All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
And the answer is no, they're not indefensible. If profits are made in Qatar and brought to the UK that is better than profits going to Qatar, is it not?
As a nation we would be far worse off if we drove away companies that make profits abroad and bring a slice of that home to boost our economy.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
Back to betting, I think there's around an 80% chance of the Republican nominee being either Trump or DeSantis. A narrowed field increases the chances for the latter.
“I would’ve told you last fall that there would be five senators in the race,” Ward Baker, a Republican strategist, told me, recalling a presentation he put together for lawmakers and donors projecting at least a double-digit sized group of contenders.
Now, Baker and other well-connected Republicans believe the ultimate field may be closer to seven or eight serious candidates with an even smaller number still standing by the time the first votes are cast in the kickoff states a year from now....
This bit is quite amusing.
...In the treasurer’s race, Florida GOP chair Joe Gruters was defeated in part because he had Trump’s backing — and trumpeted the endorsement to committee members.
Gruters’s allies texted committee members the day of the vote with a siren emoji, an all-caps headline: “PRES. TRUMP ENDORSES JOE GRUTERS FOR RNC TREASURER” and a message from Trump about his “Complete and Total Endorsement.”
However, Gruters told me it was only supposed to go to about 20 Trump diehards on the committee and instead went to the entire 168-member party roster. That, according to Fortuno and other Trump skeptics who want a neutral leadership slate, caused a backlash on the floor and doomed Gruters’ candidacy...
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
In simplest terms, even 10% of something is better than 50% of nothing.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
And exactly how are you going to tax those profits when they are made in other tax jurisdictions and pay tax in those countries? Shell produce around 100,000 boe in the UK each day compared to their daily global production of 3.7 million boe. That is around 2.5%.
The actual effect of the windfall tax has been to drive companies out of the North Sea as far as future investment is concerned. So reducing our energy security and reducing the tax take for the Government.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Most of that is from overseas and taxed there. In the UK they currently pay 75% on the profit from operations here.
To be blunt if they are ripping-off anyone it's mostly foreigners, and Shell pay a lot of that money made overseas to their shareholders here. The numbers are eye watering, but it is still probably a net good for the UK for Shell to be making money like this.
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Those with a mortgage however have to make higher mortgage repayments every time rates rise if not on a fixed rate
No shit Sherlock.
Though if there's a healthy dose of inflation then wages should be going up too, while the price of the property purchase was locked in years ago while wages were lower, so even then a higher percentage of a lower (in real terms) number while uncomfortable is not the end of the world.
Better than people seeing house prices being unaffordable, rent as a result shooting up in real terms further and further consistently while houses are out of reach and wages are stagnant as has happened since the early New Labour years onwards.
Speaking as someone who completed his house purchase in December, I really hope I bought at the very peak of the market and that sort of insane house price multiple is never seen again. I don't care if I "lose out" by seeing the value of my property fall in real terms, even if it leads to negative equity, I have my own home, there's millions of others who are struggling far more.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation, hence the strikes
They're going up by more than house prices. That's a good start.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The limit comes, I think in terms of profit/revenue. A profit of 10% of revenue does not indicate a company that is gonging the public or being uncompetitive.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
And the answer is no, they're not indefensible. If profits are made in Qatar and brought to the UK that is better than profits going to Qatar, is it not?
As a nation we would be far worse off if we drove away companies that make profits abroad and bring a slice of that home to boost our economy.
Bart we're back to a discussion we had some months ago - that makes sense if you are primarily concerned with UK prosperity. I am more interested in the global effects e.g. what is the impact on Qatar of the instance you refer to?
But I know we won't agree on this - I respect your position, which you have argued cogently in the past.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The realistic limit is how soon we can wean ourselves off burning oil and gas.
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Those with a mortgage however have to make higher mortgage repayments every time rates rise if not on a fixed rate
No shit Sherlock.
Though if there's a healthy dose of inflation then wages should be going up too, while the price of the property purchase was locked in years ago while wages were lower, so even then a higher percentage of a lower (in real terms) number while uncomfortable is not the end of the world.
Better than people seeing house prices being unaffordable, rent as a result shooting up in real terms further and further consistently while houses are out of reach and wages are stagnant as has happened since the early New Labour years onwards.
Speaking as someone who completed his house purchase in December, I really hope I bought at the very peak of the market and that sort of insane house price multiple is never seen again. I don't care if I "lose out" by seeing the value of my property fall in real terms, even if it leads to negative equity, I have my own home, there's millions of others who are struggling far more.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation, hence the strikes
They're going up by more than house prices. That's a good start.
I wouldn't be so sure there - round this neck of the woods the asking prices for first homes seem to be increasing.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell has a revenue of £300 billion. This is a much smaller profit ratio than Apple runs at.
Yes, very fair point, similar to noneoftheabove's about a housing association.
Rubbish. The British problem is a total lack of self-awareness. Not humble bragging.
Imagine if, for example, Fred Goodwin, Mark James, Simon Case, Amanda Spielman, Suella Braverman or Liz Truss could understand their own abilities and weaknesses properly, so they could get jobs on their intellectual and moral level. What a boon that would be to the nation.
Americans don't mind failure and over ambition, as long as you try again.
You are just reinforcing the article, accept your station in life and don't brag as the British stereotype.
To be fair to Goodwin he did turn RBS from a small Scottish Bank to the biggest in the world at one point before the Crash
He was the one who crashed it through over expansion.
Your second sentence is even more nonsensical than your usual standard, which is saying something. It's so stupid - and rude, contrary to your claims about yourself - it's not even worth the dignity of dismissing.
Like I say - self awareness is needed. Particularly among snobs who think they're brilliant because they went to the 'right' uni and got a degree despite being ignorant, and so rise effortlessly to the top where they sod everything up.
They need to learn they are rubbish, rather than say they are brilliant. Humble bragging isn't the problem in our society.
In your opinion virtually everybody is rubbish of course, apart from yourself!!
You say the same to me when you lose an argument and you always blame it on you being the only Tory here, even when the disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.
You are the classic of what @ydoethur describes. You have no self awareness whatsoever and can never accept you are ever wrong. You often for instance completely misunderstand posts and are unaware you have done so in particular when someone is being sarcastic or ironic.
I am certainly not going to concede to you and Ydoethur as you are amongst the rudest and most pompous posters on here, even Charles was never as self regarding as you 2 often are.
I did concede to Horse a point yesterday, as he is at least polite to me even if we differ politically
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
And the answer is no, they're not indefensible...
They are indefensible. It's just that from our point of view, they are also impregnable.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Indeed - they are doing the reverse of the "Citizens of nowhere" thing. They are bringing the money onshore.
Those disliking the fact that they are paying low amounts of tax should say which write-offs for tax they want to stop.
The BBC has got a lot better at reporting this and Miliband got into a bit of a pickle on R4 this morning demanding a “higher windfall tax” Higher than 75%? Others are higher! Yes, Norway and Nigeria at 78%….also demanding an end to North Sea Oil production - admitting we’d have to carry on importing….
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
This kind of thing has proved very useful in the US. For promoting corruption.
What you do is setup a company and appoint a person of the minority in question to "own" it. As part of the setup, the company in question actually does very little. It contracts all the work out to a network of other companies you own.
The minority owned company at the top makes nearly nothing at all. But, as an upside, a member of the minority in question gets to be called CEO.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
The profits are largely occurring in other countries. Should we make Shell send the money back?
We should have a windfall levy on the gains made by energy giants from the Russian war, as was inevitable last spring and the government eventually and correctly u-turned on despite all the claims from the right that it would never work or raise any money.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
Do they not get access or a fair crack at these contracts at the moment ?
Are there any obstacles to them participating in the procurement process.
From BBC: Bailey says it's not certain energy prices will fall - and even if they do, inflation being so high could still have an effect on other parts of life such as wages.
The "tightness of the labour market" reinforces this risk, he says.
The decision, therefore, to increase bank rates by 0.5% to 4% "reflects... uncertainties" in today's economy, Bailey adds.
For once I almost agree with him but he does not acknowledge that inflation will fall rapidly without falls in fuel prices as last year's increases fall out of the comparison. Doesn't make the job of the government in sorting out the slew of public sector strikes any easier though.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
The profits are largely occurring in other countries. Should we make Shell send the money back?
