Energy cap to go up again in October

[Andrew]

Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
up to £2,800 in October.

Ouch.

[Jeff Gaines]

The real issue is that energy companies see it as a target not a cap,
couldn't possibly have been foreseen could it?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

[R D S]

On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
> up to £2,800 in October.
>

What, per KWh? :)

Seriously though, I always assumed the cap was per unit?

In theory can I spend £1000 per month on energy (probably not that
difficult ATM) and pay £466...

[Theo]

R D S <rsa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
> > Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
> > up to £2,800 in October.
> >
> What, per KWh? :)
>
> Seriously though, I always assumed the cap was per unit?

The cap is at two levels, 0 kWh and 'average' consumption (3100kWh for
non-E7 elec, 12000kWh for gas). The energy company can pick any tariff as
long as it's below the cap at those two points.

So the current cap for London has a max £953.73 for 12000kWh of gas and
£986.60 for 3100kWh of electric, making the 'average' bill £1940.33.

Assuming they remain making a loss as they current are, the energy company
will probably pick a straight line through those points and that gives you
the standing charge and unit rate.

> In theory can I spend £1000 per month on energy (probably not that
> difficult ATM) and pay £466...

Sadly not...

Theo

[Max Demian]

On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:

> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
> up to £2,800 in October.

And energy company CEOs have the cheek to suggest that the Government
pay (some) people money so they can afford to pay for their expensive
energy.

--
Max Demian

[Fredxx]

I don't get the 'cheek'? It's a marketplace, where the wholesale price
has had unprecedented increases. Feel free to start your own company to
supply energy. Apart from the hoops you'll have to jump through I wager
you'd still make a loss.

I never saw the point of a price cap. All it does is create a target price.

[SteveW]

On 24/05/2022 16:41, Max Demian wrote:

The electricity and gas companies are having to buy their supplies at
market rates, driven by world prices. It is the companies that actually
run the fields that are making big profits at the moment - and they are
not the companies that domestic users are buying from.

[Theo]

Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 16:41, Max Demian wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
> >> up to £2,800 in October.
> >
> > And energy company CEOs have the cheek to suggest that the Government
> > pay (some) people money so they can afford to pay for their expensive
> > energy.
>
> I don't get the 'cheek'? It's a marketplace, where the wholesale price
> has had unprecedented increases. Feel free to start your own company to
> supply energy. Apart from the hoops you'll have to jump through I wager
> you'd still make a loss.

+1. Everyone's pricing at the cap because it makes them the least losses,
not because they're trying their luck.

> I never saw the point of a price cap. All it does is create a target price.

The cap was never designed for this - it was to prevent legacy energy
companies from stinging loyal customers on 'standard' tariffs, while
at the same time offering competitive tariffs to switchers. The cap was to
prevent those 'standard' tariffs getting out of hand. Many suppliers'
prices were nowhere near the cap, which was only really a backstop to
prevent gouging.

Nowadays everybody has ended up on a 'standard' tariff, because all the
previous tariffs were pulled since they lost even more money for the
supplier. If you switch to a non 'standard' market-priced one, you'll pay a
lot more.

The cap always looks backwards in time for pricing so, as the cap goes up,
at some point the future price of energy will become less than the cap and
competitive non-capped tariffs will arise again. Although it seems Ofgem
want those to pay money ('Market Stabilisation Charge') to the old
suppliers, which will probably erode the benefit:
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/decision-short-term-interventions-address-risks-consumers-market-volatility
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017k0s

Theo

[Robin]

On 24/05/2022 15:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 in message <t6ileu$1mdd$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
>> up to £2,800 in October.
>>
>> Ouch.
>
> The real issue is that energy companies see it as a target not a cap,
> couldn't possibly have been foreseen could it?
>

That was patently not true in the past when many of us enjoyed tariffs
below the cap. Things changed with the massive increases in wholesale
prices it has not been true. But if you reckon you could supply
customers for less than the cap then set a company, get your licence and
see people flock to you. But I hope Ofgem would now insist you put a
decent wedge of capital at risk and show how you can manage to beat the
market.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Andrew]

And 2 years ago Oil prices went negative for a brief point and all the
oil majors lost billions. How many people crowing about paying
under £1/litre in mid 2020 were in the slightest way sympathetic
to the oil companies 'profits' ?

I suspect when the new tariffs are announced the suppliers will
find a way of loading more of the gas increases onto electricity
users so that they can then make it 'easier' for gas users.

Rishi could of course cut VAT from 5% to 2% and get the same
total amount of VAT on the inflated 'world' prices.

[NY]

"Andrew" <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:t6j932$1cri$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

> And 2 years ago Oil prices went negative for a brief point and all the
> oil majors lost billions. How many people crowing about paying
> under £1/litre in mid 2020 were in the slightest way sympathetic
> to the oil companies 'profits' ?

If oil prices went negative, it's a shame that pump prices didn't follow
suit. :-)

It's a shame that there isn't more scope for fuel companies (and maybe
electricity/gas companies) to buy from a cheaper source, rather than there
being a global price for the raw oil/gas.

It's now got to the stage that my more efficient diesel-engined car is
probably more expensive to run than a petrol-engined one, because the
savings on volume of fuel used are outweighed by the very large difference
in price per litre of diesel over petrol.

[Andy Burns]

Andrew wrote:

> Rishi could of course cut VAT from 5% to 2% and get the same
> total amount of VAT on the inflated 'world' prices.

