lods of emone

February 25, 2012 8:30 AM

Why the super-rich love the UK.
posted by Smart Dalek (60 comments total)

There is a sense of history and majesty that the USA just doesn't have.
posted by Renoroc at 8:35 AM on February 25, 2012

the ability to hunt foxes with abandon, castles thick on the ground, "gooseberry" things
posted by The Whelk at 8:39 AM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

spotted dick
posted by fuq at 8:41 AM on February 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

> To be in the 1%, in income terms, you have to earn – or, as the Socialist Worker has it, "earn" – £150,000 a year. That's a lot, to most people's way of thinking – but not to the way of thinking of the rich.

I can think of few things more pathetic than thinking you need at least one hundred million dollars before you can feel "rich."
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:43 AM on February 25, 2012 [8 favorites]

Knife-crime, race riots.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:45 AM on February 25, 2012

Bangers in the mouth.
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 AM on February 25, 2012 [12 favorites]

Wimbledon and the culling of possibly tubercular badgers
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 8:46 AM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

The article cites Forbes' Cost of Living Extremely Well Index which is making me chuckle.. like, someone pays 450 USD for a bottle of Jean Patou's Joy? Heheh.. :)
posted by ruelle at 8:50 AM on February 25, 2012

from article: "Why doesn't it bring Americans here? 'Because American citizens pay tax on their worldwide income, wherever they are,' he said, then shrugged, and added, 'If every government in the world followed that policy, things would look very different.'

Wow - so there's a way in which the US tax code is fair and balanced? Color me surprised.
posted by koeselitz at 8:53 AM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

The US gov't owns you sorry fuckers, no escape.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:56 AM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

You get to talk backwards with a hoity-toity accent, like Prince Charles:

"I wouldn't be talking to you about this if I didn't think that I wasn't alone in my views."
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:58 AM on February 25, 2012

Eat The Rich.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 9:05 AM on February 25, 2012

the ability to hunt foxes with abandon

I don't think you're allowed to hunt foxes, whether you wear a band or not.

This article ties in with the latest book by its author John Lanchester, a novelist (rather than a professional economics writer) who wrote an excellent and funny book about the credit crunch called Whoops! Here he is promoting it at the RSA.
posted by Grangousier at 9:14 AM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Oh we have a long cockney tradition of welcoming extremely rich people over to our delightful and parting them from their money via Bond Street, Saville Row, various casinos, certain ladies of the night and some rather solid looking gentlemen in long overcoats.

Those on a lesser budget can dine in our sumptuous Aberdeen Angus Steak Houses or meet some friendly locals just round the back of Leicester Square who will relieve them of the burden of all that heavy camera equipment.

Oh and buy the way, can I show you a bridge you might be interested in purchasing?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:27 AM on February 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

Wow - so there's a way in which the US tax code is fair and balanced? Color me surprised.

Funny. I view that, and conclude that US tax code is even more fucked up in ways you might ever even know.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:35 AM on February 25, 2012 [7 favorites]

They come to the UK because when you are rich you become jaded, and you tire of the everyday pleasures that money can bring, the things that seem like unimaginable luxuries to most people but which are dull and without novelty to you.

So it cuts through that ennui, when you are so incredibly rich, to be able to stand and think: here I am in the land of the mother of parliaments, the land of the Magna Carta, the land of one of the oldest democracies in the world, and a beacon of liberties and freedom, and the inheritors and guardians of that great tradition are kneeling down in front of me like desperate, auditioning porn-stars and maybe afterwards when they've cleaned up they'll make sandwiches with the crusts cut off and tea in dinky cups.
posted by reynir at 9:42 AM on February 25, 2012 [5 favorites]

> dull and without novelty to you.

So it's kind of like a theme park? That's like a ten year old wins the lottery and he can do anything he wants and what he wants is to spend all his time at Disneyland. That only makes sense if you assume the ten year old wouldn't get bored with Disneyland in a few days. It's been awhile since I was ten but I presume I might have gotten bored with Disneyland in four or five days.
posted by bukvich at 9:48 AM on February 25, 2012

Our super-rich readers know nothing of the bread line. They don't do carbs, they do caviar.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:50 AM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

This bit was in the article linked and reading it has made me very happy.

