Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Where Is This Recession Then Mr. Cameron?
41 Answers
Does it only apply to us minnows? Supermarkets are still making huge profits. One Chairman recently said that the days of cheap products are over. The banks always seem to announce profits in the billions. Utility companys' continue to make massive profits and the price of petrol is absolutely extortionate. You can buy a gallon in the U.S. for the same price as a litre in the UK. But there's a recession and we're all going to have to pay up and boost these pofits even more. Maybe these company's think they aren't making enough so we are going to continue to pour more money in their coffers.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"You can buy a gallon in the U.S. for the same price as a litre in the UK."
Not true. I've just been to the States and petrol ranged from £3.50 to £4.20 per US gallon- and a US gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon. Last time I filled up here it was 132.9p a litre. Yes, our petrol is very heavily taxed; nevertheless the roads always seem busy and I see people taking the car for 200 metre journeys so people are choosing to pay these prices.
If the banks make a loss people criticise them. If they make a profit they are criticised.
Many businesses are not making profits. Most high street shops look deserted to me and I can't see how they survive. The big supermarkets had tended to buck the trend and have been rather sneaky about prices but I think even they are now being hit by bargain hunters, ALDI/LIDL and online competition.
Not true. I've just been to the States and petrol ranged from £3.50 to £4.20 per US gallon- and a US gallon is smaller than an imperial gallon. Last time I filled up here it was 132.9p a litre. Yes, our petrol is very heavily taxed; nevertheless the roads always seem busy and I see people taking the car for 200 metre journeys so people are choosing to pay these prices.
If the banks make a loss people criticise them. If they make a profit they are criticised.
Many businesses are not making profits. Most high street shops look deserted to me and I can't see how they survive. The big supermarkets had tended to buck the trend and have been rather sneaky about prices but I think even they are now being hit by bargain hunters, ALDI/LIDL and online competition.
-- answer removed --
“Recession” is a technical term that is used to describe an economy that has suffered two successive quarters of negative growth to its Gross Domestic Product. It has nothing to do with people’s spending power or the cost of living (which is what your question, 10CS, seems to concentrate on).
Having cleared that up there is no doubt that some of what you say has some elements of truth among it, though you need to be a bit less hysterical with your “facts” and their causes.
Your comparison of the cost of fuel in the US and the UK has already been shown to be a little inaccurate. However, there is no doubt that motorists in the US pay about half that paid by UK motorists for their fuel. The main cause of this is government led - fuel duty and VAT. Currently the product price of a litre of petrol (cost at the pumps £1.35) is about 54p. For this the oil company finds crude oil, gets it out od the ground, transports, it vast distances, refines it into fuel, transports it to the pumps and delivers it to your tank. For the other 81p (a tax rate of 250%) the government does precisely nothing. However, the government is doing its bit. Ten years ago when petrol was about 79p the Exchequer was taking a whopping 80% of that price in tax - a tax rate of almost 500%. By contrast fuel duty in the USA is about 12 cents per litre - about 11% on factor’s $4 gallon.
Energy prices are similarly heavily influenced by the government. Huge stealth taxes to fund useless “green” initiatives are foisted on consumers. Meanwhile the government has no coherent energy policy, there is a very good chance of the lights going out in the next year or two because power stations are being decommissioned without replacement and very little gas storage facilities are in place. (The UK has about ten days supply whilst most of the continent has about three months in hand).
CEO’s salaries have increased considerably, however Svejk’s “3,000” factor does not stand up to scrutiny. The minimum wage for a worker on a 40 hour week is around £13,200. I don’t know of too many CEOs in the UK who are earning £40m. In fact the average pay for a CEO of a FTSE100 company is £4.8m but many smaller companies pay considerably less than that.
Having cleared that up there is no doubt that some of what you say has some elements of truth among it, though you need to be a bit less hysterical with your “facts” and their causes.
Your comparison of the cost of fuel in the US and the UK has already been shown to be a little inaccurate. However, there is no doubt that motorists in the US pay about half that paid by UK motorists for their fuel. The main cause of this is government led - fuel duty and VAT. Currently the product price of a litre of petrol (cost at the pumps £1.35) is about 54p. For this the oil company finds crude oil, gets it out od the ground, transports, it vast distances, refines it into fuel, transports it to the pumps and delivers it to your tank. For the other 81p (a tax rate of 250%) the government does precisely nothing. However, the government is doing its bit. Ten years ago when petrol was about 79p the Exchequer was taking a whopping 80% of that price in tax - a tax rate of almost 500%. By contrast fuel duty in the USA is about 12 cents per litre - about 11% on factor’s $4 gallon.
