FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Windfall tax.
Windfall tax.
Jump to: Newest in thread
Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
The Tory excuse is it'll chase big business away, but surely some form of a windfall tax to help those hit by the cost of living.. but.. they're the Tories , interested in themselves and their rich chums |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
I don’t really know the answer but when the boss of BP says they have more money than they know what to do with really smarts 
Surely any company with any kind of morels would have been looking to fold some of that money back into the customer base ?
Like a heavy refund for the worse off  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
shareholders vote on directors pay irrc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
Well said. A windfall tax is simply a tax on pensioners and pension funds. It would make many members of society worse off. I can remember a labour candidate canvassing and when I asked him what he could do better than the Conserveratives his first suggestion was a windfall tax on oil companies . He was hardly a bright spark economically if he failed to recognise the damage that this would cause |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.  "
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. "
so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now? Well said. A windfall tax is simply a tax on pensioners and pension funds. It would make many members of society worse off. I can remember a labour candidate canvassing and when I asked him what he could do better than the Conserveratives his first suggestion was a windfall tax on oil companies . He was hardly a bright spark economically if he failed to recognise the damage that this would cause "
What utter rubbish . Are these the same pensioners who now can’t afford to heat their homes ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it "
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal? "
By increasing money set aside for project X or Y?
Creative maybe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal?
By increasing money set aside for project X or Y?
Creative maybe"
These companies are making billions, there is no excuse for them to pay more tax (in the current climate ) it’s pure greed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal?
By increasing money set aside for project X or Y?
Creative maybe
These companies are making billions, there is no excuse for them to pay more tax (in the current climate ) it’s pure greed "
Not to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal?
By increasing money set aside for project X or Y?
Creative maybe
These companies are making billions, there is no excuse for them to pay more tax (in the current climate ) it’s pure greed
Not to "
I didn't say it was right or wrong.
It's pure capitalism.
They have been given tax cuts and incentives over the last few years. They could at least pay that back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Genius idea. Announce a windfall tax after someone has made massive profits. Next year those same companies will have magically hide the massive profits or reinvest money back into projects thus reducing the profits to below whatever level the windfall tax starts at.
It's Labour grandstanding, it won't/can't happen and they know it
Is ‘hiding their profits’ legal?
By increasing money set aside for project X or Y?
Creative maybe
These companies are making billions, there is no excuse for them to pay more tax (in the current climate ) it’s pure greed
Not to
I didn't say it was right or wrong.
It's pure capitalism.
They have been given tax cuts and incentives over the last few years. They could at least pay that back "
I agree, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I find it very depressing that ordinary people are against a windfall tax on profits. This is exactly what the Tories want you to think because they are protecting their own dirty money.
Profits do not fund investment. Profits are paid out to shareholders. Streams such as loans fund investment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find it very depressing that ordinary people are against a windfall tax on profits. This is exactly what the Tories want you to think because they are protecting their own dirty money.
Profits do not fund investment. Profits are paid out to shareholders. Streams such as loans fund investment."
. The ordinary people to whom you refer will usually have a pension fund , many of which will have their funds invested in oil companies . A windfall tax is simply another tax on ordinary working people who are either trying to fund their retirement or relying on investment income to live on during their retirement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term? "
We can't compare ourselves to Norway for many reasons. Population, cost of living, unionised workforce, nationalised companies.
Smoking, drinking, eating out, cars, houses, income tax are all more expensive in Norway than the UK.
They have better childcare, unemployment benefits and a similar healthcare system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Irrc the Tories were looki g at doing a windfall tax on COVID profits. So it's a cheap shot to call this labour pie in the sky thinking.
From what i can see the arguments against it are:
It reduces profits which hit shareholders of which pensions are a big part.
True. Although if this is going into the tax pot, pensioners will also benefit. In practice it probably hits future pensioners more as most pensioners have a locked in deal (eh defined benefits or an annuity)
Companies will seek to minimise profits by reinvestment. Is this a bad thing? Shareholders will still demand a return on this. So it converts a windfall profit into longer term profit. That feels a good thing for shareholders, especially pensions who like stable profits.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it very depressing that ordinary people are against a windfall tax on profits. This is exactly what the Tories want you to think because they are protecting their own dirty money.
Profits do not fund investment. Profits are paid out to shareholders. Streams such as loans fund investment.. The ordinary people to whom you refer will usually have a pension fund , many of which will have their funds invested in oil companies . A windfall tax is simply another tax on ordinary working people who are either trying to fund their retirement or relying on investment income to live on during their retirement. "
Then they should pressure their employer to diversify their pension fund. Any pension fund that has all their eggs in one basket is not a good pension fund. That's not an excuse to be against taxing big corps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term?
