Let's start with some energetic news. The first piece of news is quite light, so let's begin with that. The first news item is about the UK's need for funding. This is because the UK has to raise taxes. The country is currently facing a tax shortfall and has accumulated a significant deficit, so a tax increase is necessary. Now, where should we collect these taxes to minimize your complaints? Let's take a moment to think about this. 

The reason for this discussion is that after 14 years, the UK has finally seen a change in government, as you saw last time. Keir Starmer has emerged as the new Prime Minister. The Conservative Party had been in power for 14 years, but now, Rishi Sunak, the leader of the Conservative Party, has been succeeded by Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party. And our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer...

The UK boldly declared that it would reset itself. It announced a fresh start for Reset Britain. However, the problem is that to start anew, there needs to be money, but upon taking power, they realized there was none. This is the UK, and due to enormous fiscal debt over the years, they realized the debt was staggering. In July 2014, the UK Treasury stated that during the period of the coalition government, the government's fiscal deficit exceeded £14.5 billion, which is the largest since World War II. They attempted to reset the UK, but due to the high debt, there was nothing they could do. In fact, when looking at the public debt ratio compared to GDP, it has nearly reached 100%. In short, the UK is currently at its worst fiscal level in modern history, with the highest amount of debt. Therefore, the newly emerged government appointed Rachel as the new Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My sister made an appearance, and in the end, she said that to cover the public finance deficit, we might have to raise taxes in the second half of the budget. However, the administration has changed, and as soon as they mention tax increases, it’s not going to be popular. In Japan, Prime Minister Kishida talked about raising taxes and immediately faced backlash, which led him to resign from his position. That said, can we avoid raising taxes? That's why I mentioned that we don't want to increase them; we really don't want to, but because of the previous administration, we are in a situation where we have no choice but to raise taxes. The deficit has become too large. Of course, if we make a mistake, the administration could change again, so raising taxes for everyone is definitely not an option. For example, if we raise income tax, national insurance premiums, or value-added tax, it could really hit our popularity hard. So it’s not about that; rather, it’s more about...

I mentioned that over 5 million public sector workers in the UK could see their salaries increase. This means that there is money available to spend. So, where can we increase taxes without raising income tax, value-added tax, or even corporate tax? How can we cover all this money? Now, I will show you the idea product. First, let's start with the easiest one. The UK government announced that starting January 1, 2025, it plans to impose an additional 20% value-added tax on private school tuition fees. Private schools in the UK are very different from private schools in our country. For example, Eton College is attended by the wealthy or aristocratic children. They announced an additional 20% value-added tax on the tuition fees of these private schools, but how much would that tax actually add to the fees? For reference, in the UK...

Famous private schools have an annual tuition fee of about 88 million won. That's no joke. Since it's no joke, adding 20% to that brings in quite a substantial amount of money, which I think amounts to around 20 billion won. Because of this, it can be considered quite lucrative. On the left is Lee Sik-soo, the former Prime Minister of Mathematics, who once mentioned, I attended a private school, so I have never met friends from the working class. This is very similar to saying that one has never seen anyone eat ramen. He faced quite a bit of embarrassment after that interview. The case in the UK is somewhat different. Among the entire population of high school students, only 7% attend prestigious schools, which can be considered elite institutions for the wealthy. However, the tuition fees for these private schools have an additional 20% added to them.

The idea came about because, recently, private schools in the UK are overflowing with international students, unlike in the past. In 2024, a staggering 62,000 overseas students, primarily from China, registered. Who will pay the 20% tax? I understand what you mean. It’s our money, but seeing how many Chinese students are coming in, I guess it could be justified. Besides, they are likely to be very wealthy; in China, they earn around 88 million won a year, which is quite affluent. So, with that, a 20% tax wouldn't be an issue. In other words, the UK could collect the necessary tax revenue from them. The U.S. had a similar idea, right? What about the tax shortfall? They suggested that while American citizens could have their income tax lowered, tariffs on imports from China could be increased. Trump mentioned something like that.

