Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Cardew

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The "green" surcharge on your electricity bill is a "compulsory unmitigated payment" (ie the only way for you to avoid the charge is to sit in the dark with a candle). So the OECD has defined this charge as a TAX.

Not quite true!

My tax paying wife and daughter avoid paying toward FIT by getting me to pay the Electricity Bill;)

Calling the FIT levy a 'Tax' or not is just semantics; however the term 'we the tax payer'(as used in the question) is surely accepted as paid for by the treasury from all taxation - income tax, VAT etc etc.

John_Pierpoint

We can agree to differ:D

The "Dartford Crossing" had just been increased to a toll of £2.50 per car. The Government of the day said it would be free once the 100,000 vehicles per day had paid the construction costs.
So that is a tax increase.

The local council has decided to extended parking charges until midnight 6 days per week. Is there a shortage of parking places after 18:00 ?
No.
So that is a tax !

I am sure we can all think of similar examples including some now sold off into the private sector:

EG The right to "rank" at rail stations (now renationalised?) and at Airports such as Stansted has been sold to the highest bidding taxi company, which is now able to charge extortionate fares.
Are those fares a tax?

Adam Smith must be spinning in his grave.;)

Martyn1981

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The "green" surcharge on your electricity bill is a "compulsory unmitigated payment" (ie the only way for you to avoid the charge is to sit in the dark with a candle). So the OECD has defined this charge as a TAX.

Agree. It seems only fair to define it as a tax (4% on gas bills & 10% on leccy bills). After all, the VAT at 5% is exactly the same thing, a money raising charge on energy consumption that then gets re-distributed, the difference being that it travels through many extra hoops (and costs) before being re-distributed.

If 'Green Tariff' schemes are to be funded by general taxation rather than 'specialist' industry/consumption linked levies, then the government will first need to establish a new tax, or a tax increase to fund it. Perhaps a good starting point would be a levy on energy bills, say a 4% to 10% increase in VAT - Oops, I've gone full circle, but now dragged HMRC into the food chain!

Mart.

Cardew

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

We can agree to differ:D

The "Dartford Crossing" had just been increased to a toll of £2.50 per car. The Government of the day said it would be free once the 100,000 vehicles per day had paid the construction costs.
So that is a tax increase.

The local council has decided to extended parking charges until midnight 6 days per week. Is there a shortage of parking places after 18:00 ?
No.
So that is a tax !

I am sure we can all think of similar examples including some now sold off into the private sector:

EG The right to "rank" at rail stations (now renationalised?) and at Airports such as Stansted has been sold to the highest bidding taxi company, which is now able to charge extortionate fares.
Are those fares a tax?

Adam Smith must be spinning in his grave.;)

I wasn’t arguing on the definition of the FIT levy paid by electricity customers. If you feel it can be termed a ‘tax’ rather than a 'levy' then so be it!

However the examples you give - Dartford crossing etc – are payments to the Government or local council.

The difference is that the FIT levy/tax is paid directly tothe Utility companies and is ‘ring-fenced’ for payment those getting the FIT subsidy.

As pointed out my wife and daughter pay other forms of taxation, but none of that goes into the payment of FIT.

So in the context of this question by Tech2, I contend my reply was accurate.

So do I take it that as its a government incentive does that mean in effect that we the tax payer are actually paying for them?

So should we not all get them if we are tax payers that is those with jobs??

John_Pierpoint

OK it is a compulsory government imposed levy.

As Nigel Lawson once said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....:D

EricMears

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

As Nigel Lawson once said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....:D

Nigel Lawson may well have said that (as have thousands of others).

However, the 'Duck Test' is attributed by Wikipedia to an American poet : James Whitcomb Riley.

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck

John_Pierpoint

Nigel Lawson used it to justify getting rid of another feature of the tax system that bore down on pensioners who wanted to continue working past retirement age:

I have one further change to make to help pensioners. Under the earnings rule, any pensioner who decides to continue to work after reaching the statutory retirement age sees his or her pension docked at a rate of 50 per cent. on every £1 earned between £75 and £79 a week, rising to 100 per cent. for every £1 earned over £79 a week.
This rule applies until he or she has reached five years beyond the state pension age.

The manifesto on which we were first elected in 1979 acknowledged that it was wrong to discourage people who wished to work beyond retirement age in this way, and we pledged that we would abolish the earnings rule. That is precisely what we shall do.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I have agreed that the pensioners' earnings rule should be abolished from the beginning of October, the earliest practicable date.
The necessary legislation will be included in the Social Security Bill currently before the House.
The cost to public expenditure will be £190 million in 1989-90, which will be entirely met from the Reserve, but the net cost of this measure will be significantly reduced by the income tax payable on the increased pensions.
Those who wish to defer taking their pension will remain entirely free to do so, and will continue to earn a higher pension in return. I am sure the whole House will welcome this long-overdue reform.

If I were to adopt the so-called "duck test" now in vogue across the Atlantic, the pensioners' earnings rule would probably qualify as a tax, and I would now be able to claim to have abolished a sixth tax, but sound tax principles, coupled with my innate modesty and natural reticence, prevent me from doing so.

Bouncy_dave

My friend at work had this system fitted last year and is chuffed to bits with it no you don't make a fortune out of it but they don't claim you do it just helps you save some money I have been waiting for them to be in my area and hoping that my roof is suitable for a while and have just got a flyer through from them and will be getting in touch asap
From what I understand from my friend you get the electric generated by them in the day and any extra that you don't use goes to them this along with government grants is how they make there money and how you save money on your electric bill even if that is only a bit it is still a saving
And NO my friend paid nothing and is paying a lot less for his electric it is not a scam just a good deal for all involved. :beer:

Optimist

Bouncy_dave wrote: »

My friend at work had this system fitted last year and is chuffed to bits with it no you don't make a fortune out of it but they don't claim you do it just helps you save some money I have been waiting for them to be in my area and hoping that my roof is suitable for a while and have just got a flyer through from them and will be getting in touch asap
From what I understand from my friend you get the electric generated by them in the day and any extra that you don't use goes to them this along with government grants is how they make there money and how you save money on your electric bill even if that is only a bit it is still a saving
And NO my friend paid nothing and is paying a lot less for his electric it is not a scam just a good deal for all involved. :beer:

I suppose we all have to have a first post but I always find it suspicious when someone signs up seemingly just to praise a company.

In contrast to your post there are a few horror stories about people having problems selling, re mortgaging their house having signed up to the rent a roof scheme

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/mar/23/solar-panels-dim-mortgage-prospects

http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/mortgage_misfortunes_the_free_solar_situation

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100016121/when-free-solar-panels-can-prove-an-expensive-mistake/

Cardew

Bouncy_dave wrote: »

From what I understand from my friend you get the electric generated by them in the day and any extra that you don't use goes to them this along with government grants is how they make there money

The firm get the Subsidy(called Feed in Tariff -FIT)for all of the electricity that the panels generated, regardless of it being used in the house or not.

Many people consider that it is a rather one-sided deal, in the company's favour. Not least, as detailed above, the difficulties in selling your house with a 25 year restriction; also that the prospective new owner might want his own panels.

Incidentally the figure of £150 pa that is bandied about, whilst achievable is a considerably higher figure than many people manage.