Is climate change a fraud?

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, HeliX said:

If I was making a wishlist, shares for everyone on the island. More shares for those putting the seed money in, set at a level where they can make a healthy return, but the rest should go to residents as it is our national resource.

That is a great idea and I get where you are coming from, apart from a couple of observations: a) the shares would have to be bought, not given away as of right or the core investors would not be too happy, b) the number of shares offered to the public would probably have to be quite a small percentage, c) what happens if more capital has to be introduced? d) the government has no power to require this other than as a term of the licence and if it turns off the core investors, then it will be counterproductive.

The best benefit will be from licencing fees and tax, I think.  That is where we should find its value, not by an engineered, and probably unworkable, common ownership. 

 

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

The public/Government own the gas, but are not prepared to pay anything nor take the risk to extract and produce it, as its £100's of millions to do it. They take royalties on any gas extracted, charge the company income tax on profits and will get VAT receipts on the sale of the processed gas.

So... a small fraction of what Crogga stands to make.

Quote

With what money? Happy for income tax to go up to 40%?

Depends at what threshold, but yes.

Quote

The licence is not a public document, but the terms of it are mentioned in the Moulton interview with Crogga posted in the gas deposit thread.

Wealth taxes don't work. Wealth is mobile.

Wealth taxes do work. The happiest countries in the world all have high tax rates.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

That is a great idea and I get where you are coming from, apart from a couple of observations: a) the shares would have to be bought, not given away as of right or the core investors would not be too happy, b) the number of shares offered to the public would probably have to be quite a small percentage, c) what happens if more capital has to be introduced? d) the government has no power to require this other than as a term of the licence and if it turns off the core investors, then it will be counterproductive.

The best benefit will be from licencing fees and tax, I think.  That is where we should find its value, not by an engineered, and probably unworkable, common ownership. 

 

a) There's no reason they can't be given away to the public - give the investors enough shares to make, for arguments sake, 1.5x return and issue shares accordingly to allow that whilst also giving 1 (or more) to every resident.

b) Depends how much Crogga expects to make in total. I would wish to cap their profits and redistribute the rest.

c) Share dilution at an appropriate and agreed level.

d) If the investors aren't happy to invest for a return of, say, 1.5x, someone else will be. 1.5 was obviously pulled out of my arse, but there is a rate that will be competitive and garner investment whilst still giving the Manx public a good deal.

[Markduc]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

So... a small fraction of what Crogga stands to make.

Depends at what threshold, but yes.

Wealth taxes do work. The happiest countries in the world all have high tax rates.

Almost correct 

denmark appears in the top10 of high tax and happy 

but it’s the only one 

[b4mbi]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

So... a small fraction of what Crogga stands to make.

In my understanding, at the end of the day the government would get around 50% of the value of the gas it owns. 

[b4mbi]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

a) There's no reason they can't be given away to the public - give the investors enough shares to make, for arguments sake, 1.5x return and issue shares accordingly to allow that whilst also giving 1 (or more) to every resident.

b) Depends how much Crogga expects to make in total. I would wish to cap their profits and redistribute the rest.

c) Share dilution at an appropriate and agreed level.

d) If the investors aren't happy to invest for a return of, say, 1.5x, someone else will be. 1.5 was obviously pulled out of my arse, but there is a rate that will be competitive and garner investment whilst still giving the Manx public a good deal.

Have you ever worked in business? 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, b4mbi said:

In my understanding, at the end of the day the government would get around 50% of the value of the gas it owns. 

If that's correct it's less objectionable than I thought, though why on earth the licence isn't public domain when it concerns what is purported to be a significant amount of national resource is frustrating.

[Markduc]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

a) There's no reason they can't be given away to the public - give the investors enough shares to make, for arguments sake, 1.5x return and issue shares accordingly to allow that whilst also giving 1 (or more) to every resident.

b) Depends how much Crogga expects to make in total. I would wish to cap their profits and redistribute the rest.

c) Share dilution at an appropriate and agreed level.

d) If the investors aren't happy to invest for a return of, say, 1.5x, someone else will be. 1.5 was obviously pulled out of my arse, but there is a rate that will be competitive and garner investment whilst still giving the Manx public a good deal.

Or the government ie the tax payers get the gas and benefit from all of the gas 

would be much simpler 

[HeliX]

Just now, b4mbi said:

Have you ever worked in business? 

There is a reason I said wishlist. I am fully aware that it is entirely incongruent with how things are currently done.

[HeliX]

5 minutes ago, Markduc said:

Almost correct 

denmark appears in the top10 of high tax and happy 

but it’s the only one 

Depends who's top 10 you use, but Sweden and Norway feature on most too, and Finland.

[Kopek]

6 minutes ago, HeliX said:

significant amount of national resource is frustrating.

What National Resource is this??? The one that will fizzle out in ten years time?

[HeliX]

Just now, Kopek said:

What National Resource is this??? The one that will fizzle out in ten years time?

Probably more like 30-40 years, but yes.

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

a) There's no reason they can't be given away to the public - give the investors enough shares to make, for arguments sake, 1.5x return and issue shares accordingly to allow that whilst also giving 1 (or more) to every resident. Why would Crogga give away shares? What individual interest would a single share give? What dividend do you think they would earn?  You also open up all kinds of obligations to keep a group of people happy who have stumped up nothing. How do you think they would deal with the investments can go down as well as up mantra?  

b) Depends how much Crogga expects to make in total. I would wish to cap their profits and redistribute the rest. Again why? They are the ones who are risking their capital. 

c) Share dilution at an appropriate and agreed level. Easy to say, not so easy to implement when you are issuing shares to an unsophisticated investing public. Would you pump in more money if there were shareholders who were not?  

d) If the investors aren't happy to invest for a return of, say, 1.5x, someone else will be. 1.5 was obviously pulled out of my arse, but there is a rate that will be competitive and garner investment whilst still giving the Manx public a good deal.  Others may be interested, but not for one share and without legislation there is no power to do this, and  you risk making the licence terms so onerous that most investors will walk away.

 

[Kopek]

23 minutes ago, Markduc said:

Tell China and India to make a. .84% change it would make a bigger difference 

Of course it would, in percentages anyway but we all have to make our contribution or are we to always rely on others help us out?

[Hoops]

45 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

What? Outrageous alcohol prices and a diet of whale blubber. 

i detest gastropubs.