Or he could change VAT on gas/electricity into a duty per kWh, so he doesn't
have to keep juggling the VAT rate to raise the same total amount as the price
changes.

Heh, he could even take the same approach on petrol/diesel, so there isn't VAT
and duty on vehicle fuels, or move towards equalising this energy duty
regardless of whether it's for home use or vehicle use ... ok pipe dream.

[Max Demian]

On 24/05/2022 17:20, Fredxx wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 16:41, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
>>> up to £2,800 in October.
>>
>> And energy company CEOs have the cheek to suggest that the Government
>> pay (some) people money so they can afford to pay for their expensive
>> energy.
>
> I don't get the 'cheek'? It's a marketplace, where the wholesale price
> has had unprecedented increases. Feel free to start your own company to
> supply energy. Apart from the hoops you'll have to jump through I wager
> you'd still make a loss.

It's a cheek to suggest taxpayers should foot the bill. Are they
socialists? One definition of socialism is doing good with other
people's money. If they don't have a way to cut their prices they should
keep their traps shut.

--
Max Demian

[Theo]

Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> It's a cheek to suggest taxpayers should foot the bill. Are they
> socialists? One definition of socialism is doing good with other
> people's money. If they don't have a way to cut their prices they should
> keep their traps shut.

The issue is that the retail suppliers (who send us the bills) are not the
people who dig the gas out of the ground.

The diggers (Shell, BP, etc) get the gas for 'free' after paying their
extraction costs and tax. Those extraction costs haven't changed, but they
can sell what they extract on the wholesale market for 3x what they could
before the crisis. That's the 'excess profits' everyone is talking about.

The retailers buy energy on the wholesale market and resell it on to us.
Through completely unintended consequences (the price cap) the government is
forcing down the prices *retailers* can charge, but they aren't forcing down
the costs those retailers pay for their energy. This is why retailers are
getting squeezed and going bust, and this is why the CEOs of retailers are
complaining the government should help. The government is forcing them to
make a loss, but giving them no help with their input costs. Short of
making themselves go bust even faster, there's nothing a retailer can do.

This is the point of a windfall tax: it would tax the diggers (which is
where the gravy is being made) and redistribute it to consumers.
(and by implication it would reduce the return to the diggers' shareholders
- they would presumably still make a good profit, just not as much)

Theo

[Fredxx]

There is already a windfall tax when the value of their stored oil
reserves go up. Oil companies are required to store 90 days supply.

When this 90 days worth of oil go up in value they pay corporation tax
on the increased value.

What is shameful is they haven't made gas importers retain a 90 day or
so reserve of natural gas.

If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
therefore future corporation taxes offshore. I'm sure the ROI would look
even more attractive to shareholders. Is that what you are trying to
achieve?

I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you intending
to tax the Saudi Royal family too, or just companies currently located
in the UK?

[Fredxx]

Reducing VAT on energy is hardly taxpayers footing the bill?

Many things we consume or use are subsidised, that's not just a
socialist ideal.

[Andrew]

On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:

Actually, because many of the green companies make money out of RPI
linked subsidies, they are making a windfall profit with RPI now
9%. Hence the big falls in green energy companies yesterday while
the share price of Shell and BP didn't flinch. Neither of these
two companies got any financial support in April 2020, so why
should they have to pay windfall taxes now.

How about windfall taxes on house prices, or on families with more
than 2 kids ?.

[Andrew]

In summer, diesel and petrol are much closer in price because the
refineries are not refining heating oil (which is similar), leading
to a glut of diesel on the 'spot' market. In winter the rverse is true.

This year we are reminded that Russia supplies(d) a lot of the
European refined diesel market. This might also be because Russian
oil has a lower sulphur content, which (I believe) is why Saudi
Crude did not end up in UK refineries.

[Max Demian]

That's not what the CEO I read was suggesting. He wanted "poor people"
to receive extra money from the Government.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:

> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> It's a cheek to suggest taxpayers should foot the bill. Are they
>> socialists? One definition of socialism is doing good with other
>> people's money. If they don't have a way to cut their prices they should
>> keep their traps shut.
>
> The issue is that the retail suppliers (who send us the bills) are not the
> people who dig the gas out of the ground.

[snip]

I don't care what the issues that lead to the high prices are. I just
want CEOs to shut their traps.

Shows that the free market isn't working, as there isn't a real shortage
of gas apart from in countries who have decided they don't want Russian
oil. It's a defect of globalisation.

--
Max Demian

[Andy Burns]

Max Demian wrote:

> Fredxx wrote:
>
>> Reducing VAT on energy is hardly taxpayers footing the bill?
>
> That's not what the CEO I read was suggesting. He wanted "poor people" to
> receive extra money from the Government.

And then pay it back over 5 years, like the £200 to be taken off bills in
autumn, but this time they're asking for £1000 ... it's like the energy
companies using the govt as loan sharks to prop up their businesses ...

[Rod Speed]

No they don't, they just pay corp tax on what they sell.

> What is shameful is they haven't made gas importers retain a 90 day or
> so reserve of natural gas.
>
> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
> therefore future corporation taxes offshore.

That has already happened long ago.

> I'm sure the ROI would look even more attractive to shareholders. Is
> that what you are trying to achieve?

> I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you intending
> to tax the Saudi Royal family too,

Not even possible.

[Joey]

Because that would see the voters shaft the govt come the next general
election.

[Fredxx]

That might be true in foreign lands but not in the UK. Corporation tax
is calculated on book profits, and that includes increases in stock
value such as 90 days of oil reserves.

