Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
When "right wing" people do things they use different euphemisms like "neo nazi".0
-
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).0 -
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Careful Brian, you'll soon become a hate figure in Cake Stop with statements like that.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good whataboutery Brian.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
You're right. Posh boys just do it without any political reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
You said that it's lefties that do it, so I'm just giving a bit of counter evidence to your assertion. That's not whataboutery.
You might have noticed that I've been making positive comments about aspects of Thatcher, and I do think that the enduring hatred of her weird, especially from a generation that didn't experience the 70s."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Careful Brian, you'll soon become a hate figure in Cake Stop with statements like that.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good whataboutery Brian.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
You're right. Posh boys just do it without any political reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
You said that it's lefties that do it, so I'm just giving a bit of counter evidence to your assertion. That's not whataboutery.
You might have noticed that I've been making positive comments about aspects of Thatcher, and I do think that the enduring hatred of her weird, especially from a generation that didn't experience the 70s.
If we're looking at historical figures, you might want to rethink your allegiance to the Tories: seems like Michael Foot should be your man, deep down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs 0 -
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price0 -
Maybe I misunderstood. If you weren't asking me for my opinion on what he did, please rephrase to a question that reflects what you want to know.Stevo_666 said:
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all.0 -
I suppose he is/was in that he was nearly as effective as Corbyn for putting people off voting Labourbriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Careful Brian, you'll soon become a hate figure in Cake Stop with statements like that.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good whataboutery Brian.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
You're right. Posh boys just do it without any political reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
You said that it's lefties that do it, so I'm just giving a bit of counter evidence to your assertion. That's not whataboutery.
You might have noticed that I've been making positive comments about aspects of Thatcher, and I do think that the enduring hatred of her weird, especially from a generation that didn't experience the 70s.
If we're looking at historical figures, you might want to rethink your allegiance to the Tories: seems like Michael Foot should be your man, deep down.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuZrzwm6CJs 
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's I was asking but your answer seemed to be about a different question. There was no question about anything inside your head.kingstongraham said:
Maybe I misunderstood. If you weren't asking me for my opinion on what he did, please rephrase to a question that reflects what you want to know.Stevo_666 said:
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Two lines in my answer, the first one was "I don't have an opinion on it." - maybe you missed that bit. HTH.Stevo_666 said:
That's I was asking but your answer seemed to be about a different question. There was no question about anything inside your head.kingstongraham said:
Maybe I misunderstood. If you weren't asking me for my opinion on what he did, please rephrase to a question that reflects what you want to know.Stevo_666 said:
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all.0 -
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price0 -
A better argument against it would be that they had to continue to produce it when the cost was literally negative at one point in 2020 so this is just swings and roundabouts.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
The obvious riposte is that I suspect your electricity bills didn't go to zero as a result of that.
Lesson being to concentrate the windfall tax onto the suppliers rather than the O&G producers - or parts of the company thereof.
That said, no one would weep for the producers either...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver1 -
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.0 -
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing0 -
If they are taxed extra on it, they would still end up with more profit after tax than they were planning for.0
-
I've no idea if it's a good idea or not, but Starmer was spot on when he said that the U-turn is inevitable.0
-
If we had a Labour government then that might make sense. We have a tory government who believe in a free and open market. Make hay while the sun shines, go under if it doesn't.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosingThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
That translates as you don't really want slag off the leftie saddo who egged that Thatcher statuekingstongraham said:
Two lines in my answer, the first one was "I don't have an opinion on it." - maybe you missed that bit. HTH.Stevo_666 said:
That's I was asking but your answer seemed to be about a different question. There was no question about anything inside your head.kingstongraham said:
Maybe I misunderstood. If you weren't asking me for my opinion on what he did, please rephrase to a question that reflects what you want to know.Stevo_666 said:
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all.
Anyhow, I'm just mocking lefties; its good fun. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Weird parallel here, you've got people discussing the actual pros and cons of a debate that is being had between labour and the tories on an actual relevant topic (windfall tax on oil companies) and the only tory here is banging on about a thatcher statue #saysitall.0
-
Whose thread is this Rick?rick_chasey said:Weird parallel here, you've got people discussing the actual pros and cons of a debate that is being had between labour and the tories on an actual relevant topic (windfall tax on oil companies) and the only tory here is banging on about a thatcher statue #saysitall.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
He's not as important to me as he is to you, clearly.Stevo_666 said:
That translates as you don't really want slag off the leftie saddo who egged that Thatcher statuekingstongraham said:
Two lines in my answer, the first one was "I don't have an opinion on it." - maybe you missed that bit. HTH.Stevo_666 said:
That's I was asking but your answer seemed to be about a different question. There was no question about anything inside your head.kingstongraham said:
Maybe I misunderstood. If you weren't asking me for my opinion on what he did, please rephrase to a question that reflects what you want to know.Stevo_666 said:
I'm not asking you that. RTQ...kingstongraham said:
I don't have an opinion on it.Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
He's not living in my head at all. Anyhow, I'm just mocking lefties; its good fun.
If you want a take - it's gdp positive.
