Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
Efbe said:
isn't he referring to:
"The Treasury has set a 30% tax rate for onshore shale gas production. That compares with a top rate of 62% on new North Sea oil operations and up to 81% for older offshore fields."
Maybe not a subsidy, but same effect
As far as I can tell, what they have actually done is fail to apply the punitive taxation rate normally levied on mature oil and gas field production (81% FFS, does that not bother you?). 30% Corp tax is still higher than standard."The Treasury has set a 30% tax rate for onshore shale gas production. That compares with a top rate of 62% on new North Sea oil operations and up to 81% for older offshore fields."
Maybe not a subsidy, but same effect
Andy Zarse said:
snuffy said:
All taxation is state sponsored theft.
Well if Cuadrilla wants to pay for all its own infrastructure, national road/rail network, healthcare, schools, hospitals, policing, defence, pensions/benefits and all the other things the state provides then I suppose it is. However, since Cuadrilla (or any other company to my knowledge) doesn't, then it isn't...I go to work, I'm paid. The state then takes a proportion of that money from me without my consent. Taking without consent is theft.
snuffy said:
Andy Zarse said:
snuffy said:
All taxation is state sponsored theft.
Well if Cuadrilla wants to pay for all its own infrastructure, national road/rail network, healthcare, schools, hospitals, policing, defence, pensions/benefits and all the other things the state provides then I suppose it is. However, since Cuadrilla (or any other company to my knowledge) doesn't, then it isn't...I go to work, I'm paid. The state then takes a proportion of that money from me without my consent. Taking without consent is theft.
Nobody is forcing you to buy goods and services off the UK Government. You can opt out of UK tax by the simple expedient of moving to Monaco for example. The same basis applies to all individuals and corporates; indeed some like Google have exercised their option to move.
Andy Zarse said:
Eh? Of course you consent. It's one of the terms of the contract for residing in the UK.
In that case, consent is assumed and not explicitly given. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree to pay whatever taxes the state enforces on me. By remaining in the UK, I agree then that I am, by implication, agreeing to pay said taxes. My other option would to not pay and then I'd be sent to prison. i.e. the state is threatening me; so I am complying under duress.
snuffy said:
In that case, consent is assumed and not explicitly given. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree to pay whatever taxes the state enforces on me.
By remaining in the UK, I agree then that I am, by implication, agreeing to pay said taxes. My other option would to not pay and then I'd be sent to prison. i.e. the state is threatening me; so I am complying under duress.
I know what you mean. Just the other week I wanted to murder someone but I couldn't, because the law says I'm not allowed to and I'll go to prison if I do. So I'm complying by not murdering people, even though it's under duress. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree not to murder people! The law is an ass eh?By remaining in the UK, I agree then that I am, by implication, agreeing to pay said taxes. My other option would to not pay and then I'd be sent to prison. i.e. the state is threatening me; so I am complying under duress.
Oakey said:
I know what you mean. Just the other week I wanted to murder someone but I couldn't, because the law says I'm not allowed to and I'll go to prison if I do. So I'm complying by not murdering people, even though it's under duress. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree not to murder people! The law is an ass eh?
It's not the same thing at all because the state can't murder people either. But it can take your money. If I take your money that's theft; if the state takes it then that's taxation. snuffy said:
Andy Zarse said:
Eh? Of course you consent. It's one of the terms of the contract for residing in the UK.
In that case, consent is assumed and not explicitly given. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree to pay whatever taxes the state enforces on me. By remaining in the UK, I agree then that I am, by implication, agreeing to pay said taxes. My other option would to not pay and then I'd be sent to prison. i.e. the state is threatening me; so I am complying under duress.
Andy Zarse said:
I assume you similarly didn't sign anything agreeing not to rape or murder people, so on your logic you should be free to do so, and I can only assume you are not the next Peter Sutcliffe under duress.
