Cost of living crisis.

[Tommy G]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, just offer them the reasonably simple choice between investing it all in green energy infrastructure with a paper trail so clear a chimpanzee could read and understand it, or it gets taken away from them for government to do the same thing.

And what happens to the shareholders - who are mainly investments firms that hold your pension, do you not want a pension when you retire? You live in cuckoo land. Lets all sit there and sign kumbaya. You can't just strip profits from companies, oil and gas or otherwise. Chuck the guardian in the bin and wake up

Edited 27 October 2022 by Tommy G

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

And what happens to the shareholders - who are mainly investments firms that hold your pension, do you not want a pension when you retire? You live in cuckoo land. Lets all sit there and sign kumbaya. You can't just strip profits from companies, oil and gas or otherwise. Chuck the guardian in the bin and wake up

Before I answer this more in depth, can I ask what your solution might be to ensuing that the necessary energy infrastructure is built - or all of those pensions and shareholders won't really mean much at all?

[grobyfox1990]

53 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Sorry, don`t understand that? Why is excluding higher rate tax payers from the fuel subsidy out of the question? Even if does impact some HR tax payers beyond acceptable levels, allow appeals would be viable you would think?

'Targeted' support means the most vulnerable in society in politico speak i would think. Reading between the lines, that 'target' certainly does not include people that earn 50% above the median UK salary. I don't know how you could appeal this tbh, if you're a HR taxpayer you're deemed privileged and leveraging up during the good times surely doesn't qualify you for support in the bad times.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, grobyfox1990 said:

'Targeted' support means the most vulnerable in society in politico speak i would think. Reading between the lines, that 'target' certainly does not include people that earn 50% above the median UK salary. I don't know how you could appeal this tbh, if you're a HR taxpayer you're deemed privileged and leveraging up during the good times surely doesn't qualify you for support in the bad times.

Think I read it the other way around some reason, but yes quite agree, I suggested in an earlier topic that the option to "opt out" of such schemes should be on the table but was sensibly picked up and someone suggested that those in need "opt in" rather than the reverse. Personally, I do not need nor want the fuel subsidy, free school meal or other benefits intended for those struggling during this period. How do I opt out? Can I opt out? Would having an opt out option be more costly as a facility?

[Tommy G]

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

'Targeted' support means the most vulnerable in society in politico speak i would think. Reading between the lines, that 'target' certainly does not include people that earn 50% above the median UK salary. I don't know how you could appeal this tbh, if you're a HR taxpayer you're deemed privileged and leveraging up during the good times surely doesn't qualify you for support in the bad times.

So a family of 4 with one earner on £55K a year wouldn't be crippled by a £5K a year energy bill, because they have ''leveraged up'' in the good times. LOL

[grobyfox1990]

46 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

And what happens to the shareholders - who are mainly investments firms that hold your pension, do you not want a pension when you retire? You live in cuckoo land. Lets all sit there and sign kumbaya. You can't just strip profits from companies, oil and gas or otherwise. Chuck the guardian in the bin and wake up

Yeh i want a pension when i retire, which is why these short-term shysters should do exactly that, invest it all in green. You absolutely can strip excess profits from companies to invest in long-term cash generating infrastructure, look at Amazon, Apple etc. Oil companies are dinosaurs and can't be trusted to do this.

 

Historically high growth rates in this country often coincided with a boom in new energy sources (steam, coal) because of increased productivity. Battery storage, nuclear, other green technologies and improving the insulation of efficiency of buildings is how we will create wealth to pay my pension.

 

I'm not in the Kumbaya camp but you're talking about keeping on doing what we're doing to protect a few pennies on the table, when we have multiple pounds to be made. It's short sighted and short termist

[grobyfox1990]

Just now, Tommy G said:

So a family of 4 with one earner on £55K a year wouldn't be crippled by a £5K a year energy bill, because they have ''leveraged up'' in the good times. LOL

They would be, but we're broke, what should we do? That family is going to gain a lot less sympathy than a family of 4 with one earner on £35K a year that would be crippled by a £5K a year energy bill. Unless you want to seriously increase tax revenue, that family is going to have to suck it up. Can't have it both ways.

