In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement. https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474
Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October
The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.
It is until it is called out as a lie
What is that about lying in politics?
It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.
If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.
It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then
Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.
This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream
If Putin was deposed tomorrow (which would be lovely), energy bills will still have been higher and some inflation would still be baked in. And the party in Government would still get blamed for that.
There is, to use that word again, hysteresis in the system. If things get worse and then get better again by returning to the starting point, the Government are still going to get blamed.
There’s a no longer implausible scenario of European gas and power prices collapsing before winter sets in. Slava Ukraine. The general inflation seen in the world is in my view because of monetary policy bedwetting two years ago during covid. The energy and supply chain issues in China are a one time hit. The fed will soon realise that if they raise much further, they will risk needlessly turning a recession into a depression.
Despite the time I spend here, I’m not a bettor. But if I were, I would say Tory majority is underpriced right now. We’re almost at the nadir and by spring 2024 we could be seeing fast catch-up growth and an election under newly beneficial boundaries for the govt.
The battles in Ukraine have a long way to go, and at yesterday's conference a Ukrainian definition of victory was made: Russia leaves all of Ukraine, pays reparations and war crimes trials take place.
I cannot see sanctions being dropped until a new Russian government agrees all of that. It won't all be over by Christmas.
I think that’s probably right, but a palace coup, which would be quick if it happened, could be the one thing that might mean it’s all over by Christmas.
Just for a second I thought you were talking about the UK, and I was thinking - give King Charles a chance.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.
But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.
Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.
Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?
Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”
Boom. Mike wins his bet.
Bring it on. Any Conservative Minister under Johnson going on a perfect accuracy campaign is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Last week's PMQs show that it will actually be a debate on substantial issues rather than the blithering fact free bluster of Johnson. I don't think this is a country inclined to Libertarianism, so don't see it favouring Truss. People don't want fracking, lower social protections, tax cuts for rich companies and skeletal public services.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
except that on average the same UK taxpayer will also be £1000 worse off because the government have borrowed on their behalf to pay the gas bill. Imagine the outrage if the government had just said to people - oh just borrow the money to pay your winter gas bill- Somehow because the borrowing is done through the government for the same people its the best thing ever
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
But they already implemented a windfall tax. Should they do it again because you weren’t concentrating?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.
But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.
Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.
Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?
Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”
Boom. Mike wins his bet.
The problem with that strategy is that it would mean Truss would then have to tell the truth. That would blow her approach to Brexit out of the water, for starters.
"Truth" is always going to be a tricky one for this government with that great big Red Bus hanging over their heads
I assume you’re referring to something done by opponents of the government in 2016, three prime Ministers ago?
It's sometimes quite surprising how new Conservative prime minister's seem to believe that their's is a completely new government, nothing to do with any Conservative predecessor! Although they might have been a member of that government!
Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".
That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.
We're better than that.
Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.
How many people have any idea of what the government actually proposed, given that nothing about it has been discussed anywhere thanks to subsequent events?
Dare I suggest that polling companies all take a week or two off, because pretty much everything they’re polling now is likely to be rubbish.
As I've said before, I think people have stopped panicking about energy, feeling the issue has been kept within bounds, but they're still very worried about the cost of living more generally. On the whole, the interruption in normal politics has been unhelpful to Truss - the media won't go back to discussing the energy package in detail in two weeks' time.
Pollsters definitely should continue to track what people think so we can see how events are shaping the mood. They're mirrors, not predictions.
However in two weeks time after the Queen's funeral and once the Special Financial Statement has appeared, the public's focus will once again be very much focused on energy bills and cost of living and we will see the public's assessment as to whether the government's proposals are any good.
They're fixing energy bills at double the level they were last year. With us footing the bill. OK so bills haven't soared of into the stratosphere. But they remain utterly unpayable for so many people.
Worse will be the government's tone. They have appointed JRM as energy minister. Who is against all of the ling term solutions and wants gas companies to drill in your back garden and under your park. Whilst sneering at any struggles you may be having to pay the doubled bills.
Rees Mogg is also Minister for Earthquakes under your house.....
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Yes, in a sale your biggest saving is always if you don't buy it at all! 👍
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Yes, in a sale your biggest saving is always if you don't buy it at all! 👍
In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement. https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474
Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October
The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.
It is until it is called out as a lie
What is that about lying in politics?
It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.
If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.
It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then
Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.
This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream
If Putin was deposed tomorrow (which would be lovely), energy bills will still have been higher and some inflation would still be baked in. And the party in Government would still get blamed for that.
There is, to use that word again, hysteresis in the system. If things get worse and then get better again by returning to the starting point, the Government are still going to get blamed.
There’s a no longer implausible scenario of European gas and power prices collapsing before winter sets in. Slava Ukraine. The general inflation seen in the world is in my view because of monetary policy bedwetting two years ago during covid. The energy and supply chain issues in China are a one time hit. The fed will soon realise that if they raise much further, they will risk needlessly turning a recession into a depression.
Despite the time I spend here, I’m not a bettor. But if I were, I would say Tory majority is underpriced right now. We’re almost at the nadir and by spring 2024 we could be seeing fast catch-up growth and an election under newly beneficial boundaries for the govt.
The battles in Ukraine have a long way to go, and at yesterday's conference a Ukrainian definition of victory was made: Russia leaves all of Ukraine, pays reparations and war crimes trials take place.
I cannot see sanctions being dropped until a new Russian government agrees all of that. It won't all be over by Christmas.
I think that’s probably right, but a palace coup, which would be quick if it happened, could be the one thing that might mean it’s all over by Christmas.
Putin being deposed is now quite possible, if the defeats contine at the current rate. Will the new regime be very different in tone? Even after the Tsar was deposed the Mensheviks continued the war for another 6 months.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
All that is true.
What percentage of the population budget by what they have spent last year or tended to spend on average vs what percentage of the population budget by what they might have spent if a hypothetical scenario played out based on energy prices fluctuating 10-20% a day at times?
Most people will think they are £1,000 worse off. A government policy relying on JRM to tell those people they are £1,000 better off is brave.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
And also ~£1000 worse off than they would have been without the energy crisis.