There is, in a wonky way, something moving about the close attention the resident stattos give to detailing the realities of ordinary lives; it's like a novel about British domestic life in 2012. Oven-ready joints of meat, for example, burst on to the index last year with this explanatory note: "Replaces pork shoulder joint reflecting a longer-term movement to prepared food and replacing an item which was sometimes difficult to collect since joints are sometimes only available towards the end of the week and on weekends." Someone has really thought hard about that. It's reassuring to contemplate a household that has managed to buy every single thing on the index, from hardback fiction to hair conditioner, from a provincial newspaper to women's high-heeled shoes to dried fruit (all those being new additions in 2011).

It sucks you in sometimes and you end up doing that - minutae of the bolded kind, then connecting it all up inexplicably somehow into 'something' about what might will be... but a simple glance at the information would never quite reveal it, if you didn't look at it quickly sideways after sitting still for a long while, motionless, in order to let it emerge.
posted by infini at 9:56 AM on February 25, 2012

2N2222: "Funny. I view that, and conclude that US tax code is even more fucked up in ways you might ever even know."

I don't get it. Because tax evasion through global globetrotting is illegal? If you're a US citizen, you should pay taxes on your wealth. There are many situations in which US citizens abroad can avoid income taxes, but I think it's good that that isn't absolute. And I sure as hell hope they don't change that; the last thing we need is more ways for the rich to finagle tax breaks. Now if we could just go back to that 1960 90% top tax bracket...
posted by koeselitz at 10:07 AM on February 25, 2012

To give you guys an idea on taxes overseas, when I filed in the European country I lived in, I also had to file a US tax return telling the IRS exactly how much I made and the usual tax return stuff. There's a certain amount of income that's exempt (I think it was $85,000 back then), but even if you didn't make more than that, they still wanted you to file and tell them what you'd made. So not only did I get the joys of doing my taxes in a different language, then I got the joy of filling out forms to tell the IRS I didn't actually owe them anything.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 10:07 AM on February 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

I don't get it. Because tax evasion through global globetrotting is illegal? If you're a US citizen, you should pay taxes on your wealth.

There isn't a U.S. federal wealth tax imposed on the living. There is an income tax, though.

It's not obvious to me why the U.S. income tax should apply to U.S. nonresidents who derive their income in a foreign country. And that's not in fact how most tax systems work.
posted by planet at 10:16 AM on February 25, 2012 [5 favorites]

As an American living in London, the tax situation has such a degree of irony, it's laughable.

England, which fought the Revolutionary War against the American colonials, faced that war in part due to taxes ("No taxation without representation", etc.). Fast forward a few hundred years, and now England is under fire for a tax policy that's too relaxed, whilst America is one of a very few countries that tax citizens worldwide simply on being American.

Perhaps the cruelest joke comes for those Americans wishing to renounce, which requires pre-paying five years of tax to the IRS based on your last five years of income.

Granted, there is a scenario in which this tax policy is justafiable. That is, Americans globally benefit from simply being American -- due to the country's influence globally. Someone has to pay for that supernatural umbrella, thus I guess it's somewhat fair.

I have always had a more positive attitude paying (higher) UK taxes than American taxes however, as it's not entirely clear where American taxes go. I'd like to say it was to roads, however, on a recent visit to California, the highways are crumbling whilst the toll-roads are quite nice. I'd like to say it was to health-care, but that doesn't seem to be true either. At least we can agree that a large part is spent on war.

In the UK, tax spending is more visable, at least in London. The NHS is a champion, and whilst the Tube is rammed, the public transportation here works to design.

Many British subjects (not citizens, apparently) have mentioned that London is not Britain. London exists wholly as an entity of the Western World, in terms of a destination property market, and the general population of the city. Granted, I'm sure it's not so black and white, however there is an obvious influence of external money in various different areas of the city. US money in South Kensington and Notting Hill. Russian money in Knightsbridge. Middle Eastern money in Mayfair. Asian money in Marylebone.

