues. Hey, Brian, can you believe it? We're halfway through. Oh, is that correct? It's a really interesting area. I do remember you saying, have your children control it but not own it. Correct. So I think if people are interested in learning more, they should contact you for that part. Let's go on, because we have a few minutes left. We probably have to have you come back again. But let's talk about asset protection for a few minutes and then to do a state reduction. Okay. Well, asset protection is another big area. Let me just kind of divert a little bit so that I can set this up. For those of you who are professionals, for example, an engineer, doctor, you know, dentists, you folks have a licensed practice. That means if you mess up, you personally liable. And the only thing between you and the creditor is going to be malpractice insurance or ENO insurance. By you creating an asset protection entity like an LLC operation or a limited partnership does not protect you against personal liability. Well, I mean, what do you mean? I thought this could help me. Well, it could in a way, but you need to understand conceptually what we're doing here. You cannot protect you. The first line of defense will be your ENO insurance or your malpractice insurance. So when the doctor would come to me and say, I'm concerned about this, I say to him, doc, I cannot protect you personally about it. But what I can do is I can protect the asset so that in case you get sued and you lose, they cannot touch the asset because the asset will be protected. So that's what it is really important. LLCs are very important. For those of you who have real estate and LLC is probably the best way to go. A limited partnership is not a good way to go. And the reason for that is because the general partnership has joint and certainly liability. Even though you own 1%, you're 100% liable for all the partners. A corporation, listen to me. You want to make sure you do this. Never, ever, never, ever buy real estate and put it into a corporation. There are so many things that can go wrong with it that you never want to. And for more information, you need to call me because I need to take about 15, 20 minutes to explain why. So those are some of the things that you must make sure with asset protection. By the way, when I talked about the distribution, which is just about 10 minutes ago, another thing that you can do is you can set up a trust called an asset protection trust that will provide that kind of protection. That kind of protection, which means if you get sued, go to bankruptcy, divorce, all of these can be protected by setting up the trust correctly and provide these kinds of controls. Now, I want to explain something really quickly. I know I'm running out of time. What people don't realize is this. There's two kinds of the lawsuit comes in two areas. One is that if you set up an entity and the entity owns the property and you get sued, the suit can come in two ways. One is an inside lawsuit. The second one is an outside lawsuit. When we set up an entity like an LLC to own a property, we're not protecting you against a lawsuit that's coming inside. In other words, a slip and fall rule. So if you have a property, somebody falls down and sues you, that's an inside lawsuit. The entity does not protect you. It's the insurance that's going to protect you, your property and casualty insurance. Then why are we setting up an entity? Because of an outside lawsuit. Well, Brian, can you give me an example of what an outside lawsuit is? Sure.  The settlement is much greater. They go through your insurance. Now they're going to come to you and get the rest. But when you have like an LLC there, that's an outside lawsuit. The LLC now provides the protection that is necessary for them to not get inside. Now I cannot talk to you in depth about the LLC and how it protects you because that itself, I give a two-hour clash just on asset protection regarding LLCs and all the different ramifications of it. But these are called asset protections. Also, when you and your wife die, you can set up your trust in such a way that if in fact your children get sued, it is protected. Now that's another area in and of itself.  Hawaii is very unique. There's four ways of owning real estate in Hawaii. One is called severality. That means you own the property by yourself or you own your interest in a property by yourself. That means that that property right there by yourself is subject to a lawsuit. Secondly, you can own the property jointly with somebody else with right of survivorship. Again, that is subject to a lawsuit. You can lose the property. Thirdly, you can own the property with somebody else because if you own the property in tenancy and common, the third way, you got an undivided interest. And if you own half of the property as an example, and you lose a lawsuit to me, I can get at it. But the fourth is where I'm headed for. If you happen to be married, and I am not talking about what is called domestic partnerships and gay marriages and so forth, I'm talking about husband and wife. If you have a husband and wife relationship, you can own your property in Hawaii called TE. The three characteristics are, you got to be married, can't sell the property without your wife's or spouse's permission. And number three, if you get sued and you lose, the creditor cannot take the property nor can they lean on the property. Therefore, many of you, you want to own the property if you're married in tenancy by the entirety. When you own the property in tenancy by the entirety and one of you gets sued and you lose, the creditor can't come out of you.  