>> What is shameful is they haven't made gas importers retain a 90 day or
>> so reserve of natural gas.
>>
>> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
>> therefore future corporation taxes offshore.
>
> That has already happened long ago.

I was talking of the threat of windfall taxes.

>> I'm sure the ROI would look even more attractive to shareholders. Is
>> that what you are trying to achieve?
>
>> I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you
>> intending to tax the Saudi Royal family too,
>
> Not even possible.

Quite.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 04:00:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology:
"You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real
woman you know even if it is the only thing with a female name that stays
around while you talk to it.
Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any
interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from you boring them
to death."
MID: <gfkt3m...@mid.individual.net>

[Rod Speed]

Bullshit.

> and that includes increases in stock value such as 90 days of oil
> reserves.
>
>>> What is shameful is they haven't made gas importers retain a 90 day or
>>> so reserve of natural gas.
>>>
>>> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
>>> therefore future corporation taxes offshore.

>> That has already happened long ago.

> I was talking of the threat of windfall taxes.

But when they have moved out of the UK long ago, there is no threat.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 04:26:25 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <62dcaae57b421e2b...@haph.org>

[Peeler]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 04:14:00 +1000, Joey, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <id04c3...@mid.individual.net>

[SteveW]

If countries are avoiding Russian oil and gas, that increases the
competition for supplies from other countries. Those supplies can only
be ramped up to a limited extent over a short time period and so demand
exceeds supply and prices rise.

The market is working to an extent, but is not a free market and cannot
function when governments restrict licences; a small number of countries
band together to restrict supply and drive prices up; and increasing
supplies takes years and lots of investment ... that companies don't
want to make when governments are likely to change the rules at any time
and reduce the market for, driving down prices too far to be profitable.

[Theo]

Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
> therefore future corporation taxes offshore. I'm sure the ROI would look
> even more attractive to shareholders. Is that what you are trying to
> achieve?

If the alternative is people freezing or starving, which is what's happening
at the moment, I'm sure the ROI can take second place.

> I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you intending
> to tax the Saudi Royal family too, or just companies currently located
> in the UK?

The tax would presumably be on *extraction* in the UK. ie people who drill
on the UK continental shelf. The mechanism is already in place, it's just
currently set at 0%:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-gas-and-mining-petroleum-revenue-tax

If the Saudi Royal family operates gas wells in the UK, they pay the tax on
what they extract. If they extract in another jurisdiction, they are
subject to the tax rules of that place. Since any oil and gas is sold at
the market price, downstream consumers aren't affected by who they buy it
from so it would not raise prices, it would simply increase producers'
costs. Given the demand at the moment, producers would still sell as much
oil and gas into the market as they did before (at the current prices nobody
makes a loss on extraction so everyone is incentivised to produce what they
can).

It makes the North Sea less profitable, but skimming off 66% of the 3x rise
in wholesale prices will make the North Sea just as profitable as it was in
normal times, and Shell/etc were happy to invest based on that return.

Theo

[Fredxx]

This is probably far too complex for you to follow. It indicates how
stocks contribute to a Corporation Tax computation:

https://happyaccountant.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/unsold-goods-at-the-end-of-an-accounting-period/

[Rod Speed]

We'll see who has that problem.

> It indicates how stocks contribute to a Corporation Tax computation:

Bullshit it does. And it isn't even possible to know how much
is still to be extracted from the well, and so what value that has.

And no corp has to value all its stock af the end of the year
so an increase in the value of that stock can be taxed.

> https://happyaccountant.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/unsold-goods-at-the-end-of-an-accounting-period/

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:58:53 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>

That is just talking about calculating the cost of goods
so that the profit made on goods SOLD can be calculated.

That is nothing even remotely like your stupid pig ignorant
claim that an increase in the value of the goods THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN SOLD are taxed BEFORE THEY ARE SOLD.

[williamwright]

On 25/05/2022 19:00, Rod Speed wrote:

>> I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you
>> intending to tax the Saudi Royal family too,
>
> Not even possible.

Stating the bleeding obvious, fuckwit.

Bill

[Peeler]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 11:41:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

[alan_m]

On 25/05/2022 18:23, Tim Streater wrote:

>
> The costs have gone up because there's a shortage due to Uncle Vladi and
> everyone trying (or pretending to try) to stop buying from him.
>


Prices were rising before that! You don't need massive reserve supplies
of gas because government policy says that renewables are working! You
don't invest in more oil or gas if the politicians say that there will
be no need for them in a few years time.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

[Andy Burns]

alan_m wrote:

> You don't invest in more oil or gas if the politicians say that there will be no
> need

There seems to be a recent spate of new/extended north sea oil/gas development?

[Fredxx]

In the UK it does. Maybe Australia have different accounting / Tax rules
/ laws.

>> https://happyaccountant.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/unsold-goods-at-the-end-of-an-accounting-period/
>>

[Fredxx]

Then as I expected the link was above you mental abilities and you don't
recognise that unsold stock is taken into account when computing
Corporation tax.

I pity you. Clearly you have never run a company in the UK.

[Fredxx]

I did wonder Rod's point, apart from making himself look even more silly
than usual.

