The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Jimothy]

14 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Prince Charles saying 'back again' to Truss in the most disappointed way is golden

 

King 

[rachhere]

26 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Prince Charles saying 'back again' to Truss in the most disappointed way is golden

 

I first saw it about 20 minutes ago, and I am still laughing! He’s growing on me!

[Zear0]

"Dear oh dear" was the one for me. Sack her and Brendan please Charlie. 

[weller54]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

"Dear oh dear" was the one for me. Sack her and Brendan please Charlie. 

😂😂.. brilliant!!

Couldn't imagine The Queen saying that!..

Good on ya Charles.

[rachhere]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I think the reason is that the green energy producers are generating power at a price like $20 per unit cost and receiving $150, whereas the fossil fuel producers are paying  $120 and receiving $150 

 

the numbers are made up by me but still an indication that the renewable sector is making much much larger margins than the gas/oil sector 

Thanks for that. My husband was explaining to me as. But if you were to tax a set percentage on profits then surely it wouldn’t matter - the extra paid would be proportional to your earnings. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I think the reason is that the green energy producers are generating power at a price like $20 per unit cost and receiving $150, whereas the fossil fuel producers are paying  $120 and receiving $150 

 

the numbers are made up by me but still an indication that the renewable sector is making much much larger margins than the gas/oil sector 

The ones they really should be going after are the oil and gas producers. Their costs won’t have risen much but their commodity prices will have, leading to excess profits that are causing the whole inflation spiral. Some, perhaps many of these might be outside the reach of the UK government though, not sure.

Edited 12 October 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[Mike Oxlong]

 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, rachhere said:

Thanks for that. My husband was explaining to me as. But if you were to tax a set percentage on profits then surely it wouldn’t matter - the extra paid would be proportional to your earnings. 

It’s not a percentage tax on profits 

they will set a ceiling on what green producers can charge for their energy and beyond that, what they take will have to pay the govt 

 

on my illustration, if it costs $20 per unit then maybe the max they can charge per unit is $80. If the market is $150, then govt will take $70.

 

just watching newsnight and truss could well be in deep trouble with her mp’s. Feasibly she may not make the fiscal statement back end November 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The ones they really should be going after are the oil and gas producers. Their costs won’t have risen much but their commodity prices will have, leading to excess profits that are causing the whole inflation spiral. Some, perhaps many of these might be outside the reach of the UK government though, not sure.

I suspect the vast majority are beyond our shores WW 

 

the energy suppliers here are mainly buying in gas/oil at market rates. They are earning excess profits because their margins aren’t enormous but they are based on much higher unit prices. 

[Legend_in_blue]

She was an embarrassment on PMQs today.  I notice as soon as the going gets tough, locally, Costa starts posting about the local agenda and what he's up to deflecting away from the PM who he publicly backed after Mordaunt was knocked out.

[Legend_in_blue]

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Parafox said:

Whenever I read all the intellectual, responsible, educated posts on this topic I can't believe that some posters might be the same ones that shout:

 

 

What I was saying at about 80 minutes into the Bournemouth match last Saturday I can't really repeat TBH.

 

6 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

I don’t dispute anything you claim or @Captain... for that matter. My point being, is whatever this country does will make little or no difference in terms of current global emissions. I’m all for this country being innovators in Green matters and developing environmental and carbon reducing technologies etc. But stuff like phasing out fossil fuel generated electricity by 2030 is madness imo. 

And your point, while statistically accurate, is totally irrelevant to the problem or to the solution for reasons already stated and therefore a red herring. That's what myself and other people are pointing out.

 

The transition clearly does have to be phased in order to preserve quality of life as much as possible, but it does have to be done, and it does have to be done quickly.

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, StanSP said:

Prince Charles saying 'back again' to Truss in the most disappointed way is golden

 

You’ve got to feel for him. His mums first PM was the actual Winston Churchill. He’s got Liz ****ing Truss. 