Many of you have estate planning. In order for the estate plan to work better, you've been asked to change the ownership from TE to tenancy in common so you can fund the trust. When you do that, many of you are going to be concerned because I said the three characteristics are you got to be married. Well, when you change from TE to tenancy in common, you lose the marriage issue. But our legislators was right enough that somebody brought to their attention that that is a bad thing. So in 2012, our legislators passed a new law. And here's what they said. If you first own your property in TE and then you change it to TC, tenancy in common, to fund the trust separately, there's a provision you can put inside of the property called the 509 provision. When you do that, your deed will say and you have to have it on the deed, it'll say that this property is immune from the creditors of one of the people who own this property that if there's a lawsuit, they cannot touch the property, which is very, very, very important. Additionally, here's something that very few people know about. If you lose your spouse and you get sued and the property has the 509 and it's in the trust and it's in tenancy in common, the law says that the property will carry over and the surviving spouse is also covered by that law, protecting that. Now A, I know of no one that knows that because nobody asked a question. So that's important that under the distribution based on TE and also TC, if you have the 509 provision in there, you will be protected. So asset protection, very, very, very important. Remember, professionals, you cannot protect yourself unless you get private insurance for that. But on the same token, you can protect the property. So protect the property and you can then be covered and you can also make sure you can sleep better at night. Abe, I think I covered asset protection in the time that you gave me. Yeah. Well, we have one more thing that we want to talk about real quickly. Yes. Estate reduction and freezing. I know you could spend a lot more time on that. If you can give us just a summary of what this entails. Okay. Well, when I give a seminar, one of the questions I ask the people is, I already gave you here to find out how much taxes you're going to pay and what the laws are. Everybody starts to raise their hand. I said, well, let me put it this way. Less than three tenths of one percent of the American public will ever pay any federal transfer tax. Ooh, you mean not even one percent? Not even a half percent? No. Why? Because today, in order for you to pay any federal transfer tax, your estate got to be about 13 million dollars. And if you're married, it's about 26 million dollars. So there's not that much of a problem. But for those of you who have large estates, that is extremely important that you do what is called estate reduction and freezing techniques. That means if you have an estate that's close to the taxable rate or if your state is over, there are some things that we can do to not only freeze it but eliminate the estate taxes. People come to me, for example, and I had a guy that comes to me and said, Brian, you know, my estate is 42 million dollars. My accountant told me I have to pay this huge taxes. Is he correct? I said he is correct if you don't do anything. So I showed that person and his accountant how we can actually eliminate the estate taxes and freeze some of it. So no matter if it appreciates, it will never be includeable in his estate. So these are what is called estate freezing and reduction techniques. It does take a lot of time. It's probably the most expensive way of helping you to eliminate the taxes. But it's well worth it because you're saving millions and millions and millions of dollars. Dave, I think I'm just close to running out of time over here. We are, right? Unfortunately. So we may have to have you come back because we still have a few more items to do. But if you are interested and want to know more, Brian's website is ebus consulting LLC, I believe. Yes. Yeah. And then you can also email me and I can send you Brian's contact information. But you can also Google Brian Lee. He's all over the websites. So you can find him. Brian, thank you so much for spending time with us. I know that you take days to cover some of these topics, but I think it's good to give people a glimpse into the intricacies of good estate planning. And if your estate is less than the 26 million Brian talked about, you still need distribution and trying to avoid sibling rivalry and those kind of things. So Brian, thank you so much. And we'll have you come back again. We need more time with you. Oh, well, I'm happy to do this, Abe. And you know what? Everybody should consider looking into their estate plan because it can cause major, major, major problems in the future. But ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming in. If you need something, you know, give us a call. We can always at least point you in the right direction. Thank you. And for those of you that are interested in knowing more about real estate, then go to AbeLeeSeminars.com. And of course, to get all of the archive shows that we've done and other people have done, then go to Think Tech Hawaii. And you can see all the previous shows that I've been taking. Thank you so much. Aloha. Have a great week.


