Budget 2012: oil industry gets £3bn tax breaks

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 21 Mar 2012, 14:50

The Guardian - 21/03/12

Environmentalists condemn moves by George Osborne to help industry extract maximum oil and gas while prices are high.

Article continues ...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Mar 2012, 14:53

"While prices are high", eh? Well Ozzie I've got news for you...

Post by **clv101** » 21 Mar 2012, 16:40

Tax breaks for North Sea oil and gas? This article is relevant:
North Sea Oil, DECC and Climate Change

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 22 Mar 2012, 21:46

The Independent - 22/03/12

Environmental campaigners have sounded the alarm about a British version of the catastrophic 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill after a new, deep-water oil rush in the Atlantic was signalled in the Budget.

Article continues ...

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 22 Mar 2012, 22:35

Translation:

Oil prices are rising and are now set to continue to rise for ever. However, in order to keep the price at the pump low, part of the rising cost will have to be buried into the taxation system and some of the economic players in that system will be differentially (as in preferentially) subjected to the burden of taxation as compared to others. In other words, if oil can be extracted at a "cost" that is nearer to "normal" costs of extraction (due to tax-break subsidies), then the price at point of consumption will nearer to "normal" also. The fact that the majority of people will have less to spend on consumption (due to an increased taxation burden funding the above subsidy) is frankly immaterial if you are sufficiently wealthy. Of course, in the long-run, the tide of rising prices will come in no matter what games are played with the taxation system. However, in the short-to-medium-run, games such as this put off that day a little longer for those futher up the food chain.

Or, to put it another way, the Titanic is beginning to sink and two lists are being drawn up. One for who gets to carry the lifeboats to the edge of the ship and a second one for who gets a place on those lifeboats.

The bad news is the majority of us aren't on the second list.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Mar 2012, 12:32

I don't like the idea of having to pay for energy I don't consume. Firstly because it isn't fair, and secondly because it wipes out most people's biggest incentive to do the sensible thing and try to cut down on use. And that includes indirect use such as trucking food and the like. Oh-oh, Bad Spoonerism Day...

Post by **clv101** » 23 Mar 2012, 12:46

RenewableCandy wrote:I don't like the idea of having to pay for energy I don't consume. Firstly because it isn't fair, and secondly because it wipes out most people's biggest incentive to do the sensible thing and try to cut down on use.

Nicely put!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Mar 2012, 12:57

clv101 wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:I don't like the idea of having to pay for energy I don't consume. Firstly because it isn't fair, and secondly because it wipes out most people's biggest incentive to do the sensible thing and try to cut down on use.
Nicely put!

Quite.

I expect the usual crowd will drivel along and say, "Would you apply that to welfare?" or some such perversion.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 23 Mar 2012, 13:11

The more I think about it, the more I think that framing the issue as "fuel poverty" is incorrect. The issue is POVERTY, without a prefix, but with some crap buildings and absentee landlords thrown in.