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, ozleicester said:

sadly pragmatism is what the Labor party in Australia used and now find themselves in power but about to approve tax cuts for the rich because they pragmatically said they wouldn't change the conservatives plans.

Effectively....  #ToryLite

Gotta have some ethics and stand for something!

To be fair 47% is a very high top tax rate, and it starts at 180k which is not all that much.  They should however tighten up on the array of tax reduction schemes which high earners seem to use in Australia - its new to me as you know and there seem to be myriad ways to reduce your tax bill.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

You’ve got to feel for him. His mums first PM was the actual Winston Churchill. He’s got Liz ****ing Truss. 

Churchill spent a lot of his career being very unpopular, and indeed was very unpopular after the war was won.

[WigstonWanderer]

31 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair 47% is a very high top tax rate, and it starts at 180k which is not all that much.  They should however tighten up on the array of tax reduction schemes which high earners seem to use in Australia - its new to me as you know and there seem to be myriad ways to reduce your tax bill.

To make any changes to the tax system in Australia that overwhelmingly benefits those on higher incomes, when government debt has reached around a trillion dollars is sheer madness. I suspect that even the Liberals, had they retained power, would eventually have had to cancel, delay or modify these “reforms”.

Edited 13 October 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[Jon the Hat]

20 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

To make any changes to the tax system in Australia that overwhelmingly benefits those on higher incomes, when government debt has reached around a trillion dollars is sheer madness. I suspect that even the Liberals, had they retained power, would eventually have had to cancel, delay or modify these “reforms”.

Australia is an expensive place to employ people though - and this will help.  In the mining sector for a start, the number of remote roles now managing mine site systems etc. provides an opportunity to offshore a lot of roles, which is not a good thing for the Australian economy.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Australia is an expensive place to employ people though - and this will help.  In the mining sector for a start, the number of remote roles now managing mine site systems etc. provides an opportunity to offshore a lot of roles, which is not a good thing for the Australian economy.

Just so im clear -

$0.47 is a "high" rate... not $0.90 which was a high rate in the 70s?
Im comfortable with adjusting the brackets as long as they include bonuses, and share swaps, equity inclusions etc.
Still the top tax rate should be MUCH higher and Corporate tax needs to be at least doubled

 At a time when we are experiencing full employment but workers wages have been going backwards for 10+ years and this year most will fall behind inflation again....but corporate profits are exploding.... and still the greedy mining companies are moving jobs offshore and increasing use of driverless trucks etc.

The CEOs in Aust earning $10 - $20 MILLION pa (plus bonuses and dividends etc) are paying the same tax rate as those on $180,000 ...seems fair  

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/15/ceos-of-australias-top-20-companies-given-nine-times-the-pay-rise-of-full-time-workers
 

[Jon the Hat]

42 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Just so im clear -

$0.47 is a "high" rate... not $0.90 which was a high rate in the 70s?
Im comfortable with adjusting the brackets as long as they include bonuses, and share swaps, equity inclusions etc.
Still the top tax rate should be MUCH higher and Corporate tax needs to be at least doubled

 At a time when we are experiencing full employment but workers wages have been going backwards for 10+ years and this year most will fall behind inflation again....but corporate profits are exploding.... and still the greedy mining companies are moving jobs offshore and increasing use of driverless trucks etc.

The CEOs in Aust earning $10 - $20 MILLION pa (plus bonuses and dividends etc) are paying the same tax rate as those on $180,000 ...seems fair  

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/15/ceos-of-australias-top-20-companies-given-nine-times-the-pay-rise-of-full-time-workers
 

I'm not sure why you think increasing corporate or personal tax rates would improve workers wages?  Quite possibly the opposite would happen.  Australia should be supporting investment in onshore capability not pushing miners and others to ship low value raw materials offshore for processing.  Increasing tax rates risks reducing investment.  I think we can all agree the level of CEO pay is madness, but it make sod all difference to the tax take - there are not many of them.

