Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Mon May 27, 2013 9:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If raw materials go up, this forces the prices up if the companies make the same mark up on a high base cost profits will rise. Not a difficult concept?

Not a difficult concept at all and if you feel that a supplier of a basic life essential product should gain substantially (these are substantial increases in profit) from a rise in basic raw materials by simple accountancy and non-adjustment of their percentage mark-up, then fine, its good for the company, good for the shareholders, good for their suppliers too - doesn't do anyone else much good but I'm sure there's a reason in there somewhere why it has to be so.

Years ago prices may well have been comparatively lower but these were subsidised by taxes that were significantly higher. It would be interesting to go back to the relationship between utility cost and net income under Callaghan and now.

I don't particularly think that Callaghans government were particularly onerous in their tax take and/or subsidy of the nationalised energy providers, he wasn't in power long enough to make that much of an impact, fact is that energy distribution was done that way for forty years until privatisation again (it had previously been a private business anyway) and even then energy costs didn't vary that much - the thing that has changed in very recent years is raw material cost, higher levies and requirements from governments for "green" energy, and the simple rule of capitalism that a company cannot make the same amount (nett sum) of money year after year, it has to increase it nett profit every year or it is viewed as failing, the fact that it is a vital life requirement provider is irrelevant to these rules of the stock exchange.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Mon May 27, 2013 7:36 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Not a difficult concept at all and if you feel that a supplier of a basic life essential product should gain substantially (these are substantial increases in profit) from a rise in basic raw materials by simple accountancy and non-adjustment of their percentage mark-up, then fine, its good for the company, good for the shareholders, good for their suppliers too - doesn't do anyone else much good but I'm sure there's a reason in there somewhere why it has to be so.


I don't particularly think that Callaghans government were particularly onerous in their tax take and/or subsidy of the nationalised energy providers, he wasn't in power long enough to make that much of an impact, fact is that energy distribution was done that way for forty years until privatisation again (it had previously been a private business anyway) and even then energy costs didn't vary that much - the thing that has changed in very recent years is raw material cost, higher levies and requirements from governments for "green" energy, and the simple rule of capitalism that a company cannot make the same amount (nett sum) of money year after year, it has to increase it nett profit every year or it is viewed as failing, the fact that it is a vital life requirement provider is irrelevant to these rules of the stock exchange.

Capitalism - the premise of which is a reward to shareholders for the risk of stumping up the money. Substantial increases in profits result from substantial increases in the capital employed to fund those profits? Increased profits means increased corporation tax, increases in revenues means increases in VAT revenues? a win win for HMRC and the population in general.

Inflation dictates that a company cannot make the same monies every year otherwise they are going backwards. Higher levels of investment demand higher levels of return or once again the company is going backwards. To increase net profit doesn't have to mean increases in prices it can mean lower operating costs? Either way you lefties will spit your dummy out.

There are numerous alternatives to gas out there and there are a host of government supported plans to reduce energy consumption - the fact that most are too stupid or bone idle to seek them out is not the fault of big bad capitalist organisations.

All you lefties would do well to delve a little deeper into why the country is such a nanny state - because you all believe you know best and that culture has dominated left wing politics since the war - the result greater numbers of individuals/families are looking for the state to provide for them!! The industrious culture we once had has evaporated - we have lost the ability to stand on our own two feet. Gas could be considered an essential but it isn't essential we have it on every hour of every day - there are alternatives?

In the words of JFK "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Mon May 27, 2013 8:54 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Capitalism - the premise of which is a reward to shareholders for the risk of stumping up the money. Substantial increases in profits result from substantial increases in the capital employed to fund those profits? Increased profits means increased corporation tax, increases in revenues means increases in VAT revenues? a win win for HMRC and the population in general.

No it's not a win win. Increased revenue for energy companies takes money that would have been spent elsewhere in the economy. It is both bad for the economy as a whole to have high energy prices and for VAT take as energy is at reduced VAT rate whereas the vast majority of other products in the economy is at the standard rate.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Inflation dictates that a company cannot make the same monies every year otherwise they are going backwards.

Not true. Inflation is not a one-size-fits-all situation. A company's costs could quite easily decrease due to deflation in their particular cost area.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Higher levels of investment demand higher levels of return or once again the company is going backwards.