Every single one of us must make up our mind. Who is Jesus? If Jesus is God, if Jesus is Lord, and of course we believe he is, then serve him, follow him, give him your all. It's all or nothing. It's everything you have or nothing at all. The surrendered life. Who do you say he is? Who is Jesus to you?


Currently, we're on Wednesday, which is today. We're actually scheduling open interviews. We've had 10 individuals walk off the street today, and actually, we've interviewed them. We're processing their applications right now. In addition to that, we are still running Indeed. We're running Zip Recruiter. And of course, you can always go to the City of Columbia website to apply for a job. If you've got questions about a job, you can call our office at 545-3800. And we would definitely answer your questions. We do plan on having another open interview next Wednesday for individuals that are looking for a job. We're City of Columbia is a great place to work. We encourage everybody to apply and look forward to working with them. So we're experiencing some pretty significant delays in our yard trash collection operation. Those delays are, as a result, a direct result of our employment force not being where we need it. We're currently somewhere around 20 or 30 positions. So we're looking to hire some people to actually put people back on the street, providing the service to the Columbia citizens as they expect. We want to provide the service. We want to provide the best service possible. And we're looking for a workforce that will continue to do that over the years.


Welcome back. Continuing with the solution of the illustrative example, the first thing we notice is that we will have to now determine the initial volume V1 and the final volume V2. So, that just the way we can write the pressures here initial pressure of 1.1 bar and the final pressure of 0.7 bar, we can quantify the values of the volumes. We know that the volume of any sphere equals pi by 6 d cube, where d is the diameter of the sphere. So, we can say V1 is pi by 6 d1 cube. So, this becomes pi by 6 0.2 cube, the units will be meter cube. Now, here we have to be careful because if you put this into a calculator, you will notice that you will get a figure something like this. Calculator will not tell us that it is meter cube, but we should not forget that it is in meter cube. The first thing you should notice is that all that this thing tells me is that your calculator has a very wide display. The more expensive a calculator, the larger number of digits will be on display. Quite often we do not need all those displays and hence we will round this off to typically 4 digits. In this course, most of the numbers will be good to 4 digits or at most 5 digits. Anything more than that is not worth it. And quite often we will not even be able to measure to that accuracy and work with that accuracy. So, instead of this, we will simply say that this is 4.189 into 10 to the minus 3 meter cube. In a similar fashion, V2 will be pi by 6 d2 cube which will be pi by 6 into 0.4 cube meter cube and which we will note down 0.0351 meter cube. So, we know the final volume. We know the initial volume. We want, we can write this as 4.189 into 10 to the minus 3 and this is 0.03351 both values in meter cube. The next thing is to note that the pressure volume relation is indicated to be linear. That means the locus is known and that means this is an indication that the process is a quasi-static process. Not just because it is linear but because there is a neat relationship provided and because it is a quasi-static process, the expansion work can be evaluated as integral 1 to 2 p dV. And since the relationship between p and V is given to be a straight line, this integral p dV represents this area and because it is a trapezoid, the value of this area will simply be the average height multiplied by the width or the base. The average height will be p1 plus p2 by 2 and the width of the base will be V2 minus V1. And hence we can write this as p1 plus p2 by 2 into p2 minus V1. In this particular case because the geometry is that of a trapezoid, we do not have to go through the mathematical process of integration. And now what we do is just substitute numbers. Let us first substitute for pressure. The values of pressure are 1.1 bar for p1, 0.7 bar for p2. It is a good idea to write down the units just after that multiplied by V2 is 0.03351 minus 4.189 into 10 raise to minus 3. This is volume, so that is meter 3. And when we multiply this out, you will get a value which is 0.02644 and the units will be bar meter cube. Now although this is good enough an answer, we notice that this bar meter cube is not a proper unit. It is not one of the standard units for work. Standard units for work are joule, kilojoule, megajoule, something like that. And hence we will have to convert this into the appropriate set of units. And hence we will have to use a conversion factor. Before we proceed, let us look at the conversion factor in some more detail. The traditional way of looking at conversion factors is something like this. We know for example, 1 bar is 10 raise to 5 Pascal or we know 1 bar is 10 raise to 2 kilo Newton per meter square. This is the traditional way of writing conversion factors. However, this may sometime lead to confusion. So what we do is we convert these conversion factors into a ratio whose value is 1. Value is 1, it does not have any dimensions but it will have units. For example, this conversion factor will be converted to 10 raise to 5 Pascal per bar. What is its value? 1. What are its unit? Pascal per bar. What is its dimension? It is dimensionless. Or we can convert it the other way. We can call it 10 raise to minus 5 bar per Pascal. This can be converted to 10 raise to 2 kilo Newton per meter square per bar or the other way round 10 raise to minus 2 bar per kilo Newton per meter square. Now let us go back to our earlier solution. We had determined that the expansion work was 0.02644 bar meter square. Since we want to go to say kilo joules, so we will use a conversion factor which will allow us to get rid of this bar and convert it into something like kilo Newton or Newton. And we will see that this is the conversion factor which is useful. So all that we do is multiply this by this conversion factor whose value is 1. Because the value is 1 and it is dimensionless, we are not changing anything. But when we do this, now consider this bar meter cube here and the bar and kilo Newton and meter square here as algebraic symbols. So I can cancel out bar and bar. And there is a meter square which gets rid of this meter cube and converts it into a meter. So now I end up with 10 raise to 2 into 0.02644. So 2.644. The units would be kilo Newton meter. Now we know a Newton meter is known as a joule. So a kilo Newton meter will be known as a kilo joule. So you can write this as 2.644 kilo joule. If you want to be really perfect, you could say that I will use a conversion factor here which says multiplied by 1, conversion factor is kilo joule per kilo Newton meter. And then this kilo Newton cancels with kilo Newton, meter cancels with meter and we end up with this answer. Now is the exercise over? No. Because all that we have done is determine W expansion. What we have to do is determine the work done by the system which is the gas. Now here what we say is we assume because there is no other hint that the net work done or the total work done is the expansion work. There is no other mode of work is in action. This is an assumption. And hence we can say finally that the work done by the gas which is our system is 2.644 kilo joule. This is the final answer. In thermodynamics the answer is important. But the procedure by which you have obtained the answer is perhaps equally quite often more important. Thank you.


Great to be here at the Baltic Sea Future Conference where we, as a company Aquacare Europe, based in the Netherlands, have been invited as one of the four finalists of the Baltic Sea Challenge to present their system that is especially made for removal and reuse of nutrients, in this case phosphorus. So Aquacare is a company that is already for 30 years in water treatment. We are with 26 people, so quite small, but since five years we are really focusing on innovation and especially on removal of phosphorus. So first we started to do that for industry. But last year we were awarded with our ID for industry by an American foundation which is called George Barley. And we were prize winners for a very large, big contest where the challenge is also to remove phosphorus from large water streams. We also have a letter of intent with the Dutch water boards because they also need to remove or decrease nutrients from effluent water. So what is our system about? So we have researched methods to remove phosphorus by adsorption. So we use a specific material that absorbs especially phosphorus from water. And the main and unique thing about this for us is that we are able to regenerate that absorbent and then to concentrate the phosphorus out of the regeneration fluid, which gives us a concentrated phosphorus fluid that can be used for example as a fertilizer and we can reuse the regeneration fluid and the adsorbent again for another run. So which means that in fact the whole system is very eco-friendly because it's durable, you can reuse everything and at the end of the day you will get a fertilizer phosphorus stream. And I think that is fantastic. So by removing phosphorus from large water streams will decrease the phosphorus level in the Baltic Sea and the problem you have today with eutrophication will then be minimized and maybe also maybe completely be history because lower phosphorus, the less eutrophication or algae growth you will have. So what Aquacare can do is to treat water streams that are leading to the Baltic Sea by building a small site and treat that water fully so that the water that flows to the Baltic Sea will not have any phosphorus anymore and eutrophication will be history. So what bonus return does for us is that they give us a platform and bring us in contact with stakeholders that are all working on the Baltic Sea challenge or project or the future of the Baltic Sea, a better environment and we can talk about let's say how to implement our system and to minimize the eutrophication problem in the Baltic Sea.