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh i want a pension when i retire, which is why these short-term shysters should do exactly that, invest it all in green. You absolutely can strip excess profits from companies to invest in long-term cash generating infrastructure, look at Amazon, Apple etc. Oil companies are dinosaurs and can't be trusted to do this.

 

Historically high growth rates in this country often coincided with a boom in new energy sources (steam, coal) because of increased productivity. Battery storage, nuclear, other green technologies and improving the insulation of efficiency of buildings is how we will create wealth to pay my pension.

 

I'm not in the Kumbaya camp but you're talking about keeping on doing what we're doing to protect a few pennies on the table, when we have multiple pounds to be made. It's short sighted and short termist

The original poster said investing ALL profits in green energy, not all EXCESS profits, there is a difference. I'm not saying keep on doing what we are doing but a mass tax on energy companies I don' think will solve the problem, they should be contributing I agree - and disgaree with Truss' original approach. There has to be a happy medium

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The original poster said investing ALL profits in green energy, not all EXCESS profits, there is a difference. I'm not saying keep on doing what we are doing but a mass tax on energy companies I don' think will solve the problem, they should be contributing I agree - and disgaree with Truss' original approach. There has to be a happy medium

Well then, evidently I wasn't clear about that original post because I was responding to points made that said half of their profits should be invested in such, or whatever mind be considered "excess". Apologies.

 

NB. I'd still like an answer to the above question, please.

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well then, evidently I wasn't clear about that original post because I was responding to points made that said half of their profits should be invested in such, or whatever mind be considered "excess". Apologies.

 

NB. I'd still like an answer to the above question, please.

I find it hard to interact with you as we have polar opposite views of how the real world works. So we'll leave it there 

[grobyfox1990]

15 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The original poster said investing ALL profits in green energy, not all EXCESS profits, there is a difference. I'm not saying keep on doing what we are doing but a mass tax on energy companies I don' think will solve the problem, they should be contributing I agree - and disgaree with Truss' original approach. There has to be a happy medium

Yeh agree with the above, there has to be a happy medium!!! Again, lets take the scientfic/human view out of it, professionally, i couldn't care less about that. Climate change is the biggest market failure that has ever occurred, so we can't expect the people that caused this failure to be able to fix it. We need serious regulatory and policy action to step in, part of that is inevitably tax but also has to include incentives for investment.

[adam]

24 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

They would be, but we're broke, what should we do? That family is going to gain a lot less sympathy than a family of 4 with one earner on £35K a year that would be crippled by a £5K a year energy bill. Unless you want to seriously increase tax revenue, that family is going to have to suck it up. Can't have it both ways.

As someone who earns around 55k a 500 quid a month energy bill on top of my increased mortgage payments and the increasing cost of food would leave me in a bit of trouble. 

Very few will be able to afford 5k a year energy bill. The government need to help. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I find it hard to interact with you as we have polar opposite views of how the real world works. So we'll leave it there 

Evidently we do. IMO The "real world" is the natural world and what it can (and will) do to humanity unless we safeguard against it, alongside such human concerns as economics that it can render utterly pointless.

 

So yeah, we'll leave it at that.

 

Anyhow, on topic, households will need help with energy bills and perhaps government might be able to get on with that and also incentivise the energy companies who are currently taking the piss to actually help out by paying their way and/or getting necessary infrastructure in place.

 

 

[Tommy G]

6 minutes ago, adam said:

As someone who earns around 55k a 500 quid a month energy bill on top of my increased mortgage payments and the increasing cost of food would leave me in a bit of trouble. 

Very few will be able to afford 5k a year energy bill. The government need to help. 

Agreed - this is the point I was trying to make

[grobyfox1990]

21 minutes ago, adam said:

As someone who earns around 55k a 500 quid a month energy bill on top of my increased mortgage payments and the increasing cost of food would leave me in a bit of trouble. 

Very few will be able to afford 5k a year energy bill. The government need to help. 

