Brown "confused" over oil prices
19 December 2008, 06:28 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rhiwbina, Cardiff
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brown "confused" over oil prices
BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown 'confused' over oil prices
or in a nutshell/political speak interpretation
The Secretary General of OPEC calls Broon a t*sser and says he should put his own house in order and lower taxes before telling OPEC what to do
Quality
or in a nutshell/political speak interpretation
The Secretary General of OPEC calls Broon a t*sser and says he should put his own house in order and lower taxes before telling OPEC what to do
Quality
19 December 2008, 06:35 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riiiight.
Nothing to do with the greedy ****s at OPEC deciding they quite liked oil at $147 a barrel and would rather like it to go back up there.
Of course it would be lovely for fuel duty to come down, but its a bit rich for OPEC, who have scaled back oil production expressly to try and get the price for all those poor oil rich nations.
Nothing to do with the greedy ****s at OPEC deciding they quite liked oil at $147 a barrel and would rather like it to go back up there.
Of course it would be lovely for fuel duty to come down, but its a bit rich for OPEC, who have scaled back oil production expressly to try and get the price for all those poor oil rich nations.
19 December 2008, 06:39 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
browns not confused hes a genius, totally manages to divert our attention to petrol taxes by throwing the country into total recession, dragging the world down with us and lowering the price of oil! its a masterstroke 
We are all happy petrols below a £1 even though the fires of economic doom rage around us, and the devils accountant is still taxing go juice at 70%!
We are all happy petrols below a £1 even though the fires of economic doom rage around us, and the devils accountant is still taxing go juice at 70%!
21 December 2008, 01:26 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
browns not confused hes a genius, totally manages to divert our attention to petrol taxes by throwing the country into total recession, dragging the world down with us and lowering the price of oil! its a masterstroke
We are all happy petrols below a £1 even though the fires of economic doom rage around us, and the devils accountant is still taxing go juice at 70%!
We are all happy petrols below a £1 even though the fires of economic doom rage around us, and the devils accountant is still taxing go juice at 70%!
Les
21 December 2008, 09:22 PM
#5
I think when the price of petrol comprises of 70+% tax, the opec minister is dead right.
WTF has the government done to justify taking out such a ridiculous profit from this product?
They are just riding on the oil producers backs.
WTF has the government done to justify taking out such a ridiculous profit from this product?
They are just riding on the oil producers backs.
22 December 2008, 07:56 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate Labour with a passion but I've got to say Brown was right about this and the OPEC cartel can **** off. It's not just the UK that suffers with high oil prices, the whole world economy does and OPEC are just greedy.
It wasn't that long ago that they publicly stated that their aim was to maintain oil at $25 a barrel. That would've been ok and lots of Arabs got rich on it but apparently that's not enough and now they're feeling hard done by at $43 a barrel, well tough.
And then there was the crazy comment on the BBC news website at the end of last week saying that the oil supplying nations were suffering as the price had fallen off a cliff! No, it's that their bumper payday of $147 a barrel had ended with oil returning to a more realistic level!
Simon
It wasn't that long ago that they publicly stated that their aim was to maintain oil at $25 a barrel. That would've been ok and lots of Arabs got rich on it but apparently that's not enough and now they're feeling hard done by at $43 a barrel, well tough.
And then there was the crazy comment on the BBC news website at the end of last week saying that the oil supplying nations were suffering as the price had fallen off a cliff! No, it's that their bumper payday of $147 a barrel had ended with oil returning to a more realistic level!
Simon
22 December 2008, 09:53 AM
#7
Hate Labour with a passion but I've got to say Brown was right about this and the OPEC cartel can **** off. It's not just the UK that suffers with high oil prices, the whole world economy does and OPEC are just greedy.
It wasn't that long ago that they publicly stated that their aim was to maintain oil at $25 a barrel. That would've been ok and lots of Arabs got rich on it but apparently that's not enough and now they're feeling hard done by at $43 a barrel, well tough.
And then there was the crazy comment on the BBC news website at the end of last week saying that the oil supplying nations were suffering as the price had fallen off a cliff! No, it's that their bumper payday of $147 a barrel had ended with oil returning to a more realistic level!
Simon
It wasn't that long ago that they publicly stated that their aim was to maintain oil at $25 a barrel. That would've been ok and lots of Arabs got rich on it but apparently that's not enough and now they're feeling hard done by at $43 a barrel, well tough.