Was the energy crisis ultimately caused by the Tory Govt? No, but governments get blamed (or praised) for what happens on their watch, whether or not they are responsible.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Yes, in a sale your biggest saving is always if you don't buy it at all! 👍
In May, Rishi Sunak announced a "temporary, targeted energy-profits levy". The good people at Bloomberg tweeted a video clip of the then-Chancellor's announcement. https://twitter.com/i/status/1529788086976233474
Indeed - it is already being used within the 37 billion package and let us not forget Starmer would cancel the £400 grant to be paid over 6 months from October
The Labour plan was a very simple one - no-one will pay more than they are paying now. And that will be funded by a windfall tax. This is all voters are going to hear. That's the politics of it.
It is until it is called out as a lie
What is that about lying in politics?
It will be called out as a lie by the government, of course it will be. But that is not the same as it either being a lie or being accepted as a lie.
If you are relying on detailed dissections of Labour policy instead of government policy, I think you are going to be disappointed.
It is clearly misleading and in truth Truss will implement her policy and as inflation falls over the coming months and the effects of lower taxes are felt then I expect the conservatives may recover some of their polling but we are 2 years away from a GE with all kind of events intervening it is anyones guess who leads the country then
Even with Truss’s plan, energy prices will be higher than they were and inflation will be higher than it was. I suspect the Tories will get the blame for that, more than they’ll get praise for energy prices not being as high as they otherwise would’ve been or inflation not being as high as it otherwise would’ve been.
This debate will be turned on its head if Putin's war ends in his denouement and it seems it may not be an unrealistic dream
If Putin was deposed tomorrow (which would be lovely), energy bills will still have been higher and some inflation would still be baked in. And the party in Government would still get blamed for that.
There is, to use that word again, hysteresis in the system. If things get worse and then get better again by returning to the starting point, the Government are still going to get blamed.
There’s a no longer implausible scenario of European gas and power prices collapsing before winter sets in. Slava Ukraine. The general inflation seen in the world is in my view because of monetary policy bedwetting two years ago during covid. The energy and supply chain issues in China are a one time hit. The fed will soon realise that if they raise much further, they will risk needlessly turning a recession into a depression.
Despite the time I spend here, I’m not a bettor. But if I were, I would say Tory majority is underpriced right now. We’re almost at the nadir and by spring 2024 we could be seeing fast catch-up growth and an election under newly beneficial boundaries for the govt.
The battles in Ukraine have a long way to go, and at yesterday's conference a Ukrainian definition of victory was made: Russia leaves all of Ukraine, pays reparations and war crimes trials take place.
I cannot see sanctions being dropped until a new Russian government agrees all of that. It won't all be over by Christmas.
I think that’s probably right, but a palace coup, which would be quick if it happened, could be the one thing that might mean it’s all over by Christmas.
Putin being deposed is now quite possible, if the defeats contine at the current rate. Will the new regime be very different in tone? Even after the Tsar was deposed the Mensheviks continued the war for another 6 months.
It probably wouldn’t be that different, but for sure they’d be looking how to extricate themselves from Ukraine, while they have the opportunity to blame it all on Putin.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Your wife sounds eerily similar to mine!
"I'm going to buy this at some point, so let's save the money"
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
It depends. If you budget for things, such as energy or council tax, or even the weekly shop, and then find it is not as heavy as originally planned, then that's a saving. It then frees up capacity for other things.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
And also ~£1000 worse off than they would have been without the energy crisis.
Was the energy crisis ultimately caused by the Tory Govt? No, but governments get blamed (or praised) for what happens on their watch, whether or not they are responsible.
More than that. £1,000 worse off on utility bills, but that is only part of the recent increases in the cost of living. The tightening of personal finances will be the most severe since the GFC or worse.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
"We're all in this together", as George Osborne put it.
That Truss et al are choosing not to see this is a pretty morbid sign.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
except that on average the same UK taxpayer will also be £1000 worse off because the government have borrowed on their behalf to pay the gas bill. Imagine the outrage if the government had just said to people - oh just borrow the money to pay your winter gas bill- Somehow because the borrowing is done through the government for the same people its the best thing ever
Yes that is true, they are just moving money around. Governments do that all the time. In this case they are shifting the cost into the future. It will still help people to keep warm this winter. That doesn't mean it is the right, or best, thing to do, obviously.
Talking of borrowing, I'm wondering what will happen to consumer credit. Barclaycard keep offering me cash at an interest rate of, effectively, 2.9%. With inflation at 10% it looks like a good deal. Buy now and save 7% compared with saving up.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
So you're happy with less investment in our own oil and gas extraction, less profit from the sector and more of our money being spent importing oil and gas from Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
Just go and look at how many boe of production bp and Shell get from the North Sea (hint: not much). As I’ve said before, most of their profits this year and last have been from global trading platforms. They are hedge funds with an O&G business bolted on the side. It’s difficult to determine this from public accounts and statements so you will have to just trust me on that. But I am not wrong.
Then go and look up the bond yields of North Sea independents like Ithaca. And tell me how you think these companies will finance new drilling, when banks are shutting oil and gas loan desks and equity valuations puked the day after Sunak’s windfall tax.
You might say you don’t care if they drill or not. In which case you are a total thicko. Because the oil and gas will be produced somewhere anyway. The only difference is whether its production is a net positive to the UK Exchequer or a net drain, as it will be this winter to the tune of billions of dollars.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
So you're happy with less investment in our own oil and gas extraction, less profit from the sector and more of our money being spent importing oil and gas from Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
I am happy with a higher share of their investment going to green energy, yes.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
So (4) then, the ones listed in London.
What do you think happens next…?
From BBC:
"BP and Shell both received more money back from the UK government than they paid every year from 2015 to 2020 (except 2017, when Shell paid more than it received). Shell also paid a negative amount of tax in 2021 - BP has yet to publish its figures for last year."
If they do leave their UK listing, and they really won't over a couple of billion, it doesn't sound like any big loss for the exchequer who keep having to write them cheques every year, does it?