We can't compare ourselves to Norway for many reasons. Population, cost of living, unionised workforce, nationalised companies.
Smoking, drinking, eating out, cars, houses, income tax are all more expensive in Norway than the UK.
They have better childcare, unemployment benefits and a similar healthcare system."
Was not attempting to compare everything. Simply the UK has a habit of favouring short term over long term. The similarities are that both nations have (or had) huge reserves of fossil fuels. The difference is how both nations have chosen to use the financial benefits from that. That’s the only argument and parallel I was making. Fk all to do with childcare, other taxes and the offer fundamental differences. Size of population is also irrelevant. Whether it is one person living on an island of 100m living on a huge continent. You can use the gains form a finite resource to live the high life, or you can invest them like Norway did.
If you’re arguing the opposite, then god help the UK when the gas runs out as by implication we’re living way beyond our means (which we both know we are), but that’s a separate argument.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it very depressing that ordinary people are against a windfall tax on profits. This is exactly what the Tories want you to think because they are protecting their own dirty money.
Profits do not fund investment. Profits are paid out to shareholders. Streams such as loans fund investment.. The ordinary people to whom you refer will usually have a pension fund , many of which will have their funds invested in oil companies . A windfall tax is simply another tax on ordinary working people who are either trying to fund their retirement or relying on investment income to live on during their retirement.
Then they should pressure their employer to diversify their pension fund. Any pension fund that has all their eggs in one basket is not a good pension fund. That's not an excuse to be against taxing big corps."
I can't believe any corporate pension fund has all their eggs in one basket. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term?
We can't compare ourselves to Norway for many reasons. Population, cost of living, unionised workforce, nationalised companies.
Smoking, drinking, eating out, cars, houses, income tax are all more expensive in Norway than the UK.
They have better childcare, unemployment benefits and a similar healthcare system.
Was not attempting to compare everything. Simply the UK has a habit of favouring short term over long term. The similarities are that both nations have (or had) huge reserves of fossil fuels. The difference is how both nations have chosen to use the financial benefits from that. That’s the only argument and parallel I was making. Fk all to do with childcare, other taxes and the offer fundamental differences. Size of population is also irrelevant. Whether it is one person living on an island of 100m living on a huge continent. You can use the gains form a finite resource to live the high life, or you can invest them like Norway did.
If you’re arguing the opposite, then god help the UK when the gas runs out as by implication we’re living way beyond our means (which we both know we are), but that’s a separate argument.
"
Isn't a windfall tax short term then? and you are right thats why the oil companies are diversifying into green energy they can see the writing on the wall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term?
We can't compare ourselves to Norway for many reasons. Population, cost of living, unionised workforce, nationalised companies.
Smoking, drinking, eating out, cars, houses, income tax are all more expensive in Norway than the UK.
They have better childcare, unemployment benefits and a similar healthcare system.
Was not attempting to compare everything. Simply the UK has a habit of favouring short term over long term. The similarities are that both nations have (or had) huge reserves of fossil fuels. The difference is how both nations have chosen to use the financial benefits from that. That’s the only argument and parallel I was making. Fk all to do with childcare, other taxes and the offer fundamental differences. Size of population is also irrelevant. Whether it is one person living on an island of 100m living on a huge continent. You can use the gains form a finite resource to live the high life, or you can invest them like Norway did.
If you’re arguing the opposite, then god help the UK when the gas runs out as by implication we’re living way beyond our means (which we both know we are), but that’s a separate argument.
"
Why are we living beyond our means, gas wise? We only import gas for power generation, heating gas all comes from the north sea.
And why isn't anything I've mentioned relevant? We didn't do something that Norway did. They have benefited in some ways because of it but in other ways they haven't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! "
The drilling companies are not the oil companies the oil companies hire them to drill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! "
Aren't they?
Do you work for one? In the industry in anyway?
Do you know what the industry has gone through since the last oil price crash? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! "
With an operating margin of 7 % , the profits of Shell can hardly be considered to be excessive. . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! With an operating margin of 7 % , the profits of Shell can hardly be considered to be excessive. ."
It may have been 7% when oil was somewhere around 70 dollars a barrel… it certainly isn’t when oil is trading at something north of 100 dollars a barrel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom!
Aren't they?
Do you work for one? In the industry in anyway?
Do you know what the industry has gone through since the last oil price crash?"
Obviously he has not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?"
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear ."