The idea was to eliminate income tax and significantly increase tariffs, essentially collecting from China. It's a very similar concept. However, since not only Chinese people are involved, the British public might find it harder to send their children to private schools. They are paying a staggering 8.8 million won, stretching their finances to send their children to private schools. What are middle-class parents supposed to do? Are they being told not to send their children to private schools if they don't have the money? In response, the current Labour government has stated that they can attend public schools. What this means is that they will impose taxes on private school tuition, bringing in about 2 trillion won, and with that money, they will support public schools. This means that the quality of public schools will improve, and in the future, the working class will have better social mobility by attending public schools rather than private ones.

The idea is to encourage students to attend public schools instead of private ones. This is quite an outstanding idea, especially considering that the popularity of English, like that in Harry Potter, has significantly increased the mystique surrounding British private schools. Nowadays, even if tuition fees rise, it seems that students will still enroll. Therefore, the plan is to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and foreigners, and use that money to fund public schools for the working class. This is a fantastic idea, isn't it? So far, we've managed to collect about 2 trillion, but that's still not enough. In a large country like the UK, 2 trillion is just a drop in the bucket, so we need something more. Thus, we're looking for other taxes. The second idea is to increase the profit tax on energy companies by 3%. Additionally, if they make a second investment, it will be disclosed.

There was a system in place, but they are planning to abolish the investment deduction system. In other words, they intend to raise taxes. They will increase taxes on energy companies. First of all, are there energy companies in the UK? Yes, there are. The UK is a representative oil-producing country. Scotland, located to the right, has the North Sea oil fields, and Norway also has them. The North Sea oil fields can be said to be the source of wealth for the UK, and they plan to impose additional taxes on them. They intend to increase taxes by about 3%. It seems like a 3% increase could be manageable, but the situation in the UK is quite heated. The issue isn't just the 3% increase; if they raise it by that much, what will the overall rate be? It will reach 78%. If there are further tax increases, the tax rate for North Sea oil and energy companies will be 78%. Moreover, if they conduct exploratory activities, such as drilling for additional equipment, it could incur an additional 29%.

They are saying that they won't give any tax deductions, and on top of that, they plan to impose a tax rate of 78%. This means that a corporate tax of 780,000 won would come out of it. Does this make any sense? Where in the world do companies have a tax rate of 78%? Who would do business under such conditions? Lately, they have been heavily criticizing British citizens. What are they saying? They are criticizing the British Labour Party, referring to it as the Labor Party. Isn't that similar to the North Korean Labor Party? Isn't it exceeding 78%? If this is the case, what is left for anyone? Who would work under these conditions? They are like the Labour Party, and in response, the British Labour Party government said it was a misunderstanding. They claimed that what they did was only a 3% increase. Who set the previous rate of 75%? It was the previous Conservative government. Rishi Sunak's government raised it to 75%, and then our Labour government added 3%, making it 78%. In other words, this is what they did.

Why are you blaming me for what the previous government did? Moreover, 78% is excessive. A 78% tax rate, 18% is outrageous to say the least. And there are also comparisons made to Norway, where the tax rate is 78%. Yes, Norway also has a 78% tax rate, but in Norway, companies exploring oil are almost state-owned enterprises. There is a principle that the government must control 70% of the oil business. In other words, the state must hold more than 70% of the shares. So even if the tax rate is 78%, it's like our Korean Electric Power Corporation or something similar, meaning the state maintains strong control and holds more than 70% of the shares. However, in the case of the UK, privatization has occurred, and there is hardly any government stake left. Asking a privatized company to pay a 78% tax rate raises the question of whether that makes any sense.

However, as I mentioned earlier, that absurd tax rate was actually a system created by the previous government, specifically by Rishi Sunak, who was in charge of the Conservative Party. In 2022, when he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, oil prices and gas prices skyrocketed, so he introduced a windfall tax of 25% on energy imports. Originally, the corporate tax rate for oil companies was 40%. With the additional 25% windfall tax, the corporate tax rate increased to 65%. During his time as Chancellor, as you know, oil prices were soaring. In our country, a similar windfall tax was also implemented, significantly increasing taxes on energy companies. At that time, the tax rate was raised to 65%. And what did Sunak say? He remarked that the entire country was in crisis, yet energy companies were making windfall profits without any effort.