As a Russian banker said to me last year: "Imagine if you are wealthy in Moscow. Where do you put your money? In a Russian bank? No way. Those funds have a way of... disappearing. The UK has some of the most favourable property laws and residency requirements in the world. UK property offers much better security than a Russian bank account."

It's a tough position, for the UK generates so much income off liberal foreign property ownership rules, however the side effect is that London feels very seperate from the rest of Britain. Granted, this is an expat's perspective and the reality is assuredly infinitely more complex.
posted by nickrussell at 10:28 AM on February 25, 2012 [15 favorites]

Since the super-rich keep getting super-richer, and the rest of us are getting poorer, it's kind of good to have all those super-rich in one place. That way, we know where to find them...
posted by tommyD at 10:35 AM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

I figured the answer was going to be 'because our government always loves the super-rich, and sucks their cock at every opportunity' and wasn't particularly far off.

The key point isn't that the UK gov charges income tax on their expats living abroad (they don't, like most countries), it's that they don't charge (much) income tax on foreign citizens living in the UK. If you're super rich, you declare yourself a 'non dom', put most of your money somewhere else - and you only pay income tax on that money registered as earned directly in the UK (say, income from your UK property portfolio). So all your other investment funds, salaries and bonuses from companies you own etc, are entirely tax free. No income tax, no capital gains tax.

It's just like companies that funnel all their profits through a postbox in the cayman islands to avoid corporation tax in the country they actually work in, so the 'non doms' avoid paying ANY tax on most of their income. Since most countries only charge tax for people actually living there (with the exception of US citizens abroad), that means nobody anywhere charges them any tax for all that money coming in. So while the cleaner in their flat is paying national insurance and 20% income tax, the super rich are paying nothing at all. And we wonder why they only get richer while the rest of us are getting poorer.

Of course, the government argues that the money they spend on employing people in their private schools, pampering their poodle and cleaning their mayfair flat is just dandy, and if we charged them income tax like normal people, they'd go live some place else and we'd get nothing. That there isn't anywhere else thats a) got a lot of luxury stuff, b) a compliant government, c) no people with guns who'd take it all away and d) similar non-dom income tax rules seems to have passed them by.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:40 AM on February 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's just like companies that funnel all their profits through a postbox in the cayman islands to avoid corporation tax in the country they actually work in, so the 'non doms' avoid paying ANY tax on most of their income.

Under what tax system does that work?
posted by planet at 10:47 AM on February 25, 2012

in ways you might ever even know

Gotta love a typo in an insult attempt.
posted by univac at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2012

The Card Cheat: "I can think of few things more pathetic than thinking you need at least one hundred million dollars before you can feel "rich.""

I think there's a useful distinction here that's lost in a lot of the 1% GRAR. In reality 1% isn't actually a very useful dividing line in the haves and have-nots. There's far more difference between the 99.9% and the .1% than there is between the 99% and the 1%.

To put it another way, a doctor who owns his own practice will break $250k a year, would be in the 1%. The super-rich, the ones the occupy movement really mean to set themselves against, they're not even the .1%--as I've said in a previous post, we could have it be the 99.99% vs the .01% and still be in pretty good shape, as far as revolutions go.

Don't think about people who own private jets. Think about people who own airlines.
posted by danny the boy at 10:59 AM on February 25, 2012 [12 favorites]

Under what tax system does that work?

The british one? Let's take an example. You're a russian gas oligarch making buckets of money from your russian energy company. You live in Russia, you pay russian income tax. You move to france, they don't give a shit where you earn it, it's income coming to you living in france, you pay income tax on it. Russia doesn't, as you're no longer living in russia.

You move to london however, declare yourself 'domiciled' in russia (you keep a flat there for your grandmother or something) and now you don't pay income tax to russia OR the UK government. And buy a football team. Now, if you were earning that money in the UK, you'd be paying 40% of it income tax.

Or you're a US citizen. You have heavy investments in the stock market, and get lots of money, that'd normally attract capital gains. You pay US capital gains tax. You move to germany, you still pay income tax to the US, and now capital gains tax in Germany as well. You move to London, you give the US government its pound of flesh, and nothing to the UK government because you're earning it all on the NYC stock exchange so are 'domiciled' in america for tax purposes.