But they have gained from it too corporation tax is 40%. So why are you on about camerons in laws then was that relevant to your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Rather than a windfall tax to hand over free cash to people to piss up the wall, why not use the tax to create a social fund that can help the really needy make their homes more energy efficient?
All too often capital and dividend from our natural resources are pissed away for short term tax cuts or some other short term measure. Norway have a huge long term structural fund derived from their fossil fuel reserves. What do we have to show for it long term?
We can't compare ourselves to Norway for many reasons. Population, cost of living, unionised workforce, nationalised companies.
Smoking, drinking, eating out, cars, houses, income tax are all more expensive in Norway than the UK.
They have better childcare, unemployment benefits and a similar healthcare system."
We could have taxed oil production at the same rate but chose not to. Big loss for the treasury. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear .But they have gained from it too corporation tax is 40%. So why are you on about camerons in laws then was that relevant to your point?"
The point was saying both oil company’s and private individuals involved in onshore green power have benefitted from the tax payer subsidies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Isn't a windfall tax short term then? and you are right thats why the oil companies are diversifying into green energy they can see the writing on the wall."
I’d see the windfall tax as short sighted of the capital was given away. Never to be seen again. Hut if it became part of an investment fund it could keep giving. Albeit a smaller amount. But it would be more sustainable.
Otherwise it is a bit like matching your living expenses to wages and bonus. There may not be a bonus next year ….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"
Isn't a windfall tax short term then? and you are right thats why the oil companies are diversifying into green energy they can see the writing on the wall.
I’d see the windfall tax as short sighted of the capital was given away. Never to be seen again. Hut if it became part of an investment fund it could keep giving. Albeit a smaller amount. But it would be more sustainable.
Otherwise it is a bit like matching your living expenses to wages and bonus. There may not be a bonus next year ….
"
Good point but some of it could help the most vulnerable.
Everyone seems to worry that it’s just BP here it’s not. Oh and for the record BP had to cough over $40Biilion dollars to American business and individuals all because of a stupid comment on the deep water horizon disaster by the chairman. He said BP would cover anyone who has losses. When he should have said sorry but the rig is US owned and operated so have a word with those guys regarding the bill. Too late.
Anyway the point is the tax would fall across a number of companies and is unlikely to hurt any of them or their pension fund investors. They lose more on ridiculous takeovers due to having too many investors with too much money. ( pension funds) Acquisition driven turnover increases are always good for an exit bonus when you’re CEO or CFO. They tend to end up washing out some value in the shares though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?
It’s the actual companies drilling that are making the profits… they aren’t actually doing anything different to make the mega profits so I don’t see the problem with a windfall tax for a few years if it’s specifically going to help those struggling with fuel bills at the bottom! With an operating margin of 7 % , the profits of Shell can hardly be considered to be excessive. ."
Yes a party £18b and that’s before the price increases. Remember they are not alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear .But they have gained from it too corporation tax is 40%. So why are you on about camerons in laws then was that relevant to your point?"
Corporation tax is 40% ? Really? You sure?
Also remember you only pay tax if you can’t avoid it.
The point on Cameron is that the Tory party and the briefly the Labour Party have been handing over our money to the powerful lobbyists such as oil companies for decades and more recently enabling friends to make excess amounts of revenue by handing over our tax to wealthy landowners. Ie grants for construction companies making payments to Cameron’s wife’s mum and dad. Nice inheritance enhanced by the British tax payer. That’s my point. The only thing stopping wind farms was local opposition. There was no need to increase the grant why did he do it?
Production tax credits and investment tax credits in relation to wind farms are very generous still. I do believe they are being reduced though. Offshore wind farms are getting better attention and support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear .But they have gained from it too corporation tax is 40%. So why are you on about camerons in laws then was that relevant to your point?
Corporation tax is 40% ? Really? You sure?
Also remember you only pay tax if you can’t avoid it.
The point on Cameron is that the Tory party and the briefly the Labour Party have been handing over our money to the powerful lobbyists such as oil companies for decades and more recently enabling friends to make excess amounts of revenue by handing over our tax to wealthy landowners. Ie grants for construction companies making payments to Cameron’s wife’s mum and dad. Nice inheritance enhanced by the British tax payer. That’s my point. The only thing stopping wind farms was local opposition. There was no need to increase the grant why did he do it?
Production tax credits and investment tax credits in relation to wind farms are very generous still. I do believe they are being reduced though. Offshore wind farms are getting better attention and support. "
Well its 30% but add on the extra 10% of the current suplimentary charge it comes to 40%.
Nobody wants wind farms on their doorstep thats why they are going offshore and they had to pay extra to get people to have them.I see they are now considering communities who have them will get cheaper energy but i doubt that will work as there are too many nimby.s around. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"utter nonsense. at no point in history has windfall taxes damaged investment. on the contrary the easliy verifiable figures found in online datasets demonstrate that after windfall taxes have been implemented there has been strong growth in investment. the problem is that the government are unwilling to invest the money they take from us and choose to sell our key infrastructures at huge losses thus damaging the country. where do you think the investment from green energy is coming from? seems no one was bothered last year when oil companies were making record loses due to the pandemic.
Mostly from the taxpayer who have been giving very generous tax subsidies to the oil companies for generations.
Or if you prefer
Look up David Cameron and his decision to massively increase grants to land owners allowing wind farms. Strange how his in-laws suddenly had hundreds of turbines popping up on their estate soon after. Got to protect the family money. so what you saying we should not have on shore wind farms or peole should not be subsidised for having them on their land?
No I’m saying the tax payer has funded them and the tax payer has funded offshore oil production tax breaks . Think that’s pretty clear .But they have gained from it too corporation tax is 40%. So why are you on about camerons in laws then was that relevant to your point?
Corporation tax is 40% ? Really? You sure?
Also remember you only pay tax if you can’t avoid it.
The point on Cameron is that the Tory party and the briefly the Labour Party have been handing over our money to the powerful lobbyists such as oil companies for decades and more recently enabling friends to make excess amounts of revenue by handing over our tax to wealthy landowners. Ie grants for construction companies making payments to Cameron’s wife’s mum and dad. Nice inheritance enhanced by the British tax payer. That’s my point. The only thing stopping wind farms was local opposition. There was no need to increase the grant why did he do it?
Production tax credits and investment tax credits in relation to wind farms are very generous still. I do believe they are being reduced though. Offshore wind farms are getting better attention and support. Well its 30% but add on the extra 10% of the current suplimentary charge it comes to 40%.
Nobody wants wind farms on their doorstep thats why they are going offshore and they had to pay extra to get people to have them.I see they are now considering communities who have them will get cheaper energy but i doubt that will work as there are too many nimby.s around. "
They were building more than enough even with the nimbys. The increase was not needed. There’s a lot of hillsides in Scotland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
If you look at the pensioners that mainly benefitted from these companies. Most are private sector Utility companies and 100000's of Council workers on very well paid pension pots that many others could only have dreamt having access to.
It is skewed and based on investment money that's destroyed our planet.
I totally agree, Windfall tax them and at the same time commandeer oil and gas fields within UK waters by decree an fix the price and block exports.
At the end of the day, this natural resource is part of the kingdom, what right has a small number of billion pound companies have to make eye watering profits from it while many are freezing in their own homes unable to pay for it.
We were told gas would be as good as free in the 70s until Thatcher showed her ugly face and sold off everything.
Those resources belong to the people of this land so why are many struggling to afford to buy it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
"
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"actually the monarch owns the sea-bed in british territorial waters. madge makes an awful lot from leasing it out to big oil and gas. it's also the current sticking point for off-shore wind being willfully prevented from getting rolled out in any useful way that would benefit the country and not foreign powers or foreign businesses. "
Does the monarch actually own it?
Who benefits from the income the monarch or the state (actually)
Does the crown estate own all the territorial waters or is there a limit around 12 nautical
Miles?
I’m sure there’s an Act which reveals all these fun facts.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"actually the monarch owns the sea-bed in british territorial waters. madge makes an awful lot from leasing it out to big oil and gas. it's also the current sticking point for off-shore wind being willfully prevented from getting rolled out in any useful way that would benefit the country and not foreign powers or foreign businesses.
Does the monarch actually own it?
Who benefits from the income the monarch or the state (actually)
Does the crown estate own all the territorial waters or is there a limit around 12 nautical
Miles?
I’m sure there’s an Act which reveals all these fun facts. "
The state gets 75% and the crown 25%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax? "
Of course what’s not to like about Tax? It's created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
Oh fk that’s something else now isn’t it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"actually the monarch owns the sea-bed in british territorial waters. madge makes an awful lot from leasing it out to big oil and gas. it's also the current sticking point for off-shore wind being willfully prevented from getting rolled out in any useful way that would benefit the country and not foreign powers or foreign businesses.
Does the monarch actually own it?
Who benefits from the income the monarch or the state (actually)
Does the crown estate own all the territorial waters or is there a limit around 12 nautical
Miles?