Again, not true. Higher levels of investment may well follow a period of under-investment, higher levels of investment may be necessary to simply maintain current return due to that previous under-investment or for other reasons, for instance higher competition.

Sal Paradise wrote:

To increase net profit doesn't have to mean increases in prices it can mean lower operating costs? Either way you lefties will spit your dummy out.

Of course it can. But that's not what's happened is it? As energy prices have continually increased. As have profits.

Sal Paradise wrote:

There are numerous alternatives to gas out there and there are a host of government supported plans to reduce energy consumption - the fact that most are too stupid or bone idle to seek them out is not the fault of big bad capitalist organisations.

Which alternatives are these? Care to name them? Along with the host of government supported energy saving plans? I can't think of any significant ones that don't require a lot of money to be stumped up.

Sal Paradise wrote:

All you lefties would do well to delve a little deeper into why the country is such a nanny state - because you all believe you know best and that culture has dominated left wing politics since the war - the result greater numbers of individuals/families are looking for the state to provide for them!! The industrious culture we once had has evaporated - we have lost the ability to stand on our own two feet. Gas could be considered an essential but it isn't essential we have it on every hour of every day - there are alternatives?

Is this in the real world? It's probably because all us lefties are too busy saving up to fund our care in the future. Got to pay for those expense accounts somehow.

Sal Paradise wrote:

In the words of JFK "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Mon May 27, 2013 9:12 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

In the words of JFK "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Its a bit of a strange choice of quotation to finish off an otherwise republican right wing rant isn't it are you sure you meant to pick John Kennedy ?

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Tue May 28, 2013 7:40 pm  

Him wrote:

No it's not a win win. Increased revenue for energy companies takes money that would have been spent elsewhere in the economy. It is both bad for the economy as a whole to have high energy prices and for VAT take as energy is at reduced VAT rate whereas the vast majority of other products in the economy is at the standard rate.

Not true. Inflation is not a one-size-fits-all situation. A company's costs could quite easily decrease due to deflation in their particular cost area.

Again, not true. Higher levels of investment may well follow a period of under-investment, higher levels of investment may be necessary to simply maintain current return due to that previous under-investment or for other reasons, for instance higher competition.

Of course it can. But that's not what's happened is it? As energy prices have continually increased. As have profits.

Which alternatives are these? Care to name them? Along with the host of government supported energy saving plans? I can't think of any significant ones that don't require a lot of money to be stumped up.

Is this in the real world? It's probably because all us lefties are too busy saving up to fund our care in the future. Got to pay for those expense accounts somehow.

If the surplus money was spent on food or children's clothes would the VAT take go up or down? Could be that councils would take the opportunity to increase council tax? You have absolutely no idea where any surplus money would be spent.

Are you for real - cost deflation, this thread is all about energy increases would you say they are going up or down? Given most products require some energy in the process unit costs will rise that is before all the raw materials that also require energy to produce them!!

Investment doesn't mean capital investment - was that a bit over your head?if raw material/finished goods cost more then companies need to invest more in stock to service their business to the same level - if we accept the same level of return is required then company sales and profits will rise even if they sell the identical items to the previous year. Is that really such a difficult concept?

I would suggest both things happen in a well run company - costs lower as processes and technology improve and margins firm as a company's offering modifies to best suit its market.

A two cheap things you can do - loft insulation and cavity wall insulation both attractive government subsidies I got mine done for £80 hardly a large amount of money to stump up!! everyone should do it - how many actually do?

Perhaps if you lefties concentrated running your own life rather than telling everyone else's how to run theirs then you would not be so worried about your care in the future!! - no one deserves to have to care for you.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Tue May 28, 2013 8:05 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

- no one deserves to have to care for you.

They fooking well do, you condescending twat!

45 years ago, when I first started working for a living, I entered into a compact with the then-government: I would work and earn money, I would also contribute at the prevailing rates, in the form of income tax and National Insurance. In return, I could expect the comfort of a safety net, in the form of unemployment benefit (claimed once in 1992 for a period of three months) and sickness payments, should I be too ill to work. I was told I could also expect a reasonable pension, once I reached the age of retirement.

Various governments have since chipped away at those benefits, to the point that when I do reach the age of 65 (I just qualify), there's no way on earth I could stop working and retire. Although various governments have dipped into my retirement and benefit pot, none have engaged in the daylight robbery, the current bunch of sociopaths are visiting upon the nation

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Tue May 28, 2013 9:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If the surplus money was spent on food or children's clothes would the VAT take go up or down? Could be that councils would take the opportunity to increase council tax? You have absolutely no idea where any surplus money would be spent.