No, because the state can't do those things either. But it can take your money.Oakey said:
I know what you mean. Just the other week I wanted to murder someone but I couldn't, because the law says I'm not allowed to and I'll go to prison if I do. So I'm complying by not murdering people, even though it's under duress. I can't recall being born and signing anything to say I agree not to murder people! The law is an ass eh?
Sorry Oakey, our posts crossed, drawing the murder analogy. Great minds think alike, although in this case you'd have to be a bit of an obtuse dipstick not to get the point...Oh wait!
snuffy said:
It's not the same thing at all because the state can't murder people either. But it can take your money. If I take your money that's theft; if the state takes it then that's taxation.
No, theft is theft and taxation is taxation. If you want to tax people you could always set up your own nation somewhere? snuffy said:
Andy Zarse said:
I assume you similarly didn't sign anything agreeing not to rape or murder people, so on your logic you should be free to do so, and I can only assume you are not the next Peter Sutcliffe under duress.
No, because the state can't do those things either. But it can take your money.If it wishes to "confiscate" money it can only do so by due process and in accordance with rules set out by democratic mandate. It is not arbitrary. The state did used to murder but has currently elected not to.
You have addressed your option of moving to a tax haven if you wish to legally opt out of taxation.
.
Andy Zarse said:
Eh? Of course you consent. It's one of the terms of the contract for residing in the UK.
I don't recall anyone handing me a pen and contract on emerging from my mothers womb but no matter, tax is a reality we must accept though the quantity we may dispute via the ballot box.Andy Zarse said:
The same basis applies to all individuals and corporates; indeed some like Google have exercised their option to move.
Interestingly, if you look at the legislation around oil exploration and taxation you should note that the oilco's cannot do this, it's called ring fencing.snuffy said:
It's not the same thing at all because the state can't murder people either. But it can take your money. If I take your money that's theft; if the state takes it then that's taxation.
The state doesn't take money. Tax is paid, not taken. You may think that because you pay via PAYE, but you can choose not to.You can choose not to buy VAT items. You can choose not to pay income tax (even without punishment by not earning, or earning too little). You can choose not town buy fuel or pay VED.
If you are economically inactive you do not pay tax.
FredClogs said:
Enhanced Capital allowances are allowed to companies that are investing in fracking, one of the reasons Cuadrilla are now finding investment from established UK energy firm Centrica (British Gas) is that Centrica can write off the £60m they've invested in Cuadrilla operations against profits made in other areas of the business and in markets other than fracked natural gas. So in a way it's worse than a subsidy because it distorts competition right across the energy production sector. Similar tax breaks are not available (or being withdrawn) for renewable energy investment.
Renewable energy gets massive subsidy guaranteed for 15 years and payment to not generate instead.In the meantime, and slightly less off topic than the recent discussion of personal taxation (one of the two only certain things in life}, I read that German Lawmakers Vote to Ban the Internal Combustion Engine which is OK as they can all buy and drive around in "leccy" cars with batteries charged from coal or gas (that's the on topic word) powered power stations.
Have I got that right?
Have I got that right?
hidetheelephants said:
Renewable energy gets massive subsidy guaranteed for 15 years and payment to not generate instead.
I don't know to what you're referring but if it's the feed in tariff then that's already been mentioned and the reasoning for pushing renewables is obvious.I've not heard of them being paid to not generate.
FredClogs said:
...and the reasoning for pushing renewables is obvious.
I assume you mean to generate a decent sustainable income for the rentier classes? (Cameron's father-in-law for example). FredClogs said:
I've not heard of them being paid to not generate.
Then you have cloth ears Sir.rolando said:
In the meantime, and slightly less off topic than the recent discussion of personal taxation (one of the two only certain things in life}, I read that German Lawmakers Vote to Ban the Internal Combustion Engine which is OK as they can all buy and drive around in "leccy" cars with batteries charged from coal or gas (that's the on topic word) powered power stations.
Have I got that right?
Yup - but if you try and point out that they are not in fact 'zero emissions' vehicles be prepared to be called a lot of nasty names :/Have I got that right?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff