Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lawrence
    Would you re-nationalise the energy companies?' poll discussion
    • #1
    • 30th Nov 10, 11:01 AM
    Would you re-nationalise the energy companies?' poll discussion 30th Nov 10 at 11:01 AM
    Poll Started 30 November 2010:

    Would you re-nationalise the energy companies?

    In 1986 British Gas was privatised and floated on the stock market. Millions of 'Sid' shareholders got windfall profits at the time, in a massive deregulation of the gas and electricity market.

    Now 24 years on, with price rises hitting again, has privatisation worked? Some complain that prices have risen too high, but is that offset by market efficiencies?

    Which of these is closest to your view?

    A. Keep privatised – the free market's status quo is more efficient
    B. Regulate prices – keep it private but price rises should be controlled by the regulator (not firms)
    C. Re-nationalise – it should be taken back into public ownership


    Please vote here, or click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers

    Last edited by Former MSE Lawrence; 30-11-2010 at 11:03 AM.
Page 3
    • Eco Miser
    • By Eco Miser 8th Dec 10, 12:10 AM
    • 3,506 Posts
    • 3,285 Thanks
    Eco Miser
    May I assume you are too young to remember the vastly higher tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s that were set in order to fund the atrociously inefficient state-run basket cases like steel, rail, coal and, yes, electricity?
    Originally posted by relaxtwotribes
    Back in the late 70s, British Steel was losing 1m a day; they also produced the cheapest steel. The losses came not from the production, but from servicing the debts, the money the government had lent them.
    Eco Miser
    Saving money for well over half a century
    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 10:30 AM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    'Defunct jobs' is a smokescreen used by those who refuse to defend British industry and manufacturing whilst other countries steal an edge off us..
    Originally posted by elbeie
    When British industry and manufacturing came along 200 years ago it made all those peasant jobs working in the fields defunct. It's called progress, or do you think we should still have those defunct jobs now?

    And how exactly do you propose to defend British industry? By pushing taxpayers hard-earned pounds at it?

    Government needs to be about serving the people of this country.
    Originally posted by elbeie
    Quite - not about running enterprises.
    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 10:32 AM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    Back in the late 70s, British Steel was losing 1m a day; they also produced the cheapest steel. The losses came not from the production, but from servicing the debts, the money the government had lent them.
    Originally posted by Eco Miser
    You prove my point nicely.
    Last edited by relaxtwotribes; 08-12-2010 at 12:59 PM.
    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 11:12 AM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    Yes it does, not directly, but because the dividends go out the country.
    Originally posted by Eco Miser
    So, what you want is for the shareholders of Cadbury to invest abroad, so that the dividends on that investment can be remitted back into the UK. Quite bizarre.
  • avinabacca
    May I assume you are too young to remember the vastly higher tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s that were set in order to fund the atrociously inefficient state-run basket cases like steel, rail, coal and, yes, electricity?
    Originally posted by relaxtwotribes
    For example.....?
    Oh come on, don't be silly.

    It's the internet
    - it's not real!

  • avinabacca
    A disaster for the nation, certainly. Not a disaster for the vested interests behind it. Thatcher knew what she was doing, and was doing what she was told.
    Originally posted by WhiteHorse
    Can't argue with that - she had her orders, and she fulfilled them to the letter. It's often occurred to me that the UK might nowadays be a very different place if it had ever had a Labour PM who'd acted on behalf of ordinary working people the way Thatcher acted on behalf of the forces of business and capital.......
    Oh come on, don't be silly.

    It's the internet
    - it's not real!

    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 4:14 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    For example.....?
    Originally posted by avinabacca
    I assume that you are asking for examples of taxes, as no-one could be dimwitted enough to be asking for examples of the basket cases. My reply is: 83% income tax and 15% investment income surcharge ON TOP, leading to a top tax rate of 98%.

    Can you not recall those stalwart Labour PMs Harold Wilson and James Callaghan who acted on behalf of the people and in doing so nearly bankrupted the country, which had to be bailed out by the IMF.

    Thatcher didn't do everything right, but average living standards were a lot higher when she left power than when she took over in 1979.
  • avinabacca
    I assume that you are asking for examples of taxes, as no-one could be dimwitted enough to be asking for examples of the basket cases. My reply is: 83% income tax and 15% investment income surcharge ON TOP, leading to a top tax rate of 98%.

    Can you not recall those stalwart Labour PMs Harold Wilson and James Callaghan who acted on behalf of the people and in doing so nearly bankrupted the country, which had to be bailed out by the IMF.

    Thatcher didn't do everything right, but average living standards were a lot higher when she left power than when she took over in 1979.
    Originally posted by relaxtwotribes
    Aye, ok - tell you what, I'll take you seriously when you start writing seriously, yeah?

    Comparing taxation as a whole (and remember, no VAT back then for one example), the tax burden was comparable with today - without profiteering, private-sector utility cartels, and the sale of state assets.

    Still, if you think this was some sort of political Dark Age that's entirely your call.

    Not sure many'll take you seriously, though.....
    Oh come on, don't be silly.

    It's the internet
    - it's not real!

    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 4:31 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    During Thatcher Government spent:-

    Social Security +31.8%

    Trade & Industry -38.2%

    in real terms.


    And

    GDP +23.3%

    The figures speak for themselves.
    • relaxtwotribes
    • By relaxtwotribes 8th Dec 10, 4:34 PM
    • 268 Posts
    • 119 Thanks
    relaxtwotribes
    And VAT was introduced in 1973.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

967Posts Today

7,670Users online

Martin's Twitter