0 -
What is your plan when they give all the staff a mega bonus to save them going over this threshold on a good year and the many other ways they could come under this cap. Of course they would not be a very attractive proposition for shareholders anymore as the income they can generate is fixed and they are not getting any of the extra profit above this point so some pension funds will get burnt. Windfall taxes are pretty stupid in my view as they drive the wrong behaviours.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing0 -
I would argue that the current Govt is TINO and economically far to the left of Blair.pblakeney said:
If we had a Labour government then that might make sense. We have a tory government who believe in a free and open market. Make hay while the sun shines, go under if it doesn't.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing
They have put price caps on domestic fuel and started nationalising the railways so no reason why they would stop there2 -
Strangely you are inadvertently agreeing with me as I was merely pointing the natural next step to a windfall tax.john80 said:
What is your plan when they give all the staff a mega bonus to save them going over this threshold on a good year and the many other ways they could come under this cap. Of course they would not be a very attractive proposition for shareholders anymore as the income they can generate is fixed and they are not getting any of the extra profit above this point so some pension funds will get burnt. Windfall taxes are pretty stupid in my view as they drive the wrong behaviours.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing
I would make windfall taxes illegal0 -
Agreed.surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that the current Govt is TINO and economically far to the left of Blair.pblakeney said:
If we had a Labour government then that might make sense. We have a tory government who believe in a free and open market. Make hay while the sun shines, go under if it doesn't.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing
They have put price caps on domestic fuel and started nationalising the railways so no reason why they would stop there
Their core support though?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pfft. She actually had ideas which puts her streets ahead of the dross that call themselves conservative these days. Shame about her friendship with PinochetStevo_666 said:
Careful Brian, you'll soon become a hate figure in Cake Stop with statements like that.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Good whataboutery Brian.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
Probably because there is more behaviour of this type from the lefties to comment on.kingstongraham said:I think it is a useful article, because it shares a very prevalent attitude among the right wing press of attributing the action of one person as "the actions of the left".
Doesn't happen the other way so much.
Do you think what he did was useful or sensible?
You're right. Posh boys just do it without any political reason.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
You said that it's lefties that do it, so I'm just giving a bit of counter evidence to your assertion. That's not whataboutery.
You might have noticed that I've been making positive comments about aspects of Thatcher, and I do think that the enduring hatred of her weird, especially from a generation that didn't experience the 70s.
F*** me, are you actually trying to claim you 'own' a thread on a forum 🤣Stevo_666 said:
Whose thread is this Rick?rick_chasey said:Weird parallel here, you've got people discussing the actual pros and cons of a debate that is being had between labour and the tories on an actual relevant topic (windfall tax on oil companies) and the only tory here is banging on about a thatcher statue #saysitall.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that the current Govt is TINO and economically far to the left of Blair.pblakeney said:
If we had a Labour government then that might make sense. We have a tory government who believe in a free and open market. Make hay while the sun shines, go under if it doesn't.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could legislate so that they have a set amount of profit they can make each year?pblakeney said:
Simply an explanation as to why the price has risen for little effort.kingstongraham said:
Yup. Don't know that this is an argument against it though.pblakeney said:
It is still supply and demand though.Pross said:
The flaw in this argument is that the current price has nothing to do with how hard it is to find or get out of the ground, it is just that there is an international ban on buying from one of the biggest global suppliers. They are literally doing nothing extra to earn the money and this is reflected in the profits - that is why it is a windfall tax. No-one seems to be suggesting increasing tax purely based on the cost of the product, as you say that will reflect various factors in production cost and demand, it is the excess 'unearned' profit people are suggesting should be taxed as I understand it.rick_chasey said:
Yeah I do think it’s reasonable.Pross said:
You think it's reasonable for them to get higher than anticipated profits due to a global political crises such as a war?rick_chasey said:i
Eh?Pross said:
Windfall tax relates to the profits being higher than expected due to the increase in oil price though doesn't it? No-one is talking about taxing their normal profit more just taking a chunk of extra money they aren't doing anything to earn.rick_chasey said:Windfall tax is a stupid idea.
Oh you’re all worried about the shortage of oil - let’s go tax them. That’ll help.
They dig it out of the ground and sell it at market rate.
That’s how it works. They don’t set the price. It’s a competitive market. If there’s evidence of collusion then let’s see it and punish them accordingly.
Higher prices incentives more exploration which leads to more supply, etc etc.
We don’t give them tax breaks when the price is way lower than break even for them, so why should we do it the other way?
It’s frankly outrageous. Where do you draw the line in a free market?
How do we then decide a company is making “too much money”?
Are they gonna come after me because I have a fat margin? Ridiculous.
Anyway, the solution is to wean the economy off fossil fuels which has the added impact of slowing our path down climate Armageddon.
The Government is also making a windfall of course as the VAT is on a higher figure (although I think in their case they taxed themselves by reducing VAT on fuel didn't they?).
A) they don’t set the price and B ) it’s a good job they are drilling it as plainly we all need it!
What they’re finding is rarer than ever, hence the high price
Supply has been cut while demand remains constant. Prices rise accordingly.
The counter arguments have been given above. No tax cuts when prices dip.
or nationalise them at a price of our chosing
They have put price caps on domestic fuel and started nationalising the railways so no reason why they would stop there
It's partly why I posted the Heath/Foot debate upthread - it was astonishing how Foot basically was saying exactly the same that the Tories used 40 years later in trying to sell the benefits of 'sovereignty' over being able to trade freely with our biggest and nearest market.
But even with that comparison, it left me wishing we had MPs of the sort of intellect of Foot, even if I didn't and don't agree with what he was saying then.0
