Omg 18%

zagfles

ComicGeek said:

Prism said:

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them. 

All profits are stripped from the utility companies and paid to executives and shareholders. Very small amount is reinvested into network maintenance and improvements, which is why 20-25% of water is lost through network leaks.

We have an ageing distribution system for all utilities - power outages and water supply issues are more to do with low network investment than anything else. 

This thread is descending into the sort of tw*tter soundbite hyperbole...there is a point, but even as this Guardian article, highly critical of the water companies, says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders

"The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period."

ie turning it around, they spent over double the amount in maintenance and improvements than they paid to shareholders

NedS

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....

And Gordon Brown, then Chancellor in Tony Blair's government, sold off the family gold (at the worst possible time)

sevenhills

NedS said:

And Gordon Brown, then Chancellor in Tony Blair's government, sold off the family gold (at the worst possible time)

Did you know gold prices would increase after Gordon Brown sold off the gold?
Tell us all now if the price of gold will increase, we can all buy now and become rich 😭😭

NedS

sevenhills said:

NedS said:

And Gordon Brown, then Chancellor in Tony Blair's government, sold off the family gold (at the worst possible time)

Did you know gold prices would increase after Gordon Brown sold off the gold?
Tell us all now if the price of gold will increase, we can all buy now and become rich 😭😭

My point was to illustrate that Labour behaved no differently than Maggie 'selling off the family silver'.

Nebulous2

zagfles said:

ComicGeek said:

Prism said:

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them. 

All profits are stripped from the utility companies and paid to executives and shareholders. Very small amount is reinvested into network maintenance and improvements, which is why 20-25% of water is lost through network leaks.

We have an ageing distribution system for all utilities - power outages and water supply issues are more to do with low network investment than anything else. 

This thread is descending into the sort of tw*tter soundbite hyperbole...there is a point, but even as this Guardian article, highly critical of the water companies, says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders

"The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period."

ie turning it around, they spent over double the amount in maintenance and improvements than they paid to shareholders

I'm not sure that is necessarily a record to be proud of. They're in a very capital intensive industry, with a local monopoly which limits competition. Does investing two-thirds of available money in the business and paying the other third in dividends seem reasonable? 

I doubt if my portrayal of 'available money'  would bear scrutiny either, as I'm sure a lot of the capital projects will have been financed and will be paid over many years. 

zagfles

Nebulous2 said:

zagfles said:

ComicGeek said:

Prism said:

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them. 

All profits are stripped from the utility companies and paid to executives and shareholders. Very small amount is reinvested into network maintenance and improvements, which is why 20-25% of water is lost through network leaks.

We have an ageing distribution system for all utilities - power outages and water supply issues are more to do with low network investment than anything else. 

This thread is descending into the sort of tw*tter soundbite hyperbole...there is a point, but even as this Guardian article, highly critical of the water companies, says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders

"The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period."

ie turning it around, they spent over double the amount in maintenance and improvements than they paid to shareholders

I'm not sure that is necessarily a record to be proud of. They're in a very capital intensive industry, with a local monopoly which limits competition. Does investing two-thirds of available money in the business and paying the other third in dividends seem reasonable? 

I doubt if my portrayal of 'available money'  would bear scrutiny either, as I'm sure a lot of the capital projects will have been financed and will be paid over many years. 

I'm not saying it is, I was just addressing the ridiculous tw*tter type hyperbole that "all profits are stripped..." etc. Two thirds might well not be enough, but it's not a "very small amount"

zagfles

NedS said:

sevenhills said:

NedS said:

And Gordon Brown, then Chancellor in Tony Blair's government, sold off the family gold (at the worst possible time)

Did you know gold prices would increase after Gordon Brown sold off the gold?
Tell us all now if the price of gold will increase, we can all buy now and become rich 😭😭

My point was to illustrate that Labour behaved no differently than Maggie 'selling off the family silver'.

There was hardly any difference.

Labour whinged about the privatisations, but then carried on privatising (inc PFI etc).

They whinged about house prices then presided over the biggest real terms rise in house prices in living memory while stoking the fire.

They introduced tuition fees, broke a manifesto promise not to increase them, and then had the hyprocrisy to criticise the LibDems for doing the same in the coalition.

They introduced the "bedroom tax" (through LHA) for tenants in private rental accomodation, then made a big fuss about the coalition extending it to council/social tenants a few years later.

They criticised the Tories in the late 80's for cutting the top tax rate to 40%, then retained the 40% top tax rate for their entire 13 years in power, apart from the last month where they "temporarily" increrased it just as they were about to lose the election, as an obvious elephant trap for the Tories.

The rich got richer under Labour, that's why they had so many millionaire supporters.

And just look at this Tory govt, it's implemented probably the most "socialist" policies since the post war govt! Record spending, record tax burden, record welfare budget, record health spending.

But none of that matters to those who see politics more as identity rather than policy. Facts will not convince them that the Tories aren't the party of the rich, Labour aren't the party which looks after the poor downtrodden workers. It's like a religion. Try convincing a religious person their religion in wrong!

But they seem to be a decreasing minority, as the last election showed the Tories did better amongst the poor than the rich!

ComicGeek

zagfles said:

Nebulous2 said:

zagfles said:

ComicGeek said:

Prism said:

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them. 

All profits are stripped from the utility companies and paid to executives and shareholders. Very small amount is reinvested into network maintenance and improvements, which is why 20-25% of water is lost through network leaks.

We have an ageing distribution system for all utilities - power outages and water supply issues are more to do with low network investment than anything else. 

This thread is descending into the sort of tw*tter soundbite hyperbole...there is a point, but even as this Guardian article, highly critical of the water companies, says https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders

"The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn – nearly half the sum they spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants in that period."

ie turning it around, they spent over double the amount in maintenance and improvements than they paid to shareholders

I'm not sure that is necessarily a record to be proud of. They're in a very capital intensive industry, with a local monopoly which limits competition. Does investing two-thirds of available money in the business and paying the other third in dividends seem reasonable? 

I doubt if my portrayal of 'available money'  would bear scrutiny either, as I'm sure a lot of the capital projects will have been financed and will be paid over many years. 

I'm not saying it is, I was just addressing the ridiculous tw*tter type hyperbole that "all profits are stripped..." etc. Two thirds might well not be enough, but it's not a "very small amount"

Maintenance and network improvement are costs incurred as part of the day to day work of the utility companies. They occur before profits are calculated.

Therefore the function of the utility companies should firstly be to invest sufficiently in the network before they pay dividends. The fact that they limit maintenance costs to increase dividend and bonus payments should be challenged. The reality is that they should be reinvesting all the profit into improvements/maintenance.

NedS

ComicGeek said:

Maintenance and network improvement are costs incurred as part of the day to day work of the utility companies. They occur before profits are calculated.

Therefore the function of the utility companies should firstly be to invest sufficiently in the network before they pay dividends. The fact that they limit maintenance costs to increase dividend and bonus payments should be challenged. The reality is that they should be reinvesting all the profit into improvements/maintenance.

If they did that they would not make any profit so no point being in business if there is no expectation to ever make a profit. If that is the model you prefer (run as a not-for-profit), then they should be run by the state. But the State cannot afford to buy (Nationalise) these businesses (or assets if you prefer) back from their shareholders at fair market value.

ComicGeek

Deleted_User said:

ComicGeek said:

Prism said:

sgx2000 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

sgx2000 said:

Tony Blair was the most successful PM im the last 50 years..

Electorally no more successful than Maggie.

Both succeeded in their time to address the challenges of the era.
Both implemented policies that were unpopular while carrying the populace with them.
Both set a vision and led (rather than managed) the country.

Maggie was only suceeded by, selling off all the family silver.... to the wealthy tory voters ....
We owned all the utilities
Now foreign companies own them

Who wants to own and run the utilities? We already control them pretty well with policy without having to run them. 

All profits are stripped from the utility companies and paid to executives and shareholders. Very small amount is reinvested into network maintenance and improvements, which is why 20-25% of water is lost through network leaks.

We have an ageing distribution system for all utilities - power outages and water supply issues are more to do with low network investment than anything else. 

I am always curious why people would be visiting a retirement/investment forum if they are  ideologically opposed to profits and shareholders.  

I'm not ideologically opposed - I just believe that certain things are too important to allow private investors to control for personal profit, utility companies being the main one. Security of energy supply is critical for any country, and the lack of investment in infrastructure is dangerous.

Part of my work is dealing with large scale utility infrastructure connections - people would be shocked to see how much of the current infrastructure is held together by temporary fixes, with major issues to come in the immediate future.

So no, I don't believe that people should profit from dividends that should clearly be used for national security investment.