There has been no innovation or effort, yet due to the external variable of war, they are reaping enormous profits, and therefore, they said they should pay taxes accordingly. After becoming Prime Minister, they raised this tax once again. The windfall tax, which was at 65%, was increased to 75%. Initially, it had a 40% windfall tax, which was raised to 65%, and then to 75% under the ruling party. As a result, the corporate tax rate for companies operating in the North Sea oil fields has risen to 78%. However, if we think about it, with the windfall tax in place, if oil prices drop, won’t the taxes be reduced? Energy prices have fluctuated; gas prices went up and then came down, and oil prices also rose and then fell. Does that mean the windfall tax has disappeared? Life should not be taken lightly. The windfall tax is still maintained, and here the windfall is at $100.

When it went up, it was $75, but now it’s not a windfall, and they won’t lower it? When prices rise, politicians call it a windfall, but when they should lower it, there’s no word or they don’t answer the phone. Isn’t it time to lower it? What was so special about $70? Please lower it; I asked for a 40% reduction. The UK government, under Rishi Sunak, said that they would lower it if it goes below $71.4. That’s right, they set that condition. If it stays below $71.4 per barrel for two consecutive quarters, they would suspend the windfall tax. Surprisingly, $71.58 has become a resistance level; it hasn’t gone below $71.55. There are now conspiracy theories suggesting that they are not lowering it to collect taxes, and they won’t let it go below $71.4, even as we approach 2024. Meanwhile, there’s still a chance that if it eventually goes down, the tax rate could be reduced, but the Conservative Party remains unchanged.

If the government had come to power, the problem is that the government that made those promises has resigned, and the new government has completely omitted the discussion about the $72.4. Instead, they are saying they will increase it by another 3%. Additionally, there used to be tax deductions for expenses related to R&D drilling and discovering new oil fields, but they are also going to halt that. In short, there has been an increase in taxes. As I mentioned earlier, they are targeting about 2 trillion won. Now, of course, the North Sea oil fields are located off the coast of the UK, so what's the issue with the government collecting a lot of taxes from there? Anyone can extract it if they want to. However, if there is a 78% tax rate, companies will naturally not invest. Lately, there have been concerns that the North Sea oil industry in the UK might come to an end if things continue this way. This is because the equipment is aging, and all the existing oil fields have already been tapped.

Then, we need to develop new areas, but in order to develop, there must be profit. If there is a profit of 78%, the government has to explore these new areas. However, there are no new deductions for exploration, so they are only extracting from existing resources and not replacing outdated equipment. As a result, it has been said that the North Sea oil industry is currently facing a decline. The UK’s oil production could effectively be approaching its end. Back in 1998, the average production was 4.3 million barrels, but last year, the UK's oil production fell to 1.27 million barrels, a 75% drop. Given this decline, new exploration should be taking place, but there is no funding or money available, so production continues to decrease, and it seems likely to decline at a steep rate. This has become the current consensus. Thus, the statement is made that the UK's oil production is in a state of decline.

We are hitting rock bottom, and we need to think about raising that. Looking at this, does a 78% increase in symptoms make sense? Who would invest in a new nuclear power plant when the investment funds aren't even exempt from taxes? This is where the complaints are coming from. Let me briefly mention the oil fields. Some may ask, Is the UK like Korea? In 1970, oil was discovered in the North Sea. Starting in 1975, the UK began extracting oil from the North Sea. At that time, the British Prime Minister said that it was a gift from the gods to the British economy. By the 1980s, the UK became a net exporter of oil, and as oil prices rose, the UK reaped tremendous benefits. In 1974, during the oil shock, prices quadrupled, and investment in extraction increased sixteenfold. This marked the beginning of the UK's golden age. One of the events you may remember from this time is when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher spoke about the UK.

There was an event that killed the coal industry, do you remember? While destroying the British coal industry, they strongly suppressed and oppressed the striking workers. The reason why they could respond so harshly to the miners' strike was that the North Sea oil fields emerged, so there was no need to mine coal anymore. It became a declining industry, and when the miners said they wouldn't mine anymore and took a defiant stance, they truly went through with it. This incident led to the rise of the famous Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. Ultimately, since the North Sea oil business was doing well, such actions became possible. Back in those days, the blessings from the sea were evident, as by the mid-1980s, oil revenues accounted for a significant portion of the Treasury's income. Through this, the UK was able to provide massive tax cuts and large welfare benefits, leading to a golden age of the British economy throughout the 80s and into the 90s. Someone once asked, What about the UK?

There is something to consider about how the GDP per capita is so high, reaching the low $40,000s and approaching $50,000. However, what industries does the UK have? It seems like they only have finance. So how did they manage to earn so much money? They were a significant producer of oil and gas until around 1999 and 2000. They were extracting oil from the sea, which is quite challenging. Moreover, it's not coming from Middle Eastern countries; it's coming from the UK. The fact that the UK, as one of the world's leading countries, was able to extract oil and gas from the sea shows the impact it had. During what can be called the UK's prime era, oil production increased almost tenfold, reaching a peak of 900% in 1999. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, due to aging facilities and declining reserves, the North Sea reserves began to diminish.

They started, so from the UK's perspective, if the North Sea oil fields that led them to their prime are no longer producing oil, they need to either find more reserves or pivot to a new industry. This is very difficult. Of course, there have been discussions in the UK about whether they can just keep searching and that oil will keep coming up, like in the United States. But the situation in the U.S. is strange; they keep finding more and more oil, but they are not the U.S. Currently, as I showed earlier, their production has dropped from 3 million barrels to 800,000 barrels, which is almost a quarter of what it used to be, causing significant difficulties. Moreover, to drill in new areas, investment is needed, but there is no money because they are taking 78% in taxes. Additionally, it’s more expensive now, and there aren’t any easy finds left.

We have come to a point where we need to find areas that are costly to operate. No one is investing in the past because productivity has declined, and various infrastructure facilities are aging. Moreover, the North Sea is known for its rough waters, similar to the Arctic. The working conditions in the oil fields are difficult, and extracting oil is challenging. However, since it is not profitable, no one is investing here, and the management costs are increasingly rising. Additionally, these days, if we extract oil from the North Sea, we face criticism for environmental pollution, which contradicts clean energy initiatives. This has led to a decline in the oil industry. Consequently, global energy companies that were operating in the UK's oil fields are leaving. With 78% of companies no longer extracting oil here, companies like Chevron and Exxon's operations are diminishing.

One by one, they started to leave, and in May 2014, Chevron announced its complete withdrawal from the Kookje oil field. They had previously made a significant profit by investing in the Guyana oil region, so they decided not to continue with the Kookje oil field. Of course, they strongly asserted that their departure was not due to pressure from the British government, but the insistence that it was not the case raises questions about potential influences. So, who takes over when these global companies exit? Local British companies step in. However, local companies naturally have less investment power and technical expertise compared to global energy companies. Therefore, it is a fact that the Kookje oil field is becoming increasingly challenging. Moreover, former Prime Minister Lee Sik-soo had granted more exploration permits, and...

After extracting a lot of crude oil, the idea was to impose taxes on it. However, the newly elected Labour government opposes this. They are not allowing any new permits in the North Sea. This is because they align with the so-called green and environmentally friendly stance, similar to the Democratic Party in the United States. Therefore, they will no longer permit new attempts in the North Sea. The tax rate is said to be 78%, which raises the question of who would want to operate there. Recently, the UK has also created a new ministerial position called the Net Zero Minister. This position extends the responsibilities of the Energy Secretary to include achieving zero emissions, which is quite challenging. Currently, the last hope for the North Sea oil fields is a region called Rose Bank, which is said to have about 500 million barrels of oil reserves. The Conservative government approved underwater exploration here, but the Labour government is reconsidering this decision.

