SSE raises energy prices 8.2% just before winter....again.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

in general I think that lower prices increase demand and higher prices cause demand to fall; while there are exception I don't believe that energy consumption is one of those.

clearly you disagree


and as charges are based on price per unit x usage; those that use more, pay more

Yes, as I said, those that use more pay more.

But for the majority, there is little scope to use any less.

So why not charge the wealthier more for using more, epsecially considering they are likely to be using it for leasure / convinience purposes.

Funnily enough, I didn't think you'd be quite so concerned about carbon production under this proposal!

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But for the majority, there is little scope to use any less.

absurd.....................................

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

absurd.....................................

OK....for the majority of normal families, there is little scope to use less.

This is where, I assume, you go down your usual route of preaching they shouldn't watch TV, use a computer or charge their mobile phone and should continue paying the same tax so that you, from your wealthier position, don't have to pay a penny more?

I don't mean to come across as attacking you, but I cannot stand this faux concern about the environment, which vanishes as soon as someone asks you to pay a bit more because you are able and others are less so.

boltneck123

These energy "taxes" are there to create subsidies to help fund house holds on low incomes to get better insulation, solar panels and such, are they not?

Anyone taking advantage of that scheme would surely get their money back in the form of the insulation, solar panels etc (since things like that do cost a lot to do) and then save money on their bills as a result of having these things installed.... ?

I my self cannot get access to these schemes, so I will have to pay for these kinds of things my self. I need to have double glazing fitted, improve the insulation in my loft, just two things I am focusing on at the moment. It all needs to come out of my own pocket, while I still stump up my bit through my energy bills.

Why should I have to pay even more tax for subsidiaries and green energy initiatives through my bills?

I do not want to see people going cold and without power (obviously), but I cannot help but think that peoples lack of initiative to take up these home energy efficiency schemes and to get educated about energy usage is a primary factor contributing to their high energy bills.....

shortchanged_2

boltneck123 wrote: »

These energy "taxes" are there to create subsidies to help fund house holds on low incomes to get better insulation, solar panels and such, are they not?

Anyone taking advantage of that scheme would surely get their money back in the form of the insulation, solar panels etc (since things like that do cost a lot to do) and then save money on their bills as a result of having these things installed.... ?

I my self cannot get access to these schemes, so I will have to pay for these kinds of things my self. I need to have double glazing fitted, improve the insulation in my loft, just two things I am focusing on at the moment. It all needs to come out of my own pocket, while I still stump up my bit through my energy bills.

Why should I have to pay even more tax for subsidiaries and green energy initiatives through my bills?

I do not want to see people going cold and without power (obviously), but I cannot help but think that peoples lack of initiative to take up these home energy efficiency schemes and to get educated about energy usage is a primary factor contributing to their high energy bills.....

This is fine and I'm sure all these schemes have helped reduced waste. But once everything has been done it doesn't help any more when the cost of the fuel goes up so vastly every year, as I stated earlier way above inflation.

Graham_Devon

boltneck123 wrote: »

These energy "taxes" are there to create subsidies to help fund house holds on low incomes to get better insulation, solar panels and such, are they not?

A portion of it goes towards this.

Many rich people are making very good money however and are profiteering from the grants and feed in tarrifs etc.

There was a rush of private companies springing up from everywhere in order to install these solar panels and turbines on wealthy landowners property and land....they would even do it for free, I';m sure you remember the ads, as they would instead take the profits, as the government would pay them around 2k per annum for 25 years (index linked), to install some of this stuff on feed in tarrifs.

At one point, you could even get grants for the installation.

So now, your normal family is paying into a pot through taxes to pay the rich. So is your pensioner trying to keep warm.

This is why I say the tax should be removed from normal everyday families (could do it quite easily on units used) and instead, the wealthier, heating bigger houses, swimming pools, etc, should pay more. Much like council tax in a way. These people, do, afterall, have the option of reducing their costs, whereas your standard family in a 2up 2down has very little wriggle room.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK....for the majority of normal families, there is little scope to use less.

This is where, I assume, you go down your usual route of preaching they shouldn't watch TV, use a computer or charge their mobile phone and should continue paying the same tax so that you, from your wealthier position, don't have to pay a penny more?

I don't mean to come across as attacking you, but I cannot stand this faux concern about the environment, which vanishes as soon as someone asks you to pay a bit more because you are able and others are less so.

READ THIS CAREFULLY..........

I asked why some-one was beginning to HATE the UK and proposed certain possible reasons.


I DID NOT SAY I AGREED WITH EITHER ; IS THAT CLEAR?

GO BACK AND READ MY POST AGAIN.


and as far as normal families are concerned they can EASILY reduce their energy consumption; they may not want to but that's their choice.

Thrugelmir

headcone wrote: »

I am beginning to hate this country.

If you move elsewhere in Europe you won't pay an less.

boltneck123

Hmm,

Ok that is a fair point, yes once you have reached your efficiency limit, there is still going to be a base amount usage that you will have to pay for. So if prices rise more and more, it will essentially be like pay the same as what you used to, but for the half the amount of usage. That is worst case scenario thinking of course.

I am a big believer in having an open fire, I cannot wait to open up my fire place and get the chimney swept and get a basic dog basket in there. A good roaring fire in my house could very easily heat my entire lounge. If I leave the door open the heat will spread through to the kitchen and I hope some upstairs. I contacted some local businesses, secured a nice source of free wood , plenty of free news papers come through the door, and filling a few bins full of coal is not to expensive .

It also has the added romance factor for when the girlfriend is round hint hint lol.

boltneck123

Graham.

Private companies are installing these on wealthy land owners property and land...?

To get these initiatives you need to be on a low income?

Please provide some empirical evidence to support the claim you just made, that does not sound quite right to me.