[Fredxx]

On 25/05/2022 22:56, Theo wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
>> therefore future corporation taxes offshore. I'm sure the ROI would look
>> even more attractive to shareholders. Is that what you are trying to
>> achieve?
>
> If the alternative is people freezing or starving, which is what's happening
> at the moment, I'm sure the ROI can take second place.
>
>> I'm not sure if you have truly thought this through. Were you intending
>> to tax the Saudi Royal family too, or just companies currently located
>> in the UK?
>
> The tax would presumably be on *extraction* in the UK. ie people who drill
> on the UK continental shelf. The mechanism is already in place, it's just
> currently set at 0%:
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-gas-and-mining-petroleum-revenue-tax

It depends on whether you want future investment in the North Sea, or not.

I guess 'windfall tax' gets more publicity.

[Andrew]

On 25/05/2022 22:56, Theo wrote:

> Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>> If we taxed those businesses you mention, it would drive their HQs and
>> therefore future corporation taxes offshore. I'm sure the ROI would look
>> even more attractive to shareholders. Is that what you are trying to
>> achieve?
>
> If the alternative is people freezing or starving, which is what's happening
> at the moment, I'm sure the ROI can take second place.
>

No-one is freezing at the moment, even in Scotland, surely ?.

Also in Scotland I see the BBC text pages state that 1 in 25
people in Scotland is obese, so perhaps a year of an
enforced 5:2 diet regime will do them some good :-)

[Andrew]

On 25/05/2022 17:26, Max Demian wrote:

No it's a 'defect' of the fact that most countries do not have
their own oil and have to buy it at world prices (unless they
have entered in long term contracts with a country that does
have oil).

Also, the producer country tends not to sell to the end-buyer.
In between the producer and user is an army of oil traders and
gamblers. The latter is what needs regulating.

[Rod Speed]

Bullshit it does. Your cite below says nothing like that.

> Maybe Australia have different accounting / Tax rules / laws.

Not on that particular question it doesn't.

>>> https://happyaccountant.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/unsold-goods-at-the-end-of-an-accounting-period/

[Rod Speed]

Everyone can see that it is you with that problem.

> and you don't recognise that unsold stock is takeninto account when
> computing Corporation tax.

Not in the way you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed,
that an increase in the value of the stock is taxed.

> I pity you.

Everyone laughs at your pig ignorance.

> Clearly you have never run a company in the UK.

Don't need to, Anyone who isn't brain dead
can read and comprehend the law except you.

[Rod Speed]

You're projecting now, twice in the same day with your pig
ignorant stupidity about protons and the corp tax law

[Peeler]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 05:27:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rodent Speed:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID: <g4ihla...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 05:23:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1...@dont-email.me>

[Peeler]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 05:28:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

[Fredxx]

So if you have stock of £5m say at the beginning of the year, and £20m
at the end how much corporation tax on the stock element would you pay?

>> I pity you.
>
> Everyone laughs at your pig ignorance.

While you accept everyone pities you?

>> Clearly you have never run a company in the UK.
>
> Don't need to, Anyone who isn't brain dead
> can read and comprehend the law except you.

Didn't think so, a failed chemist yet consider yourself an expect on
accountancy.

[Rod Speed]

Nothing until you actually sell it.

>>> I pity you.

>> Everyone laughs at your pig ignorance.

>>> Clearly you have never run a company in the UK.

>> Don't need to, Anyone who isn't brain dead
>> can read and comprehend the law except you.

> Didn't think so,

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought, child.

> consider yourself an expect on accountancy.

Don't meed tp be an expert, just read and comprehend that link you posted.

Clearly not something you can manage.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 27/05/2022 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:

> On 26 May 2022 at 20:27:06 BST, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't need to, Anyone who isn't brain dead
>> can read and comprehend the law except you.
>
>

> And so on. I see you're calling yourself Joey now - a joey as we all know is
> an infant marsupial. Sums you up nicely.
>
+1


--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

[Fredxx]

>> atthe end how much corporation tax on the stock element would you pay?

>
> Nothing until you actually sell it.

Then your comprehension of the link I gave is poor. It specifically
mentioned unsold or retained stock and how this adds to gross profit.

>>>> I pity you.
>
>>>  Everyone laughs at your pig ignorance.
>
>>>> Clearly you have never run a company in the UK.
>
>>>  Don't need to, Anyone who isn't brain dead
>>> can read and comprehend the law except you.
>
>> Didn't think so,
>
> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought, child.

I may be a child but you are clearly senile.

>> consider yourself an expect on accountancy.
>
> Don't meed tp be an expert, just read and comprehend that link you posted.

You don't clearly comprehend the link. How much gross profit did this
company make? Do you think it really made a gross profit of £40k?

> Clearly not something you can manage.

You are senile and cannot do simple sums. Also in denial that retained
stock is not subject to corporation tax.

Why do you think stock takes are required? Do you really think Corp tax
doesn't depend on this?

[Peeler]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 19:21:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

[Rod Speed]

>>> consider yourself an expect on accountancy.

>> Don't meed tp be an expert, just read and comprehend that link you
>> posted.

> You don't clearly comprehend the link.

You are the one that has that problem.

> How much gross profit did this company make?Do you think it really made

> a gross profit of £40k?

You are pathetic.

>> Clearly not something you can manage.

<reams of your pig ignorant shit any 3 year old could leave for dead
flushed where it belongs>

> Also in denial that retained stock is not subject to corporation tax.

Because it isn't until it is sold.

> Why do you think stock takes are required?

To determine how much of the stock has been sold.

> Do you really think Corp tax doesn't depend on this?