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
Well you are, if she was planning to spend £150, or buy that item at full price. As it is hard not to spend money on energy (although you can obviously try to spend less) I think it's a reasonable statement to make. As long as people use as much energy as they were planning, they will be £1,000 better off than otherwise.
And also ~£1000 worse off than they would have been without the energy crisis.
Was the energy crisis ultimately caused by the Tory Govt? No, but governments get blamed (or praised) for what happens on their watch, whether or not they are responsible.
There is plenty of blame that can already be assigned to them, but that process will get much worse. Their stated policy is an end to green energy and instead lets frack our way to security.
There are three basic problems: 1. Green energy is the solution long term. Our actions now put us further behind the curve and reliant on imported tech in the future 2. Nobody wants fracking. Sticking scores of well heads across Tory constituencies will only send voters to Labour/LibDems 3. Fracking is a ponzi scheme. Cuadrilla took an awful lot of investor money and produced a thimblefull of gas with it. "It works in the US isn't the same as "so it will work in the UK" as any geologist is telling you.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
No, it (the cap) is a saving, because it is something you were going to buy anyway, not an optional purchase.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Speaking as an ignoramus, I've a suspicion that Putin is mainly concerned with keeping his electorate on-side. Hence the need for a special military operation rather than a patriotic invasion of a country which used to be part of the USSR.
Perhaps keeping control needs more troops than he can manage without a full scale mobilisation which will certainly be noticed. If he believed the optimistic forecasts from his underlings, he probably deserves his problems. He relied on past form from the West too, standing by, but only watching it unfold. With useful idiots like Corbyn to rely on.
He may still keep 'buggering on' and hope for the best.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
they have just had a windfall tax imposed havent they - Have I dreamt this ? It seems the political class and media have forgotten that a windfall tax was imposed on them the other month or so ago
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
they have just had a windfall tax imposed havent they - Have I dreamt this ? It seems the political class and media have forgotten that a windfall tax was imposed on them the other month or so ago
And since then, they have made further excess profits significantly beyond expectations at the time of said windfall tax.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
So a turnover of a mere figurehead is going to justify stopping for another two weeks when the Tory Governments and Party have put everything on hold for months? In a major crisis which itsdelf makes it impossible to step back and think as you hope?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Truss's best bet of winning another five years is to engineer a boom and go to the country before it goes pearshaped. Whether that win would be worth winning is another matter.
The other question is whether, in a world of hypersensitive, fast-reacting financial markets, there will be a window of opportunity between the party and the hangover.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
I know. The point I’m making is that CEOs personality and values have a big influence, it’s not just their decisions and direct power that shapes the tone of an organisation.
If a leader is known for being frugal, everyone will start being frugal. You don’t have to be absolute monarch to have a similar influence on tone. If the monarch clearly values X, then people will also value X. It’s subtle.
Since an even higher percentage agree with Liz Truss's cap policy, you could easily have retitled this piece "Truss is in tune with the public".
That would have been nonsense too. I hope the editorials on this site don't try and push a party line over the next 2+ years.
We're better than that.
Look at the supplementaries and your proposed headline wouldn't work but the wider point is that Truss and her government are unlikely to get any credit for averting a disaster especially as energy bills are going to be higher even after her proposals.
How many people have any idea of what the government actually proposed, given that nothing about it has been discussed anywhere thanks to subsequent events?
Dare I suggest that polling companies all take a week or two off, because pretty much everything they’re polling now is likely to be rubbish.
As I've said before, I think people have stopped panicking about energy, feeling the issue has been kept within bounds, but they're still very worried about the cost of living more generally. On the whole, the interruption in normal politics has been unhelpful to Truss - the media won't go back to discussing the energy package in detail in two weeks' time.
Pollsters definitely should continue to track what people think so we can see how events are shaping the mood. They're mirrors, not predictions.
However in two weeks time after the Queen's funeral and once the Special Financial Statement has appeared, the public's focus will once again be very much focused on energy bills and cost of living and we will see the public's assessment as to whether the government's proposals are any good.
They're fixing energy bills at double the level they were last year. With us footing the bill. OK so bills haven't soared of into the stratosphere. But they remain utterly unpayable for so many people.
Worse will be the government's tone. They have appointed JRM as energy minister. Who is against all of the ling term solutions and wants gas companies to drill in your back garden and under your park. Whilst sneering at any struggles you may be having to pay the doubled bills.
He remains the biggest own goal Truss could have made. His sneering, ignorant attitude and entitled smugness, initially played for laughs, will play very badly and he's now going to be the prominent face of the government. As Truss is not a dynamic personality dont be surprised if he comes to symbolise her government to most people.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
It is good to hear from someone who has the knowledge of the effect of windfall taxes
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
And BP has had to dispose of its Rosneft holding this year which has cost it at least £10bn
Labour will go ahead with its autumn conference later this month, as officials, advisers and politicians from all parties attempt to balance paying their respects to the Queen with avoiding a period of political paralysis
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
It is not just those two, the likes of Facebook and Google play around with taxes as well, to pay zero or minimal taxes in countries they make significant profits on. I absolutely think HMRC should be more innovative in finding tax structures that reflect the realities of international mega corps and make them pay their fair share of UK govt spending.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you do not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Speaking as an ignoramus, I've a suspicion that Putin is mainly concerned with keeping his electorate on-side. Hence the need for a special military operation rather than a patriotic invasion of a country which used to be part of the USSR.
Perhaps keeping control needs more troops than he can manage without a full scale mobilisation which will certainly be noticed. If he believed the optimistic forecasts from his underlings, he probably deserves his problems. He relied on past form from the West too, standing by, but only watching it unfold. With useful idiots like Corbyn to rely on.
He may still keep 'buggering on' and hope for the best.
I don't think he can do anything else.
According to some plausible analysis, Russia couldn't mobilise effectively - even if all pretence were to be abandoned and war openly begun - because the state lacks the resources to house, clothe, feed, pay, train and arm hundreds of thousands of raw recruits. Who, having been press-ganged (volunteers for the Ukrainian exercise being very thin on the ground,) would be as likely to turn their weapons on Putin himself as on Zelenskyy in any event.
