text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
So, I'm not on the balance of which side is causing more, like, or more is more likely causing moral injustice. It is their side of the house, but also it is relatively hard to quantify how much a company deserves and does not deserve, and often that classification of their side is highly likely going to be miscalculated. So, we would rather prefer utilitarian outcomes as to whether or not individuals on ground chemistry better prices. |
Whether or not response—yes, fine, yes. It's true that companies should be taxed for things they did not serve. The answer is the solution to this is we already tax companies that make more profits in greater amounts. Not the perfect approximation, but we don't think it's completely—doesn't exist right now. Thirdly, realistically, you even if we can see that this principle that companies did not deserve all the profits they make is true, our argument proof so you—the worst impacts that overrides the principle. |
And you should know UID's personal matter. See, first of that depressed fight caused by windfall taxes is worse on their side when companies don't have cross-oxidization abilities due to a greater increase the greater decreasing high stability on their side. Yes, even if the money gets redistributed through taxes in the future, that is a lengthy and an inefficient process compared to just individuals holding on to that disposable income right now when they know what they need to spend that money on right now. |
It's unclear whether governments can properly approximate what the individual needs versus the individual who probably knows what they need better, and therefore within that time gap they actually lose lives when that money doesn't get into the pockets of people, especially when some of these governments are not being clean as standards, relatively corrupt, or in some cases just really bureaucratically full of nonsense. So, that's the issue of the end of the deal on their side. |
No, thank you. Exactly. Then let's talk about increase in prices that explains to you very clearly how energy companies offer when it comes to profit expectation and why they have to adjust on their side of the house. But the issue is often these companies are just for me. Often they've either mis project or they can overcompensate early on in order for them future forms of windfall taxes being implemented. |
The biggest department is from CG, which is, no, no, but when you price high, more of that money goes into tax money, so the company will price like in the first place. Otherwise, all that money will get taxed in the future anyway. One, this is like sound logic, but the issue with this claim is that there's an elective action problem among oil packs and companies. |
So, even if it is true that companies like the money, the extra profit they make will get taxed, here's why they still have the cheap prices relatively high because it is unpopular and difficult to massively lower your prices because OPEC probably realizes that it is really hard and difficult to justify in the future while you are going to increase more cheap prices high. |
It is also extremely politically unpopular in the future to raise prices than for, you know, set the expectation because the price is relatively high already to deal with it. It’s supposed to be governments are likely to subsidize things like energy buying. Why? Because often people need energy to survive. It’s a major voting issue—CFEU energy crisis. |
So, regardless of what the price is, governments are likely going to be providing this for people, providing subsidies to ensure that people can afford it because people really care about it. But two, even if you buy this claim at its highest, our argument will be that people can better control the use of their disposable income than the government can make decisions and make this a redistribution process over this month. |
Why? Because you know your needs are probably much better than the government can. Whether you have to put that money into things like food, education, or to save your sick mother. And therefore, it's better if more of that money is kept in your pockets that relied on the government to determine what policy they want to implement and how in what ways and conclude which groups they want to addition to the money. |
Two, but three, if you are booked tax will also can't price hike. So, for example, smaller companies, this feeds into our argument about monopolization. The small companies eventually go out of business because they are both aggressive but also are unable to make these compensations for the companies that remain are often going to be large companies that monopolize and are able to afford it on their side. |
And that's really bad because in a lot of cases some of these small companies are these sole providers in relatively more rural regions where individuals need the energy the most and the individuals are relying on these companies. So that's the issue. Stop that. Stop badgering. And so this is the problem they have to deal with. |
But also, by the way, we have received no response from OG. The last thing they say is that this tax also passes the end, but also note this tax taxes the additional demand that people have for the energy. So, we're not sure what the issue is on their assessments. We'll take over it |
<poi> |
if it is the case, and others says that this tax rate is very high. Companies don't benefit at all by raising prices but rather increase revenue by keeping costs low so they can keep more of their profit. |
</poi> |
I literally explained to you that there's a need for companies to somehow level keep the prices high because there's a collective action problem amongst my only pets and companies. But also I would think while we get better, we have better investment production 2017. |