Of course it does, BUT THE STOCK WHICH HAS NOT YET
BEEN SOLD DOES IS NOT TAXED, you pig ignorant clown.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 03:23:36 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <id04c3...@mid.individual.net>

[Vir Campestris]

On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:
> This is the point of a windfall tax: it would tax the diggers (which is
> where the gravy is being made) and redistribute it to consumers.
> (and by implication it would reduce the return to the diggers' shareholders
> - they would presumably still make a good profit, just not as much)

I'm a shareholder in these companies, so I just made a loss.

I've got this thing called a pension fund, invested in the stock market.
So the Govt has just taken money out of my pension fund to give back in
my energy bills.

They've also lost control of inflation which is also affecting those funds.

I'm not impressed.

Andy

[Fredxx]

And you unable to comprehend a simple calculation. As usual when you
lose an argument you resort to abuse.

>>> Clearly not something you can manage.
>
> <reams of your pig ignorant shit any 3 year old could leave for dead
> flushed where it belongs>
>
>> Also in denial that retained  stock is not subject to corporation tax.
>
> Because it isn't until it is sold.

Then you didn't understand the linked article where the cost existing
stock added to the gross profit.

>> Why do you think stock takes are required?
>
> To determine how much of the stock has been sold.

Sold stock can be quantified at any point of the year. Stock takes are
usually taken at the end of a company financial year for tax reasons, in
much the same way many companies do their best to reduce stock at the
end of their fiscal year.

>> Do you really think Corp tax  doesn't depend on this?
>
> Of course it does, BUT THE STOCK WHICH HAS NOT YET
> BEEN SOLD DOES IS NOT TAXED, you pig ignorant clown.

I'm not the pig ignorant clown here.

[Fredxx]

Then tell the gross profit, and tell us if it includes the retained stock.

[Rod Speed]

You are unable to comprehend what the simple calculation involves.

> As usual when you lose an argument

No argument has been lost by me.

> you resort to abuse.

Nope, state the fact that you are pathetic.

>>>> Clearly not something you can manage.
>> <reams of your pig ignorant shit any 3 year old could leave for dead
>> flushed where it belongs>
>>
>>> Also in denial that retained stock is not subject to corporation tax.
>> Because it isn't until it is sold.
>
> Then you didn't understand the linked article where the cost existing
> stock added to the gross profit.

The linked article says nothing like that. Quote
the sentence(s) which you claim is saying that.

>>> Why do you think stock takes are required?
>> To determine how much of the stock has been sold.

> Sold stock can be quantified at any point of the year.

Just as true of the value of the stock not yet sold.

> Stock takes are usually taken at the end of a company financial year for
> tax reasons,

Yes, to work out how much unsold stock there is, so
that that stock is not included in the cost of what is
deducted from the total value of the stock sold, so
you only pay tax on the profit made on sold stock.

> in much the same way many companies do theirbest to reduce stock at

> the end of their fiscal year.

So it doesn't have to be counted.

>>> Do you really think Corp tax doesn't depend on this?

>> Of course it does, BUT THE STOCK WHICH HAS NOT YET
>> BEEN SOLD DOES IS NOT TAXED, you pig ignorant clown.
>
> I'm not the pig ignorant clown here.

You have proven that you are.

[Rod Speed]

No such animal. All there is is the total value of what is sold.

> and tell us

Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

> if it includes the retained stock.

Since there is no such animal, not even possible.

[Peeler]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 10:59:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

[Peeler]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:03:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

Marland addressing senile Rodent's pathological trolling:
"That’s because so much piss and shite emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a Wanker."
Message-ID: <gm2h57...@mid.individual.net>

[Bev]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:43:54 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

> On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:
>> This is the point of a windfall tax: it would tax the diggers (which is
>> where the gravy is being made) and redistribute it to consumers.
>> (and by implication it would reduce the return to the diggers'
>> shareholders - they would presumably still make a good profit, just not
>> as much)
>
> I'm a shareholder in these companies, so I just made a loss.

A loss? or just a smaller return?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <t6j1bb$ktf$1...@dont-email.me>,
SteveW <st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 16:41, Max Demian wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
> >> up to £2,800 in October.
> >
> > And energy company CEOs have the cheek to suggest that the Government
> > pay (some) people money so they can afford to pay for their expensive
> > energy.

> The electricity and gas companies are having to buy their supplies at
> market rates, driven by world prices. It is the companies that actually
> run the fields that are making big profits at the moment - and they are
> not the companies that domestic users are buying from.

Really? The supplier I was transferred to when the original went broke is
Shell Energy.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Fredxx]

Not in a failed chemist's mind, no. In an accountant mind, certainly.

>> and tell us
>
> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>
>> if it includes the retained  stock.
>
> Since there is no such animal, not even possible.

You must be the thickest person on the planet, a disgrace to Australia,
a failed chemist who can't add up.

This is the accounts for BP shareholders. I should know as I follow the
company:

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-fourth-quarter-2021-results.pdf

It uses the term "Inventory holding" and only a moron can't see there is
tax on the holding gains or losses.

[SteveW]

On 28/05/2022 11:39, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <t6j1bb$ktf$1...@dont-email.me>,
> SteveW <st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2022 16:41, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2022 14:09, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just heard on the BBC radio news that the cap is going
>>>> up to £2,800 in October.
>>>
>>> And energy company CEOs have the cheek to suggest that the Government
>>> pay (some) people money so they can afford to pay for their expensive
>>> energy.
>
>> The electricity and gas companies are having to buy their supplies at
>> market rates, driven by world prices. It is the companies that actually
>> run the fields that are making big profits at the moment - and they are
>> not the companies that domestic users are buying from.
>
> Really? The supplier I was transferred to when the original went broke is
> Shell Energy.