This war is no longer about whether Ukraine can hold on and force a stalemate. It's about whether Russia can hold on and force a stalemate. The Russians are relying on Winter to come to their rescue yet again, but whether their low quality, low morale, tired, battered army can use that period to heal or will simply deteriorate further, who knows?
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
No, it was a ship, currently moored in Dubai as a building.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
It's a polling question that reflects voter perceptions. This is the problem the Tories have.
But it’s totally disengenuous, Starmer couldn’t possibly propose this solution if he were in government, because it’s simply not possible.
Organisations such as the media and polling companies need to be calling out bulls… like this, but instead they pretend it’s simply a political argument rather than an impossible untruth.
Truss needs to come right out on a bbc sofa and say “I believe the truth is important in politics. That is after all the very reason why I have found myself in this job. And the LOTO is simply not telling the truth when he pretends there’s a way to solve this problem by taxing businesses. His calculations are a fantasy. Tax on profits for oil and gas producers are 65%. Even if we raised them to 100%, which would obviously be self defeating and impossible, then at current profit rates we might raise £20bn. How much do you expect we might raise the year after if we did that?
Keir Starmer is a pleasant individual and there’s common ground between us. But he’s been totally led astray here by his researchers and does not appear to know how to dig himself out of this hole other than to keep repeating mistruths.”
Boom. Mike wins his bet.
The problem with that strategy is that it would mean Truss would then have to tell the truth. That would blow her approach to Brexit out of the water, for starters.
"Truth" is always going to be a tricky one for this government with that great big Red Bus hanging over their heads
You know complaining about a bus defeating them never goes down well. I'd point to more recent stuff.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
I know. The point I’m making is that CEOs personality and values have a big influence, it’s not just their decisions and direct decision making that shapes the tone of an organisation.
If a leader is known for being frugal, everyone will start being frugal. You don’t have to be absolute monarch to have a similar influence on tone. If the monarch clearly values X, then people will also value X. It’s subtle.
I’m convinced HM had a big influence.
Hmm, you have an, erm, optimistic view of UK society. I think instantly of the antiquated honours system, wit which she was very strongly linked. But that is, on reflection, perhaps a discussion for another day as it would upset some of us even more than they are evidently upset already. I will go and do somethign else.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
The large extractives incur huge losses in the UK. They spend billions on central overheads, exploration and project costs which they struggle to charge out to their foreign operations many of which are JVs.
That’s not smart accountants, it’s the highly inefficient situation you get when a company is listed and headquartered in one country but has most of its profitable operations elsewhere.
"From 1st October, a new ‘Energy Price Guarantee’ will mean a typical UK household will now pay up to an average £2,500 a year on their energy bill for the next two years. This is automatic and applies to all households.
This will save the average household at least £1,000 a year based on current energy prices from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households."
Telling people they will save at least £1,000 a year is very, very, misleading. Am sure The Advertising Standards Authority would rule it out of order. More importantly is likely to seriously piss people off when they get their bills this winter.
GOV.UK statements do not fall under the ASA’s remit. But I presume it comes under the Office for Statistics Regulation?
It’s a reduction of £1,000, from the already-announced OFGEM cap on October 1st.
Yes, but it's not a 'saving' as the government statement claims, is it?
It's reminiscent to me of my other half. She buys an item of clothing for £50 in a sale, full price was £150, and she is completely convinced that we are £100 better off than would otherwise have been the case.
No, it (the cap) is a saving, because it is something you were going to buy anyway, not an optional purchase.
It is a saving over a notional cost you hadn't paid. It is a cost over the half that price you paid last year. Nobody will be thanking the government for *only* doubling their energy costs. And with the kind of sneering the Truss ministers will be doing on the subject when said thanks do not arrive, it will only wind the public up more about this "saving".
Energy is absolutely an optional purchase. Hence people finding ways to use less of it by not heating or eating.
BP and Shell is a portion of nearly everyones pension fund savings (except those who have been in far more generous public sector pension schemes ) - I wonder what the polling would be on extra windfall taxes if it was phrased - shoudl we tax your private pension pot now to slightly fund the gas price subsidy? What would be the reaction if public sector workers were told their pension rights will be arbitrarily reduced to pay for the gas subsidy?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
Shell and BP, BP especially, have suffered huge losses by writing off all their assets in Russia because of sanctions. Something else we should ignore?
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
No, it was a ship, currently moored in Dubai as a building.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
I thought we weren’t doing British politics until the funeral.
Glad to see Starmer recognised. The Tories have been playing catch up since day one. Their argument that you can’t tax all of it so don’t tax any of it is daft. They are still behind the curve.
I can't speak for others but I'm not.
I'm not at all interested in Labour, Conservative, SNP or Liberal Democrats right now. That can wait.
This is about the whole country, focusing on understanding and processing what's just happened, what that means for us going forwards, and who we are, and stabilising our sense of ourselves, before we turn to debating who has the best policy solutions.
My reflection is how HM personal values and personality influenced the values and personality of the nation.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
We do not live in an absolute monarchy. QE2 was not a CEO.
No, it was a ship, currently moored in Dubai as a building.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
Yes you can. America does. Again, this is about practical political reality. There will be a windfall tax.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
Shell and BP, BP especially, have suffered huge losses by writing off all their assets in Russia because of sanctions. Something else we should ignore?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Good thing we tax dividends at income tax rates, in that case.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
Shell and BP, BP especially, have suffered huge losses by writing off all their assets in Russia because of sanctions. Something else we should ignore?
They are over hedged the other way. They have made several tens of billions more because of Putins crazy war than they have lost.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Politically, I think Truss is on a loser in this argument (and Moonshine too). But leaving party politics aside for a moment, isn't the position different from, say, the semiconductor industry, where semiconductors not manufactured in 2022 are never going to magically reappear later? The gas reserves are sitting under the North Sea and have been there basically forever. At some point, we will want to extract them. Is it not perfectly viable to take profits in a time of financial emergency and accept that this will discourage investment so that there will be a price in, say, 2026-28? If all the companies push off, then there will be a case for a national extraction company doing the job in, say, 2029, or simply lowering the windfall tax in a couple of years to bring investment back in. The gas isn't going anywhere.