I’m sure there’s an Act which reveals all these fun facts. The state gets 75% and the crown 25%."
So if you think of the monarchy as latter day ‘gangsters’ who seized assets by force to gain power wealth and control, and if we concede that we as a nation want to perpetuate that legacy then effectively the Crown Estate is taxed at over 75%.
Not a bad deal for the plebs. And they get that without having to raise a sword. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"actually the monarch owns the sea-bed in british territorial waters. madge makes an awful lot from leasing it out to big oil and gas. it's also the current sticking point for off-shore wind being willfully prevented from getting rolled out in any useful way that would benefit the country and not foreign powers or foreign businesses.
Does the monarch actually own it?
Who benefits from the income the monarch or the state (actually)
Does the crown estate own all the territorial waters or is there a limit around 12 nautical
Miles?
I’m sure there’s an Act which reveals all these fun facts. The state gets 75% and the crown 25%.
So if you think of the monarchy as latter day ‘gangsters’ who seized assets by force to gain power wealth and control, and if we concede that we as a nation want to perpetuate that legacy then effectively the Crown Estate is taxed at over 75%.
Not a bad deal for the plebs. And they get that without having to raise a sword. "
Actually looking into it further the state gets 100% of it then pays the crown 25% of money made on the crown estate land but it seems the sovereign grant has not gone up by the 25% of the 9 billion offshore windfarms are expected to pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now? Well said. A windfall tax is simply a tax on pensioners and pension funds. It would make many members of society worse off. I can remember a labour candidate canvassing and when I asked him what he could do better than the Conserveratives his first suggestion was a windfall tax on oil companies . He was hardly a bright spark economically if he failed to recognise the damage that this would cause "
The problem with the “pensioners and pension fund” argument is that these funds should be highly diversified and not be fully reliant on oil and gas companies (if they are then your fund is too high risk).
As such, that diversification should provide some insulation from one industry sector taking a hit due to anything.
That point is also almost exclusively only going to affect those who have private or workplace pensions (not saying most of these are remotely well off but they are still better off than the poorest in our society who rely exclusively on a paltry state pension).
All those same pensioners are however facing an immediate and huge impact on their cost of living and that requires immediate mitigation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax? "
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now? Well said. A windfall tax is simply a tax on pensioners and pension funds. It would make many members of society worse off. I can remember a labour candidate canvassing and when I asked him what he could do better than the Conserveratives his first suggestion was a windfall tax on oil companies . He was hardly a bright spark economically if he failed to recognise the damage that this would cause
The problem with the “pensioners and pension fund” argument is that these funds should be highly diversified and not be fully reliant on oil and gas companies (if they are then your fund is too high risk).
As such, that diversification should provide some insulation from one industry sector taking a hit due to anything.
That point is also almost exclusively only going to affect those who have private or workplace pensions (not saying most of these are remotely well off but they are still better off than the poorest in our society who rely exclusively on a paltry state pension).
All those same pensioners are however facing an immediate and huge impact on their cost of living and that requires immediate mitigation."
Exactly, a wind fall tax on these companies would have a tiny affect on the ‘normal working persons ‘ pension that wound easily be off set by the savings they would get in their energy bills. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive. "
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surprised no-one else has posted anything on this.
Labour keep calling for a windfall tax on energy companies.
I can only assume they mean producers...as the supply companies have been hammered with dozens going bust already.
But let's see what such a "tax" would do.
It would strip the producers of most of their profits.
The bosses and directors would still get their fat bonuses...they get these even in years they make a loss!
The share prices would likely take a tumble, so share holders suffer.
Most of the shares in these companies are held by pension companies...so pensions and payments suffer.....that's my pension pot and yours. Your future pension payments will be less.
So the people who actually suffer are me, you and ordinary folks.
Doesn't seem such a great idea now?"
Let’s not forget the smaller companies that pop up selling cheeper gas & electric are given subsidies by the government to meet the financial ends and the bonuses included in the ofgen allocated budgets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close"
Norway's Gini is one of the lowest. Suggesting not a huge variance in wealth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close"
There wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close"
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
"
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come closeThere wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours. "
No difference in facilities ie investment so the tax didn’t hurt the jobs or facilities! Glad you agree taxing won’t hurt the industry.
Visit Agotnes one of the I think 10 CCB bases and then you will see how they invested . Not bad considering they’ve been taxed fairly.
Our lot are asking for billions of tax payers money for infrastructure to clean up their mess so we are now giving even more.