First, I want to play the audio we teased of A-Rod today during the call of the Red Sox Yankee game on ESPN. One thing that really has upset the fans is you cheat, you win a championship, there is no suspension, and then there's no remorse. And the last one I think is probably the worst one because people want to see remorse. They want a real, authentic apology and they have not received that thus far. And I can just tell you this, Matty, from a guy who has made, you know, as many mistakes as anybody on the biggest stage, I served the longest suspension in majorly baseball history. You know, it cost me well over $35 million. You know what? I deserved that. And as a result, I came back, I owned it after acting like a buffoon for a long time. I had my apologies and then I went dark. And I wanted my next move to be contrite, but I also wanted to go out and play good baseball and change my narrative. And the way you change your narrative is you have to be accountable. You've earned all this negative talk. You've earned whatever comes your way, including whether it's hit by a pitch or negative press. You have divorced yourself from having the ability to protect yourself. That's about as forthright as he's been about. I've never, never heard that much depth. I mean, we have heard him pinned at it, not like that. And also, when you consider it, he got suspended and lost $35 million.  And these guys, who all of them cheated, they got nothing. They were granted immunity. They got nothing. He got $35 million taken away from his bottom line. In a year. He deserved it, too. And he did. He lied. He did terrible things. And he took it. But he's never really come out and said, in those stark terms, I'm impressed. And he really hasn't said anything about the Astros situation. And he knew that in his situation, he couldn't soft shoe it because he looked like a phony. And he's right.  Now, it would have taken a heck of an apology from the Astros, but if they just tried, more than just, oh, they're forcing us to do it, if they just seemed like they really meant it, maybe they'd be able to get up from it. I think the great story from 2020 is going to be, do the Astros use the fact that everybody hates their guts? And I mean, all fans other than Astro fans and all the players, do they use that as a galvanizing thing and they go out and they tear it up? Or do they just give up? Yeah. That's what I was going to ask you. I don't know what they're going to do. Yeah. It's going to be one or the other. That's the narrative. It's going to be that it killed their season or they rallied around it. And that makes it worse if they win, because if they win, then it's almost going to be like they were the victims and they overcame it. And that's going to change like the narrative of their story to it led to another championship. So let's get this straight. You cheat to a championship. Some players hit you, all right? You get abused by the fans, you get booed, but you spin it into another championship and we're supposed to reward you that you face this adversity, that you overcame this obstacle in one another title, right? And all of it's going to make people hate him even more.


Yeah, I think you need like two people to do some of these. Why are you just one George? While he's doing that, I'm gonna, maybe I'll loosen some of the things outside. I think I need you to, okay, nevermind. Well, breaking all the toys. Make it happen. Today, we are going to do something really fun. We gotta get this whole thing cleaned up and ready. There's many different companies that have aviaries. The specific aviary is by Wings. And what I like about it is that no animals can really get through this. My love. Yes? Get a broom and start doing something.  That's what I'm saying, George.  Hello, my fellow Snippers, flighters and hatchlings. My name is Marlene McCohen and this is George. And today, we are going to be setting up our aviary. Of course, you guys have seen it before, but it's kind of like in last summer vibe. So we're going to be revamping the whole thing. Everything off. So George is pulling everything off right now. I'm gonna help him. Whenever I try to make a video and I have George in it, then he just gets right to it. So there's George in the background pulling off. No time to waste. No time to waste, that's right. George loves to put down this kind of fake flat grass. We like it to be as short as possible just so that it's easy to sweep and clean. We have two of them now, right, George? Yeah, so you can always switch them out. It's like having a bag on the bottom, and then all you do is you pick it up, toss it out, and then you get the other one. And in the meantime, just wash that one and then you have it ready for the next time. How do you wash this one? Well, I use the scraper. You see that one right there? Yeah, it's not a scraper. I lived in the East Coast, so I know that this is a rake. It's actually a, you know, boots and spooker? I don't know. So before this gets revamped, I wanna tell you guys a few