Moving on to the OG response. The OG response is the tax goes to subsidizing the poor because it is really easy to justify. So, this is the shift from their like fun like finding ass model where like, yeah, this claim first thing due to the history of communism, people generally view things as subsidies. It's overly socialists and therefore it's relatively hard to justify it. |
But two, you don't believe it is fine if you're a reason why subsidies for these poor is probably symmetric. Why? Often being able to afford fuel and be able to cook and be warm in the winter is a relatively important voting issue. That’s me. I feel like most individuals probably care about whether or not they're able to live. |
Therefore, it’s highly likely on both sides the governments that do care are going to be putting money to subsidize their energy issues. Becomes that don't care on their side of the house are going to leave these individuals who die. Versus on our side, individuals at least have to be disposable income on their own. Moving on to energy very quickly. All claims that do not have profit you need to make green investments and invest in capital infrastructure so that's what that money gets passed. |
What there's a time issue, you often need a long time to get investments into green energy approved even under a speedy and efficient negotiation process. Why? Companies need to know when you’re putting certain things—what your long-term plans are, development, all of that needs time. But now that this policy is time sensitive, it actually further increases companies' incentives who just price gouge on their existing energy and oil supplies, which actually worsens energy transition on their side. |
Also, it doesn't make sense part of your problems during crisis is also profits you make from people using your renewable energy. So you said it's so hard to make the argument, and you should just follow this money onto their side. Costs compared to our model, your cross-section ID is less uncertainty, it’s less than depending on things like political winds. It's also very personalized, significantly more predictable, which leads to more sustainable developers. |
</dlo> |
<mg> |
problem for opening opposition is there was a world before the government where companies were able to cross subsidize with the problems that they previously had. were able to exist under the same financial strictures that we want to send them back to the strictures of three years ago. and we think that they can do that perfectly fine, and it is unclear why the situation as currently is, which is not one that is characterized by top 500 regards, that in a minute is not one that enables us to move back to a place where look, you can make profits on what you previously were charging with you as you were making profits perfectly fine. |
And that firstly they say that is key things to remind, firstly they said if you charge super high rates—so, we say even if we charge super high rates, and even in the place of opposition model 100, there's literally no incentives to charge more, more mental rates. Opening opposition—opening up, I'm sorry, a sadness. Here’s why. |
Look, if I'm selling a unit of things for a hundred and I can make profit on the first thirty dollars of that, or I can sell that unit if they prefer to build and make profit on the thirty dollars of that, I want to sell more of the thing up to that thirty dollars and being able to sell it to the consumer who is the person who is going to be making that website’s a person in there, right? |
Whether that is a business is the thing that is going to be determining that and thriving, like the usage rates. And at that point, there’s a business. It literally doesn't matter to me what the additional sort of price I am charging is if that profit isn't something that I can then go on and use if it is something like it. I have to sort of reinvest back into my business. |
We’re going to give you reasons as to why you’re likely to invest that into greener technologies while that is beneficial in a minute. Second thing they talk about cross-subsidizing, like I think, I think, I think that this has literally been fine forever, and energy companies have already been able to do this. |
We are taxing the windfall. We are not technically—we're not increasing this to 100% tax on all profits. It's on the windfall. Previously, these companies have been able to sufficiently cross-subsidize. Shell CEOs have been able to have as many private jets as they like. They've been able to make as many billions of pounds in profit and still exist. |
It is unclear why it is 2023 they need these windfall profits in order to cross-subsidize coming out of opening months of years as opposed to their standard profits that we might otherwise have expected. They don't say governments are going to subsidize in the long run. Firstly, we think this is literally not true. They didn't before. It's also just unclear why this has to be true in the long run. |
Secondly, that is not what we're signing for a proposition. You can say this might subsidize it in the long run. We would rather they didn't. I mean, they won't. On the side opposition, they lastly say that there's a collective action action issue, which means that you need to keep practice fire of your business. |
I think the way to solve that collective action issue is to collectively tackle themselves. Cool, the situation at the minute, panel, is where government support is starting to wind down to people and into businesses because it's costing tens of billions of pounds. It has literally tanked one UK prime minister and is continuing to tank economies more broadly because it's costing too much to support people through the current situation. |
But wholesale oil prices have returned to pre-conflict levels. The point here is that whilst this support is still coming from government, it is effectively subsidizing these large companies, large oil companies, and these large energy companies. Currently, they are selling, or they are buying the oil for a certain price and then selling it on for the price we would like them to sell it on for plus the massive government subsidy that they're already getting. |