We should have a windfall levy on the gains made by energy giants from the Russian war, as was inevitable last spring and the government eventually and correctly u-turned on despite all the claims from the right that it would never work or raise any money.
Is 75% tax too low for you - what level would you like?
And the strapline: "Ihor Kolomoisky is credited with helping Volodymyr Zelensky to power, but the Ukrainian president denies being supported by the media tycoon". (Emphasis added.)
Only of the people, the people. Always the people. Am I getting this right?
It's interesting that in 2023 the Torygraph are now calling Kolomoisky a "warlord". Guess what war activity this refers to. Kolomoisky did indeed fund paramilitary forces to fight against the Donetsk and Luhansk republics after they declared independence from Ukraine after referendums in 2014. See for example this piece, which refers to Kolomoisky's "private army". He funded the neo-Nazi Azov battalion (before they became regularised as a regiment) and others.
Kolomoisky hasn't been referred to in western media as a "warlord" much recently, though, especially since 2022. And now he's getting this richly-deserved label once again.
That means something.
How long has his little man Zelensky got?
How long can he survive with his "I wasn't backed by Kolomoisky" line, when everyone knows he was?
Could "F*** the territories, f*** Kolomoisky, f*** Zelensky, f*** the EU and US" be an idea of growing appeal in Ukraine, a country that has lost maybe 100000 of its young men to senseless slaughter in the drive to raise the yellow and blue flag again over every piece of all six territories?
Thanks for the mention as one the 'button likers'.
So what's your answer then? Zelensky resigns? Would that mean Ukraine stops fighting? And if losing 100,000 men is senseless, what is losing 200,000 to Russia? More or less senseless?
Ukraine is corrupt, but has been moving significantly in the right direction these last ten years. Indeed, I suspect its BECAUSE its been moving in the right direction that has been at least partially responsible for Russia deciding to invade. Putin doesn't want a successful country, especially a successful former Soviet republic, on its long border (it can barely tolerate the Baltics but they're in NATO so that's a problem). People might leave for a better life.
So yes. Ukraine is corrupt, but Russia is far, far worse, and far more evil. There is NO justification to attack another country. None. No 'spheres of influence' or 'BUT Ukraine is really a NATO/US/Falkland Islands puppet.... we must liberate it' [1] bollocks.
[1] If Russia truly believed Ukraine was a US puppet, the best way to 'sort' that out would be a coup and then install a local politician who wouldn't be a puppet. The only problem with that idea is that Ukraine isn't a puppet, nor Zelensky and there are virtually no local politicians who'd serve even as an independent because they know the current government of Ukraine is the democratically elected one.
What is the collective wisdom of PBers as to the most likely date of the next general election? My question is prompted by the possibility of standing in North East Bedfordshire as an independent against the incumbent Conservative. Quite a number of people have suggested that I should do so. It might be interesting.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
The profits are largely occurring in other countries. Should we make Shell send the money back?
We should have a windfall levy on the gains made by energy giants from the Russian war, as was inevitable last spring and the government eventually and correctly u-turned on despite all the claims from the right that it would never work or raise any money.
Is 75% tax too low for you - what level would you like?
The 35% windfall tax feels fine. Much better than the no windfall tax supported by the pb cognoscenti who assured us it would raise no revenue.
From BBC: Bailey says it's not certain energy prices will fall - and even if they do, inflation being so high could still have an effect on other parts of life such as wages.
The "tightness of the labour market" reinforces this risk, he says.
The decision, therefore, to increase bank rates by 0.5% to 4% "reflects... uncertainties" in today's economy, Bailey adds.
For once I almost agree with him but he does not acknowledge that inflation will fall rapidly without falls in fuel prices as last year's increases fall out of the comparison. Doesn't make the job of the government in sorting out the slew of public sector strikes any easier though.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
The profits are largely occurring in other countries. Should we make Shell send the money back?
We should have a windfall levy on the gains made by energy giants from the Russian war, as was inevitable last spring and the government eventually and correctly u-turned on despite all the claims from the right that it would never work or raise any money.
Well the main effect so far has been to seriously damage future investment in the UK oil and gas sector. Now obviously if you are of the mindset that Hydrocarbons are evil and unnecessary then that would be considered a good thing. But if you are interested in building energy security, a long term revenue stream for the Government and a thriving petrochemical sector (remember aspirin, lubricants and lots of other vital products) then it is an extremely bad thing.
What is the collective wisdom of PBers as to the most likely date of the next general election? My question is prompted by the possibility of standing in North East Bedfordshire as an independent against the incumbent Conservative. Quite a number of people have suggested that I should do so. It might be interesting.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
And the answer is no, they're not indefensible. If profits are made in Qatar and brought to the UK that is better than profits going to Qatar, is it not?
As a nation we would be far worse off if we drove away companies that make profits abroad and bring a slice of that home to boost our economy.
Bart we're back to a discussion we had some months ago - that makes sense if you are primarily concerned with UK prosperity. I am more interested in the global effects e.g. what is the impact on Qatar of the instance you refer to?
But I know we won't agree on this - I respect your position, which you have argued cogently in the past.
Even globally the only reason that Shell are making a profit (which as someone else said isn't even that ridiculous when you consider it per capita globally) is because they're providing an extremely valuable service that we desperately need so have to pay for.
Would we better off if Shell shut down operations overnight? No, we would be far, far, far worse off.
Though these profits are likely to result in lower profits in future years anyway as the price signal is working its magic to lead people into investing in cleaner and greener alternatives that are now cheaper. I believe record amounts of solar panels are going up, and the electric car market is going gangbusters. My new home has a driveway and an electric car charger preinstalled so I'm currently looking into getting an electric car but the prices are high in part because so many other people want to do the same thing right now.
So globally are the consequences of Shells profits bad? No, they're actually very good for the environment as it means people are actively seeking alternatives to Shell and their ilk now which is good for the planet.
Take a step back and look big picture, not just at a headline number. The system is working
And the strapline: "Ihor Kolomoisky is credited with helping Volodymyr Zelensky to power, but the Ukrainian president denies being supported by the media tycoon". (Emphasis added.)
Only of the people, the people. Always the people. Am I getting this right?
It's interesting that in 2023 the Torygraph are now calling Kolomoisky a "warlord". Guess what war activity this refers to. Kolomoisky did indeed fund paramilitary forces to fight against the Donetsk and Luhansk republics after they declared independence from Ukraine after referendums in 2014. See for example this piece, which refers to Kolomoisky's "private army". He funded the neo-Nazi Azov battalion (before they became regularised as a regiment) and others.
Kolomoisky hasn't been referred to in western media as a "warlord" much recently, though, especially since 2022. And now he's getting this richly-deserved label once again.
That means something.
How long has his little man Zelensky got?
How long can he survive with his "I wasn't backed by Kolomoisky" line, when everyone knows he was?
Could "F*** the territories, f*** Kolomoisky, f*** Zelensky, f*** the EU and US" be an idea of growing appeal in Ukraine, a country that has lost maybe 100000 of its young men to senseless slaughter in the drive to raise the yellow and blue flag again over every piece of all six territories?
Thanks for the mention as one the 'button likers'.
So what's your answer then? Zelensky resigns? Would that mean Ukraine stops fighting? And if losing 100,000 men is senseless, what is losing 200,000 to Russia? More or less senseless?
Ukraine is corrupt, but has been moving significantly in the right direction these last ten years. Indeed, I suspect its BECAUSE its been moving in the right direction that has been at least partially responsible for Russia deciding to invade. Putin doesn't want a successful country, especially a successful former Soviet republic, on its long border (it can barely tolerate the Baltics but they're in NATO so that's a problem). People might leave for a better life.
So yes. Ukraine is corrupt, but Russia is far, far worse, and far more evil. There is NO justification to attack another country. None. No 'spheres of influence' or 'BUT Ukraine is really a NATO/US/Falkland Islands puppet.... we must liberate it' [1] bollocks.