things. One, I'm gonna give you a before shot. Wow, those are some really old toys, or they live through our Los Angeles winter. I'd like to give them a before shot. It's okay, they don't need to see it. So eating up toys, we've got things that have rusted, not this. We have toys that we have updated, so let's get to them. The misters are messed up, too. We got Mr. System, so we gotta fix that as well. I think I wanna make a better system. What's going on here? Excuse me, are you guys trying to see what we're doing? Who else is here? Anyone else? Looking for all the naughty birds. Are you guys being good? Are you being good? Guys, stay good, because we're setting up the AD area, all right? Yeah, I think you need like two people to do some of these. All right, just one George. While he's doing that, maybe I'll loosen some of the things outside. I think I need you to hold. Okay, nevermind. Well, breaking all the toys. Making it happen. Some tips I wanna give you guys while George is just refamping this thing. One, get rid of the rust. I mean, it would be nice if you showed yourself to camera when you wanna give some tips, George, but okay. So here's some things to look for and reasons to redo an AV area, as well as cages seasonally. Let's say my birds haven't really been out here for the winter, although it's Los Angeles. So we maybe have like one week of winter and maybe a day of rain. Not kidding. It's not too bad, but if it's gonna get cold, I don't really leave them out here. So one, you wanna check all toys for rust. You wanna get rid of that. You don't want your birds coming into contact with or chewing any rust. Mold, where do you see mold? Like wood. I guess wood could mold. I haven't seen any, but George says there could be mold.  I guess, it doesn't rain enough here.  There's more misters there. Or like fungus, things like that. You definitely wanna remove that. Another exciting thing is to move around the purchase. You know, give them something new to look forward to, something new to experience. If you are adding new birds to your flock and it's gonna be their first time in the aviary, pay attention for how they enjoy sitting and the types of wood. I know he's... Is that why? Yeah, he wants to be involved in what we're doing. He wants to be in here. I know, but we're busy. You can't be in here.  Oh yeah, he's freaking out. Look at him. Can't even, there he is screaming. Also, the ground on the aviary, whatever you lay down is going to be a breeding ground for all sorts of bugs, right? Because... Unless you give it space. True. We actually, I could show you what George has done. The grass that we laid down is not touching the bottom of the aviary so that it can't be a breeding grounds because we kind of learned the hard way. So it's kind of cool. Can you move, please? You're so close to me. Yeah. This is now raised, okay? The whole aviary is raised so that there is a space in between the concrete and the bottom of the cage so that the wetness can't create mold or bugs. In short, so that everything can get washed away with his hose and his pressure washer. So another thing to consider, as you guys get more information about your bird and how your bird uses toys, you may discover that certain toys are not good for certain birds and certain toys may be outdated. So perches like this, for example, if you notice, the light is in it, but if you notice that your bird is one of those birds that chew it, you might want to be careful of cloth impaction. Generally things like this are made out of 100% cotton so they're more of a natural material that can basically disintegrate in the system. But if I were you and I had a bird chewing them, then I would take it out and replace it with something else and we'll show you some cool things we're gonna replace it with. Another thing is as you're watching your birds, you may learn how they like to perch. Like for example, Vinnie likes to perch on the bottom. So that's why I always keep some perches low and you also want to have a variety of different sizes of perches. Why we have things like these. And look for the aging and toys here right here. This has been here all winter. This is rusty, we gotta get rid of that. And just really start rearranging. Start paying attention to where they stand and if they can get droppings on another perch. Okay, so George just keeps adding ideas as I give them. I have this very long 36 inch perch, which by the way, we have on our website at parrotsation.com. This buoying is from Planet Pleasures and it's pretty cool because it's made out of all natural materials. The main thing with the buoyings is you can use them to go from one side to another if you wish. Like we could have done something like this straightened it out but a lot of birds love swinging on them. So guys what I'm learning from setting this up right now and also from watching the birds in the aviary is I would have liked to have some more longer perches because shorter perches don't really utilize all the space that they possibly can. So since