Generally up, since plenty of food products at your local supermarket are standard rated. And that's if people only spent the difference on those 2 specific areas. Are you suggesting you do know where the surplus money would be spent? It was you making the claim that VAT take would go up despite energy only being reduced rated yet the vast majority of products in the economy are at 4 times that rate.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Are you for real - cost deflation, this thread is all about energy increases would you say they are going up or down? Given most products require some energy in the process unit costs will rise that is before all the raw materials that also require energy to produce them!!

Are you suggesting there have been no areas of deflation in the economy whatsoever? You're ignoring all other aspects of costs and only focussing upon one aspect. Regardless, my reply was in the context of your specific quote which seemed to be about businesses in general:

Sal Paradise wrote:

Inflation dictates that a company cannot make the same monies every year otherwise they are going backwards

Which is untrue for the reasons I initially gave.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Investment doesn't mean capital investment - was that a bit over your head?if raw material/finished goods cost more then companies need to invest more in stock to service their business to the same level - if we accept the same level of return is required then company sales and profits will rise even if they sell the identical items to the previous year. Is that really such a difficult concept?

I never mentioned capital investment.
A company can under-invest in many areas including stock, if there has been a period of under-investment then it would be unreasonable to demand a higher level of return when investment is adjusted to a reasonable level. My reply was once again in the context of your original quote, which again seemed to be about businesses in general.

Sal Paradise wrote:

A two cheap things you can do - loft insulation and cavity wall insulation both attractive government subsidies I got mine done for £80 hardly a large amount of money to stump up!! everyone should do it - how many actually do?

How much has it saved you? What about people who already have it? Where are the other schemes? You said there was a host of them? What about the alternatives to gas?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Perhaps if you lefties concentrated running your own life rather than telling everyone else's how to run theirs then you would not be so worried about your care in the future!!

What like telling people they're bone idle and should get cavity wall insulation? Or telling someone to leave their job because the conditions are poor? Or telling an unemployed person to take any job regardless of wages or conditions? Or telling someone to get into the real world?

Sal Paradise wrote:

- no one deserves to have to care for you.

Are you resorting to condescension because you don't actually know as much as you pretend to? Is the mask slipping? Are you really the uber-capitalist, thriving, self-made businessman? Or is it all a not very elaborate bluff so you can have a few minutes of snorting, Daily Mail-esque anger at all these people who insist on making you pay for things you don't want to? It's true isn't it. You don't actually know what you're on about. Your claims on government schemes and alternatives are a perfect example, you talk big yet can never back it up. Your comments on here and your previous comments on the Leeds board, especially the Jane Tomlinson ones some years ago, lead me to believe you aren't some kind of thriving businessman but merely a not particularly nice person who has little to no compassion or understanding of other people's circumstances or goals in life.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Tue May 28, 2013 10:22 pm  

On the gas price question - we have a regulator to prevent market abuse. Is it being said they are not doing their job? Maybe government has set the wrong terms of reference for the regulator? Are you writing to your MP to demand a review of the regulators performance and / or terms of reference? If not then it cannot be an issue of importance to you.

On the VAT question, what is the relative usage domestic v business?

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 29, 2013 6:10 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Perhaps if you lefties concentrated running your own life rather than telling everyone else's how to run theirs then you would not be so worried about your care in the future!! - no one deserves to have to care for you.

Reality check time.

Yes they do.

However, should a second term of solely Conservative government be elected in 2015 (its a real possibility) then THAT is the time to start thinking about looking for some suitable land upon which to build your family compound in the style of the wealthy of South Africa, high walls, big Ridgeback dogs to patrol the grounds and a couple of grateful hefty men on the gate who's skin colour is slightly darker than yours - get your family inside, and bollax to all the poor people at the gate peering in.

Its the future.

Re: Privatisation. And the loser is........Democracy : Wed May 29, 2013 5:57 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... two cheap things you can do - loft insulation and cavity wall insulation both attractive government subsidies I got mine done for £80 hardly a large amount of money to stump up!!....

I see, state aid is fine when it lines your own pockets but not when it helps the less well- off.
Why can't you stand on your own two feet?
Ask not what your country can do for you?