[1] If Russia truly believed Ukraine was a US puppet, the best way to 'sort' that out would be a coup and then install a local politician who wouldn't be a puppet. The only problem with that idea is that Ukraine isn't a puppet, nor Zelensky and there are virtually no local politicians who'd serve even as an independent because they know the current government of Ukraine is the democratically elected one.
According to the Ukrainian people I know, Zelensky is staggeringly popular in Ukraine and would win any election in a landslide.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
There is one other route to limiting profits. Get some of those Hollywood accountants involved
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
The profits are largely occurring in other countries. Should we make Shell send the money back?
We should have a windfall levy on the gains made by energy giants from the Russian war, as was inevitable last spring and the government eventually and correctly u-turned on despite all the claims from the right that it would never work or raise any money.
Well the main effect so far has been to seriously damage future investment in the UK oil and gas sector. Now obviously if you are of the mindset that Hydrocarbons are evil and unnecessary then that would be considered a good thing. But if you are interested in building energy security, a long term revenue stream for the Government and a thriving petrochemical sector (remember aspirin, lubricants and lots of other vital products) then it is an extremely bad thing.
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Inflation is bad as it erodes the value of pay, pensions and savings
Stable prices are good 👍
But we have we never had stable prices. The only question is where the inflation was going - across all of the economy or only a part of it. If a house was worth the same in real terms today as it was in 1997 then maybe you could say we had relatively stable inflatio , but we have had rampant inflation consistently far, far, far higher than 4%
Which yes eroded pay which is why house price to earnings ratios that were once 3 are now 7+ ... pay has halved versus prices in real terms. That's terrible.
We need balanced moderate inflation not rampant inflation. We need to reverse the damage of the past two decades of rampant inflation too.
Hopefully we are moving to an era of more realistic 'real' interest rates which should help keep house prices stable/ only increasing gradually over the long term.
Property ownership should be to live in and provide security for the family, not as an investment 👍
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
From BBC: Bailey says it's not certain energy prices will fall - and even if they do, inflation being so high could still have an effect on other parts of life such as wages.
The "tightness of the labour market" reinforces this risk, he says.
The decision, therefore, to increase bank rates by 0.5% to 4% "reflects... uncertainties" in today's economy, Bailey adds.
For once I almost agree with him but he does not acknowledge that inflation will fall rapidly without falls in fuel prices as last year's increases fall out of the comparison. Doesn't make the job of the government in sorting out the slew of public sector strikes any easier though.
Not true. Once inflation is 4% then 4.5 % is an inflation busting pay rise the government can trumpet “inflation busting pay rise for everyone” is it not, and without costing 10% of money if settled now AND with half the impact of any on baking in double digit inflation.
The Torys have war gamed this, the narrative comes their way over the next 18 months, rather than more difficult it actually gets better and easier for them, and hops in their lap purring.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Those with a mortgage however have to make higher mortgage repayments every time rates rise if not on a fixed rate
No shit Sherlock.
Though if there's a healthy dose of inflation then wages should be going up too, while the price of the property purchase was locked in years ago while wages were lower, so even then a higher percentage of a lower (in real terms) number while uncomfortable is not the end of the world.
Better than people seeing house prices being unaffordable, rent as a result shooting up in real terms further and further consistently while houses are out of reach and wages are stagnant as has happened since the early New Labour years onwards.
Speaking as someone who completed his house purchase in December, I really hope I bought at the very peak of the market and that sort of insane house price multiple is never seen again. I don't care if I "lose out" by seeing the value of my property fall in real terms, even if it leads to negative equity, I have my own home, there's millions of others who are struggling far more.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation, hence the strikes
They're going up by more than house prices. That's a good start.
I wouldn't be so sure there - round this neck of the woods the asking prices for first homes seem to be increasing.
Nationwide at least house prices have fallen for the fifth month in a row, long may it continue, and are now annually up by 2.9% which is less than annual wage inflation.
It's a baby step, a much bigger fall in house prices and a much bigger rise in wages, sustained for years will be needed to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades of rampant inflation.
From BBC: Bailey says it's not certain energy prices will fall - and even if they do, inflation being so high could still have an effect on other parts of life such as wages.
The "tightness of the labour market" reinforces this risk, he says.
The decision, therefore, to increase bank rates by 0.5% to 4% "reflects... uncertainties" in today's economy, Bailey adds.
For once I almost agree with him but he does not acknowledge that inflation will fall rapidly without falls in fuel prices as last year's increases fall out of the comparison. Doesn't make the job of the government in sorting out the slew of public sector strikes any easier though.
So the most likely outcome is that prices will be pretty stable, removing it from the inflation index as a factor. With considerable risks in either direction, of course. And other figures are available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas Have a look at the price over the last 12 months. It is down. And not even a quarter of the peak price.
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
As if life wasn’t bleak enough already. How depressing.
Savers generally, who fund the mortgages and credit card debts of the rest of the population have had zero interest rates for the past 10m years and more. it's well time that they got something for their money.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
People pondering the huge profits Shell is making need to consider the size of the company. It's 5 times the size of Tesco, 10 x AstraZeneca, 15 x BAE Systems, over 7 x Vodafone, and about 14 x Barclays. It's a truly enormous company.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
They are largely making profits abroad - and bringing the profits here. The items they are writing off against tax - such as North Sea decommissioning are things that various UK governments have explicitly stated are tax write-offs.
The question was whether the profits are indefensible rather than complying with our tax law. Yes they comply with tax laws but that does not answer the question.
And the answer is no, they're not indefensible. If profits are made in Qatar and brought to the UK that is better than profits going to Qatar, is it not?
As a nation we would be far worse off if we drove away companies that make profits abroad and bring a slice of that home to boost our economy.
Bart we're back to a discussion we had some months ago - that makes sense if you are primarily concerned with UK prosperity. I am more interested in the global effects e.g. what is the impact on Qatar of the instance you refer to?
But I know we won't agree on this - I respect your position, which you have argued cogently in the past.
Even globally the only reason that Shell are making a profit (which as someone else said isn't even that ridiculous when you consider it per capita globally) is because they're providing an extremely valuable service that we desperately need so have to pay for.
Would we better off if Shell shut down operations overnight? No, we would be far, far, far worse off.
Though these profits are likely to result in lower profits in future years anyway as the price signal is working its magic to lead people into investing in cleaner and greener alternatives that are now cheaper. I believe record amounts of solar panels are going up, and the electric car market is going gangbusters. My new home has a driveway and an electric car charger preinstalled so I'm currently looking into getting an electric car but the prices are high in part because so many other people want to do the same thing right now.
So globally are the consequences of Shells profits bad? No, they're actually very good for the environment as it means people are actively seeking alternatives to Shell and their ilk now which is good for the planet.
Take a step back and look big picture, not just at a headline number. The system is working
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I think I finally get the strategy of the Russian trolls on here over the past year or so.
One day, in the future, we will all be Russian trolls for 15 minutes.
If we can't trust that anyone is who they say they are, then maybe the Russians will win the info war?
(Though I suppose one could argue Leon has been doing their job for them...)
It's a day with D in it so we need to talk about trans .
Interesting piece arguing that the Scottish Gov attempt to give exactly the same rights to for want to Gender Recognition by self-ID as the current process has undermined protection for trans people. Quite an interesting analogy with disability and Blue Badges:
Let me offer an analogy that might be helpful to Sturgeon: blue badges are issued to disabled people who need extra flexibility in where they can park their car. There are processes that applicants must follow to get a blue badge. They cost £10 for starters – more expensive than a GRC, but let’s not dwell on that – and the local council conducts an assessment to decide if you are eligible.
Now let’s say that some progressive politicians decide those processes are unnecessary bureaucracy, or even demeaning to disabled people. They decide instead to offer blue badges to anyone who chooses to self-identify as disabled. The incentive to do so is obvious, as is the inevitable chaos. Traffic would snarl to a halt as those who wanted to park more easily filled out the paperwork to be allowed to do so.
Who suffers? Ultimately, everyone – parking is usually restricted for good reason – but specifically those who needed the extra flexibility. The privilege that they required is brought into disrepute by those who merely wanted it. Sturgeon has done something similar to trans rights.