'non doms' are an entirely separate class of people - those that live in the UK, but not as far as the tax system is concerned.
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:00 AM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Many British subjects (not citizens, apparently)...

The "British are subjects" factoid has not been true since 1983.

...have mentioned that London is not Britain.

London, in all sorts of ways, is not typical of Britain. The most profound distinction is that square mile right in the very middle where corporations having voting rights and concoct all sorts of elaborate tax avoidance schemes. They are the super-rich.
posted by rh at 11:02 AM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

Many British subjects (not citizens, apparently) have mentioned that London is not Britain.

Somebody's been telling you porkies, as folk in the UK have been citizens since 1983.
posted by Jehan at 11:03 AM on February 25, 2012

I owe you a drink rh.
posted by Jehan at 11:04 AM on February 25, 2012

'non doms' are an entirely separate class of people - those that live in the UK, but not as far as the tax system is concerned.

Thanks for the explanation. I was asking about companies that funnel profits through the Cayman Islands, though. Does the U.K. also have lax domicile/residency rules for taxing corporate profits?

It sounds like the problem is the U.K. domicile rule. None of this sounds workable in the U.S., and it's not even because of the U.S. rule that taxes citizens on their worldwide income. U.S. noncitizen residents are also taxed on their worldwide income, and residency is measured by actual presence in the U.S.--not claims of domicile elsewhere.
posted by planet at 11:27 AM on February 25, 2012

'... American citizens pay tax on their worldwide income, wherever they are...'

>Wow - so there's a way in which the US tax code is fair and balanced? Color me surprised.

Yeah, the way the rule has recently been applied to those intelligent, hard working new Canadians who came up here to avoid the Vietnam war is gruesome. Those who declined to turn around three times and click their heels in the U.S. consulate, or whatever it was you have to do to not be a U.S. citizen any more, are now being threatened with the burden of owing thousands of dollars per year in U.S. back taxes, in addition to the (higher) taxes they paid as working Canadians. Worse, our current government is not offering to protect these citizens from legal action emanating from the I.R.S.
posted by not_that_epiphanius at 12:02 PM on February 25, 2012 [4 favorites]

planet: None of this sounds workable in the U.S.

Check out Google's "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" tax avoidance schemes.
posted by Lleyam at 12:15 PM on February 25, 2012

> If you're a US citizen, you should pay taxes on your wealth.

You mean, in the US.

For God's sake, why?

I'm a triple citizen, and I live and work in the US, where I am not a citizen. The US taxes me, but neither Canada, Britain nor Australia does.

And why should they? What possible claim does the UK have on the money I earn in the US, working for US companies, using US facilities, simply because I was born in the UK almost 50 years ago?

As far as I know, all countries except the US agree - you get taxed in the country where you make the money (yes, there are numerous tiny exceptions but that's the general rule).

That makes perfectly sense to me. Do you have any rational arguments against this?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:26 PM on February 25, 2012 [5 favorites]

I was asking about companies that funnel profits through the Cayman Islands, though. Does the U.K. also have lax domicile/residency rules for taxing corporate profits?

The Cayman islands is one of the places commonly called 'offshore tax shelters'; basically companies move their profits via one (bermuda is another popular ones, along with the british virgin isles) where there's very low or no corporation tax. There are companies that will help you set one up. It's not illegal, but it does mean you don't pay much corporation tax, if any.

Google, for example, is one of many companies taking advantage of the 'dutch sandwich' - a account shuffling operation where the profits from a real company in ireland are transfered to a lawyers office in denmark (shell company), then onto another one in bermuda where they're declared - where there's no corporation tax. Since there's very little to declare as earnings in Ireland, they don't have to pay much of even Ireland's notoriously low corporation tax, and save themselves billions a year in taxes. Pretty much all of the big multinationals - including the big US ones - do something similar these days. And it's all legal. More here.
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:34 PM on February 25, 2012 [3 favorites]

It sounds like the problem is the U.K. domicile rule. None of this sounds workable in the U.S., and it's not even because of the U.S. rule that taxes citizens on their worldwide income. U.S. noncitizen residents are also taxed on their worldwide income, and residency is measured by actual presence in the U.S.--not claims of domicile elsewhere.