They still work a lot less hours in Norway. Ghost towns after lunch on a Friday, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come closeThere wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours.
No difference in facilities ie investment so the tax didn’t hurt the jobs or facilities! Glad you agree taxing won’t hurt the industry.
Visit Agotnes one of the I think 10 CCB bases and then you will see how they invested . Not bad considering they’ve been taxed fairly.
Our lot are asking for billions of tax payers money for infrastructure to clean up their mess so we are now giving even more.
They still work a lot less hours in Norway. Ghost towns after lunch on a Friday, "
so whats so special about these bases then ? they are just repair yards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night."
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. "
I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from."
mercer cost of living has London more expensive than Oslo.
Outside of that, no other Norwegian city features. UK has Birmingham, Belfast, Aberdeen and Glasgow.
Maybe the UK has a lot cheaper COL in places and so the average is lower. Could be given the larger Gini coefficient.
Where did you get Norway being more expensive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come closeThere wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours. "
The UK rigs are probably a little nicer than those of the mid 90s. Norwegian ones are next level, in all aspects now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive. "
That simply isn't true.
Childcare for a month in Norway is about the same for a week in the UK.
You have got the rest the wrong too. Everything you have mentioned is the opposite except flights. Internal flights are all subsidised or people simply wouldn't travel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from."
Commuting there for two years but what do I know.
Firstly my statement above is wrong I should have said relative in those costs so my inference was incorrect.
You can’t just compare costs in the U.K. with costs in Norway without taking account of incomes .
Why do you think the Norwegians can travel so much if they are in any way poorer than us ?
First Google
“The average after-tax salary is enough to cover living expenses for 1.7 months in Norway compared to 1.6 months in the United Kingdom.”
They have less rich people and less poor people so their averages are true where as we have a lot of mega city salaries which skewer our average so the gap is actually bigger than stated above.
The guess is reality 1.2-1.4 months in the U.K.
If you buy an apple in your local greengrocer in Maidstone Kent but then buy an apple in your local fancy Belgravia restaurant you will pay more for the apple in London.
The fact your eating out in your local Belgravia restaurant means the chances are you have a multi million pound house . So as a percentage of your income and expenses the apple is cheaper for then f you work and live in a semi in Maidstone ( no offence ) . Even though the London apple is more expensive on the tag it’s cheaper for the guy in London in relative terms.
If you just visit Norway it’s expensive . If you live there it isn’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
That simply isn't true.
Childcare for a month in Norway is about the same for a week in the UK.
You have got the rest the wrong too. Everything you have mentioned is the opposite except flights. Internal flights are all subsidised or people simply wouldn't travel."
You’re correct the way I stated it was wrong my fault. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from.
Commuting there for two years but what do I know.
Firstly my statement above is wrong I should have said relative in those costs so my inference was incorrect.
You can’t just compare costs in the U.K. with costs in Norway without taking account of incomes .
Why do you think the Norwegians can travel so much if they are in any way poorer than us ?
First Google
“The average after-tax salary is enough to cover living expenses for 1.7 months in Norway compared to 1.6 months in the United Kingdom.”
They have less rich people and less poor people so their averages are true where as we have a lot of mega city salaries which skewer our average so the gap is actually bigger than stated above.
The guess is reality 1.2-1.4 months in the U.K.
If you buy an apple in your local greengrocer in Maidstone Kent but then buy an apple in your local fancy Belgravia restaurant you will pay more for the apple in London.
The fact your eating out in your local Belgravia restaurant means the chances are you have a multi million pound house . So as a percentage of your income and expenses the apple is cheaper for then f you work and live in a semi in Maidstone ( no offence ) . Even though the London apple is more expensive on the tag it’s cheaper for the guy in London in relative terms.
If you just visit Norway it’s expensive . If you live there it isn’t. "
To a point. Norwegians still think it's expensive. And they holiday/travel a lot because NOK goes a long way due to the exchange rates.
Norwegian income in Bergen/Stavanger/Oslo is inflated compared to the North, house prices reflect that. Those that can commute do but that's the same here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Anyway going back to the OPs point .
Norway has around 1.3 trillion Euros in a wealth fund the U.K. has a “declared “ debt of around £1.5 Trillion ( some say it’s much higher )
So whilst we were around the same levels as Norway we are now at least twice as worse of in cash terms, with around ten times the population contributing tax on top.
With 80% of that time being under Tory governments do we consider that a successful comparison.
My opinion is we should have taxed fairer , not deregulated as much and controlled public spending waste and excessively high wages in both the public and private sector. How can a vice chancellor at a uni be on three times the salary of the PM
40000 people in the NHS earn over £100k (that figure might be £150k ) only 11000 are clinical staff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from.