There are discussions about the possibility of cancellation, and while they say they won't reverse their decision, if environmental organizations or environmentally friendly ministers reconsider the scale of exploration, it could mean that no new resources can be created from the North Sea oil fields. Because of this, there is significant lamentation within the UK, particularly in Scotland. People are asking if this is too much. The issue is that while we refer to it as the UK, who actually manages the North Sea oil? The territory of the UK is below, while the orange areas next to England are not part of the UK. The areas above belong to Scotland. Although Scotland is part of the UK, 90% of the North Sea oil fields fall under Scottish jurisdiction. In other words, our country...

For example, if an oil field is discovered in the East Sea, then Gangwon Province would receive taxes from that. However, the central government would say, Sorry, we have to shut it down. Sorry, we have to close it. You guys should raise your income tax a bit. The governor of Gangwon Province would be extremely angry about this. Similarly, Scotland is currently facing a situation where, according to the promises of the Labour government, new exploration would be halted, potentially leading to the loss of 100,000 jobs in Scotland. The revenue implications are also significant. As a result, traditionally, the relationship between England and Scotland has not been good, and people are expressing that they feel mistreated by the English. There are comments about Scotland being treated unfairly. In the past, when Prime Minister Thatcher came to power, the Conservative Party dismantled the coal industry, which was a core part of Scotland's economy.

Have you heard that Prime Minister Starmer of the Labour Party government is now planning to destroy the oil business? The English are trying to ruin our core industry. We can't let the mining industry be destroyed. We were struggling and relying on oil from the North Sea, but now they are going to ruin that too. So currently, Scotland has already said goodbye to the mining industry, and now it's preparing to bid farewell to the North Sea oil as well. Let me show you something. I will share a Scottish folk song with you. There is a folk song that comes out in times like this. Some of you might think it's a song from our country, but it's actually Scottish. Below, you can see the graduation national song. Right now, Scotland is in a situation where it has to say goodbye to crude oil.

There is a significant discontent among the Scottish people. The reason is that Ireland, which gained independence earlier, has seen a tremendous increase in GDP per capita after the UK’s Brexit. While Ireland is thriving, Scotland, which remains under British rule, has not experienced similar growth. There is a prevailing atmosphere suggesting that Scotland might be better off pursuing independence, especially since the situation has been deteriorating. Interestingly, in March 2013, a Pakistani-Muslim politician became the leader of the Scottish National Party and actively promoted the independence movement. However, he made several missteps and resigned in 2014. As a result, the prospect of Scottish independence seems distant for the time being, but the region has suffered considerable damage.

Compared to Ireland, the situation for themselves is quite unfavorable, and they probably feel this way. Most energy companies are currently preparing to leave the UK. For example, Shell, the second-largest company by market capitalization in the UK and a representative energy company, is planning to relist in New York. This is similar to SK Hynix moving its headquarters to the United States and seeking a listing on Nasdaq to gain greater recognition and live more comfortably. If this happens, it seems that the UK will be in turmoil. Although it may be difficult, many companies are considering this option, and some are even planning to move to Norway across the sea. The reason is that Norway surprisingly offers favorable conditions for companies that extract fossil fuels.

Norway is considered a representative country for environmental friendliness, yet it is also one of the largest producers and exporters of fossil fuels in the world. It ranks as the fifth largest oil exporter and the third largest natural gas exporter globally. It is indeed a country that is very friendly towards fossil fuels, even while claiming to be a representative of environmental friendliness. The idea is that even if it earns money in a questionable manner, it can still spend it wisely. This leads to accusations of climate hypocrisy, as Norway promotes itself as an eco-friendly nation while actively supporting oil companies. There is a desire for more oil companies to come to Norway and drill more. This reflects Norway's stance. Furthermore, if we think about it, Norway has had the North Sea oil fields, just like the UK, and Norway has benefited from the wealth generated by those North Sea oil fields.