I don't really have a lot of longer perches on hand, I mean I do have more of these if George wanted to put those in but we kind of already have a few situations like that. I'm gonna really try to utilize this area with, George maybe what we should have done was put this in the middle so they could have reached some toys. Sometimes guys it's just a process where you're figuring it out as you go. So I want you guys to keep in mind when you hang up toys in your bird's aviary, the proximity of the toy can they reach it. So this is fidget spinner. It's a shorter toy. So I put it where there's a higher perch. You wanna be mindful of that. Places to put toys where they can reach them. This is half a mil. By the way guys all of these toys are available in our store. I'm putting my favorites in here just because I know that the birds love them and I want them to be happy coming in the aviary. So don't forget to check out parrotsation.com for these toys. So we got a hustle cause there's only maybe 10 minutes more of light. So let's put them in real fast. This is Brando's favorite toy. It's called caps and lanners. This is a good toy to put up against the wall for example somewhere here. So this box of toys guys are toys that we have from our photo shoot for putting it on our parrot station YouTube channel which you guys should check out. We did that on purpose cause if you love watching birds play with toys that's one thing. But if you're confused about the size of the toy or how your bird might play with the toy it's good to see different birds in proximity of the toy. This is Brando's favorite toy. This is Freddie Bobby. This is like almost every bird's favorite toy. So put it where Brando's gonna be able to reach it. Brando's probably gonna play on this thing. She loves hanging high. She loves. This is Freddie Bobby. As you could see it was from a photo shoot so they already played with it. The eye is missing. Freddie Bobby is not hollow. Freddie Bobby is full of so many exciting things. So after they rip the head off it becomes another toy we have called Kalarney pretty much. So it's a great, very interactive toy and once they open it you can throw things in there for foraging. So it's really exciting. That right there is Vinny's favorite toy. So you might wanna hang it low but that's okay too cause Vinny loves to. He likes to be over here on the side. Looking good. This right here is Cali Roll. Real nice natural toy for your birds to play with. Sea grass. I love this toy as well. George now has jungle blocks. Jungle blocks is cool because it can go from one spot to another. So that's kinda fun. Oh yes, latte. This is large latte. This is a really fun toy for birds that you know they don't really chew wood. There's got small pieces to start, paper and some beads in there which is really exciting. So why I love this toy it's got Yaka and Yaka is only in season during a certain part of the year which we just passed. Two toys from the Picasso line. Oh yeah. This is my favorite part setting up toys. What is this? This is called Ty's breakfast. This is called Ron's Last Draw. So that when people order it with Ron he has to tell everyone that yes did you want 50 of Ron's Last Draw? I love those kind of inside jokes guys. So for many a real love we just put tin wheels. So don't forget about the birds that like the perch low. So far it's looking good with some of our favorites. Don't forget some swings for the birds. Parrot dice. It's like a paradise in there. A parrot dice. Say it again. Okay I found another great one. This is Charmed. I love Charmed. Jersey loves Charmed. And what I love about the toy Charmed. I used to ask every bird store can you please find me toys with small pieces but for larger birds on a chain? Cause like if it's not on a chain they're gonna break it. So here this is the edge and Jersey can reach that. So that's another good spot. So let's look at where we're at. I think this is looking pretty exciting. It looks like a parrot dice. Hey guys this is just a quick insert to give you an update on our aviary. As I said, I would get another one of these boyings from Planet Pleasures and the birds love it. But look at what I forgot. I had this awesome new swing. Look at it. It's kind of got like this T shaped and it's pretty interesting how she doesn't even go off balance on it and the birds have been loving it. How cute is she? We have these in our store if you wanna check them out. I think they're really cool and I'm excited about them. What do you think Blue? Guys I'm waiting for the day when Blue's on one side and Brando's on another. I'm gonna be so excited. Look at Vinny. What are you saying Vinny? Are you excited? What are you excited about? Hey there, what's up? Is there anything else? What's going on? Yeah, do you like your new boing? I saw you playing on it. Oh, I'm waiting for the day, waiting for the day. We're gonna get their reactions. He's getting off me. He saw something. Oh, baby steps. Ron's last straw. Vinny, as I predicted, is already on his yucka toy.


