The government are not interested in growth. Workers and companies exist purely to be extorted for ever higher taxes to fund the benefit society that do not work. Benefits are now a world away from supporting those with vulnerabilities and need, it is the lifestyle of left leaning voters.
I’ve valued upstream assets for both buyers and sellers. Two competent teams, same data room, same reserves report, can land far apart. The gap closes only when someone signs. Until then, the field is worth whatever your oil price deck, discount rate and appetite for risk say it is. A tax office trying to value that every year would be like a doctor taking a patient’s temperature by guessing.
Britain already has a live test of the opportunity cost argument. The windfall levy on the North Sea was sold as taxing profits nobody earned. Operators responded the way capital always does. They cut drilling, sold assets and moved money to basins that wanted it. The revenue fell short, and so did the production it was supposed to be taxing.
Tax the barrel when it’s sold and you get revenue. Tax the field before anyone buys it and you get an argument about the price.
Thank you Kristian - I am glad not to have to debate against you! Your argument was very clearly laid out, and in my opinion, compelling. Perhaps what is most worrying is less about a wealth tax and more about King's College London.
The government are not interested in growth. Workers and companies exist purely to be extorted for ever higher taxes to fund the benefit society that do not work. Benefits are now a world away from supporting those with vulnerabilities and need, it is the lifestyle of left leaning voters.
The IEA - essentially all taxation is bad unless it only falls on the lowest paid
I’ve valued upstream assets for both buyers and sellers. Two competent teams, same data room, same reserves report, can land far apart. The gap closes only when someone signs. Until then, the field is worth whatever your oil price deck, discount rate and appetite for risk say it is. A tax office trying to value that every year would be like a doctor taking a patient’s temperature by guessing.
Britain already has a live test of the opportunity cost argument. The windfall levy on the North Sea was sold as taxing profits nobody earned. Operators responded the way capital always does. They cut drilling, sold assets and moved money to basins that wanted it. The revenue fell short, and so did the production it was supposed to be taxing.
Tax the barrel when it’s sold and you get revenue. Tax the field before anyone buys it and you get an argument about the price.
“This House would levy a 2% wealth tax on assets above £10”
Is there a missing “million” in this motion? Seems extreme as posed.
Thank you Kristian - I am glad not to have to debate against you! Your argument was very clearly laid out, and in my opinion, compelling. Perhaps what is most worrying is less about a wealth tax and more about King's College London.