By contrast, simply subsidising drilling company profits so they keep drilling now prioritises 2025-27 over 2023 and 2029, doesn't it?
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, so I'm just enquiring as an interested layman.
Getting increasingly irritated by @Big_G_NorthWales and his repetitive “..and Starmer would cancel the £400 support”…. Of course he doesn’t add… “… whilst the Conservatives will give you a £400 handout whilst putting up your bills by £500…”
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Not getting sucked back into the debate on the cost of the cost of living, apart from to observe that it's complex debate that intertwines practical and moral considerations. There are fundamental disagreements on both.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
I can see it and I am not naïve enough to think it is not an issue
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
1. Harper did no such thing. This government have zero political capital calling out lies from others. Zero. And if they try to do so they will be laughed down the polls - don't you see this? They are congenital liars. They can't catch anyone out. 2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember. 3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work. 4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie. 5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
'Harper did no such thing'.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
Harper did no such thing. Has Harper struck a decisive blow to the concept of a windfall tax? Has he shamed Labour into dropping this terrible policy, or seen a significant shift in public opinion?
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
At times you just seem to bluster and exaggerate and frankly it is not a reasoned debate
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
It is good to hear from someone who has the knowledge of the effect of windfall taxes
I kind of wish it wasn't so personal
I have no love for O&G companies. The sooner we don't have to rely on them anymore for our energy supplies the better. But I can see the real time effects of ill considered actions by Governments on companies which have absolutely no reason to invest in the UK and lots of other countries where they will get a much better return.
Nick P made the claim the other day that these companies deciding to defer investment in the UK doesn't matter as the oil and gas will still be there for use later on. Of course it doesn't work this way. Much of the drilling currently being done and now being cancelled is near field development to maintain existing production. When they stop doing that the fields come off plateau and start to wind down towards CoP. Once you get to the point where the field is no longer economic even though there is lots of oil and gas still there, it is abandoned and the infrastructure removed. Suddenly your costs involving new development go from tens of millions to hundreds of millions and it is not worth doing.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
You know who else makes a lot of profit but pays no uk tax? Saudi Aramco. If only you were in charge, we could get rid of our budget deficit in one swoop by just taxing all these foreign domiciled companies that make profits.
If I was in charge I would ask HMRC for plans to get mega corps paying a fair share of the UK tax base given their UK activities. Afaik Saudi Aramco do little to nothing here so would be asked to pay little to nothing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Excellent news. Anything that helps to keep it in the ground gets my vote. The underlying cause of the energy crisis has been insufficient urgency in the development of renewables, and anything that helps push progress on that front is a good thing. Hydrocarbons should be exploited only when necessary, not squandered as they have been on providing unsustainably cheap energy thus hindering the development of clean alternatives.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
The large extractives incur huge losses in the UK. They spend billions on central overheads, exploration and project costs which they struggle to charge out to their foreign operations many of which are JVs.
That’s not smart accountants, it’s the highly inefficient situation you get when a company is listed and headquartered in one country but has most of its profitable operations elsewhere.
Yes, but they HQ and book central costs that way in order to deduct them against tax, and pay as little as they can across their operating jurisdictions.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
There are two separate discussions here.
Firstly there is a practical one - what do we do about the energy crisis? How do we get through this winter with as little damage as possible, and how do we make sure we avoid similar difficulties next winter? It's important that the government takes action that addresses these practical points.
Then there is a political one - who gets the blame for a difficult winter? Can the government bring the public with it? Will the opposition be able to pin the blame for a hard winter onto the government?
I see a lot of people today completely ignoring the existence of the second discussion. It's exactly the same thing as happened with the £350m sent to the EU. If the government were to go on about all the practical difficulties in Labour's stated windfall tax policy, they only draw more attention to Labour's policy of making energy companies shoulder their share of the burden of getting through a difficult winter. Politically it really doesn't help the government at all.
Getting increasingly irritated by @Big_G_NorthWales and his repetitive “..and Starmer would cancel the £400 support”…. Of course he doesn’t add… “… whilst the Conservatives will give you a £400 handout whilst putting up your bills by £500…”
Starmer would cancel the rise by cancelling the 14 billion the £400 is costing, so apart from 8 billion in windfall tax (which has already been taken ) how would he find the 29 billion for his scheme ?
Companies are like the taxpayers alliance and other lobby groups - they say the exact same thing to every situation regarding tax, so their own claims about any situation are completely meaningless.
I have no love for O&G companies. The sooner we don't have to rely on them anymore for our energy supplies the better. But I can see the real time effects of ill considered actions by Governments on companies which have absolutely no reason to invest in the UK and lots of other countries where they will get a much better return.
Nick P made the claim the other day that these companies deciding to defer investment in the UK doesn't matter as the oil and gas will still be there for use later on. Of course it doesn't work this way. Much of the drilling currently being done and now being cancelled is near field development to maintain existing production. When they stop doing that the fields come off plateau and start to wind down towards CoP. Once you get to the point where the field is no longer economic even though there is lots of oil and gas still there, it is abandoned and the infrastructure removed. Suddenly your costs involving new development go from tens of millions to hundreds of millions and it is not worth doing.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
Shell makes 92% of its profits outside of the UK. Much of it in conjunction with local national oil companies like ADNOC in Abu Dhabi. Good luck with the economic and political fallout from that one.
Lets turn the question around. How much should HMRC keep paying Shell and BP each year so that they retain a London listing?
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0 Tax reliefs = £400m Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
Shell and BP are international companies provided world wide profits hence the dividend
Again you ad not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
Do you believe they made zero profit from the UK or do you think their accountants arranged the structures in a complex way to enable them to pay £0?