OK, but that is not the case for the other companies and even for Shell
Energy - "The company does not generate electricity, instead purchasing
it from international markets. Originally known as First Utility, the
company had a relationship with Shell, where it acted as an intermediary
to purchase wholesale energy on the global market." So it is run as a
separate company, buying its supplies at market prices. It may be owned
by the same group that own Shell as a whole, but it appears to run as a
stand-alone company.

[Bev]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:11:12 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

> If the share price drops due to the company paying a smaller dividend,
> a shareholder will see the value of his investment fall even though he
> may still see a return, albeit smaller. So if he were to sell his shares
> he may make a loss depending on what he paid for them originally. If he
> doesn't sell, his loss is only theoretical.
>
> In broad terms, and I emphasise 'broad', share prices and dividends vary
> according to the average market rate of interest payable on investments.
> For example, if company A pays a small dividend, but company B pays a
> higher one, investors will sell shares in A and buy them in B. The price
> of company A's shares will fall as more come onto the market, and the
> price of company B's shares will rise as they are snapped up by
> investors, until the percentage return on the money invested roughly
> equals out. It's not quite that simple, as the company's future
> prospects also come into play. The effect is most obviously seen in
> government fixed-interest stocks.

Indeed. I understand finance matters. I was querying whether or not an
actual loss had been made.

[The Natural Philosopher]

What is an 'actual loss' - unless you sell the shares even the IR
doesn't say that a profit or loss has been made. If your house, which
you are not intending to sell, drops 30% in value, have you 'made a loss?'


--
“it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalin’s Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.”

Vaclav Klaus

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jf7702...@mid.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> The costs have gone up because there's a shortage due to Uncle Vladi and
> everyone trying (or pretending to try) to stop buying from him.

So explain why wholesale prices were on the up long before Russia invaded
Ukraine, and sanctions started?

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

[SteveW]

On 28/05/2022 15:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <jf7702...@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> The costs have gone up because there's a shortage due to Uncle Vladi and
>> everyone trying (or pretending to try) to stop buying from him.
>
> So explain why wholesale prices were on the up long before Russia invaded
> Ukraine, and sanctions started?

Gas and oil prices were being affected by post-Covid demand rising
faster than supply.

[Vir Campestris]

In the simple sense I have made a loss. The shares are worth less than
they would have been.

Whether they are worth more or less than I paid for them - which was
some years go for most of them - I'm not sure.

Andy

[Rod Speed]

<reams of your mindless pig ignorant shit any 3 year

old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

>>> and tell us

>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

>>> if it includes the retained stock.

>> Since there is no such animal, not even possible.

<reams of your mindless pig ignorant shit any 3 year

old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

> This is the accounts for BP shareholders. I should know as I follow the
> company:

> https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-fourth-quarter-2021-results.pdf

> It uses the term "Inventory holding"

Because that is relevant to the status of the company.

> and only a moron can't see there is tax on the holding gains or losses.

That link doesn't say that the value of the inventory holding is taxed.

And you clearly can't quote the sentence(s) in the earlier link
that says that either.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 04:34:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

[Andrew]

On 28/05/2022 11:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 09:12:35 -0000 (UTC), Bev <B...@invalid.com> wrote:
>

> If the share price drops due to the company paying a smaller dividend,
> a shareholder will see the value of his investment fall even though he
> may still see a return, albeit smaller. So if he were to sell his
> shares he may make a loss depending on what he paid for them
> originally.

Shell and BP slashed their dividends in Early 2020 after oil prices
collapsed which combined with a slump in demand dropped the BP
share price from nearly £6 to about £2, While Shell dropped
from just over £20 to about £9 at one point.

[Bev]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 14:54:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/05/2022 13:47, Bev wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:11:12 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 09:12:35 -0000 (UTC), Bev <B...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:43:54 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:
>>>>>> This is the point of a windfall tax: it would tax the diggers
>>>>>> (which is where the gravy is being made) and redistribute it to
>>>>>> consumers. (and by implication it would reduce the return to the
>>>>>> diggers' shareholders - they would presumably still make a good
>>>>>> profit, just not as much)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a shareholder in these companies, so I just made a loss.
>>>>
>>>> A loss? or just a smaller return?
>>>
>>> If the share price drops due to the company paying a smaller dividend,
>>> a shareholder will see the value of his investment fall even though he
>>> may still see a return, albeit smaller. So if he were to sell his
>>> shares he may make a loss depending on what he paid for them
>>> originally. If he doesn't sell, his loss is only theoretical.
>>

>> Indeed. I understand finance matters. I was querying whether or not an
>> actual loss had been made.
>
> What is an 'actual loss'

When you sell for less than you paid.

[Bev]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:26:13 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

> On 28/05/2022 13:47, Bev wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:11:12 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 09:12:35 -0000 (UTC), Bev <B...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:43:54 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/05/2022 13:21, Theo wrote:
>>>>>> This is the point of a windfall tax: it would tax the diggers
>>>>>> (which is where the gravy is being made) and redistribute it to
>>>>>> consumers. (and by implication it would reduce the return to the
>>>>>> diggers' shareholders - they would presumably still make a good
>>>>>> profit, just not as much)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a shareholder in these companies, so I just made a loss.
>>>>
>>>> A loss? or just a smaller return?

