Energy Prices (Strictly NO referrals!)

Devilman said:
What is irrational about wanting to lower the burden on your customers to maintain your user base? If prices keep rising more people are not going to be able to pay, meaning less energy purchased and sold, meaning less profits earnt.

There is also nothing "normal" about the role of an energy producer or supplier wanting to profiteer from a shortage at the expensive of every man, woman and child.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is, with bringing this up its seen as an attack on capitalism, which is why we always talk about capping wages for the average worker but mention shareholder and it becomes instant taboo, its uncomfortable.
 
chrcoluk said:
I think the issue here is, with bringing this up its seen as an attack on capitalism, which is why we always talk about capping wages for the average worker but mention shareholder and it becomes instant taboo, its uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it something I find quite bizarre really. No system works fairly when it has basically zero regulations. It's just another form of extremism.

Doesn't matter whether it's religious, racial, social, moral or financial. When you allow something to go to extremes due to limited / no regulation, it's always bad.
 
chrcoluk said:
Amazon UK subsidiary of Amazon. The margins are very low and some years they paid no tax at all.
Click to expand...

But they didn't do even remotely what you said previously. Honestly, sorry your frankly way out of your depth here.

Amazon in effect transfer the profit to another entity, they do not charge less or restrict their income to reduce tax.

Example, they make £100M profit in the UK. They charge a management fee from Amazon HQ in the netherlands to the uk of £99M, so they end up with profit of £1M in the UK, and an extra £99M in the Netherlands.
(This is not necessarily what they do but to show you how its moved)
They do this to move the profit to somewhere where it is charged at a lower % not to make less profit. In fact its to increase profit after tax not reduce profit to shareholders.
The dutch government are known for creating sweetheart deals of lower tax % on profits declared in the NL.
There are many who do the same however and the EU have gone after some of them, Microsoft in Ireland for example.

Its mainly due to archaic tax systems that think nationally when businesses are becoming increasingly global.
The US for example didnt charge tax on profits not onshored, Trump was trying to lower the rate to get more US company profits onshored.
Its why there has been effort to get everyone on a similar corporation tax rate, and try to cut out the tax havens.
 
Devilman said:
Indeed, it something I find quite bizarre really. No system works fairly when it has basically zero regulations. It's just another form of extremism.

Doesn't matter whether it's religious, racial, social, moral or financial. When you allow something to go to extremes due to limited / no regulation, it's always bad.
Click to expand...
Our system is heavily regulated though. Fact is successive governments have put us in this position with regards to energy, they sold it all and made us reliant on market wholesale prices. Blame them not shareholders.
 
Devilman said:
What is irrational about wanting to lower the burden on your customers to maintain your user base? If prices keep rising more people are not going to be able to pay, meaning less energy purchased and sold, meaning less profits earnt.

There is also nothing "normal" about the role of an energy producer or supplier wanting to profiteer from a shortage at the expensive of every man, woman and child.
Click to expand...

End of the day its just another company making as much profit as it can.

Same as any other.

Its governments fault and any voters who knowingly voted for these policies of privatisation who are at fault.

Also our taxes obviously aren't up to scratch. Which is again, the government/our fault
 
n111ck said:
Boris takes aim at Labour / Lib Dem failures whilst Tory govt gets on with building more nuclear reactors...

www.telegraph.co.uk

‘Thanks a bunch, Tony’: Boris Johnson hits out at Labour’s ‘abject failure’ to invest in nuclear power

Outgoing PM takes aim at Tony Blair and Nick Clegg as he promises £700m for Sizewell C nuclear power station project
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...


www.investmentmonitor.ai

A history of radioactive decay: Who really messed up the UK’s nuclear industry?

Conservatives like to blame Labour for a lack of UK nuclear power investment, but the cause is privatisation and neglect under both parties.
www.investmentmonitor.ai www.investmentmonitor.ai
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
But they didn't do even remotely what you said previously. Honestly, sorry your frankly way out of your depth here.

Amazon in effect transfer the profit to another entity, they do not charge less or restrict their income to reduce tax.

Example, they make £100M profit in the UK. They charge a management fee from Amazon HQ in the netherlands to the uk of £99M, so they end up with profit of £1M in the UK, and an extra £99M in the Netherlands.
(This is not necessarily what they do but to show you how its moved)
They do this to move the profit to somewhere where it is charged at a lower % not to make less profit. In fact its to increase profit after tax not reduce profit to shareholders.
The dutch government are known for creating sweetheart deals of lower tax % on profits declared in the NL.
There are many who do the same however and the EU have gone after some of them, Microsoft in Ireland for example.

Its mainly due to archaic tax systems that think nationally when businesses are becoming increasingly global.
The US for example didnt charge tax on profits not onshored, Trump was trying to lower the rate to get more US company profits onshored.
Its why there has been effort to get everyone on a similar corporation tax rate, and try to cut out the tax havens.
Click to expand...
Well it is as I said, they manipulating where the profits go. You just described it in your post.

I do agree on your last point buts its a shame some countries arent keen on it (this includes us with backing out of planned corp tax increases under truss).

I think this has ran its course now so my reply on this taboo stops here, I said what I wanted to say, it did bite me when people are trying to push this on people who just want to maintain their income to costs ratio whilst they are not the cause of the inflation. Hence the posts.
 
413x said:
Yep.

What we know is it has to be paid.
You won't get the raw resources if you don't pay.

So at the end of the day the government will pay. Which means we (collective) will pay.

Who specifically pays? And that choice of Truss unfortunately so probably won't be the producers profits.

Which leaves the tories stuffed.
If they won't do more wind fall tax they will have to tax ordinary people.
And with the planned tax cuts that benefits the rich (the very rich) the most


So where's she going to get the money from?
Because she's giving to the rich and letting the poor suffer/die.


There won't be any tories left soon under 100k household income.
Click to expand...

Good points. Nearly everyone will get smashed by the price increases.

I'm amazed the tories have clung on following Johnson's resignation.

I assumed they'd go for an early election and hope for a hospital pass to Labour.
 
potatolord said:
Good points. Nearly everyone will get smashed by the price increases.

I'm amazed the tories have clung on following Johnson's resignation.

I assumed they'd go for an early election and hope for a hospital pass to Labour.
Click to expand...

I can't work out in my head if they are just stupid.
Or if they do want to lose the next election. Pass the country to Labour in its dire state, take over next time and blame Labour for the next 12 years.

Putting truss in charge, holding back on help will achieve this.
 
squerble said:
Not really - my basic 1080p monitor uses about 20W, so £0.52 * 0.02 (20W = 0.02kW) = £0.0104/hour, so 1.04p/hour.
Click to expand...

Yeah but thats highly subjective, I know my main (of 3) display uses between 26 and 50w which is going to be framerate and lighting etc dependent.
But others will be lower or higher, there is a lot of inequality in this area.

I think 50 is more typical for a decentish higher monitor, or a much older one.
 
Brightness makes so much difference.
I'm glad I have a light sensor on my monitor.

My plasma TV. Its amazing how much the smart meter jumps around on dark vs light scenes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom