Counting on … 156

2nd October 2025

How do we ensure that work is used to do good things and not bad things? 

As individuals and as households, we can make within the limits of our own domain – although we nevertheless be impacted by the decisions of others. The moral choices we make will be affected by our culture, our upbringing and our faith. 

Outside our domain, what work happens and how it is encouraged or not, will depend more on the aims of businesses and corporate organisations, governments and legislation.  Traditional economic theory tells us that businesses make their decisions solely on the basis of profit. Governments on the other hand may be seen as ‘systems responsible for governing an organised community, established to serve the collective needs and interests of their populations’ (1) or ‘to serve the interests of its rulers, be they monarchs, dictators, aristocracies, or ruling classes.’ (2) 

Taking the former definition, there is also an onus on governments to control  or organise businesses so that their pursuit of profit is not at the expense of others. Nevertheless pursuit of profit does seem to be the biggest determinant of what work is undertaken because it is the pursuit of profit that determines how much people are paid for each job, and the ‘profit’ value may differ from what is of value for the welling being of the society. Looking at pay levels, CEOs and senior officials are earning an average of £104,000 (and up to several million for the CEOs of banks, fossil fuel and water companies) but are there jobs really more valuable to society than the work of farm workers, cleaners and and nursery nurses who earn between £17,000 and £27,000? (3) 

Could the CEOs do their work if it wasn’t for the large number of low paid workers who ensure  that food is grown – and transported to the shops and stacked on shelves and dispatched to homes via delivery vans?  Could the CEOs do their work if no one cleaned their offices, mended the electrics, or maintained their IT? Could the CEOs do their jobs if there weren’t nurseries and schools for their children, if there weren’t taxi drivers  and traffic wardens and car mechanics getting them safely to work?

Having a UBI would at the very least give more equal value to the the work people. If it was financed through higher taxes for those with higher pay packets, then that too would redress the balance of the social value of work.

  1. https://legalclarity.org/what-is-the-main-purpose-of-the-government/
  2. https://upjourney.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-government

(3) https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/compare-average-pay-job


  1. https://www.unionlearn.org.uk/compare-average-pay-job

Green Tau: Issue 90

24th May 2024

Profits part 2

Having written about what profits are and whether they are per se good, I have come across some news stories which point to the moral downside of pursuing profits.

Medicines

Is the profit motive a good way of determining which new medicines to develop or for which diseases to seek a cure? Should it be necessary to make a profit – as opposed to covering costs – in order to develop a medicine that will relieve suffering and/ or enable someone to live a more normal life? 

And when a medicine has been developed, is it appropriate to sell it at a profit, knowing that this may be put it out of the reach of people whose health might otherwise be improved? Is it appropriate to charge a license fee for would be manufacturers in less affluent parts of the world? 

Of course there is a cost in researching and developing new medicines and treatments – but how is that best paid for? Future profits or through taxation, allowing research to be seen as public service for the common good?

 – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/imagine-getting-life-saving-drugs-to-sick-people-without-relying-on-big-pharma-we-may-have-found-a-way?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Supermarkets

Supermarkets typically promote their business as selling best value foods – either as very cheap foods or as affordable but quality foods. But how benefits most from these low prices or who pays the cost of cheap food? 

To ensure low prices, supermarkets utilise the benefits of economies of scale. This can exclude small traders from selling produce to them. It can cause particular complications for farmers if they struggle to grow enough of their crop that is of the right size, at the right time and in the right quantity. Failure may mean loosing the whole supermarket order: no sale, no payment.  

Another way of ensuring low prices is to cut costs, especially labour costs which can mean cutting back on hourly rates or hours worked or staffing levels. This is usually to the detriment of the low paid workers rather than higher grade staff.

But where supermarkets are in fact primarily focused on profits, prices will be no lower than needed  enough to maintain sales at levels that maximise profit. In this example profits rose by 159% whilst sales rose by just 7.4%.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/14/tesco-ceo-near-10m-pay-a-slap-in-the-face-for-struggling-workers-union-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Oil profits

Shell, like many oil companies has repeatedly made record profits – enhanced in part by the war between Russia and Ukraine. As consumers were forced to pay more and more for their energy bills, the government introduced a 35% windfall tax to recoup some of the unearned profits. The policy however allowed the oil companies to offset this tax to the tune of 91p for every pound they invested in fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK. 

In 2023 Shell made profits of £22.3 billion and paid in tax £1.1 billion, including £240 million in relation to the windfall tax. This was the first time Shell had paid any taxes since 2017. As well as offsetting losses, Shell has also offset against tax, costs incurred in decommissioning North Sea platforms – a task that has yet to be completed, leaving many parts of the infrastructure leaking poisonous chemicals into the sea.

The profits that Shell makes does not benefit its consumers, nor UK citizens, nor the environment – only shareholders (which still includes various pension and investment funds) and board members. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60295177

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/shell-unveils-new-35bn-share-buy-back-after-higher-profits-than-expected?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The super rich

Whilst most people in the UK have seen their annual income fall in real terms, a select few have seen their income and wealth continue to rise. Typically these were people who inherited or otherwise could access money. People with money can buy property rather than renting, and can then gain from rising property values. At the same time this has the effect of raising property prices out of the re@ch of many people. People with money find that proportionately the things they buy – luxury items – do not rise as fast in price as basic items. The inflation rate for basic foods has been consistently higher than for more upmarket items. It is a true saying that ‘money begets money’.

The unequal spread of money distorts markets – shopping streets in affluent areas continue to thrive whilst in deprived areas, more and more shops have closed. 

The Guardian reported “The richest 350 individuals and families together hold a combined wealth of £795bn – a sum larger than the annual GDP of Poland. Priya Sahni-Nicholas, a co-executive director of the Equality Trust, a charity that campaigns for the creation of a fairer society, said the list “demonstrates the obscene extent of inequality” in the UK. “Billionaire wealth is up by more than 1,000% since 1990 at a very real cost to us all,” she said. “This rich list is built off record bill increases, massive price hikes for essentials, an endless shortage of decent homes, and huge investment in fossil fuels.

“To make progress on these crises we must tackle inequality. The super-rich have spent centuries diverting wealth into their hands, making our democracy less responsive to people’s needs and damaging our communities. The result is we are poorer, sicker, less productive, unhappier, more polarised, and less trusting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/17/british-asylum-housing-tycoon-breaks-into-sunday-times-rich-list?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Counting on … day 84

11th April 2024

Fossil Fuel Subsidies -1

This overview of fossil fuel subsidies comes from the IMF: “Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a substantial cost. Subsidies have sizeable fiscal consequences (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution (contributing to climate change and premature deaths from local air pollution), and are not well targeted at the poor (mostly benefiting higher income households). Removing subsidies and using the revenue gain for better targeted social spending, reductions in inefficient taxes, and productive investments can promote sustainable and equitable outcomes.” (1)

The article goes on to explain the difference between explicit and implicit subsidies, the former being the obvious direct payments to fossil fuel producers to bring down the unit cost of the fuel. The latter is a subsidy that is likely always present, vis in the practice of not charging the fossil fuel producers for the costs of pollution, climate change etc that are a consequence of their business. 

“Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic congestion and accident externalities associated with the use of road fuels”(1)

By way of example they provide the following bar chart: 

(1) https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies