The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[ilikecheese]

I can't tell if you're joking or not, real convincing argument. If you provide statistics of how it's not possible then I will read them try to find counter arguments and if I'm unable to then will concede defeat.

I'm not suggesting everyone who can't afford it should be given it, People over a certain age of 70 and are physically unable to afford there heating bill should be able to apply for schemes which dramatically lowers there heating bill during winter.

the average winter heating bill is roughly £600, British gas made £1.9 billion in profit last year. should the company be forced to allow 333,333 of the most vulnerable people free heating the company would still be making £1.7 billion in profit.

£200,000,000/£600 = 333,333.

Obviously it's not that simple but explain to me why it isn't.

Because loads of people own stock in Centrica which owns British gas. The Company answers to the stockholders...those are THEIR profits.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

Because loads of people own stock in Centrica which owns British gas. The Company answers to the stockholders...those are THEIR profits.

still doesn't explain it. the share holders will just be given approximately 10 percent less after each quarter or whenever the dividends are given out. If they don't like it they can just sell there shares.

 

[ilikecheese]

still doesn't explain it. the share holders will just be given approximately 10 percent less after each quarter or whenever the dividends are given out. If they don't like it they can just sell there shares.

LOL...you are trying to view this from an idealist perspective. The shareholders own the company...the board of directors make the decisions in the shareholders best interest. Otherwise, the shareholders will bin them for someone else.

NOW...if you put it to a vote to the shareholders, and they accepted it, then yeah...it would work.

 

[Del]

I can't tell if you're joking or not, real convincing argument. If you provide statistics of how it's not possible then I will read them try to find counter arguments and if I'm unable to then will concede defeat.

I'm not suggesting everyone who can't afford it should be given it, People over a certain age of 70 and are physically unable to afford there heating bill should be able to apply for schemes which dramatically lowers there heating bill during winter.

the average winter heating bill is roughly £600, British gas made £1.9 billion in profit last year. should the company be forced to allow 333,333 of the most vulnerable people free heating the company would still be making £1.7 billion in profit.

£200,000,000/£600 = 333,333.

Obviously it's not that simple but explain to me why it isn't possible.

Your just throwing numbers around mate

Honestly look at it from another angle and see why what your saying couldn't happen in a modern government

I could provide statistics all day long mate but I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding you the information required

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

LOL...you are trying to view this from an idealist perspective. The shareholders own the company...the board of directors make the decisions in the shareholders best interest. Otherwise, the shareholders will bin them for someone else.

NOW...if you put it to a vote to the shareholders, and they accepted it, then yeah...it would work.

I am trying to view it from an idealistic perspective I said that from the start... LOL

My point is I don't care about shareholders making marginally less profit when thousands of people are dieing as a result of it.

 

[The Esk]

still doesn't explain it. the share holders will just be given approximately 10 percent less after each quarter or whenever the dividends are given out. If they don't like it they can just sell there shares.

From a legal perspective, the Directors (who determine dividend policy) have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the Company, the shareholders.

However the shareholders could, if they so wished, make a decision that reduced profitability in the cause of the public good (Corporate Social Resonsibility) CSR. So for example, they could trade short term profits for long term customer loyalty.

The bigger question is whether or not the utilities should be in private hands.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

From a legal perspective, the Directors (who determine dividend policy) have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the Company, the shareholders.

However the shareholders could, if they so wished, make a decision that reduced profitability in the cause of the public good (Corporate Social Resonsibility) CSR. So for example, they could trade short term profits for long term customer loyalty.

I understand that point I'm not disputing it. my argument is that if breaking those laws will save thousands lives at the small expense of share holders making roughly 10% less profit. I don't really care.

 

[The Esk]

I understand that point I'm not disputing it. my argument is that if breaking those laws will save thousands lives at the small expense of share holders making roughly 10% less profit. I don't really care.

The issue for me is the ownership of such companies.

The argument has always been private v public ownership. How about ownership by public sector pension funds where there is an alignment of interests - decent shareholder returns generated by a sensible (not totally profit orientated) pricing policy for consumers.