I qualify as double disabled whenever campaigners want to big up the numbers in Parliament to make the Government do what they want - I wear glasses all the time and I have Type I diabetes. I quite like the prospect of getting a Blue Badge by self-ID, but the processes are (correctly) different and are an evaluation based on context, rather than the process of qualifying to be included in the "disabled" category for some activists.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
He did concede to me yesterday re A-Level results for required for Russell Group unis which was gracious.
The repeatede pile-ons to HYUFD and some others are very distasteful. Don't like someone's views? Challenge the views and ignore the person . I'm sure there are many disgusted and appalled by my views - I couldn't give a monkey's. And if I did I'm sure I have other views they might like!
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
If we can't trust that anyone is who they say they are….
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think doing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
On the topic of a single corporation dictating the market, it can't and it doesn't. At a global scale what Shell or BP do is nothing when the control of prices rests with OPEC. Put crudely, if you want to gain any real control of oil and gas production then take over the Middle East and break the cartel.
At a local level in the UK Shell are a fairly minor player amongst dozens of oil and gas companies. The danger is that it is those other players who are being driven to end investment in the UK as a result of the windfall taxes. Not least because the Government has decided that they will not end the windfall tax even if the oil price collapses so the companies, who have to think in terms of 5 or 10 years ahead for investments, have decided their money will be better spent elsewhere.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
Re the bauiting of Hyufd et al - that comment is a perfect example - unnecessary.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Is it from "The Economy" that is subject to tax in the UK? Or is it a worldwide number?
I note that the Guardian does not tell us, nor do they explain how much tax is paid already.
I'd say they are trying to maintain the outrage, complete with rantaquotes from Ed Davey and Greenpeace.
Sorry, but I'd say that is the permatrolling type of commentary, as when for example Professor Murphy was frothing away years ago about how banks were avoiding tax, when the profit had been absorbed by losses from previous years.
Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, then, that any amount of profit is acceptable if appropriate taxes are paid? That's my question really, not a question about the quality of the Guardian's reporting.
In my view there is a (pretty high) limit to levels of acceptable profit, not least because profits of that size suggest a market that is captured in an unhealthy way. I think this might be an example of that limit being breached, regardless of where the profit has been garnered globally.
OK, so let's agree that the quality of Guardian news reporting is atrocious .
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I think I finally get the strategy of the Russian trolls on here over the past year or so.
One day, in the future, we will all be Russian trolls for 15 minutes.
If we can't trust that anyone is who they say they are, then maybe the Russians will win the info war?
(Though I suppose one could argue Leon has been doing their job for them...)
That's why it's best to have the strength of character to know what you actually believe and therefore which posts you want to 'applaud'. DJ14 is mostly a daft Corbynite lefty with an obsession with the size of King Charles' fingers. I disagree with the vast majority of what he writes, but when I agree, I'm not going to refrain from showing it because some other silly prick might have an issue.
The only poster (bar the two-post antivax trolls) who has actually targeted PB like a troll is imo ScottP, because he wasn't engaging in actual discussion, he was carpet-bombing the place in copypasted Tweets with no quality control or added commentary, in a seeming attempt to overwhelm opposing ideas rather than engage with them. I am happy to say he does this less now.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
If you try and restrict the size of the profit in absolute terms then you are saying that you want smaller companies - in a volatile business like oil & gas, a smaller margin means that the good times don't payback for the bad times.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think doing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
On the topic of a single corporation dictating the market, it can't and it doesn't. At a global scale what Shell or BP do is nothing when the control of prices rests with OPEC. Put crudely, if you want to gain any real control of oil and gas production then take over the Middle East and break the cartel.
At a local level in the UK Shell are a fairly minor player amongst dozens of oil and gas companies. The danger is that it is those other players who are being driven to end investment in the UK as a result of the windfall taxes. Not least because the Government has decided that they will not end the windfall tax even if the oil price collapses so the companies, who have to think in terms of 5 or 10 years ahead for investments, have decided their money will be better spent elsewhere.
On the global bit, I see your point, particularly about OPEC, and find myself more comfortable with the profits as a result. Thanks for the replies.
I'm already with you on the local level, at least to the extent that Shell isn't distorting markets within UK.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
I think that's a little unfair to Dura_Ace, who I would never accuse of being a Russian troll. If anything, he has a better view into the Russian mindset than any of us. I may disagree with him on some things, but he appears genuine.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Is it from "The Economy" that is subject to tax in the UK? Or is it a worldwide number?
I note that the Guardian does not tell us, nor do they explain how much tax is paid already.
I'd say they are trying to maintain the outrage, complete with rantaquotes from Ed Davey and Greenpeace.
Sorry, but I'd say that is the permatrolling type of commentary, as when for example Professor Murphy was frothing away years ago about how banks were avoiding tax, when the profit had been absorbed by losses from previous years.
Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, then, that any amount of profit is acceptable if appropriate taxes are paid? That's my question really, not a question about the quality of the Guardian's reporting.
In my view there is a (pretty high) limit to levels of acceptable profit, not least because profits of that size suggest a market that is captured in an unhealthy way. I think this might be an example of that limit being breached, regardless of where the profit has been garnered globally.
OK, so let's agree that the quality of Guardian news reporting is atrocious .
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
Yep. For reference Oil and gas companies pay 40% corporation tax as standard and then the 35% Windfall tax on top of that. Hence the 75%.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
If you try and restrict the size of the profit in absolute terms then you are saying that you want smaller companies - in a volatile business like oil & gas, a smaller margin means that the good times don't payback for the bad times.
Lots of smaller companies would be better for me though as they would all need an Operations Geologist so I would have lots of work
He did concede to me yesterday re A-Level results for required for Russell Group unis which was gracious.
HYUFD is always or at least almost always polite and gracious to other posters, even if the points he makes can be interpreted as offensive at times (and indeed I have taken offence at them). I think that's an important distinction. I'm sure it is possible for us to disagree with each other while not resorting to personal unpleasantness.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
I think that's a little unfair to Dura_Ace, who I would never accuse of being a Russian troll. If anything, he has a better view into the Russian mindset than any of us. I may disagree with him on some things, but he appears genuine.
I wouldn't accuse him of being a Russian troll, I would instead suggest he is what in the Cold War would have been called a "useful idiot". He seems to truly swallow, believe and regurgitate the bullshit that the Russian trolls spout.
Though for Dura it could just be a contrarian desire to be different.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
I'm sorry you find someone thinking differently to you 'concerning'. But thank you so very kindly for endorsing my right to free thought.
If you do get a break from pondering how much better we are than the Russians, perhaps you can tell me what's actually 'Russian' or troll-like about the post I liked? It's a post that says Sunak is on a shoogly peg, and it's odd that he has not appointed a new Tory party chairman. Well, he is, and it is. It's totally relevant to PB, it's totally on topic, so where's your apparent issue?
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
That sounds like a terrible idea. Contracts should be awarded on the basis of price and quality.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
Fair enough - good response.
You like what you believe in; your views happen to coincide with Russian trolls but so be it.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
If you try and restrict the size of the profit in absolute terms then you are saying that you want smaller companies - in a volatile business like oil & gas, a smaller margin means that the good times don't payback for the bad times.
Lots of smaller companies would be better for me though as they would all need an Operations Geologist so I would have lots of work
They would need to operate at higher margins, though, being smaller.
So if you divided Shell back into the 90 odd country companies it consists of, it would, as a group of companies make more profit.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Is it from "The Economy" that is subject to tax in the UK? Or is it a worldwide number?
I note that the Guardian does not tell us, nor do they explain how much tax is paid already.
I'd say they are trying to maintain the outrage, complete with rantaquotes from Ed Davey and Greenpeace.
Sorry, but I'd say that is the permatrolling type of commentary, as when for example Professor Murphy was frothing away years ago about how banks were avoiding tax, when the profit had been absorbed by losses from previous years.
Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, then, that any amount of profit is acceptable if appropriate taxes are paid? That's my question really, not a question about the quality of the Guardian's reporting.
In my view there is a (pretty high) limit to levels of acceptable profit, not least because profits of that size suggest a market that is captured in an unhealthy way. I think this might be an example of that limit being breached, regardless of where the profit has been garnered globally.
OK, so let's agree that the quality of Guardian news reporting is atrocious .
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
On your first paragraph, there are other media companies that I'd want to pick off first
I see the validity of your overall argument.
Okay, a thought experiment (I know there will be problems with this, I am interested in what they are): Rather than having a percentage tax rate on corporate profits, imagine a world in which any single company could make a maximum of, say, £1bn in profit each year.
Ignoring the impossibility of implementing such a scheme, would it fundamentally break the capitalist system, or would it simply reduce big companies' desires to take productive risks?
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Those with a mortgage however have to make higher mortgage repayments every time rates rise if not on a fixed rate
No shit Sherlock.
Though if there's a healthy dose of inflation then wages should be going up too, while the price of the property purchase was locked in years ago while wages were lower, so even then a higher percentage of a lower (in real terms) number while uncomfortable is not the end of the world.
Better than people seeing house prices being unaffordable, rent as a result shooting up in real terms further and further consistently while houses are out of reach and wages are stagnant as has happened since the early New Labour years onwards.
Speaking as someone who completed his house purchase in December, I really hope I bought at the very peak of the market and that sort of insane house price multiple is never seen again. I don't care if I "lose out" by seeing the value of my property fall in real terms, even if it leads to negative equity, I have my own home, there's millions of others who are struggling far more.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation, hence the strikes
They're going up by more than house prices. That's a good start.
I wouldn't be so sure there - round this neck of the woods the asking prices for first homes seem to be increasing.
Nationwide at least house prices have fallen for the fifth month in a row, long may it continue, and are now annually up by 2.9% which is less than annual wage inflation.
It's a baby step, a much bigger fall in house prices and a much bigger rise in wages, sustained for years will be needed to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades of rampant inflation.
Rampant *House Price* inflation , I trust you mean.
However, we need to remember that rampant house price inflation stopped in 2010, and the noughties had around 3x the house price increase of the 2010s. I'll condemn the last Conservative Govts for lots of things, yet they did help calm down the housing market.
I've said previously that I would pull the hot air from the housing market by removing tax breaks and demand side subsidy. (CGT on main dwellings like about half of Europe, Proportional Property Tax, end most 1st Time Buyer subsidies).
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
If you try and restrict the size of the profit in absolute terms then you are saying that you want smaller companies - in a volatile business like oil & gas, a smaller margin means that the good times don't payback for the bad times.
Lots of smaller companies would be better for me though as they would all need an Operations Geologist so I would have lots of work
They would need to operate at higher margins, though, being smaller.
So if you divided Shell back into the 90 odd country companies it consists of, it would, as a group of companies make more profit.
It would as a group of companies cost more, due to lacking economies of scale. They might not necessarily make more profit though, even with higher operating margins.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
I think that's a little unfair to Dura_Ace, who I would never accuse of being a Russian troll. If anything, he has a better view into the Russian mindset than any of us. I may disagree with him on some things, but he appears genuine.
I wouldn't accuse him of being a Russian troll, I would instead suggest he is what in the Cold War would have been called a "useful idiot". He seems to truly swallow, believe and regurgitate the bullshit that the Russian trolls spout.
Though for Dura it could just be a contrarian desire to be different.
It is pragmatism and perspective. Something that the PB warriors on here mostly lack.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
That's true.
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
I think that's a little unfair to Dura_Ace, who I would never accuse of being a Russian troll. If anything, he has a better view into the Russian mindset than any of us. I may disagree with him on some things, but he appears genuine.
I wouldn't accuse him of being a Russian troll, I would instead suggest he is what in the Cold War would have been called a "useful idiot". He seems to truly swallow, believe and regurgitate the bullshit that the Russian trolls spout.
Though for Dura it could just be a contrarian desire to be different.
It is pragmatism and perspective. Something that the PB warriors on here mostly lack.
Yes and no. One of the thing that amuses me about good old DA is that he never has anything good to say about anyone, anytime. And by nature I'm rather sussy of people like that, as much as I'm sussy about people who say everyone (especially their own side) is good.
I think that is the BoE finally caught up with the surge in inflation. There will probably be another couple of 0.25% increases but my guess is that is the heavy lifting done. These interest rate increases were, of course, the main reason that the IMF were forecasting lower growth in the UK than elsewhere.
Yes indeed interest rates likely to peak at 4.5% Spring 2023 and stay around there for rest of 2023.
I am now projecting CPI 4% to 5% Dec 2023. Bank may leave rates at around 4% for a while to try to squeeze CPI towards 2% in 2024 although this level of CPI may be difficult to achieve.
Good. A dose of healthy inflation is a good thing, allowing sticky prices to adjust without going negative, as opposed to rampant inflation or no inflation/deflation.
That's the problem we've had in recent years has been rampant inflation in parts of the economy, but virtually-zero CPI, which has completely distorted the economy.
A few years of moderate CPI inflation around the 4-5% mark, and declining house prices, will do wonders for rebalancing the economy and making life more affordable for those working for a living rather than allowing rentiers to extract all the wealth of the economy.
Those with a mortgage however have to make higher mortgage repayments every time rates rise if not on a fixed rate
No shit Sherlock.
Though if there's a healthy dose of inflation then wages should be going up too, while the price of the property purchase was locked in years ago while wages were lower, so even then a higher percentage of a lower (in real terms) number while uncomfortable is not the end of the world.
Better than people seeing house prices being unaffordable, rent as a result shooting up in real terms further and further consistently while houses are out of reach and wages are stagnant as has happened since the early New Labour years onwards.
Speaking as someone who completed his house purchase in December, I really hope I bought at the very peak of the market and that sort of insane house price multiple is never seen again. I don't care if I "lose out" by seeing the value of my property fall in real terms, even if it leads to negative equity, I have my own home, there's millions of others who are struggling far more.
Average wages are going up by less than inflation, hence the strikes
They're going up by more than house prices. That's a good start.
I wouldn't be so sure there - round this neck of the woods the asking prices for first homes seem to be increasing.
Nationwide at least house prices have fallen for the fifth month in a row, long may it continue, and are now annually up by 2.9% which is less than annual wage inflation.
It's a baby step, a much bigger fall in house prices and a much bigger rise in wages, sustained for years will be needed to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades of rampant inflation.
Rampant *House Price* inflation , I trust you mean.
However, we need to remember that rampant house price inflation stopped in 2010, and the noughties had around 3x the house price increase of the 2010s. I'll condemn the last Conservative Govts for lots of things, yet they did help calm down the housing market.
Rampant inflation in any sector is concerning, so yes I clearly meant house price inflation but that is rampant inflation. Rampant house price inflation is no better than rampant CPI inflation. The fact that CPI excluded house prices just makes CPI dodgy data.
Yes I 100% agree that the problem was worse in the 00s than the 10s, I've made the same point many times to @CorrectHorseBattery3 however the problem still existed and it will take a lot to reverse the damage that has been done and bring house prices down in real terms back down to what they were pre Blair and Brown.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
Fair enough - good response.
You like what you believe in; your views happen to coincide with Russian trolls but so be it.
Exactly. Likewise Hitler, Stalin, Donald Trump, Myra Hindley etc. I believe what I believe in due to my own life experiences, moral compass, political and moral hinterland, sense of justice, and belief in what works. My views are changeable, but by new, relevant information, not by someone else jumping on board for what could be any reason of their own. That would be insupportable, not to mention intellectually lazy.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Apologies for re-posting, but can I ask this again? I'm genuinely interested in whether people would defend Shell's profits. I feel as though we are rapidly reaching the point where these sorts of numbers are becoming indefensible, but I would welcome being challenged on it.
Dont mind them making the profits. Do mind them paying zero corporation tax and in the case of windfall gains from an illegal war they should definitely face windfall taxes.
Do you see any limit on the level of profits you don't mind them making? I'll readily admit, £30bn doesn't feel very different to £30m on an emotional level, even though intellectually I know it is. But it feels big enough to start distorting the economy in an unhealthy way.
Shell derives around 5% of its revenue from its UK activities, I think ? Not much we can do about the rest of it.
Agreed. I guess I'm asking a question of principle, rather than practicality. FWIW I can see the other side of the argument - that there are more downsides than upsides to any attempt to rein in market forces - but on an intellectual level I recognise that can't hold forever, hence the question as to whether there is some limit.