And then there was the crazy comment on the BBC news website at the end of last week saying that the oil supplying nations were suffering as the price had fallen off a cliff! No, it's that their bumper payday of $147 a barrel had ended with oil returning to a more realistic level!
Simon
I repeat the point - how can any government justify a 70% profit for doing nothing?
Last edited by cster; 22 December 2008 at 10:01 AM.
Trending Topics
22 December 2008, 10:01 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THe only variable is VAT, which of course is a percentage.
Plus, of course fuel duty goes to the running of the country - Public services and what have you. Which hospitals would you clos ein order to reduce fuel duty?
22 December 2008, 10:27 AM
#9
Petrol tax is not a percentage. It is a duty. And their is an important difference. Does that mean that when oil was $147 a barrel and the government was getting the equivalent of around 45% tax it was ok?
THe only variable is VAT, which of course is a percentage.
Plus, of course fuel duty goes to the running of the country - Public services and what have you. Which hospitals would you clos ein order to reduce fuel duty?
THe only variable is VAT, which of course is a percentage.
Plus, of course fuel duty goes to the running of the country - Public services and what have you. Which hospitals would you clos ein order to reduce fuel duty?
I am not really interested in a discussion of semantic nature - we can leave that to the politicians I think.
I really don't see what your public services point has to do with anything I have said?
Or indeed why this should be the concern of OPEC.
It looks to me like you are looking to air your views on how wonderful the mediocrity on "offer" from the NHS and state education system is.
Keep it up comrade.
22 December 2008, 10:27 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come now, there's plenty of red tape generating bureaucrats that can be sacked, government projects dropped (road charging, ID database) and QUANGOs dismantled before anybody needs to start considering affecting core services.
22 December 2008, 10:43 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because they have made comment on British tax, you can't involve yourself in it and then decide its nothing to do with you.
Come now, there's plenty of red tape generating bureaucrats that can be sacked, government projects dropped (road charging, ID database) and QUANGOs dismantled before anybody needs to start considering affecting core services.
Road charging and ID cards are certainlyl areas where savings could be made - But how much I don't know.
22 December 2008, 10:57 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petrol tax is not a percentage. It is a duty. And their is an important difference. Does that mean that when oil was $147 a barrel and the government was getting the equivalent of around 45% tax it was ok?
THe only variable is VAT, which of course is a percentage.
Plus, of course fuel duty goes to the running of the country - Public services and what have you. Which hospitals would you clos ein order to reduce fuel duty?
THe only variable is VAT, which of course is a percentage.
Plus, of course fuel duty goes to the running of the country - Public services and what have you. Which hospitals would you clos ein order to reduce fuel duty?
As it is, they are effectively peeing it against the wall with their wild and extravagant spending in a useless manner and also feathering their own nests of course.
Every labour government has done the same thing-it is part of their mantra to tax and spend on unecessary items, they just can't help it. They also borrow in order to be able to increase their spending ability, until the IMF says they can't have any more. Then all we have to worry about is the enormous National Debt, payable off by our descendants as well as us, and also the period of austerity which is approaching.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 22 December 2008 at 11:04 AM.
22 December 2008, 11:50 AM
#13
"No, I am saying the fuel duty is fixed, not a percentage. Ther eis an important different, as I am sure you will appreciate wonce the price of oil goes up."
= you agree we are paying $400 a barrel at the pump - why don't you just say so.
"Because fuel duty revenue pays for public services. If the money doesn't come from there, uit has to come from soemwhere else, or , you cut services."
That justifies a 70% profit for doing nothing?
"Because they have made comment on British tax, you can't involve yourself in it and then decide its nothing to do with you."
-I don't think OPEC making a comment on British tax makes them responsible for anything.
"No I am just making a comment in the thread relevant to the discussion."
-Well nobody else has mentioned this in the thread and reading through the previous posts, I would say it has no relevance to any of them. Perhaps you could start another thread.
= you agree we are paying $400 a barrel at the pump - why don't you just say so.
"Because fuel duty revenue pays for public services. If the money doesn't come from there, uit has to come from soemwhere else, or , you cut services."
That justifies a 70% profit for doing nothing?
"Because they have made comment on British tax, you can't involve yourself in it and then decide its nothing to do with you."