(....)

>
> In the simple sense I have made a loss.

No, the market has moved but you have not made an actual loss untill you
sell.

> The shares are worth less than
> they would have been.

But until you sell you don't know if you have made a profit or a loss.

>
> Whether they are worth more or less than I paid for them - which was
> some years go for most of them - I'm not sure.

So your original comment was hypothetical as you don't know you have made
a loss.

[Fredxx]

That's right it says inventory gains or losses. You pay tax on stock the
once, only a moron would think you keep paying Corporation tax on the
same stock value year in year out.

[Fredxx]

On 28/05/2022 15:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <jf7702...@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> The costs have gone up because there's a shortage due to Uncle Vladi and
>> everyone trying (or pretending to try) to stop buying from him.
>
> So explain why wholesale prices were on the up long before Russia invaded
> Ukraine, and sanctions started?

It takes time for production to ramp up and down.

Putin knew he could only wage this war when the prices were on the up,
where demand outstrips supply.

Even he understands market supply and demand.

[Fredxx]

Share value also takes into account company valuation, not just dividend.

Given the oil reserves would have dropped in value it's not surprising
the share value dropped, as well as the dividend.

I read an article that said US wells were pumping up oil at a loss
during parts of the epidemic, such was the imbalance between supply and
demand.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <t6t39e$1k6$1...@dont-email.me>,

SteveW <st...@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> >> The electricity and gas companies are having to buy their supplies at
> >> market rates, driven by world prices. It is the companies that actually
> >> run the fields that are making big profits at the moment - and they are
> >> not the companies that domestic users are buying from.
> >
> > Really? The supplier I was transferred to when the original went broke is
> > Shell Energy.

> OK, but that is not the case for the other companies and even for Shell
> Energy - "The company does not generate electricity, instead purchasing
> it from international markets. Originally known as First Utility, the
> company had a relationship with Shell, where it acted as an intermediary
> to purchase wholesale energy on the global market." So it is run as a
> separate company, buying its supplies at market prices. It may be owned
> by the same group that own Shell as a whole, but it appears to run as a
> stand-alone company.

That's OK, then. Get a decent accountant to conceal profits and/or turn
them into losses.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <t6tfm9$mf6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Far beyond what they were before Covid? Or just the owners trying to
recover losses made due to lower demand during Covid?

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

[Rod Speed]

But doesn't say that BHP is TAXED on those gains or losses.

> You pay tax on stock the once,

Only when you SELL it.

> only a moron would think you keep paying Corporationtax on the same

> stock value year in year out.

There is no corporation tax on unsold stock.

[Rod Speed]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:22:15 +1000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 28/05/2022 15:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <jf7702...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> The costs have gone up because there's a shortage due to Uncle Vladi
>>> and
>>> everyone trying (or pretending to try) to stop buying from him.
>> So explain why wholesale prices were on the up long before Russia
>> invaded
>> Ukraine, and sanctions started?
>
> It takes time for production to ramp up and down.

Not when you are deliberately restricting supply to the market as OPEC
does.

> Putin knew he could only wage this war when the prices were on the up,
> where demand outstrips supply.

More of your mindless pig ignorant bullshit and doesnt
explain why he so comprehensively fucked over Chechnya
when demand didnt outstrip supply or with Georgia either.

> Even he understands market supply and demand.

But you clearly don't as always.

[Rod Speed]

Just because some fool claims something...

[Peeler]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 03:54:12 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Bod addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
MID: <gfbb94...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 03:57:19 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can fuck off as you know less than pig shit you sad
little ignorant cunt."
MID: <62dcaae57b421e2b...@haph.org>

[Peeler]

On Mon, 30 May 2022 03:58:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent

Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--

Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jt...@mid.individual.net>

[Vir Campestris]

Suppose I scratch your car. That would cause a loss in value of the car,
which is why the law protects you against people doing it.

However by your logic you haven't suffered a loss until you come to sell
the car, and the new owner knocks money off to deal with the scratch.

I've worked bloody hard for a long time to put money aside so I can
enjoy my retirement. Government action is affecting the value of those
savings.

If you think that's a good idea I can only assume you've got no savings
because you've been living beyond your means.

Andy

[Roland Perry]

In message <t6tfm9$mf6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:38:49 on Sat, 28 May
2022, SteveW <st...@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:

Also the de-coalification of mainly electricity generation meant there
was a gap to fill, ie more demand for alternative fuels (because
renewables weren't coming on stream faster than coal was being phased
out).
--
Roland Perry

[The Natural Philosopher]

And couldn't fill the gap anyway.

I see we are going to throw two fingers at EU regulations and run coal
plants hard next winter



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

[Bev]

On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:13:40 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:

> On 29/05/2022 10:37, Bev wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:26:13 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>
>>> In the simple sense I have made a loss.
>>
>> No, the market has moved but you have not made an actual loss untill
>> you sell.
>>
>>> The shares are worth less than they would have been.
>>
>> But until you sell you don't know if you have made a profit or a loss.
>>>
>>> Whether they are worth more or less than I paid for them - which was
>>> some years go for most of them - I'm not sure.
>>
>> So your original comment was hypothetical as you don't know you have
>> made a loss.
>
> Suppose I scratch your car. That would cause a loss in value of the car,
> which is why the law protects you against people doing it.
>
> However by your logic you haven't suffered a loss until you come to sell
> the car, and the new owner knocks money off to deal with the scratch.