The only way to limit the size of the profits is to limit the size of the companies. It doesn't make any more tax for Governments. It just means the headline numbers are smaller for any individual company. But limiting the size of companies simply for window dressing rather than because of monopoly concerns (as happened with the original 7 sisters in the US) is a pointless exercise particularly when the underlying source of the profits in the UK (the oil and gas licences) are already entirely in the hands of the Government.
Thanks for all the replies, many focused on the practical problems of taxing foreign profits. I agree that this is not practical, nor necessarily desirable. As a side note I'm suspicious of the arguments that focus on benefits to the UK rather than considering the global impact, but can see why those arguments are made.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
If you try and restrict the size of the profit in absolute terms then you are saying that you want smaller companies - in a volatile business like oil & gas, a smaller margin means that the good times don't payback for the bad times.
Lots of smaller companies would be better for me though as they would all need an Operations Geologist so I would have lots of work
They would need to operate at higher margins, though, being smaller.
So if you divided Shell back into the 90 odd country companies it consists of, it would, as a group of companies make more profit.
Personally, (and in general not particularly in Shell's case, Richard has pointed out that the market they're in is largely controlled by OPEC) I think that might be worth it, as it might shift the balance of power back towards states at the expense of corporations.
Of course we then get into a sticky debate about the legitimacy of state power in many of the countries Shell operates in, which is why I'm sticking to principles not practicalities
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
That post seems to suggest that there IS a PB equivalent of Hitler. Wow, that is quite a revelation. Is he is a Scottish Nationalist by any chance?
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
Fair enough - good response.
You like what you believe in; your views happen to coincide with Russian trolls but so be it.
Exactly. Likewise Hitler, Stalin, Donald Trump, Myra Hindley etc. I believe what I believe in due to my own life experiences, moral compass, political and moral hinterland, sense of justice, and belief in what works. My views are changeable, but by new, relevant information, not by someone else jumping on board for what could be any reason of their own. That would be insupportable, not to mention intellectually lazy.
I am curious what about your own life experiences makes you so keen to buy into the Russian side of events like MH17 etc
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
That post seems to suggest that there IS a PB equivalent of Hitler. Wow, that is quite a revelation. Is he is a Scottish Nationalist by any chance?
Not any more now Rod Crosby has gone.
There are some who sail a bit close to the wind, but not that close.
He did concede to me yesterday re A-Level results for required for Russell Group unis which was gracious.
Thanks CHB, I was genuinely interested to see if HYUFD would ever admit he's wrong (since there are numerous situations where he clearly is wrong and refuses to admit it).
As your exchange yesterday so eloquently notes, arguing with HYUFD is like arguing with a toddler. His (almost) constant refusal to admit whenever he's wrong, which he often is, is why people pile in on him.
What is the collective wisdom of PBers as to the most likely date of the next general election? My question is prompted by the possibility of standing in North East Bedfordshire as an independent against the incumbent Conservative. Quite a number of people have suggested that I should do so. It might be interesting.
27th January 2025......
No seriously.... probably October 2024. Sunak will do a Major and hope something turns up. However unlike Major who could push it out to the death (April 92 to May 97), pushing it out to the death here means a Christmas campaign in 24/25 and a January election. I don't think he'll be quite that brave.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
That post seems to suggest that there IS a PB equivalent of Hitler. Wow, that is quite a revelation. Is he is a Scottish Nationalist by any chance?
Not any more now Rod Crosby has gone.
There are some who sail a bit close to the wind, but not that close.
Ah, the swing back advocate? I remember him. I wasn't aware he was into leather wellies, world domination and genocide though.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
Fair enough - good response.
You like what you believe in; your views happen to coincide with Russian trolls but so be it.
Exactly. Likewise Hitler, Stalin, Donald Trump, Myra Hindley etc. I believe what I believe in due to my own life experiences, moral compass, political and moral hinterland, sense of justice, and belief in what works. My views are changeable, but by new, relevant information, not by someone else jumping on board for what could be any reason of their own. That would be insupportable, not to mention intellectually lazy.
I am curious what about your own life experiences makes you so keen to buy into the Russian side of events like MH17 etc
It is in my nature to adjust to new paradigms very quickly and assimilate them into my world view. That can be a benefit, where I have adjusted to new facts when others are struggling in denial, but it can also lead me up the garden path of believing something quickly when I should have more caution.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
That post seems to suggest that there IS a PB equivalent of Hitler. Wow, that is quite a revelation. Is he is a Scottish Nationalist by any chance?
Not any more now Rod Crosby has gone.
There are some who sail a bit close to the wind, but not that close.
Ah, the swing back advocate? I remember him. I wasn't aware he was into leather wellies, world domination and genocide though.
It's a day with D in it so we need to talk about trans .
Interesting piece arguing that the Scottish Gov attempt to give exactly the same rights to for want to Gender Recognition by self-ID as the current process has undermined protection for trans people. Quite an interesting analogy with disability and Blue Badges:
Let me offer an analogy that might be helpful to Sturgeon: blue badges are issued to disabled people who need extra flexibility in where they can park their car. There are processes that applicants must follow to get a blue badge. They cost £10 for starters – more expensive than a GRC, but let’s not dwell on that – and the local council conducts an assessment to decide if you are eligible.
Now let’s say that some progressive politicians decide those processes are unnecessary bureaucracy, or even demeaning to disabled people. They decide instead to offer blue badges to anyone who chooses to self-identify as disabled. The incentive to do so is obvious, as is the inevitable chaos. Traffic would snarl to a halt as those who wanted to park more easily filled out the paperwork to be allowed to do so.
Who suffers? Ultimately, everyone – parking is usually restricted for good reason – but specifically those who needed the extra flexibility. The privilege that they required is brought into disrepute by those who merely wanted it. Sturgeon has done something similar to trans rights.
I qualify as double disabled whenever campaigners want to big up the numbers in Parliament to make the Government do what they want - I wear glasses all the time and I have Type I diabetes. I quite like the prospect of getting a Blue Badge by self-ID, but the processes are (correctly) different and are an evaluation based on context, rather than the process of qualifying to be included in the "disabled" category for some activists.
Ha! I have a one year savings bond about to mature next week, at 1.25% interest, which seemed a very good deal when I took it out. How things change in just a year….
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Is it from "The Economy" that is subject to tax in the UK? Or is it a worldwide number?
I note that the Guardian does not tell us, nor do they explain how much tax is paid already.
I'd say they are trying to maintain the outrage, complete with rantaquotes from Ed Davey and Greenpeace.
Sorry, but I'd say that is the permatrolling type of commentary, as when for example Professor Murphy was frothing away years ago about how banks were avoiding tax, when the profit had been absorbed by losses from previous years.
Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, then, that any amount of profit is acceptable if appropriate taxes are paid? That's my question really, not a question about the quality of the Guardian's reporting.
In my view there is a (pretty high) limit to levels of acceptable profit, not least because profits of that size suggest a market that is captured in an unhealthy way. I think this might be an example of that limit being breached, regardless of where the profit has been garnered globally.
OK, so let's agree that the quality of Guardian news reporting is atrocious .
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
On your first paragraph, there are other media companies that I'd want to pick off first
I see the validity of your overall argument.
Okay, a thought experiment (I know there will be problems with this, I am interested in what they are): Rather than having a percentage tax rate on corporate profits, imagine a world in which any single company could make a maximum of, say, £1bn in profit each year.
Ignoring the impossibility of implementing such a scheme, would it fundamentally break the capitalist system, or would it simply reduce big companies' desires to take productive risks?
You'd end up with smaller companies, which would probably have higher percentage profits individually. So over all profits would go up.
He did concede to me yesterday re A-Level results for required for Russell Group unis which was gracious.
Thanks CHB, I was genuinely interested to see if HYUFD would ever admit he's wrong (since there are numerous situations where he clearly is wrong and refuses to admit it).
As your exchange yesterday so eloquently notes, arguing with HYUFD is like arguing with a toddler. His (almost) constant refusal to admit whenever he's wrong, which he often is, is why people pile in on him.
Rubbish. We all have our way of posting on PB and if you can't get another poster to realise that you are right by painting them into a corner where the only alternatives are accepting that you are right, changing the subject, or going ad hom then you need to brush up on your posting skills.