Commuting there for two years but what do I know.
Firstly my statement above is wrong I should have said relative in those costs so my inference was incorrect.
You can’t just compare costs in the U.K. with costs in Norway without taking account of incomes .
Why do you think the Norwegians can travel so much if they are in any way poorer than us ?
First Google
“The average after-tax salary is enough to cover living expenses for 1.7 months in Norway compared to 1.6 months in the United Kingdom.”
They have less rich people and less poor people so their averages are true where as we have a lot of mega city salaries which skewer our average so the gap is actually bigger than stated above.
The guess is reality 1.2-1.4 months in the U.K.
If you buy an apple in your local greengrocer in Maidstone Kent but then buy an apple in your local fancy Belgravia restaurant you will pay more for the apple in London.
The fact your eating out in your local Belgravia restaurant means the chances are you have a multi million pound house . So as a percentage of your income and expenses the apple is cheaper for then f you work and live in a semi in Maidstone ( no offence ) . Even though the London apple is more expensive on the tag it’s cheaper for the guy in London in relative terms.
If you just visit Norway it’s expensive . If you live there it isn’t.
To a point. Norwegians still think it's expensive. And they holiday/travel a lot because NOK goes a long way due to the exchange rates.
Norwegian income in Bergen/Stavanger/Oslo is inflated compared to the North, house prices reflect that. Those that can commute do but that's the same here "
They do shop abroad a lot to save and the airports have supermarket trollies for booze in the duty free.
I bought four pints in Bergen the last time I was there. Ok it was a Harbourside bar but even so £54 for the round . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come closeThere wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours.
The UK rigs are probably a little nicer than those of the mid 90s. Norwegian ones are next level, in all aspects now"
im sure they are, the uk rigs were a lot nicer in the 90,s than they were in the 70,s  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come closeThere wasn't any significant differences in facilities that i noticed in the mid 90,s when i was on them apart from they worked a lot less hours.
The UK rigs are probably a little nicer than those of the mid 90s. Norwegian ones are next level, in all aspects nowim sure they are, the uk rigs were a lot nicer in the 90,s than they were in the 70,s "
Spoilt bastards never had it so good!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Between 2016 and 2020, oil and gas companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, and £3.7 billion in tax relief for decommissioning costs.8
As a result of all these tax reliefs and subsidies, the UK has one of the most skewed tax environments in the world for oil and gas production. In 2019, the UK government received less than $2 per barrel of oil in tax, compared to nearly $22 per barrel in Norway.9
The oldest fields included in the original tax regime PRT are projected to receive a pay out £200-300 million a year between now and 2026. The newer set ups are mostly covered under tax allowable rules and any future generated profits can be moved to a lower tax regime if required.
I keep hearing about Norway which has the most expensive fuel prices in Europe due to tax are you saying you would be happy people paying more at the pumps so the government can get more tax?
Typo
They also have much better wages to cope. They work less hours have better health and social care along with much better roads. They work around 7-10 days more than us to reach their tax free day, but work less hours so in effect work less to do so. So I’m saying if we had kept the windfall of North Sea oil revenues like Norway did rather than giving it away to shareholders and pension funds then we would still have the industry and have created hundreds of billions more for the treasury. Who knows maybe our tiers would be better and our state pension a lot better.
The oil companies didn’t have a choice of where The oil was and just as much investment went into Norwegian waters even with their high tax.
Take a trip to see some of the Norwegian offshore bases. They are pretty impressive.
Some wages. Regular jobs are not as well paid as more technical ones. There's probably a larger wage gap from the lower end to the top 10% earners.
A basic rate of iirc 40% tax too.
Healthcare is similar to here, roads and childcare are better. Cars are extortionate, petrol and diesel was similar to here but has gone up.
But it's not something we can change now, the horse/oil bolted years ago.
But I do agree, the Norwegian offshore facilities are top class, the UK side just doesn't come close
Tax rate is irrelevant as I explained due to their higher incomes they have a similar tax free day to us so are in fact better off as the rest of the years is spendable income at a higher rate.. Fun isn’t it. Lower tax isn’t always a good thing.
They also don’t allow tax avoidance on the scale we do so the rich contribute more overall.
Also large tax breaks electric cars cars with a large charging infrastructure. Limited availability in the north which is an issue.
It’s great place to live and the sense of society is good. The oil didn’t make Norway rich it already was quite well off, but it was invested wisely. Ours was mostly given away.
