Energy Prices

[Vindec]

I'm pleased that you now think there should be a windfall tax and that your 65% figure was bollocks.

The way around clever accountants is for the government to enact effective, watertight policy. Having a PM who was previously an economist for shell should help. Poacher turned gamekeeper if you like.

I didn't say we should have a windfall tax either. I said neither as you well know although I see you seem to have dodged the question when I asked when did I say there shouldn't be a windfall tax. The reality is that there is no such thing as a watertight tax policy as the clever accountants (as you describe them) will always find a way to avoid paying tax.As global companies, if they don't like one countries rules they will move their tax base elsewhere. Of course if anyone can convince me that a second windfall tax will come anywhere near funding the energy crisis then I'm in. But you know, as well as I do, that such a tax is unlikely to be the panacea His Majesty's opposition claim it to be.

[Eric Cartman]

I didn't say we should have a windfall tax either. I said neither as you well know although I see you seem to have dodged the question when I asked when did I say there shouldn't be a windfall tax. The reality is that there is no such thing as a watertight tax policy as the clever accountants (as you describe them) will always find a way to avoid paying tax.As global companies, if they don't like one countries rules they will move their tax base elsewhere. Of course if anyone can convince me that a second windfall tax will come anywhere near funding the energy crisis then I'm in. But you know, as well as I do, that such a tax is unlikely to be the panacea His Majesty's opposition claim it to be.

Why would it need to come near to funding it to be worthwhile? Are you going to have the same opinion when the government cuts services to pay for this increase in debt? 'there is no point cancelling that as it won't fully pay off the debt', I doubt it.

I remember seeing a figure of 30-40 billion over 2 years being very achievable. That covers a decent part of the cost and ensures that people buy into it as those currently with the broadest shoulders have paid what appears to be a fair share.

The alternative is that oil and gas companies spend the next few years profiting from war, every British person funding their excess. That tickle your fancy?

[JamesWales]

Why would it need to come near to funding it to be worthwhile? Are you going to have the same opinion when the government cuts services to pay for this increase in debt? 'there is no point cancelling that as it won't fully pay off the debt', I doubt it.

I remember seeing a figure of 30-40 billion over 2 years being very achievable. That covers a decent part of the cost and ensures that people buy into it as those currently with the broadest shoulders have paid what appears to be a fair share.

The alternative is that oil and gas companies spend the next few years profiting from war, every British person funding their excess. That tickle your fancy?

If the profits to be made are as high as quoted, would we not receive a figure close to this through standard corporation tax anyway?

[Vindec]

Why would it need to come near to funding it to be worthwhile?

Because the impression given by the Party most on here seems to love and from various comments I have heard on radio phone ins is that the windfall tax is the answer to the energy crisis. Labour have played a blinder by duping people to believe that the windfall tax is the solution. It isn't. That is my point. As an earlier contributor pointed out the accountants in these global companies will ensure that as little tax is paid as possible whatever that tax may be.

[az city]

If the profits to be made are as high as quoted, would we not receive a figure close to this through standard corporation tax anyway?

Keep up Jimbo, that's why it needs to be an extraordinary windfall tax at a higher level to provide more resources for the Truss price cap.

[az city]

Because the impression given by the Party most on here seems to love and from various comments I have heard on radio phone ins is that the windfall tax is the answer to the energy crisis. Labour have played a blinder by duping people to believe that the windfall tax is the solution. It isn't. That is my point. As an earlier contributor pointed out the accountants in these global companies will ensure that as little tax is paid as possible whatever that tax may be.

That's a completely vacuous argument. If applied across the board, we'd have no laws or taxes using that logic because at least some people could/would avoid/evade them. Bonkers.

[Eric Cartman]

If the profits to be made are as high as quoted, would we not receive a figure close to this through standard corporation tax anyway?

I think the 170 is total excess profits by the big 5 potentially maybe more. The lower figure takes into account who would could actually get money from using a windfall tax.

[Eric Cartman]

Because the impression given by the Party most on here seems to love and from various comments I have heard on radio phone ins is that the windfall tax is the answer to the energy crisis. Labour have played a blinder by duping people to believe that the windfall tax is the solution. It isn't. That is my point. As an earlier contributor pointed out the accountants in these global companies will ensure that as little tax is paid as possible whatever that tax may be.