I understand they made 40 billion which is taxed at 65% and a windfall tax has been applied to this years profits by Sunak
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
My understanding, and I am open to correction, is that BP and Shell, along with the other Oil majors, sold most of their mature production in the North Sea to leaner companies who could still make a turn on sweating those assets. This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
Exactly. It would be interesting to see the polling on what share of these profits the public think that they pay in taxes already. I would be fairly confident that it would be less than half of the actual figure.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
The figures quoted above show that Shell and BP have had a negative contribution in tax terms. The headline rate is irrelevant when they have such accountants.
Shell and BP, BP especially, have suffered huge losses by writing off all their assets in Russia because of sanctions. Something else we should ignore?
I didn't say we should ignore it, just pointed out the difference between the headline marginal rate, which is rarely paid, and the true effective rate.
I am sure that both you and I make maximum use of professional expenses deductions too.
BP and Shell is a portion of nearly everyones pension fund savings (except those who have been in far more generous public sector pension schemes ) - I wonder what the polling would be on extra windfall taxes if it was phrased - shoudl we tax your private pension pot now to slightly fund the gas price subsidy? What would be the reaction if public sector workers were told their pension rights will be arbitrarily reduced to pay for the gas subsidy?
That's fine, except that not everyone has pension assets...
Ultimately, the money transfers go from consumers of energy to investors in firms "making" energy. Everything else is damping.
If we want to soften the immediate blow (and we need to) the money for this comes from present us or future us, or some subset thereof. And future us is a bit cheeky, since it includes those who won't benefit. (Actual Thatcher understood this.)
There's no painless way of doing this, which is a problem for whichever party is left hiding the baby. The government still has a duty to get it as right as they can, and they arguably haven't.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
Exactly which companies would be paying this “Windfall Tax”?
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London? 6.
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
Shell and BP would be the obvious big targets.
No. No. No!! 80% of bp’s profit is from its global trading business. Robert is wrong and I am right in this. A hedge fund bolted onto the side of an oil and gas company. These profits are not earned by fleecing uk households but by taking market risk, credit risk, basis risk, performance risk, freight risk. They are no different to Vitol. The key difference is bp and Shell have massively scaled back hydrocarbon investment in favour of net zero projects. They are using the profits from their embedded hedge funds to pay for it.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
Yes you can. America does. Again, this is about practical political reality. There will be a windfall tax.
Jeez, not this one again. Terrible poling question, based on political talking points with no context.
The companies making money are Saudi Aramco and Qatargas - how does the UK government tax them?
Taxes on UK domestic extraction are currently 69%, by how much should these rise?
A question to which Starmer had no answer and just blustered in Parliament.
Good morning
Starmer was caught out by Mark Harper in the HOC and his reaction showed he did not understand the difference between global profits (170 billion) and UK profits of 40 billion currently taxed at 65%
I expect the COE in his emergency budget will call out Starmer and others on this misconception
There is a serious, really serious political problem for the Tories. Why you don't get this is puzzling. It may well be the case that the domestic energy companies aren't going to make intergalactic profits. Just vast ones. The public will not understand the nuanced differences, but they WILL understand the sneering arrogance of this government defending the profits of these companies over the taxpayer.
Why can't you see this? Truss is wrong here on a galactic scale, and having backed the oil companies over individuals the political tax will be crippling.
For me I am fully aware a windfall tax won't raise a significant proportion of the energy handouts the government is giving. The principle of everyone, including businesses, doing their bit in a crisis is an important one however, so even if it raises another £5bn out of £200bn I think it very much worthwhile.
So without necessarily disagreeing with you, how much above 65% do you think the tax rate should be on energy companies?
I don't work for HMRC so would leave it up to them to come up with some suggestions that could raise more. Off feel I would start by reducing the 91% investment rebate or perhaps change it to only apply to green investment with a much lower rate for fossil fuel investment.
A number of companies (including the one I am currently drilling wells for) have already decided to abandon a whole series of UK development campaigns on the back of the Windfall tax in spite of the investment rebate. If you want to drive the rest out then all you do is accelerate the end of the North Sea and make yourself more reliant on imported O&G. Not exactly the best way to deal with an energy crisis.
Politically, I think Truss is on a loser in this argument (and Moonshine too). But leaving party politics aside for a moment, isn't the position different from, say, the semiconductor industry, where semiconductors not manufactured in 2022 are never going to magically reappear later? The gas reserves are sitting under the North Sea and have been there basically forever. At some point, we will want to extract them. Is it not perfectly viable to take profits in a time of financial emergency and accept that this will discourage investment so that there will be a price in, say, 2026-28? If all the companies push off, then there will be a case for a national extraction company doing the job in, say, 2029, or simply lowering the windfall tax in a couple of years to bring investment back in. The gas isn't going anywhere.
By contrast, simply subsidising drilling company profits so they keep drilling now prioritises 2025-27 over 2023 and 2029, doesn't it?
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, so I'm just enquiring as an interested layman.
Morning Nick,
apologies I just answered this very point in a posting before I saw your latest comment.
No. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Many of the existing fields are economic because we already have the infrastructure and wells in place. Once you stop investment they quickly become uneconomic because you need new wells drilled and connected to the existing infrastructure to maintain production. Once production falls below a certain level it is no longer economic to continue to produce. The infrastructure gets removed (as is currently happening on many O&G fields in the North Sea) and effectively that oil and gas is lost permanently for UK production.
As an example, to drill a well in the central North Sea costs around £30 - £50 million. West of Shetland probably £80 - £100 million. To create the infrastructure to support those wells costs £1-2 billion. Drilling extra wells off existing infrastructure is economic. Starting from scratch on fields that are already mature is not.
The Windfall tax is a distraction. There is a massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Yes, this policy will enormously increase the deficit again. Increasing it further with tax cuts at this point seems crazy, frankly. But we do need some growth. There are tough calls ahead.
Cut spending, the state has become too bloated and does too much. Make oldies pay more tax as well.
We definitely need to cut spending but again, where does the growth come from?
Comments
However, at the same time it is only correct to call out the misrepresentation by Starmer and to be fair this was done in the HOC by Mark Harper and caught him on the hop
I expect the COE will go into more detail in his emergency budget on the 21st September but yes, maybe honesty is poor politics, and after all that was the problem with Johnson, he was not honest
And a somewhat late good morning to one and all!