Edited 13 October 2022 by Jon the Hat

[foxes1988]

10 hours ago, rachhere said:

I completely missed this: 

Is this real? Or is it more complex than Greenpeace are portraying?

 

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I think the reason is that the green energy producers are generating power at a price like $20 per unit cost and receiving $150, whereas the fossil fuel producers are paying  $120 and receiving $150 

 

the numbers are made up by me but still an indication that the renewable sector is making much much larger margins than the gas/oil sector 

 

8 hours ago, rachhere said:

Thanks for that. My husband was explaining to me as. But if you were to tax a set percentage on profits then surely it wouldn’t matter - the extra paid would be proportional to your earnings. 

 

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s not a percentage tax on profits 

they will set a ceiling on what green producers can charge for their energy and beyond that, what they take will have to pay the govt 

 

on my illustration, if it costs $20 per unit then maybe the max they can charge per unit is $80. If the market is $150, then govt will take $70.

 

just watching newsnight and truss could well be in deep trouble with her mp’s. Feasibly she may not make the fiscal statement back end November 

Basically as I understand it there is an order to which power generation is used in order to meet uk demand.  Power generation is switched on in ascending order from cheapest (operationally)method to most expensive until demand is met. The last power generation method switched on is the one which determines the price for electricity. This is often gas as the uk generates such a high proportion of its electricity from it.  Renewable are usually switched on first because operationally they are the cheapest to generate electricity. Now as renewable are cheaper to run the operationally profit is much higher per kwh of electricity then gas etc. This is the profit the government is trying to limit

 

Best analogy I've found is its like a penalty shoot-out 

 

Generation types are like players in a penalty shootout. Renewables get selected first. But when the pressure is on, gas steps up to the spot. And its score determines the result. 

 

https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/why-does-the-price-of-gas-drive-electricity-prices-including-renewables/

 

[Fazzer 7]

German ROI hits 70 year high 10.9%!

[Tommy G]

3 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Just so im clear -

$0.47 is a "high" rate... not $0.90 which was a high rate in the 70s?
Im comfortable with adjusting the brackets as long as they include bonuses, and share swaps, equity inclusions etc.
Still the top tax rate should be MUCH higher and Corporate tax needs to be at least doubled

 At a time when we are experiencing full employment but workers wages have been going backwards for 10+ years and this year most will fall behind inflation again....but corporate profits are exploding.... and still the greedy mining companies are moving jobs offshore and increasing use of driverless trucks etc.

The CEOs in Aust earning $10 - $20 MILLION pa (plus bonuses and dividends etc) are paying the same tax rate as those on $180,000 ...seems fair  

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/sep/15/ceos-of-australias-top-20-companies-given-nine-times-the-pay-rise-of-full-time-workers
 

You have a massive bee in your bonnet about top rates of tax, are you a higher rate or additional rate tax payer? You get absolutely shafted in the U.K. over 100k, are you suggesting it’s fair that this should rise further?? Where is the incentive to be successful and earn a good wage?

[foxes1988]

49 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

German ROI hits 70 year high 10.9%!

Wow what investment are they getting a 10.9% return on?  Whatever it is the UK needs to do the same now. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You have a massive bee in your bonnet about top rates of tax, are you a higher rate or additional rate tax payer? You get absolutely shafted in the U.K. over 100k, are you suggesting it’s fair that this should rise further?? Where is the incentive to be successful and earn a good wage?

This is operating on the assumption that the sole definition of "success" is material wealth and that is the only thing a human can or should aspire to. I'm not sure that's accurate.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is operating on the assumption that the sole definition of "success" is material wealth and that is the only thing a human can or should aspire to. I'm not sure that's accurate.

For a majority of successful hard working high earning people, it is - we don’t live on a kibbutz 

 

the idea that people who earn 100k+ are mega wealthy is easy to state but simply not true ….

Edited 13 October 2022 by st albans fox