If you really think the Route One approach to @HYUFD or indeed any poster of "you are wrong why don't you just accept it?" is going to work then you haven't been paying attention on PB.
All you free marketeers on here...do you think there is any level of profit-taking from the economy that is 'too much'? If so, is £32.2bn too much? If so, what should be done about it?
FWIW, I recognise the risks of stepping in to regulate this further. But I also see the risks and distortion effects of profits this size, particularly in the way it funnels money from the economy as a whole into the pockets of a smaller group of richer individuals, who are then able to distort markets such as the housing market in London, because of their excess wealth.
Yes, I know institutional investors, pension funds etc are a thing and profits like this can be good for them, and I'm not dismissing that angle, I just don't think it's the whole story.
Is it from "The Economy" that is subject to tax in the UK? Or is it a worldwide number?
I note that the Guardian does not tell us, nor do they explain how much tax is paid already.
I'd say they are trying to maintain the outrage, complete with rantaquotes from Ed Davey and Greenpeace.
Sorry, but I'd say that is the permatrolling type of commentary, as when for example Professor Murphy was frothing away years ago about how banks were avoiding tax, when the profit had been absorbed by losses from previous years.
Thanks for the reply. Are you saying, then, that any amount of profit is acceptable if appropriate taxes are paid? That's my question really, not a question about the quality of the Guardian's reporting.
In my view there is a (pretty high) limit to levels of acceptable profit, not least because profits of that size suggest a market that is captured in an unhealthy way. I think this might be an example of that limit being breached, regardless of where the profit has been garnered globally.
OK, so let's agree that the quality of Guardian news reporting is atrocious .
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
On your first paragraph, there are other media companies that I'd want to pick off first
I see the validity of your overall argument.
Okay, a thought experiment (I know there will be problems with this, I am interested in what they are): Rather than having a percentage tax rate on corporate profits, imagine a world in which any single company could make a maximum of, say, £1bn in profit each year.
Ignoring the impossibility of implementing such a scheme, would it fundamentally break the capitalist system, or would it simply reduce big companies' desires to take productive risks?
The latter.
When one of the UK independent oil companies decided to develop a field West of Shetlands about a decade ago and it went wrong (as they do rather often) they ended up costing them somewhere in the region of £2 billion. When the risks are that high no one is going to touch it if the potential profits aren't substantially higher.
"I think they are stuck with (Sunak) until Starmer gets his post election call from the Palace."
I don't. If Sunak had his feet planted solidly in his position as party leader he'd have appointed a new party chairman by now. Unprecedented, how long it's taking. (That's unless there was a case before 1944.)
Even if the only consideration were what I'm hearing about Zahawi, it'd be hard to picture an apparently weak leader such as Sunak staying in office for long.
Oops, I see LuckyGuy has fallen for giving a Russian troll a like. Says it all really.
I like posts I feel have made a good point; who the point has been made by doesn’t figure in my decision - that would make me a weak-minded drip.
It must figure to some extent. Eg I wouldn't give the PB equivalent of Hitler a 'like' even for a really solid post. That doesn't make me a drip.
That post seems to suggest that there IS a PB equivalent of Hitler. Wow, that is quite a revelation. Is he is a Scottish Nationalist by any chance?
Not any more now Rod Crosby has gone.
There are some who sail a bit close to the wind, but not that close.
Ah, the swing back advocate? I remember him. I wasn't aware he was into leather wellies, world domination and genocide though.
He was a Holocaust denier.
Oh! that is unpleasant, and not worthy of any further jesting.
I do wonder what sort of pathology must be going on in someone's head to be a holocaust denier. How does one come to that conclusion? The closest thing in the current time must be Putin apologists. Those that refer to a murderous war as an "SMO" for example.
Comments
As a nation we would be far worse off if we drove away companies that make profits abroad and bring a slice of that home to boost our economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/02/labour-hopes-to-ensure-black-led-firms-access-lucrative-government-contracts
Black-led businesses could be given more support to procure lucrative government contracts by a future Labour government as the party refines its offer to ethnic minority voters ahead of the next election.
Labour’s race equality task force, led by Baroness Doreen Lawrence, hopes to ensure that black-led groups get the chance to access a fair share of the billions of pounds paid out each year through government contracts, according to The Voice newspaper.
The Guardian understands that the task force, co-chaired by Labour party chair Anneliese Dodds, has also proposed introducing mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting for firms with more than 250 staff, with the aim of closing the existing gap on salaries.
Task force member and human rights lawyer Jacqueline Mckenzie told the newspaper: “There are no black firms that currently benefit at all [from government contracts], African heritage firms.”
...In the treasurer’s race, Florida GOP chair Joe Gruters was defeated in part because he had Trump’s backing — and trumpeted the endorsement to committee members.
Gruters’s allies texted committee members the day of the vote with a siren emoji, an all-caps headline: “PRES. TRUMP ENDORSES JOE GRUTERS FOR RNC TREASURER” and a message from Trump about his “Complete and Total Endorsement.”
However, Gruters told me it was only supposed to go to about 20 Trump diehards on the committee and instead went to the entire 168-member party roster. That, according to Fortuno and other Trump skeptics who want a neutral leadership slate, caused a backlash on the floor and doomed Gruters’ candidacy...
The actual effect of the windfall tax has been to drive companies out of the North Sea as far as future investment is concerned. So reducing our energy security and reducing the tax take for the Government.
To be blunt if they are ripping-off anyone it's mostly foreigners, and Shell pay a lot of that money made overseas to their shareholders here. The numbers are eye watering, but it is still probably a net good for the UK for Shell to be making money like this.
But I know we won't agree on this - I respect your position, which you have argued cogently in the past.
It's just that from our point of view, they are also impregnable.
What you do is setup a company and appoint a person of the minority in question to "own" it. As part of the setup, the company in question actually does very little. It contracts all the work out to a network of other companies you own.
The minority owned company at the top makes nearly nothing at all. But, as an upside, a member of the minority in question gets to be called CEO.
Are there any obstacles to them participating in the procurement process.
On the face of it this seems fair.
Bailey says it's not certain energy prices will fall - and even if they do, inflation being so high could still have an effect on other parts of life such as wages.
The "tightness of the labour market" reinforces this risk, he says.
The decision, therefore, to increase bank rates by 0.5% to 4% "reflects... uncertainties" in today's economy, Bailey adds.
For once I almost agree with him but he does not acknowledge that inflation will fall rapidly without falls in fuel prices as last year's increases fall out of the comparison. Doesn't make the job of the government in sorting out the slew of public sector strikes any easier though.
So what's your answer then? Zelensky resigns? Would that mean Ukraine stops fighting?
And if losing 100,000 men is senseless, what is losing 200,000 to Russia? More or less senseless?
Ukraine is corrupt, but has been moving significantly in the right direction these last ten years. Indeed, I suspect its BECAUSE its been moving in the right direction that has been at least partially responsible for Russia deciding to invade. Putin doesn't want a successful country, especially a successful former Soviet republic, on its long border (it can barely tolerate the Baltics but they're in NATO so that's a problem). People might leave for a better life.
So yes. Ukraine is corrupt, but Russia is far, far worse, and far more evil. There is NO justification to attack another country. None. No 'spheres of influence' or 'BUT Ukraine is really a NATO/US/Falkland Islands puppet.... we must liberate it' [1] bollocks.
[1] If Russia truly believed Ukraine was a US puppet, the best way to 'sort' that out would be a coup and then install a local politician who wouldn't be a puppet. The only problem with that idea is that Ukraine isn't a puppet, nor Zelensky and there are virtually no local politicians who'd serve even as an independent because they know the current government of Ukraine is the democratically elected one.
My question is prompted by the possibility of standing in North East Bedfordshire as an independent against the incumbent Conservative. Quite a number of people have suggested that I should do so. It might be interesting.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/natural-gas-prices-to-decline-through-2023-as-production-exports-to-rise-eia-says/
Would we better off if Shell shut down operations overnight? No, we would be far, far, far worse off.