 

[ilikecheese]

I understand that point I'm not disputing it. my argument is that if breaking those laws will save thousands lives at the small expense of share holders making roughly 10% less profit. I don't really care.

So essentially what you are advocating is that at anytime an additional 10% of your income could be taken for the greater good.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

So essentially what you are advocating is that at anytime an additional 10% of your income could be taken for the greater good.

It's hard to answer this as it is a loaded question. I imagine for many their shares in Centrica aren't their sole source of income so I wouldn't call it income. the policy would technically reduce the money they make from each share I'm not waiting for them to receive their dividends then taking 10% profit from it.

The Company would still be making huge profits as well as saving thousands of lives, but overall yes pretty much that. Call it ethical capitalism or stupidity, I don't really mind.

 

[bring the ghost on]

I understand that point I'm not disputing it. my argument is that if breaking those laws will save thousands lives at the small expense of share holders making roughly 10% less profit. I don't really care.

I understand where @SamMurphy is coming from. However, promoting renegade antics from directors isn't the issue. They'll simply get sacked and replaced.

@the esk is quite correct to point towards ownership as the key issue. If it's publically owned, then there will be more onus on social responsibility. Nationalisation is a big step and very unlikely.

However, there is nothing to stop the government from introducing a cap on heating payments, giving reductions to those on low incomes, etc. It may be the private sector but the govt can still intervene. The profits of the shareholders are irrelevant - they have to comply with the law.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

The issue for me is the ownership of such companies.

The argument has always been private v public ownership. How about ownership by public sector pension funds where there is an alignment of interests - decent shareholder returns generated by a sensible (not totally profit orientated) pricing policy for consumers.

Solutions that wont increase the budget deficit is what is required. Thousands of people are dieing each winter due to not being able to keep warm in first world countries. While at the same time the companies that provide that service are making billions.

I cant read thing like this http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths and not see it as an example of market failure.

 

[ThebanksoftheBramleyMoore]

I understand where @SamMurphy is coming from. However, promoting renegade antics from directors isn't the issue. They'll simply get sacked and replaced.

@the esk is quite correct to point towards ownership as the key issue. If it's publically owned, then there will be more onus on social responsibility. Nationalisation is a big step and very unlikely.

However, there is nothing to stop the government from introducing a cap on heating payments, giving reductions to those on low incomes, etc. It may be the private sector but the govt can still intervene. The profits of the shareholders are irrelevant - they have to comply with the law.

I'm not suggesting renegade antics from directors. I'm suggesting government intervention due to market failure. I understand it's completely fictional and never going to happen and rather extreme but when people are dieing because they can't afford to heat their homes I find that rather extreme.

The cap for people on low incomes wouldn't work there are simply to many people on low income for it to be financially viable. It has to be those most vulnerable to death from the cold.

 

[bring the ghost on]

I'm not suggesting renegade antics from directors. I'm suggesting government intervention due to market failure.

Well a few posts because you were openly talking about directors breaking the law, which is what I was picking up on. The govt may set new law, rather than break it?

The people on low incomes wouldn't work there are simply to many people on low income for it to be financially viable. It has to be those most vulnerable to death from the cold.

They're two of the same thing. People on low incomes are vulnerable and often have to go without heat during the winter. Those who are most likely to die are the elderly who, i agree, should get extra protection.

But you tell me why it's not viable to give those on low incomes cheaper heating? You said yourself these companies are making billions. Let's legislate to make it happen. Shareholders will jump ship if they're not happy - so what?

 

[ilikecheese]

It's hard to answer this as it is a loaded question. I imagine for many their shares in Centrica aren't their sole source of income so I wouldn't call it income. the policy would technically reduce the money they make from each share I'm not waiting for them to receive their dividends then taking 10% profit from it.

The Company would still be making huge profits as well as saving thousands of lives, but overall yes pretty much that. Call it ethical capitalism or stupidity, I don't really mind.

It was a loaded statement and not a loaded question

Anyway...I'll leave it. I profoundly agree that poor people need help. Which should come from the government and not for profit foundations. However, calling on publicly traded companies to eat into their profits for the greater good really isn't what capitalism is built on.