Energy Prices

[Vindec]

Re: Energy Prices

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.

[Claude Blue]

Re: Energy Prices

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.

The "brilliant wheeze" is gullible people like you thinking these companies pay a tax rate of 65%.

Oil and gas companies pay 30% corporation tax and a supplementary rate of 10% They can reduce this by factoring in losses and decommissioning North Sea oil platforms. As a consequence, companies like BP and Shell have paid virtually no tax in the UK. They have very clever accountants and the fact that our current prime minister used to be one is purely coincidental

In fact both companies have actually received more money back from the goverment than tax paid every year since 2015.

In the three months to June this year Shell made a profit of £9bn and BP £6.9bn.

Explain again why we shouldn't have a windfall tax?

Can you explain the recent comments from the CEO of BP (I think) who stated that his company was like a cash machine and had more money than they knew what to do with?

[Vindec]

Re: Energy Prices

Explain again why we shouldn't have a windfall tax?

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.

[xsnaggle]

Re: Energy Prices

The £66 a month is a loan no? You’ll be paying it back at some point.
And below the market cap is still double what it was a year ago.

No its not, it's a grant.

[Claude Blue]

Re: Energy Prices

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.

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.

[Vindec]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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]

Re: Energy Prices

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.