of you again to do kind of a check-in. You know usually I like to try to check in kind of once every six-ish months. It's kind of my goal but that hasn't happened so here we are. So I do the big lifts right so I do squats and here I am doing my three by fives of squats. I'm kind of a starting strength cultist so that is basically where I'm basing all my lifts off on here. As always if you got feedback according to starting strength what I'm doing incorrectly more than happy to hear it because I always want to be getting better but here like I said this is my three sets of five and I think I'm at 300 here for my squats. This was filmed over a couple of weeks because I missed filming a couple of my lifts here but basically what I'm trying to do is I'll do squats and deadlifts one day. I'll do overhead press another day and then I will do bench press another day and in there for the rest of the week you know I will try to work in some kind of exhausting cardio usually I try to do Thursday or Friday as a good cardio day and then we'll also add in some pull-ups here and there to be working on. But my main course is that I'm focusing on is my big lifts. Here's my deadlifts I did notice that after I watched this after I filmed it I don't set my back all the way there so see that I start to come up a little bit before my back is perfectly straight. There's a couple lifts where I hit it but by and large I missed it and I think this is me pulling 360 off the floor here around there you can do the math in your head if you look at the actual bar but I think that's what this is. I do take my shoes off now to deadlift I've actually had a lot more success and help with that and I'm at the over-undergrip. I've had to drop the hook grip because I just can't hold on to the damn thing unless I'm over-undergripping. This is my overhead press here I think we're at 160 I think is why I'm pushing up here 155 something like that for my overhead press I'm a big fan of overhead press you know people will say that you got to be careful it'll cause you shoulder issues but I got to say overhead press has fixed most of my shoulder issues that I've ever had so big fan of that. I am wearing a lift belt here it's just under my shirt I work out in my shop and it isn't heated all the time I just turn on the heat when I go out there so initially it's pretty cold and so I'm a little bit more bundled up as I start my lifts out then once I warm up I'll take my hat off and stuff but here are my overhead presses and like I said this is really one of the big lifts I like to concentrate on because I just want to get big muscles and be strong now that the summer's here I'll probably add in some running and you know kind of more stuff like that I do like I said try to balance out my cardio after but just when I ended up getting on film here is just a big the big lifts here's my bench press this I think is coming in at 255 I think is where this one's coming in at I just actually today I didn't film it but I think I put up 260 which is the most I've ever done in my life so a lot of these numbers that I'm coming in at for my big lifts are the biggest ones I've done yet which I'm really proud of and I'm really happy with where it's at you know more and more I'm just in the belief that you got to do something you got to do something it doesn't matter entirely you know what exercises are doing but you've got to be doing something so if you're not out there and you're not having some kind of consistent exercise program you're cutting yourself short there's a litany of different things you can do I'm a big fan of the big lifts with starting strength but find something and do it because otherwise you're just gonna be selling yourself short you notice on my bench press here I most killed myself because I did bump the J arms there coming up especially in this last one I hit it pretty hard but unfortunately I survived hope that's helpful do brave deeds and endure


It was kind of, it was strange. I think I can admit that, you know, pretty soon. I think I'd probably prefer not knowing the opposition the way that I know those guys. But, you know, we got through it and we had a big first inning, which helped and, you know, could win for sure.  It's easy to overthink, overthink out there and I probably was guilty of that a few times. But try to stick with your game plan best you can and trust that your stuff is your stuff and that it'll play. So, you know, but it was definitely a little bit different out there. It's a little easier, actually, because in the midst of a pen race, you don't really have to think about that as much as just getting to win for your team. Yeah, I think just, you know, by overthinking it, I mean, those guys were behind me for a long time and they probably have an idea of how I pitched. But, you know, Larry said something good. He said, there's no secrets in this game anymore. So everybody knows what you're trying to do for the most part. It's about executing. So, you know, I tried to do that. To come over here and pitch the way you have these first four stars and get the results team in individually, how satisfying has this been for you? It feels good, you know. I said it before, I'm just trying to do my part. This is a really good team.    We, you know, all around. So that was fun. How's that going to be for you guys to lose DD for any period of time? Boon just said it's a possible DL thing for him. I mean, that would hurt for sure. But I think, you know, hopefully it's a short term thing. I don't know the specifics of it.   So, you know, hopefully it's not a long time, if any, at all.  Yeah, I mean, over the last couple of days, a couple of things across the field. And, you know, I got to talk to a couple of the guys and a few of them as I ran past there. You know, it's just one of those things I think you're competing. But it's sort of a friendly competition. Do you prepare different for this, for today's game and before the other game? Not necessarily. We did the same thing as, you know, I always try to go over Scott and report and just try to execute it. And try to kind of stay with them myself while I'm out there doing that and not try to do too much.