-I don't think OPEC making a comment on British tax makes them responsible for anything.
"No I am just making a comment in the thread relevant to the discussion."
-Well nobody else has mentioned this in the thread and reading through the previous posts, I would say it has no relevance to any of them. Perhaps you could start another thread.
as always
Last edited by cster; 22 December 2008 at 11:53 AM.
22 December 2008, 12:07 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My issues was that you are stating it as a percentage - See below.
Profit??????
And the 70% only applies at this point in time As soon as the price in oil changes, so does the percentage, which is why stating it as a percentage is ridiculous.
Presumably you apply the same logic to say, income tax?
You said that you couldn't see why British public services are the concern of OPEC. As soon as they comment on tax rate, then they automaitcally become involved. The two are intrinsically linked.
22 December 2008, 12:13 PM
#15
Fuel duty was increased to keep the price at the pump the same, when VAT was reduced to 15%.
The reduction in VAT is only temporary, so do you think when VAT goes back up the government will reduce the fuel duty to compensate at the pumps?
I don't think so.
The reduction in VAT is only temporary, so do you think when VAT goes back up the government will reduce the fuel duty to compensate at the pumps?
I don't think so.
22 December 2008, 12:18 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost certainly not. But it has been frozen for a few years so we are probably overdue a rise.
22 December 2008, 12:39 PM
#17
"The $400 at the pump is entirely irrelevant. We were paying the same amount when it was $147 a barrel.
My issues was that you are stating it as a percentage - See below."
How can the $400 be irrelevant when it is exactly the point to which you originally responded
"Profit??????
And the 70% only applies at this point in time As soon as the price in oil changes, so does the percentage, which is why stating it as a percentage is ridiculous.
Presumably you apply the same logic to say, income tax?"
If it is not profit - what else is it? As the percentage is at a point in time, it is relevant as we speak. When were you talking about?
"You said that you couldn't see why British public services are the concern of OPEC. As soon as they comment on tax rate, then they automaitcally become involved. The two are intrinsically linked."
It seems to me that you are the sort of person who likes to believe what you would like to hear - I suppose in an ideal world, OPEC would be concerned with the needs of the British taxpayer - alas......this is probably not the case
My issues was that you are stating it as a percentage - See below."
How can the $400 be irrelevant when it is exactly the point to which you originally responded
"Profit??????
And the 70% only applies at this point in time As soon as the price in oil changes, so does the percentage, which is why stating it as a percentage is ridiculous.
Presumably you apply the same logic to say, income tax?"
If it is not profit - what else is it? As the percentage is at a point in time, it is relevant as we speak. When were you talking about?
"You said that you couldn't see why British public services are the concern of OPEC. As soon as they comment on tax rate, then they automaitcally become involved. The two are intrinsically linked."
It seems to me that you are the sort of person who likes to believe what you would like to hear - I suppose in an ideal world, OPEC would be concerned with the needs of the British taxpayer - alas......this is probably not the case
Last edited by cster; 22 December 2008 at 12:41 PM.
22 December 2008, 12:51 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh yes ......
The thing is that OPEC are basically in it to make money. They have a product for sale and will charge the price they can get for it. Basically like any large, almost-monopolistic company ...
With Brown though he is meant to be running Britain for the electorate. Us plebs if you like. So he should be doing his utmost to keep our costs (taxes and the like) to a minimum. Is he? Is he f&ck!!
Dave
With Brown though he is meant to be running Britain for the electorate. Us plebs if you like. So he should be doing his utmost to keep our costs (taxes and the like) to a minimum. Is he? Is he f&ck!!
Dave
22 December 2008, 01:02 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes ......
The thing is that OPEC are basically in it to make money. They have a product for sale and will charge the price they can get for it. Basically like any large, almost-monopolistic company ...
With Brown though he is meant to be running Britain for the electorate. Us plebs if you like. So he should be doing his utmost to keep our costs (taxes and the like) to a minimum. Is he? Is he f&ck!!
Dave
The thing is that OPEC are basically in it to make money. They have a product for sale and will charge the price they can get for it. Basically like any large, almost-monopolistic company ...
With Brown though he is meant to be running Britain for the electorate. Us plebs if you like. So he should be doing his utmost to keep our costs (taxes and the like) to a minimum. Is he? Is he f&ck!!