Energy prices are similarly heavily influenced by the government. Huge stealth taxes to fund useless “green” initiatives are foisted on consumers. Meanwhile the government has no coherent energy policy, there is a very good chance of the lights going out in the next year or two because power stations are being decommissioned without replacement and very little gas storage facilities are in place. (The UK has about ten days supply whilst most of the continent has about three months in hand).
CEO’s salaries have increased considerably, however Svejk’s “3,000” factor does not stand up to scrutiny. The minimum wage for a worker on a 40 hour week is around £13,200. I don’t know of too many CEOs in the UK who are earning £40m. In fact the average pay for a CEO of a FTSE100 company is £4.8m but many smaller companies pay considerably less than that.
"You can buy a gallon in the U.S. for the same price as a litre in the UK." Given that there are about 4.5 litres in a gallon, fuel would have to be 4.5 times more expensive in the UK than in the US for your claims to be correct. But as you have said yourself it's "only" a bit over twice as expensive.
-- answer removed --
Clarion: US gallon 3.78 litres.UK gallon 4.55 litres
Average price per 3.78 litres, US gallon, $3.68 . So it's roughly $1 a litre. That's 65 p So you can buy 2 litres there for the price of one litre here. How does that mean that you can buy 3.78 litres (US gallon) or 4.55 litres (our gallon) for the price of one litre here?
Average price per 3.78 litres, US gallon, $3.68 . So it's roughly $1 a litre. That's 65 p So you can buy 2 litres there for the price of one litre here. How does that mean that you can buy 3.78 litres (US gallon) or 4.55 litres (our gallon) for the price of one litre here?
Sir Philip Green's £1 billion plus dividend? You mean two, surely; he's claimed it twice, but it is not his money. It is, literally, in his wife's name. And , frankly, it's not what it seems. He wanted to liberate cash for other deals and that was better achieved by getting it out of some company. He himself is tax resident in Monaco. He will be aware of the rules on directors' loans for UK companies; he probably could construct an argument for getting it out of company income but, if he couldn't he had sixteen months or so to pay the capital back.
Nothing wrong with Green. You don't start in the rag trade with a small shop selling jeans and end up owning the high street unless you give the public what it wants and you don't waste money, unlike the companies which you bought.
Nothing wrong with Green. You don't start in the rag trade with a small shop selling jeans and end up owning the high street unless you give the public what it wants and you don't waste money, unlike the companies which you bought.
Green says that he's never laid anyone off in any retail business he's taken over, consequent upon the take over. By asset stripping, in Green's case, you must mean realising unused unproductive assets and releasing the liquidity to the company. And what would you do, if you were good enough in business to make 100s of millions in income? He is able to release cash for business purposes only because he is. And his business purposes give employment to thousands. Would you become tax resident in the Isle of Man or Monaco? Our law permits it. How, as a government, would you prevent that, and why?
There seems an awful lot of envy and jealousy emerging in this question, most of it centred around one or two individuals.
As Fred rightly says, Philip Green has the talent for making money and in doing so creates wealth and employment for others as well as himself. He also has the knack of managing to keep hold of a lot of his income. Good luck to him. Wish I could do likewise. If I had as much dosh coming in as he does I would be mortified to see 60-70% of it confiscated, much of it to be squandered and wasted.. When you consider that a top football player can earn £5m to £10m a year (and a lot more besides) who would you sooner see successful, David Beckham or Philip Green? I don't see Beckham being the subject of such vitriol for his wealth. (And for the record, good luck to him and his mates as well. If people are daft enough to pay ridiculous sums to watch 90 minutes of second rate entertainment once a week why should the players not screw them for all their worth?)
Like it or not we live in a capitalist world. There will always be people with more money than others. Unfortunately success here in the UK is frowned upon. Being wealthy is criminal. All wealth must be “redistributed”.
That’s why we’re heading down the kharzi.
As Fred rightly says, Philip Green has the talent for making money and in doing so creates wealth and employment for others as well as himself. He also has the knack of managing to keep hold of a lot of his income. Good luck to him. Wish I could do likewise. If I had as much dosh coming in as he does I would be mortified to see 60-70% of it confiscated, much of it to be squandered and wasted.. When you consider that a top football player can earn £5m to £10m a year (and a lot more besides) who would you sooner see successful, David Beckham or Philip Green? I don't see Beckham being the subject of such vitriol for his wealth. (And for the record, good luck to him and his mates as well. If people are daft enough to pay ridiculous sums to watch 90 minutes of second rate entertainment once a week why should the players not screw them for all their worth?)
Like it or not we live in a capitalist world. There will always be people with more money than others. Unfortunately success here in the UK is frowned upon. Being wealthy is criminal. All wealth must be “redistributed”.
That’s why we’re heading down the kharzi.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.