What percentage of the population budget by what they have spent last year or tended to spend on average vs what percentage of the population budget by what they might have spent if a hypothetical scenario played out based on energy prices fluctuating 10-20% a day at times?
Most people will think they are £1,000 worse off. A government policy relying on JRM to tell those people they are £1,000 better off is brave.
Was the energy crisis ultimately caused by the Tory Govt? No, but governments get blamed (or praised) for what happens on their watch, whether or not they are responsible.
"I'm going to buy this at some point, so let's save the money"
1. Obviously not Saudi Aramco or Qatargas, where the vast majority of the profits are being made.
2. The UK fossil fuel extractors, who have made massive losses during the pandemic?
3. The UK renewables companies, who can charge high marginal rates because the gas price is high?
4. The company who bills domestic users, many of whom are making no profits?
5. “Energy” or “O&G” companies listed in London?
(By the way, the government has already dealt with (3) above, by negotiating much lower prices with them)
And that is only one of several problems coming.
That Truss et al are choosing not to see this is a pretty morbid sign.
Talking of borrowing, I'm wondering what will happen to consumer credit. Barclaycard keep offering me cash at an interest rate of, effectively, 2.9%. With inflation at 10% it looks like a good deal. Buy now and save 7% compared with saving up.
2. It is politically impossible not to tax the oil companies. Liz the Liar can't be trusted to tell us what time of day it is, so like the previous government we know they are lying because they are speaking. "No bailouts" remember.
3. Which will be yet another whopping lie. They can't call Starmer or anyone else out. On anything. Even the proposed go on the media and say "Starmer is lying to you" idea wouldn't work.
4. If we are to start debating political choices rather than boosterism bullshit, there are some hard realities the Tories have to accept. That nobody believes a word they say is a biggie. That they have not solved the energy bills crisis is another biggie. That the energy companies will have to help pay for it is another biggie.
5. But he one that blows my mind is the sneering tone that accompanies it all. And the public are showing with increasing severity in these polls hat they won't put up with being told black is white any longer. Why Truss and her liars don't get this I don't know, but she has appointed JRM as energy minister. Which is about as big a fuck you as is possible to perform.
And yet you still provide them succour. Why is that?
Then go and look up the bond yields of North Sea independents like Ithaca. And tell me how you think these companies will finance new drilling, when banks are shutting oil and gas loan desks and equity valuations puked the day after Sunak’s windfall tax.
You might say you don’t care if they drill or not. In which case you are a total thicko. Because the oil and gas will be produced somewhere anyway. The only difference is whether its production is a net positive to the UK Exchequer or a net drain, as it will be this winter to the tune of billions of dollars.
What do you think happens next…?
"BP and Shell both received more money back from the UK government than they paid every year from 2015 to 2020 (except 2017, when Shell paid more than it received). Shell also paid a negative amount of tax in 2021 - BP has yet to publish its figures for last year."
If they do leave their UK listing, and they really won't over a couple of billion, it doesn't sound like any big loss for the exchequer who keep having to write them cheques every year, does it?
There are three basic problems:
1. Green energy is the solution long term. Our actions now put us further behind the curve and reliant on imported tech in the future
2. Nobody wants fracking. Sticking scores of well heads across Tory constituencies will only send voters to Labour/LibDems
3. Fracking is a ponzi scheme. Cuadrilla took an awful lot of investor money and produced a thimblefull of gas with it. "It works in the US isn't the same as "so it will work in the UK" as any geologist is telling you.
massive hole in public finances that it will never fill, so it gets added to the deficit.
Then another slice of deficit to pay for the cut in NI.
Another slice of deficit to pay for the Corporation tax cut.
Interest rates will go up (they need to do so), adding further deficit.
This isn't Thatcherism, it is a Barber Boom, only without much boom.
Perhaps keeping control needs more troops than he can manage without a full scale mobilisation which will certainly be noticed. If he believed the optimistic forecasts from his underlings, he probably deserves his problems. He relied on past form from the West too, standing by, but only watching it unfold. With useful idiots like Corbyn to rely on.
He may still keep 'buggering on' and hope for the best.
I’ve worked in many companies that have changed CEO. In each case the tone of the company changed. Sometimes for the better, often for the worse.
My observation is that HM might have determined what the British value as a nation. That notion where we blend left and right, tradition and progress, value tolerance, wit and kindness might have come more from her than we were prepared to admit. We were not necessarily known for these things before Elizabeth. She made change possible. A more conservative monarch might have pushed back on things like gay marriage.
The curious question, if this notion is true, is how will things change. HM Charles and the prince of Wales seem to be decent, to share values and a similar outlook on service and tolerance. They appear perhaps a little more earnest and active. Perhaps we will see Britain change similarly. A slight emphasis to a more active and more earnest future.
I think we are pretty lucky.
And we need investment in our energy sector. We absolutely do not need to tax it out of existence. At the moment the sector contribution will be in the order of £100bn on these "excess" profits. This polling is based on ignorance and the fundamental principle that somebody else pays.
As a matter of interest did you listen to Starmers response and Harpers intervention and if not you should read Hansard and see exactly what he said
The government has applied a windfall tax and that is included in the 37 billion already in the pipeline including the £400 grant in October Starmer would cancel
Johnson is gone, and Truss is making an excellent start so far and ultimately we are talking of maybe 5 billion extra windfall tax out of 150 billion, good politics maybe, but inconsequential in the scheme of things
The other question is whether, in a world of hypersensitive, fast-reacting financial markets, there will be a window of opportunity between the party and the hangover.
2018-2020
UK corporation tax and production levy paid on north sea oil = £0
Tax reliefs = £400m
Shareholder dividends = £44,000,000,000
They can clearly afford to pay more tax and HMRC can find a better way to structure this.
You are smarter than this. You cannot tax overseas profits. And you cannot use an oil and gas windfall tax to tax profits of a firm who is generating its profits by other means.