Yes, that precisely. Pretty much everywhere taxes residents income regardless of where it's earned; except the UK - which is why we have so many of the ultra rich living in london.
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2012

Sorry, a lawyers office in the netherlands, not denmark (otherwise it'd be the double danish!)

Incidentally, it's not just google doing this, but they tend to crop up a lot in examples because they published their accounts detailing it - most companies take advantage of tax secrecy laws in these offshore havens to avoid revealing how much tax they're avoiding by this method.
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:47 PM on February 25, 2012

This is hardly surprising when we own most of the world's tax havens, including, apparently (although I have read differing views on this) The City of London. That ceremony where the Queen goes to the City and is invited in by the man from the city is supposed to be symbolic.

The super-rich should pay, as they get to use the facilities, even if indirectly. So for example, if the were to be hit by a car, they would get free hospital treatment. There is generally law and order due to the police and judiciary. There are free roads, and lots of people they can employ on low wages.
posted by marienbad at 12:52 PM on February 25, 2012

Those who declined to turn around three times and click their heels in the U.S. consulate, or whatever it was you have to do to not be a U.S. citizen any more, are now being threatened with the burden of owing thousands of dollars per year in U.S. back taxes, in addition to the (higher) taxes they paid as working Canadians.

I think you actually get credit for the taxes paid to the foreign entity against US income tax owed, so if the foreign tax is higher, you don't pay US income tax on income earned in a foreign country. (My husband worked in London for a year, and that's how it worked for him, anyway.) Maybe it's just the fact that they failed to file all these years that will result in penalties.
posted by palliser at 1:05 PM on February 25, 2012

Maybe it's just the fact that they failed to file all these years that will result in penalties.

That's an odd bit in the US too. I haven't filed taxes for 20 years, because I am certain that I do not owe the Canadian government any money. Land of the free, huh! Go figure...
posted by Meatbomb at 1:14 PM on February 25, 2012

God, I shouldn't be, but I am rather surprised and shocked about the Google/multinational corporations thing. They should be forced to pay local rates of tax wherever they earn money. Fuckers.
posted by iotic at 2:09 PM on February 25, 2012

Well, I'm not one of the superrich, in fact I'm feeling pretty poor these days, but I love living in the UK.
posted by C.A.S. at 2:12 PM on February 25, 2012

where else in the world can you swipe a credit card and have basically a free bicycle for 30mins?
posted by dongolier at 2:29 PM on February 25, 2012

Anywhere you can buy a bicycle with a credit card?
posted by Grangousier at 2:42 PM on February 25, 2012

dongolier: In Paris your first half hour on a Velib is free!
posted by pharm at 2:54 PM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Oh, I thought you meant stole a credit card. With a stolen credit card, everything's free. Until they catch you, of course. But then you could get away on the bicycle.
posted by Grangousier at 2:57 PM on February 25, 2012 [2 favorites]

I have always had a more positive attitude paying (higher) UK taxes than American taxes however, as it's not entirely clear where American taxes go. I'd like to say it was to roads, however, on a recent visit to California, the highways are crumbling whilst the toll-roads are quite nice. I'd like to say it was to health-care, but that doesn't seem to be true either. At least we can agree that a large part is spent on war.