No one can argue that someone in your situation will struggle, but unfortunately, you will be far down the hierarchy of needs. The only way you can get further up the hierarchy is by creating a high tax environment, which we are not going to do in this Parliament. Public finances are in ruins, Govt can't step in to significantly help higher rates unless they want to tax hard.

[LVFox]

I do wonder if rather than directly targeting everyone’s energy bills. The government would be better off increasing the personal allowance, and then offering far more targeted support to those on UC.

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

32 minutes ago, LVFox said:

I do wonder if rather than directly targeting everyone’s energy bills. The government would be better off increasing the personal allowance, and then offering far more targeted support to those on UC.

 

 

Mentioned this before, lift the PA to 15k, the percentage difference it makes to the lower paid would surely be worth it?

[LVFox]

9 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Mentioned this before, lift the PA to 15k, the percentage difference it makes to the lower paid would surely be worth it?

I heard the other day that you could raise PA to 25k, and pay for it by eliminating PA completely for those earning 100k+
 

no idea if accurate or not but interesting if so.

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, LVFox said:

I heard the other day that you could raise PA to 25k, and pay for it by eliminating PA completely for those earning 100k+
 

no idea if accurate or not but interesting if so.

Interesting idea. The tax system does need a damn good rethink.

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes, I was just wondering how much of this ridiculous pie we could rightfully seize

As of 2019, the proportion of their income generated in the UK was 13%.  £92bn out of £705bn.  Having no more up-to-date info, let's assume that percentage hasn't changed much.

 

So if we ignore the accounting profit and deem that the UK can have dibs on 13% of the global profit, this amounts to 13% of $10bn per quarter which is £1,12 bn at current exchange rates.

 

That amounts to £41 per household per quarter, but of course it would be a one-off.  They would re-register as a foreign company double quick if they had to pay 100% tax on their UK earnings. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

As of 2019, the proportion of their income generated in the UK was 13%.  £92bn out of £705bn.  Having no more up-to-date info, let's assume that percentage hasn't changed much.

 

So if we ignore the accounting profit and deem that the UK can have dibs on 13% of the global profit, this amounts to 13% of $10bn per quarter which is £1,12 bn at current exchange rates.

 

That amounts to £41 per household per quarter, but of course it would be a one-off.  They would re-register as a foreign company double quick if they had to pay 100% tax on their UK earnings. 

Tend to agree, and I did hear the other day that filling these fiscal shortfalls needs to come from the various tax paying bands, as only they have the capability to fill it. The o&g profits are headlines but they do not represent sufficient amounts.

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, LVFox said:

I heard the other day that you could raise PA to 25k, and pay for it by eliminating PA completely for those earning 100k+
 

no idea if accurate or not but interesting if so.

Seeing as they have already abolished personal allowance for anyone earning over £125k, then what you heard was wildly inaccurate.

[grobyfox1990]

22 minutes ago, LVFox said:

I heard the other day that you could raise PA to 25k, and pay for it by eliminating PA completely for those earning 100k+
 

no idea if accurate or not but interesting if so.

Highly highly doubt that, PA tapers off after £100k so you lose £1 for every £2 above £100k, so you lose the whole PA at £125k. Between £100-125k its not worth staying on PAYE, better to overpay into a pension policy to stay below £100k

[adam]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No one can argue that someone in your situation will struggle, but unfortunately, you will be far down the hierarchy of needs. The only way you can get further up the hierarchy is by creating a high tax environment, which we are not going to do in this Parliament. Public finances are in ruins, Govt can't step in to significantly help higher rates unless they want to tax hard.

I think they will have to step in. There's no other option. A 50k a year salary is not a high salary this day and age.  

We can not be paying £500 quid a month for our energy.  

I imagine what they will do is continue with the current energy help.. 

They cant say charge folk on 40k a year £2500 and people on 50k £5000. 

[kenny]

The current gas prices are back down to the same level they were this time last year. 

 

Is it possible that the energy prices won't rise anywhere near as high as was reported? As it stands, I don't really understand why its still rising if the cost of gas is falling and Europe has now filled its gas storage for the winter.