Now you might be a bitter socialist and say no firm should be allowed to profit more than $xbn per year and that you want to graduate the corporation tax rate above a certain rate to 90%. But that’s going to have massive unintended consequences and is in any case counter to the govt’s goal of reducing corporation tax. If you want to devise a bespoke special tax to hit two specific firms because you have convinced yourself that is just, then your ideology is not one that I even know how to communicate with.
If a leader is known for being frugal, everyone will start being frugal. You don’t have to be absolute monarch to have a similar influence on tone. If the monarch clearly values X, then people will also value X. It’s subtle.
I’m convinced HM had a big influence.
That's a very bad thing for her.
Labour will go ahead with its autumn conference later this month, as officials, advisers and politicians from all parties attempt to balance paying their respects to the Queen with avoiding a period of political paralysis
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2022/sep/11/queen-funeral-cortege-balmoral-edinurgh-aberdeen-king-charles-proclamations-commonwealth-live?page=with:block-631d7c148f0804237ace6b03#block-631d7c148f0804237ace6b03
Again you do not seem to be able to distinguish between worldwide profits and UK profits
According to some plausible analysis, Russia couldn't mobilise effectively - even if all pretence were to be abandoned and war openly begun - because the state lacks the resources to house, clothe, feed, pay, train and arm hundreds of thousands of raw recruits. Who, having been press-ganged (volunteers for the Ukrainian exercise being very thin on the ground,) would be as likely to turn their weapons on Putin himself as on Zelenskyy in any event.
This war is no longer about whether Ukraine can hold on and force a stalemate. It's about whether Russia can hold on and force a stalemate. The Russians are relying on Winter to come to their rescue yet again, but whether their low quality, low morale, tired, battered army can use that period to heal or will simply deteriorate further, who knows?
That’s not smart accountants, it’s the highly inefficient situation you get when a company is listed and headquartered in one country but has most of its profitable operations elsewhere.
Energy is absolutely an optional purchase. Hence people finding ways to use less of it by not heating or eating.
If I am wrong I know those in the know will correct me but that is the problem with overplaying a windfall tax
No. There will be another windfall tax. Because there has to be politically. And when lying Liz does another uturn and send out her sheep to insist nothing has changed, the polls will shift further away from the Tories.
The public - quite understandably - don't believe a word they say.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/2022/09/10/mourners-visit-dubais-qe2-to-sign-book-of-condolences-after-queen-elizabeth-iis-death/
No UK corporation tax or production levy paid by either of them from 2018-2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177
In recent years, such methods have meant that BP and Shell, for example, have paid almost no tax in the UK.
By contrast, simply subsidising drilling company profits so they keep drilling now prioritises 2025-27 over 2023 and 2029, doesn't it?
I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, so I'm just enquiring as an interested layman.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-short-unhappy-life-of-elizabeth-windsor-queen-elizabeth-ii-obituary/
Good luck sorting that out.
Are you saying Harper did not challenge Starmer directly in the HOC?
I do agree with the politics, but you need to accept Harper did raise it and Starmer asked the COE directly from the dispatch box to clarify it
It is why I expect the COE will cover the issue in his emergency budget
I have no love for O&G companies. The sooner we don't have to rely on them anymore for our energy supplies the better. But I can see the real time effects of ill considered actions by Governments on companies which have absolutely no reason to invest in the UK and lots of other countries where they will get a much better return.
Nick P made the claim the other day that these companies deciding to defer investment in the UK doesn't matter as the oil and gas will still be there for use later on. Of course it doesn't work this way. Much of the drilling currently being done and now being cancelled is near field development to maintain existing production. When they stop doing that the fields come off plateau and start to wind down towards CoP. Once you get to the point where the field is no longer economic even though there is lots of oil and gas still there, it is abandoned and the infrastructure removed. Suddenly your costs involving new development go from tens of millions to hundreds of millions and it is not worth doing.
BP and Shell have significant operations here, presumably they are capable of at least occasionally running them at a profit, so I would expect some corporation tax receipts from them, yes.
Firstly there is a practical one - what do we do about the energy crisis? How do we get through this winter with as little damage as possible, and how do we make sure we avoid similar difficulties next winter? It's important that the government takes action that addresses these practical points.
Then there is a political one - who gets the blame for a difficult winter? Can the government bring the public with it? Will the opposition be able to pin the blame for a hard winter onto the government?
I see a lot of people today completely ignoring the existence of the second discussion. It's exactly the same thing as happened with the £350m sent to the EU. If the government were to go on about all the practical difficulties in Labour's stated windfall tax policy, they only draw more attention to Labour's policy of making energy companies shoulder their share of the burden of getting through a difficult winter. Politically it really doesn't help the government at all.
This leaness, and careful watching of costs, compared to the earlier largesse is what has turned Union street in Aberdeen into a pale shadow of its former self. If they were not paying tax because they weren't making any profit here that would be correct, wouldn't it?
I am sure that both you and I make maximum use of professional expenses deductions too.
Ultimately, the money transfers go from consumers of energy to investors in firms "making" energy. Everything else is damping.
If we want to soften the immediate blow (and we need to) the money for this comes from present us or future us, or some subset thereof. And future us is a bit cheeky, since it includes those who won't benefit. (Actual Thatcher understood this.)
There's no painless way of doing this, which is a problem for whichever party is left hiding the baby. The government still has a duty to get it as right as they can, and they arguably haven't.
That's why they all resigned on principle.
apologies I just answered this very point in a posting before I saw your latest comment.
No. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Many of the existing fields are economic because we already have the infrastructure and wells in place. Once you stop investment they quickly become uneconomic because you need new wells drilled and connected to the existing infrastructure to maintain production. Once production falls below a certain level it is no longer economic to continue to produce. The infrastructure gets removed (as is currently happening on many O&G fields in the North Sea) and effectively that oil and gas is lost permanently for UK production.
As an example, to drill a well in the central North Sea costs around £30 - £50 million. West of Shetland probably £80 - £100 million. To create the infrastructure to support those wells costs £1-2 billion. Drilling extra wells off existing infrastructure is economic. Starting from scratch on fields that are already mature is not.