Except that I would get the scratch fixed and my loss would then be
realised as being the cost of the repair.

>
> If you think that's a good idea I can only assume you've got no savings
> because you've been living beyond your means.
>

That is another assumption on your part and about as valid as your 'loss'.

[Andrew]

On 29/05/2022 22:37, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 29 May 2022 at 21:13:40 BST, Vir Campestris

> <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 10:37, Bev wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:26:13 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the simple sense I have made a loss.
>>>
>>> No, the market has moved but you have not made an actual loss untill you
>>> sell.
>>>
>>>> The shares are worth less than
>>>> they would have been.
>>>
>>> But until you sell you don't know if you have made a profit or a loss.
>>>>
>>>> Whether they are worth more or less than I paid for them - which was
>>>> some years go for most of them - I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> So your original comment was hypothetical as you don't know you have made
>>> a loss.
>>
>> Suppose I scratch your car. That would cause a loss in value of the car,
>> which is why the law protects you against people doing it.
>>
>> However by your logic you haven't suffered a loss until you come to sell
>> the car, and the new owner knocks money off to deal with the scratch.
>

> Well you haven't, in the simple sense. But a car is nice to enjoy as you own
> it, so you'd like it to stay looking as nice as it did before it was
> scratched. Also, if you waited until just before selling it to have it fixed,
> you are very likely too late to go after the miscreant to get compensation.
>

Also, the scratches are permanent, whereas the drop in the share price
of energy firms may only be temporary. I would be more concerned at the
effect of a Labour government on all investments, and worryingly their
previous hints that the right to take a 25% tax free lump sum may be
abolished (but public servants will still trouser their 3x tax-free
lump sum based on their first years pension). There is still an
immense chunk of accrued lump sums available to public servants
even if from 2011 on many have been moved on to new schemes.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 30/05/2022 11:34, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 30 May 2022 at 10:30:13 BST, Andrew <Andrew9...@mybtinternet.com>

> This whole business of pensions being handled by the employer is completely
> wrong anyway and should be made illegal.
>
Yes. I was supposed to have pensions from my first three employers. All
are now nonexistent companies and I have never recieved a penny.
The independent pension I took out is not doing too badly


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

[Andy Burns]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> What is an 'actual loss' - unless you sell the shares even the IR doesn't say
> that a profit or loss has been made.

Until you actually sell, at a lower price than you bought, you haven't
"crystallized" the loss.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <jfjkuh...@mid.individual.net>,

Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> This whole business of pensions being handled by the employer is
> completely wrong anyway and should be made illegal.

My pension was handled by my employer and is just fine thanks. But I'm
sure good Tories would like to legislate to get their hands on it.

Several where I worked were persuaded by 'independent advisors' their
pension pot could do better elsewhere. Every single one regretted taking
that advice.

--
*ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.

[The Natural Philosopher]

nevertheless in accounting terms you can crystallize losses for e.g.
stock or hardware via depreciation or simply being past its usable date.

In the dot com crash at leasts one stupid Yank I knew who had borrowed
on some of his company stock he held to buy more tech stocks ended up
losing the lot on a margin call when the stocks crashed

think negative equity and houses being repossessed even if the owners
haven't sold them at a loss.

However I looked at my Shell shares again today, and they are standing
at 80% gain this year so I am not too unhappy.

[Vir Campestris]

On 30/05/2022 14:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> My pension was handled by my employer and is just fine thanks. But I'm
> sure good Tories would like to legislate to get their hands on it.
>
> Several where I worked were persuaded by 'independent advisors' their
> pension pot could do better elsewhere. Every single one regretted taking
> that advice.

My final salary pension from my first employer just took a hit because
of government ineptitude.

It's got index linking. Up to a maximum of 5% each year. Which means in
real terms it just dropped 4%.

Andy

[Vir Campestris]

On 30/05/2022 09:44, Bev wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 21:13:40 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> On 29/05/2022 10:37, Bev wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:26:13 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In the simple sense I have made a loss.
>>>
>>> No, the market has moved but you have not made an actual loss untill
>>> you sell.
>>>
>>>> The shares are worth less than they would have been.
>>>
>>> But until you sell you don't know if you have made a profit or a loss.
>>>>
>>>> Whether they are worth more or less than I paid for them - which was
>>>> some years go for most of them - I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> So your original comment was hypothetical as you don't know you have
>>> made a loss.
>>
>> Suppose I scratch your car. That would cause a loss in value of the car,
>> which is why the law protects you against people doing it.
>>
>> However by your logic you haven't suffered a loss until you come to sell
>> the car, and the new owner knocks money off to deal with the scratch.
>
> Except that I would get the scratch fixed and my loss would then be
> realised as being the cost of the repair.

But you don't _have_ to get it fixed.

>>
>> If you think that's a good idea I can only assume you've got no savings
>> because you've been living beyond your means.
>>
>
> That is another assumption on your part and about as valid as your 'loss'.
>

Obviously without any numbers might I enquire where you do have saving?

(I've got an old final salary scheme, defined contribution pensions, and
some savings. All of which have fallen in value owing to inflation, as
well as this tax.)

Also since this windfall tax has raised some extra money might I ask
your opinion of where this money comes from?

Andy

[Fredxx]

Then you are illiterate.

>> You pay tax on stock the once,
>
> Only when you SELL it.

No.

>> only a moron would think you keep paying Corporationtax on the  same
>> stock value year in year out.
>
> There is no corporation tax on unsold stock.

Read the two links. Assuming you can read.