We can’t change history but we can squeeze a few quid today to help spread the burden of tax.
Great place to live if you have money but where isnt? most people drink at home as cant afford to go out with the prices they charge.Either that or drink at home go out late and hold onto one drink a drink for the rest of the night.
Norway has cheaper housing, clothing, transport, entertainment, sports, restaurants fast food etc etc so a few things like alcohol taxed highly and income tax along with childcare are more expensive.
So if you don’t drink or have kids you’re well sorted. Even with kids they get much better social provision and paternity.
In a cost of living comparison the U.K. is 9.5% more expensive to live in than Norway.
It’s a myth that high income tax means more expensive to live .
Btw beer is bloody pricy I agree. I disagree the cost of living is higher in Norway i dont know where you are getting that from.
Commuting there for two years but what do I know.
Firstly my statement above is wrong I should have said relative in those costs so my inference was incorrect.
You can’t just compare costs in the U.K. with costs in Norway without taking account of incomes .
Why do you think the Norwegians can travel so much if they are in any way poorer than us ?
First Google
“The average after-tax salary is enough to cover living expenses for 1.7 months in Norway compared to 1.6 months in the United Kingdom.”
They have less rich people and less poor people so their averages are true where as we have a lot of mega city salaries which skewer our average so the gap is actually bigger than stated above.
The guess is reality 1.2-1.4 months in the U.K.
If you buy an apple in your local greengrocer in Maidstone Kent but then buy an apple in your local fancy Belgravia restaurant you will pay more for the apple in London.
The fact your eating out in your local Belgravia restaurant means the chances are you have a multi million pound house . So as a percentage of your income and expenses the apple is cheaper for then f you work and live in a semi in Maidstone ( no offence ) . Even though the London apple is more expensive on the tag it’s cheaper for the guy in London in relative terms.
If you just visit Norway it’s expensive . If you live there it isn’t.
To a point. Norwegians still think it's expensive. And they holiday/travel a lot because NOK goes a long way due to the exchange rates.
Norwegian income in Bergen/Stavanger/Oslo is inflated compared to the North, house prices reflect that. Those that can commute do but that's the same here
They do shop abroad a lot to save and the airports have supermarket trollies for booze in the duty free.
I bought four pints in Bergen the last time I was there. Ok it was a Harbourside bar but even so £54 for the round . "
I have friends that fly to Madrid, Amsterdam or Paris for a few hours, do some shopping and get duty free on the way back. The duty free alone covers the cost of the flights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Windfall tax makes sense, if you’re getting 600 quid off your energy bills.
Better than shitty sunak, and his 200 quid loan. "
If you are a pension fund manager or a pensioner relying on dividend income such a tax would be very damaging. It could potentially even force companies to relocate and thus become totally counter productive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Windfall tax makes sense, if you’re getting 600 quid off your energy bills.
Better than shitty sunak, and his 200 quid loan. If you are a pension fund manager or a pensioner relying on dividend income such a tax would be very damaging. It could potentially even force companies to relocate and thus become totally counter productive. "
Like brexit, what we got to lose? They will stay, they won’t relocate, we are an awesome country, with soooo much going for us.
Besides I would suspect pensioners would more happy with £600 quid in their pocket to pay for their gas and electric, then some crap “divvy” dend, which only going to benefit lord snuffington and lady marples. Instead of those on state pensions.
What utter grand national racehorse grade BS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Windfall tax makes sense, if you’re getting 600 quid off your energy bills.
Better than shitty sunak, and his 200 quid loan. If you are a pension fund manager or a pensioner relying on dividend income such a tax would be very damaging. It could potentially even force companies to relocate and thus become totally counter productive. "
no pension fund should be relying on dividends arising from windfall profits. They are rare and uncertain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Windfall tax makes sense, if you’re getting 600 quid off your energy bills.
Better than shitty sunak, and his 200 quid loan. If you are a pension fund manager or a pensioner relying on dividend income such a tax would be very damaging. It could potentially even force companies to relocate and thus become totally counter productive. "
As I said above...
The problem with the “pensioners and pension fund” argument is that these funds should be highly diversified and not be fully reliant on oil and gas companies (if they are then your fund is too high risk).
As such, that diversification should provide some insulation from one industry sector taking a hit due to anything.
That point is also almost exclusively only going to affect those who have private or workplace pensions (not saying most of these are remotely well off but they are still better off than the poorest in our society who rely exclusively on a paltry state pension).
All those same pensioners are however facing an immediate and huge impact on their cost of living and that requires immediate mitigation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