Dave
22 December 2008, 01:21 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
22 December 2008, 01:21 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The percentage is irelevant because Fuel duty is just that, a duty, a fixed sum, not a percentage.
You don't give road tax as a percentage do you? Why? because what you are giving as a percentage of would vary.
It seems to me that you are the sort of person who likes to believe what you would like to hear - I suppose in an ideal world, OPEC would be concerned with the needs of the British taxpayer - alas......this is probably not the case
22 December 2008, 01:23 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 December 2008, 01:56 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Petrol price - Emotive innit
At peak price high octane was 190+ yen/litre.
It is now roughly 115/litre.
Has the UK price reduced by the equivalent?
If not, why not? Is it because of the yen/dollar exchange compared to the weakness of the pound
At peak price high octane was 190+ yen/litre.
It is now roughly 115/litre.
Has the UK price reduced by the equivalent?
If not, why not? Is it because of the yen/dollar exchange compared to the weakness of the pound
22 December 2008, 02:00 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At its peak it was around £1.25 per litre. It's now around 87p - So I think it has dropped by the "correct" amount (although it took a damn sight longer to come down, than it did to go up. Wonder why that is
22 December 2008, 02:07 PM
#26
Ahhh, but start taking it back out at source (PAYE) & people start wondering where it's gone/what it's used for
22 December 2008, 02:24 PM
#27
"No, I was responding to the 70% remark."
The main point of the post was the $400, the 70% was a subclause to abreviate the main point for brevity - are you a proffessional nit picker or something? If you are going to pick up on the 70% part - then go on - justify the amount taken off by the government
"So all tax revenue is profit? Is that waht you're saying? Or just fuel duty? in which case, why is fuel duty "profit" and not any other form of tax?"
This is pointless nit picking again - see above
The percentage is irelevant because Fuel duty is just that, a duty, a fixed sum, not a percentage.
You don't give road tax as a percentage do you? Why? because what you are giving as a percentage of would vary.
No, waht I am saying is that as soon as you comment on one aspect of tax, you then open youself up to question as to what the knock-on effect of reducing said tax would be.
The main point of the post was the $400, the 70% was a subclause to abreviate the main point for brevity - are you a proffessional nit picker or something? If you are going to pick up on the 70% part - then go on - justify the amount taken off by the government
"So all tax revenue is profit? Is that waht you're saying? Or just fuel duty? in which case, why is fuel duty "profit" and not any other form of tax?"
This is pointless nit picking again - see above
The percentage is irelevant because Fuel duty is just that, a duty, a fixed sum, not a percentage.
You don't give road tax as a percentage do you? Why? because what you are giving as a percentage of would vary.
No, waht I am saying is that as soon as you comment on one aspect of tax, you then open youself up to question as to what the knock-on effect of reducing said tax would be.
Of what relevance are your posts?
If you want to go on about taxation in this country, why don't you start a thread on it
22 December 2008, 02:25 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd look it up if I was you. Google will probably find it as the figures have been used in the press for years.
The point is, OPEC are basically a profit making organisation. Broon is meant to govern for the good of the country. Even before the 'credit crunch' that was NOT the case.
Dave
The point is, OPEC are basically a profit making organisation. Broon is meant to govern for the good of the country. Even before the 'credit crunch' that was NOT the case.
Dave
22 December 2008, 03:01 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Sorry "Government profit"
Originally Posted by hutton d
have been used in the press for years
Its like the UKIP claim that £56billio is spend every yea ron the EU, when the reality is that its nowhere near, and what do they do to come up with this figure? "£28billion in red tape" they say.
Its completely made up, same as the "lost" billions in bureaucracy that the Mail go on about - Why? beacuse you don't have to back up any of your figures.
22 December 2008, 03:43 PM
#30
What? I think you'll find your the one that starting bleating on about 70% tax.
...Sorry "Government profit"
I don't recall mentioning the word tax at all - The word profit was specifically chosen as it was taken from the point of OPEC. Do you know how to see anything from anothers point of view Peter? You really must be more objective and stop seeing/hearing what you want to
...Sorry "Government profit"
I don't recall mentioning the word tax at all - The word profit was specifically chosen as it was taken from the point of OPEC. Do you know how to see anything from anothers point of view Peter? You really must be more objective and stop seeing/hearing what you want to
Last edited by cster; 22 December 2008 at 03:44 PM.