Of course they will but they also spend hundreds of millions trying to convince the public they are good people, so they won't want to be the primary vessel of blame for a widespread cost of living crisis.

You will remember that when the crisis began to heat up, the chief of BP mistakenly admitted that they had more money than they knew what to do with and that a windfall tax wouldn't affect future investment decisions, this isn't a message that the establishment/government/big business want the general public to hear so he was quickly put back into line.

I think they assumed they would get hit harder than they are being hit currently.

[Eric Cartman]

That's a completely vacuous argument. If applied across the board, we'd have no laws or taxes using that logic because at least some people could/would avoid/evade them. Bonkers.

Well this is this anti-logic in a nutshell... The same people who say Britain is the best country in the world also say that companies and wealthy will leave in their droves if their tax requirement is raised.

[Rontomuk]

It goes without saying that sometimes those who fall just outside the threshold for benefits are often in difficult positions and it won't be an easy winter.

In my position; I pay £65 a month to Shell for Gas and Electric. I routinely use around half of that, so there is a surplus. I anticipate it going up from October (not sure how much yet) but £66 will be knocked off that.None of this is perfect. We live in a time when the cost of fuel is extremely high due overwhelmingly to a war in Europe. But the announcement does mitigate against the worst excesses of what we would have faced and those on benefits are helped more.

That's the trouble really people keep on about how better off those on benefits will be but nobody thinks about the millions of people who are outside the benefit parameter and are finding it very difficult, this happens with any political party that is in power.

Was talking to a neighbour the other day and although his total income is £6 45 a week worst off than mine he said with the benefits he receives he can have a income off £56 more than me, don't know if he was exaggerating or not but to be fair to him he is not the lying type.

Not sure about this £65 you are on about but if it is only a loan then if I take it I would only be extending the time I have to pay it back, would rather bite the bullet and suffer for a shorter period.

[the other bob wilson]

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze which many people believe. Let's use a windfall tax to pay for the energy increases and tax these nasty companies they say. That will go down well with the population.

The reality is that a second windfall tax (over and above the 65% they already pay) won't go anywhere near paying for the energy crisis but who cares if that brilliant idea will get one over on the Tories. They must think we are dumb but clearly the population must be if they really believe a second windfall tax is the answer to their problems. The amounts of money required are eye watering and it is only economic growth that will get us out of this mess. The public won't end up paying that much (only 30.3% of income tax is accounted for in government revenue) which is the belief of many. If the economy stagnates we are stuffed.

I’d say it’s all very, very simple - it’s just natural justice that companies like BP and Shell ( the company I was told would be my utility provider when the one I was with went bust last year) pay more than they are doing. I equate it to the more sympathetic reaction unions are getting with their pay claims this time around, most people can see that offers of, say, three per cent when inflation is running at more than three times that are unfair and insulting.

[goats]

Where did I say we shouldn't have a windfall tax? What I was saying is that a second windfall tax would not go anywhere near paying for the energy crisis and the Labour Party has been very clever in convincing people that one would be of such significance.

You are correct that Shell and BP have very clever accountants and for the reason you explain these accountants would be able to dodge a second windfall tax in the same way they will be likely to avoid the first. I agree that the 65% tax rate is largely irrelevant and that few will pay much of it. So, why do you think a second tax is likely to be any better.

So unlike Labour (or any opposition party) to say they could do something and not actually have a clue what that means in real terms, you sure?

[Vindec]

So unlike Labour (or any opposition party) to say they could do something and not actually have a clue what that means in real terms, you sure?

Could someone enlighten me about what the above post from goats actually means? It makes no sense as it stands. Despite all the arguments back and forth nobody seems to have disputed the point, which was that a second windfall tax will not pay for the cost of the energy crisis, that some of the public including the occasional poster on here believe it will. Nobody seems to know either how much of the alleged £170bn that would be subject to tax will actually be taxable in the UK given the global nature of these companies. Of course any additional tax taken will be of benefit but let's not kid ourselves that a second windfall tax will pay for the crisis as was alleged (although not specifically said) by Starmer at PMQs on Wednesday.

[Fine Lines]

I’ve just changed my payment with OVO to “on demand” basically instead of them guessing how much I use , I only pay for what I use.

They wanted to increase my Direct Debit from ?£110 to £280 a month. I’m £450 in credit with them also.

My winter bills for last year were around £100 a month. All predictions seem to suggest that will double this winter , which is well below the £280 they want throughout the year.

On top of that there’s the £60 a month from government for next 6 months , plus my £450 in credit I won’t be paying any bills till the spring at least.

Absolutely charlatan’s the lot of them. They do t want anyone owing them money so they over estimate what people need to pay.

[poc]

I’ve just changed my payment with OVO to “on demand” basically instead of them guessing how much I use , I only pay for what I use.

They wanted to increase my Direct Debit from ?£110 to £280 a month. I’m £450 in credit with them also.

My winter bills for last year were around £100 a month. All predictions seem to suggest that will double this winter , which is well below the £280 they want throughout the year.

On top of that there’s the £60 a month from government for next 6 months , plus my £450 in credit I won’t be paying any bills till the spring at least.

Absolutely charlatan’s the lot of them. They do t want anyone owing them money so they over estimate what people need to pay.

im with you on this

[Dorcus]

im with you on this

The other thing that irks me is that these give a "small", nay "tiny" discount if you pay your bills by Direct Debit. If you would prefer to pay for only what you consume you lose the discount. In effect they penalise you heavily if you would prefer not to be constantly in credit with them.

Managing your own energy consumption and paying fairly for just what you use should be a basic protected right for any individual, particularly in these constrained circumstances. Surely the very basic regulation the government should impose is that there should be no difference in cost whether you choose to pay by DD or otherwise.

I hear there counter argument that the energy firms do this to minimise non payment but Heaven help us these are big boys now they should be able to sort themselves out without resorting to this seedy practice.

[Vindec]

The biggest scandal is the standing charge that has nothing to do with increased energy prices. OFGEM have never really explained the reason for increasing the cost of the standard charge. It's allowable under their rules but why?

[Dorcus]

The biggest scandal is the standing charge that has nothing to do with increased energy prices. OFGEM have never really explained the reason for increasing the cost of the standard charge. It's allowable under their rules but why?

Totally agree that's something else the Government could force them to do away with.

[az city]

Totally agree that's something else the Government could force them to do away with.

OFGEM's rationale for the increases in the standing charge is to cover the cost of collapsing energy suppliers and defaulting consumers. (I'm not saying I think it's justifiable, though standing charges are in general.)

[dml1954]

She could have cut the obscene profits directly of the energy companies . But that goes against her stupid tory ideology

Instead she is going to saddle future generations with huge debt

But she will wait a while till she puts up taxes to pay for it

The masses will rejoice , it seems like you have fallen for it

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

[splott parker]

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

Of course they have to make a profit, that understandable. Isn’t the gripe about excess profit in order to pay shareholders? I’ve no problem with people playing the stock market, it’s only gambling after all but shareholders profiting out of people’s hardship can’t be right. Gas, electric etc are essentials in life that should be managed carefully not in a way to line gamblers pockets (although it’s seems a sure bet at the moment, not a gamble).

[Dorcus]

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

Socialist ideals are hardly morally and economically bankrupt. You need to get out more David.

[PontBlue]

Of course they have to make a profit, that understandable. Isn’t the gripe about excess profit in order to pay shareholders? I’ve no problem with people playing the stock market, it’s only gambling after all but shareholders profiting out of people’s hardship can’t be right. Gas, electric etc are essentials in life that should be managed carefully not in a way to line gamblers pockets (although it’s seems a sure bet at the moment, not a gamble).

Utilities should not be run for shareholder profit as they are too vital to the country. Imagine how much more could have been invested in infrastructure and renewables if they hadn't been lining shareholder pockets.

[Wales-Bales]

Utilities should not be run for shareholder profit as they are too vital to the country. Imagine how much more could have been invested in infrastructure and renewables if they hadn't been lining shareholder pockets.

Aka the Margaret Thatcher Fallacy.

[splott parker]

Utilities should not be run for shareholder profit as they are too vital to the country. Imagine how much more could have been invested in infrastructure and renewables if they hadn't been lining shareholder pockets.

it’s common sense, it’s as though the country’s population is being held to ransom.