After taking over more than 70% of the national shares, Norway's sovereign wealth fund has become famous. It is known for generating an incredible amount of money, with assets reaching 23 trillion won. Because the fund earns so much, Norway currently boasts a per capita GDP that exceeds $80,000, and it is being praised for successfully making its citizens wealthy. While one of the most successful countries in selling oil is Saudi Arabia, Norway is also among them. This year alone, Norway's sovereign wealth fund made over 150 trillion won in the first half, with a stock return of 12%. So, what do Norwegians think? They feel guilty for earning too much money. Their hearts are in environmental protection, but the reality is that they are profiting immensely from selling fossil fuels. They express their concern, saying, Oh, we are working hard on being eco-friendly, but oil is selling so well.

Guilt is a feeling that lingers. So, those watching this, especially the British, feel a bit bitter. They wonder where the oil money from the UK went. Both the UK and Norway had similar oil fields, right? Norwegians became wealthy, but where did the oil money from the UK go? The Norwegian fund has become an enormous fund worth several trillion, investing around the world. Why doesn’t the UK have something like that? Where did it go? The UK privatized the North Sea oil industry and imposed high taxes on it. What does that mean? It means they taxed it heavily to keep taxes low in other sectors. It’s different in Norway; they consistently invested the profits from oil and achieved tremendous success. Just think about how they invested wisely.

The money derived from oil significantly impacted the U.S. market, especially the stock market, and the real estate sector as well. This led to an increase in national wealth. In contrast, the UK did not accumulate that money; instead, after privatization, they reduced taxes in other areas and had social welfare programs. They spent based on the present rather than planning for the future, especially in the 1990s. During the peak of welfare in the UK, they enjoyed low tax rates, but now, looking back, it seems they became wealthy through spending without saving anything. It's not that they had nothing left; rather, they spent everything. They maintained low taxes without collecting revenue from other sectors and enjoyed the benefits during that time, while investments were made elsewhere, resulting in substantial growth. Therefore, the two countries show a remarkable difference, and of course, there is a significant difference in population as well.

Even though it is the same North Sea oil field, Norway's population is less than one minute of the UK's, so it is true that it has a much greater effect on Norway. However, did they invest, or did they just cut taxes and spend everything on welfare, leaving nothing behind? This led to a 78% tax rate, which is a significant difference. Therefore, my first topic today is why the tax benefits from the UK's oil fields are not as appealing. Why do we compare it to Norway, which also invested in the same North Sea oil fields? The reason we bring this up is that we might feel guilty about it in the future. We might think, I'm sorry, world. I'm sorry. If we start coming out again, we might become climate criminals. South Korea might become a climate criminal as well. This is a concern we should address in advance.

I'm sorry. I feel guilty about this. However, I will consistently invest in eco-friendliness from now on. We will definitely become the strongest nation in green energy and battery technology in South Korea. Of course, I will drill a lot; I will keep drilling. With what comes out of that, instead of Greta, let's shout for Shuberi. Let's shout for green, and push through. Hey, you all did the same, right? Let's push through. Please call me a future criminal. I'm sorry. And if it comes out, what should we do? I think the cases of the UK and Norway could be representative examples. I'm sorry to the people of the world. I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. Honestly, I'm a bit worried about how much will come out. Please try not to curse too much; just a little would be enough for the climate.

I will invest a lot. Thank you, everyone around the world. I believe we have reached this day thanks to all of you.

돈 떨어진 영국의 신박한 과세 아이디어

경제, 금융을 기반으로 달리는 방송!
정치는 아주. 전혀. 대단히. 모릅니다. 
누군가를 비판하거나 비난하지 않도록 노력하겠습니다.
실수가 있더라도 너그럽고 재미있게 봐주세요.
감사합니다.
각종 문의 : syukaworld@sandbox.co.kr 으로 부탁드립니다.