Though these profits are likely to result in lower profits in future years anyway as the price signal is working its magic to lead people into investing in cleaner and greener alternatives that are now cheaper. I believe record amounts of solar panels are going up, and the electric car market is going gangbusters. My new home has a driveway and an electric car charger preinstalled so I'm currently looking into getting an electric car but the prices are high in part because so many other people want to do the same thing right now.
So globally are the consequences of Shells profits bad? No, they're actually very good for the environment as it means people are actively seeking alternatives to Shell and their ilk now which is good for the planet.
Take a step back and look big picture, not just at a headline number. The system is working
Which seems to be borne out here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election
He did concede to me yesterday re A-Level results for required for Russell Group unis which was gracious.
Property ownership should be to live in and provide security for the family, not as an investment 👍
The Torys have war gamed this, the narrative comes their way over the next 18 months, rather than more difficult it actually gets better and easier for them, and hops in their lap purring.
Richard - your point gets at the heart of what I'm trying ro ask, thanks. For me, a 10% profit on revenues of $300bn is potentially at a damaging scale even if it isn't price gouging or excessive in terms of revenue/profit ratio (I agree it isn't on the same scale as Apple).
It seems to me that the absolute value of the profit and the revenue percentage are both relevant, and an absolute value of £30bn points towards some form of market failure.
On top of that, I am concerned about the power it hands to a single corporation to dictate the market it is operating within.
Without getting into practicalities, I would dispute on principle that limiting the size of companies is pointless unless responding to monopoly concerns, because I think soing so would also limit corporate power to distort markets. However, I am not arguing that this is feasible in the current case, I really am just interested in the principle.
The point about licences in the UK is important, agreed.
It's a baby step, a much bigger fall in house prices and a much bigger rise in wages, sustained for years will be needed to reverse the damage of the past couple of decades of rampant inflation.
And other figures are available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwdwz5d8gxt/natural-gas Have a look at the price over the last 12 months. It is down. And not even a quarter of the peak price.
One day, in the future, we will all be Russian trolls for 15 minutes.
If we can't trust that anyone is who they say they are, then maybe the Russians will win the info war?
(Though I suppose one could argue Leon has been doing their job for them...)
Interesting piece arguing that the Scottish Gov attempt to give exactly the same rights to for want to Gender Recognition by self-ID as the current process has undermined protection for trans people. Quite an interesting analogy with disability and Blue Badges:
Let me offer an analogy that might be helpful to Sturgeon: blue badges are issued to disabled people who need extra flexibility in where they can park their car. There are processes that applicants must follow to get a blue badge. They cost £10 for starters – more expensive than a GRC, but let’s not dwell on that – and the local council conducts an assessment to decide if you are eligible.
Now let’s say that some progressive politicians decide those processes are unnecessary bureaucracy, or even demeaning to disabled people. They decide instead to offer blue badges to anyone who chooses to self-identify as disabled. The incentive to do so is obvious, as is the inevitable chaos. Traffic would snarl to a halt as those who wanted to park more easily filled out the paperwork to be allowed to do so.
Who suffers? Ultimately, everyone – parking is usually restricted for good reason – but specifically those who needed the extra flexibility. The privilege that they required is brought into disrepute by those who merely wanted it. Sturgeon has done something similar to trans rights.
I qualify as double disabled whenever campaigners want to big up the numbers in Parliament to make the Government do what they want - I wear glasses all the time and I have Type I diabetes. I quite like the prospect of getting a Blue Badge by self-ID, but the processes are (correctly) different and are an evaluation based on context, rather than the process of qualifying to be included in the "disabled" category for some activists.
Hmmm.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/nicola-sturgeons-bungled-gender-crusade-has-undermined-trans-rights/
It's the fact that you think like a Russia troll, that is concerning.
But we live in a free society so you, Dura, McClusky, Corbyn and the rest of your fellow travellers are free to think as you do. It's part of what makes us better than the Russians.
At a local level in the UK Shell are a fairly minor player amongst dozens of oil and gas companies. The danger is that it is those other players who are being driven to end investment in the UK as a result of the windfall taxes. Not least because the Government has decided that they will not end the windfall tax even if the oil price collapses so the companies, who have to think in terms of 5 or 10 years ahead for investments, have decided their money will be better spent elsewhere.
I think the identification of profits to which taxes can be applied is perhaps a missing element of any debate, as this is an outrage bus.
I think part of the context wrt Shell is that UK profits are already taxed at a high rate. The last number I saw was quite a bit higher than normal Corp. Tax due to an increased tax for oil companies, and then a windfall tax on top of that.
I can see the argument for a tax on windfall gains unrelated to the basic business operation - by analogy we give support to eg Renewables to prime the pump. But it needs to be very careful indeed - if we want to limit profit margins then what do we do with eg perfume companies, or software companies?
The only poster (bar the two-post antivax trolls) who has actually targeted PB like a troll is imo ScottP, because he wasn't engaging in actual discussion, he was carpet-bombing the place in copypasted Tweets with no quality control or added commentary, in a seeming attempt to overwhelm opposing ideas rather than engage with them. I am happy to say he does this less now.
I'm already with you on the local level, at least to the extent that Shell isn't distorting markets within UK.
Though for Dura it could just be a contrarian desire to be different.
If you do get a break from pondering how much better we are than the Russians, perhaps you can tell me what's actually 'Russian' or troll-like about the post I liked? It's a post that says Sunak is on a shoogly peg, and it's odd that he has not appointed a new Tory party chairman. Well, he is, and it is. It's totally relevant to PB, it's totally on topic, so where's your apparent issue?
You like what you believe in; your views happen to coincide with Russian trolls but so be it.
So if you divided Shell back into the 90 odd country companies it consists of, it would, as a group of companies make more profit.
And my dining partner has just puked up the first course - a poached oyster with scarlet caviar and has fled the building
Wtf do I do? It’s all free. I can’t eat 98 courses and drink 428 wines. But I can’t offend them
True story. Is this the most first world of first world problems??
I see the validity of your overall argument.
Okay, a thought experiment (I know there will be problems with this, I am interested in what they are): Rather than having a percentage tax rate on corporate profits, imagine a world in which any single company could make a maximum of, say, £1bn in profit each year.
Ignoring the impossibility of implementing such a scheme, would it fundamentally break the capitalist system, or would it simply reduce big companies' desires to take productive risks?
However, we need to remember that rampant house price inflation stopped in 2010, and the noughties had around 3x the house price increase of the 2010s. I'll condemn the last Conservative Govts for lots of things, yet they did help calm down the housing market.
I've said previously that I would pull the hot air from the housing market by removing tax breaks and demand side subsidy. (CGT on main dwellings like about half of Europe, Proportional Property Tax, end most 1st Time Buyer subsidies).
Yes I 100% agree that the problem was worse in the 00s than the 10s, I've made the same point many times to @CorrectHorseBattery3 however the problem still existed and it will take a lot to reverse the damage that has been done and bring house prices down in real terms back down to what they were pre Blair and Brown.
Of course we then get into a sticky debate about the legitimacy of state power in many of the countries Shell operates in, which is why I'm sticking to principles not practicalities
There are some who sail a bit close to the wind, but not that close.
As your exchange yesterday so eloquently notes, arguing with HYUFD is like arguing with a toddler. His (almost) constant refusal to admit whenever he's wrong, which he often is, is why people pile in on him.
No seriously.... probably October 2024. Sunak will do a Major and hope something turns up. However unlike Major who could push it out to the death (April 92 to May 97), pushing it out to the death here means a Christmas campaign in 24/25 and a January election. I don't think he'll be quite that brave.
If you really think the Route One approach to @HYUFD or indeed any poster of "you are wrong why don't you just accept it?" is going to work then you haven't been paying attention on PB.
When one of the UK independent oil companies decided to develop a field West of Shetlands about a decade ago and it went wrong (as they do rather often) they ended up costing them somewhere in the region of £2 billion. When the risks are that high no one is going to touch it if the potential profits aren't substantially higher.
I do wonder what sort of pathology must be going on in someone's head to be a holocaust denier. How does one come to that conclusion? The closest thing in the current time must be Putin apologists. Those that refer to a murderous war as an "SMO" for example.
If they are good: raw. Otherwise hide them away in sauces or chuck em in the bin
Omg they are now offering me a selection of Swedish knives