This comes on specifically to the principal that clash with this debate. So Opening government says it's unexpected and therefore it's not really legitimate. I think the DLA responsiveness is particularly strong. The actual principle we say in closing government is this: throughout the onset of the conflict states massively bailed out energy companies have essentially bankrolled them indirectly through the energy price guarantee both to consumers and to companies who are in order to manage their unit prices. |
The government now has a duty to recoup from this industry what has previously been doled out. The question of the CO is how they want to go about recouping these previously doled out billions and billions of pounds. The assumption so far is getting promoting competition as they actually don't care about routine at all, given the maintenance of high prices forces people into needing public services more because they have to spend more money on energy and therefore needs like that don't have that many expenses on other things. |
That was the multiple quality of institution in London, and that further increases reliance on government services. We think that makes it harder for government to provide these services because we're needing to provide lawn. This is a—we think that we solve it by making energy cheaper, not forcing people towards that, but also by taking literally tens of billions of pounds back across the sector, even just within the UK, more broadly. |
Environmental side—opening governments say that there’s a marginal price gouging mechanism. We think there are a couple instruments. Firstly, we get new capacitors into the market. Opening government currently say that they're a big oil company. A lot, here’s the comparative on proposition. We think it is easier to be a smaller competitor relatively as a company in the green energy market for three reasons. |
One, firstly, we think there's a less mature market. There's less large, for example, already. Secondly, we think there are lots of government incentives for people to enter that market. Thirdly, we think that there's less infrastructure needed to build a windmill than there is to become a massive loan producer. |
Second thing, we also think this incentivizes these companies to create subsidiary companies that they can then invest money into instead where that infrastructure already exists. We think that this is more likely to happen because you're more likely to get this investment into green energy because long green energy is much more finite. |
But we also think there exists energy transmission and infrastructure, so it's fairly straightforward to literally work in some windmills into the naughty. In opening opposition, they say that this takes time. We say that that we accelerate this status quo for businesses who are currently already in that market—not this particularly good. I'll come on to why this is a good mechanism. |
<poi> |
even if Shell was doing just fine before the crisis. Our point is that the way you get through to conservative shareholders is by saying, "Let's use the windfall now and in the future to invest into renewables versus standard profits would go into energy... |
</poi> |
in the future." I mean, do it right now, and for all companies, I'm really quite unclear why it is that given these two people currently applying energy at a free pre-conflict level, confident, right, they need to be making this particular moment. |
But I think that was particularly proven for the incentive analysis. Why is the mechanism going to shift to green? We think it is easier to bring to bring uh um we think that the reason why shifting degree is particularly impactful is that it massively increases energy securities and energy security. |
You get more companies and more investment within your own national domestic industries. We think at the point where the conflict is over, this means that you do not have to regress back to either pre-conflict energy usage of Russia or other countries where there could be foreseeable energy security issues. But you're able to foster a domestic and green energy market. |
We also think this means that you have a greater ability in the long run to maintain a level of market regulation in case of exactly the kinds of shocks that opening opposition wants to talk about. So if you do then have the energy price—energy prices, you're able to be in a position... |
</mg> |
<mo> |
So, I'm going to hear about what the motion says because I think that particularly top half of kind of missed what the debate is or should be about. And I'm glad that closing government brought in the current context for what's actually going on in the world. |
But we're just going to flip that and explain why it needs to essentially a bunch of good companies failing. We're gonna actually fill in the links on renewable energy as well to talk about, you know, inequality of investment in various countries. The motion says that we are taxing the windfall of companies that made excess profits in the previous, like, two periods of time. |
And we're taxing them now and increasing that. That is the continued, you know, to increase at the taxation of companies that have previously made this profit—not important in the debate, right? So, that's what this debate is about. And secondly, we agree with closing government that, yes, this price are going down now, but you're increasing taxation on these companies and taking more and more of their revenue. |
And the justification is that they made a huge windfall in the previous two periods. So, I want to be very clear about why companies therefore are probably going to be unable to place taxation. There are a few different reasons I want to note here. So first is that oftentimes with this excess taxation, the way it works is that oil companies and energy companies have long-term contracts for oil. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.