That was my experience in Sweden as well. You feel more positive about Swedish taxes because you feel like you are getting them back immediately. Free healthcare, free education (even college), and great infrastructure. Plus, paying your taxes is simpler. Here, it's a total nightmare, which supports a large accounting sector :(
posted by melissam at 3:14 PM on February 25, 2012 [3 favorites]

I believe the problem with US non-domicile tax is that it acts as a barrier to working outside of the US. In other first-world countries working for a year or two in some other nation is culturally more common. US residents travel overseas less than their peers in other countries. This is due also to the effects of job-linked health care, poor education systems, shorter paid vacation periods, and generally the weakness of labour in the labour vs capital negotiation market.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:22 PM on February 25, 2012 [5 favorites]

the ability to hunt foxes with abandon,
posted by The Whelk at 4:39 PM on February 25

Try to keep up, old chap.
posted by Decani at 3:22 PM on February 25, 2012

Can't imagine the mindset that comes with having so much wealth that very few things are unaffordable.
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:36 PM on February 25, 2012

ArkhanJG, I think you're wrong about the way ex-pats are taxed. The way it works for Australia and other places I'm familiar with (except the USA) is that residents are taxed on all income and non-residents are taxed on income earned locally. So if I am resident in Australia (i.e., have a main residence, spend most of the year here, whatever) I will have to pay Australian taxes on the income from all of my investments worldwide; if I move to the UK I will only pay Australian taxes on my Australian investments.

The UK is more generous to wealthy people in that it treats people as being non-residents even though they have what I would call substantial ties to the UK. None the less, the rules are actually pretty similar - so why don't the super-rich live in Melbourne? Because London is a financial services hub, close to Europe, and has the services that wealthy people demand.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:13 PM on February 25, 2012

dongolier: "where else in the world can you swipe a credit card and have basically a free bicycle for 30mins?"

Tulsa, Oklahoma. And it's a free bicycle for 24 hours, not just 30 minutes. ;)
posted by wierdo at 4:43 PM on February 25, 2012 [1 favorite]

Listen, not everyone in London supports Chelsea...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:01 PM on February 25, 2012

Contributory factor could be British laws on slander. If your millions or billions are only somewhat dodgy, it's good to know that the press might think twice before blowing the gaff.

Just a thought.

By the way, is breaking and entering still a national past-time? Genuinely curious. Used to hear a lot about that in years past.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:30 PM on February 25, 2012

where else in the world can you swipe a credit card and have basically a free bicycle for 30mins?

You still have to pay a pound for the day, don't you? Thought the day fees (as opposed to the hourly fees) don't kick in only if you use that annual special key thing (which costs 3 pounds or something).

_{Interestingly, about the only time people were rude to me in London was when I was on a bike. Don't think it was the way I rode that was to blame; as with most other cities, all that road rage apparently comes to a boil when folks see a cyclist.}
posted by the cydonian at 5:36 PM on February 25, 2012

So if I am resident in Australia (i.e., have a main residence, spend most of the year here, whatever) I will have to pay Australian taxes on the income from all of my investments worldwide; if I move to the UK I will only pay Australian taxes on my Australian investments.

There are also numerous tax treaties to prevent double taxation. In the example you cited, the income you earned in AU is still declared on your UK tax return, along with the tax you paid in Oz. If that, plus your other income pushes you up into a higher tax threshold, you must pay the difference to her majesty's IR. The trick with the domicile arrangement is you can arrange to earn all your money in a tax haven, (e.g. form Rolling Stones inc. in the Virgin Islands, then get EMI to send the cheque there, and Rolling Stones inc pays your salary without any taxes) you can live in the UK without having to pay British taxes on the foreign income, even though it is untaxed. As the article states, there is a fee for the domicile arrangement (50,000pounds) so it isn't worth it for the average backpacking barmaid.
posted by bystander at 3:05 AM on February 26, 2012

there is a fee for the domicile arrangement (50,000pounds) so it isn't worth it for the average backpacking barmaid

Sheesh, could they be any more fucking blatant about it?
posted by Meatbomb at 5:44 AM on February 26, 2012

fearfulsymmetry: "Oh we have a long cockney tradition of welcoming extremely rich people over to our delightful and parting them from their money via Bond Street, Saville Row, various casinos, certain ladies of the night and some rather solid looking gentlemen in long overcoats.

Those on a lesser budget can dine in our sumptuous Aberdeen Angus Steak Houses or meet some friendly locals just round the back of Leicester Square who will relieve them of the burden of all that heavy camera equipment.

Oh and buy the way, can I show you a bridge you might be interested in purchasing?"

London Bridge? Too late.
posted by deborah at 12:15 AM on February 28, 2012