Is it really that expensive?

thriftytwosome

Quote: Government definition
In England, fuel poor households are defined by the UK government as those needing to spend more than 10% of their total household income before housing costs on all fuel used to heat their homes to an acceptable level (DETR, 2001).

Action on Fuel Poverty definition "If 10% or more of your household income goes towards fuel bills, then you may be in fuel poverty."

I have just done the survey on the Action on Fuel Poverty site which tells me I am in fuel poverty. The trouble is it asks for all my energy expenditure , BUT I don't use electricity for heating and only use oil, so I think the survey is misleading.
We really need a more accurate definition of fuel poverty.

tictak

lstar337 wrote: »

Sounds exactly like our life now, only I can't have a mortgage because house prices are so high that my salary wont cover it. Instead I will pay rent for probably the rest of my life and have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. Oh, and I don't have enough disposable income to pay into a private pension either.

Happy Days!:D

At least if you get sick the government will pay your rent,our mortgage wont be paid cos hubby is sick
If i had my time again i wouldnt get a mortgage because we will prob loose our house now anyway and where wil we end up

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

insanegloss wrote: »

I can't help but thinking the very definition of fuel poverty is almost meaningless. After all you could have the perverse example of someone with a lot of money who spends a lot on fuel, the remaining amount would be large in absolute terms but still 'fuel poor'.

Surely the definition should be related to disposable income, after all this the measure of how 'wealthy' someone feels.

^^^^This.

I read earlier in the thread Estonia is the only country in Europe where people are struggling more than the UK with energy bills. I just don't believe those statistics.

They have the 2nd cheapest natural gas, after the UK. They have the 2nd cheapest electricity, after Bulgaria.

They are also by far the most developed of the Baltic former Soviet states.

It has among the world’s fastest broadband speeds and holds the record for start-ups per person. Its 1.3m citizens pay for parking spaces with their mobile phones and have their health records stored in the digital cloud. Filing an annual tax return online, as 95% of Estonians do, takes about five minutes.

How they are in fuel poverty, when the Latvians and Lithuanians next door have 1) Higher prices and 2) Lower income literally beggars belief.

Pincher

[QUOTE=Bluebirdman of Alcathays;63608522I read earlier in the thread Estonia is the only country in Europe where people are struggling more than the UK with energy bills. I just don't believe those statistics.
[/QUOTE]


http://www.stat.ee/29958

2012 GDP per capita in EUROs

Germany 30,200 Euros
United Kingdom 30,400 Euros

Estonia 9,500 Euros

If true, then 1,000 Euros for fuel is definitely over 10%, especially if you had to pay tax on 9,500 Euros

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Pincher wrote: »

http://www.stat.ee/29958

2012 GDP per capita in EUROs

Germany 30,200 Euros
United Kingdom 30,400 Euros

Estonia 9,500 Euros

If true, then 1,000 Euros for fuel is definitely over 10%, especially if you had to pay tax on 9,500 Euros

Latvia - 6,800 Euros - From your link

Higher natural gas and electricity prices

They have the same climate. If Estonians are paying over 950, then Latvians are sure as hell paying much more than 680!

Pincher

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays wrote: »

Latvia - 6,800 Euros - From your link

Higher natural gas and electricity prices

They have the same climate. If Estonians are paying over 950, then Latvians are sure as hell paying much more than 680!

I think they are still quite agricultural outdie the cities, and probably burn a lot of free firewood.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Pincher wrote: »

I think they are still quite agricultural outdie the cities, and probably burn a lot of free firewood.

Possibly. But then so may the Estonians?

The point I was making was not one of the energy mix in the former Baltic states, but the bizarre futility of "fuel poverty" measurement.

There are many reasons people could be spending over 10% of their household income on energy bills. Profligacy, low income, poorly insulated homes, outlandish taxation all come to mind, as well as high cost of energy.

Cardew

insanegloss wrote: »

Surely the definition should be related to disposable income, after all this the measure of how 'wealthy' someone feels.

You can't relate fuel poverty to disposable income.

I earn, say, £100,000pa but have a £500,000 mortgage(taken out when I earned a lot more than £100k). That together with my 3 children in private education means I have absolutely no disposable income and only survive with help from Daddy!!

So what do I get for being very clearly in fuel poverty? Will it pay for the children's ponies?

PollySouthend

givememoney wrote: »

Right let's go, so you think we didn't struggle eh! How wrong you are.

My `generous pension` you talk of is in fact the state pension of £428.16 per 4 week period and a pension from my work place of £201 per month = £153.58 per week (I paid into the work pension by the way it wasn't handed to me on a plate and the same goes for the state pension).

My husband gets more state pension because he didn't opt out of Serps his is around £220 per week plus a private pension of £100 per month (again what he paid in for).

Yes the price of our house seems laughable now, it was £26,000 back in 1979, but I was at home looking after our two small children and the only money coming in was my husbands. I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly what he was earning back then because he and I can't remember but it was probably around the £60 - £70 per week mark, as you are fond of saying, `it is all relative`. What I do remember is all he had left each week was about £1 after mortgage, rates, insurance, food, fuel etc.

He was in the furniture trade and they regularly went on short time and we had to manage on less money. I remember a particular instance when our daughter wanted to go on a school trip to the Isle of Wight and we just didn't have the money and I was very upset for her.

What this did teach us was to spend very, very, wisely, we never wasted anything. We had old cars that were forever breaking down which DH patched up. I made all the kids clothes and my own. I remember another time I had made myself a dress with all the time and effort that involved, plus the minimal expense and I spilt bleach on it and ruined it, I cried my eyes out. DH did all household repairs and decorating (still does). I made curtains. Holidays were in caravans and tents. Take aways never existed, we couldn't afford them, we never smoked, couldn't afford that either. I never went abroad until I was 44.

I worked part time in Sainsbury when daughter was 4 and son 2 to help out and hated every minute of it, but did it for 8 years because it fitted in around the children. Once I started working I saved what I could.

Finally when they left school and started to earn their own money was the time when things started to get better for us financially and as time went we paid up our mortgage as we have lived in the same house for 34 years.

I am 66 now and continued working up to I was 64 so I think people like me deserve a rest for the time we have left. I help out with the grandchildren and lead a busy life.

We struggled so don't you tell me otherwise.

Calm down, I never even said you didn't struggle so please don't put those words in my mouth, we all have struggles. What I said is you have 'no idea the struggle many people have these days' and I was referring to the young. Your spouting off comments about it not being expensive and other people are icy at home as they can't afford to put the heating on.

So you get about 20k a year tax free and don't have any outgoings on rent / mortgage? You tell that to any couple in their 20s and they will most probably light up green. Plus all the other benefits - winter fuel, bus pass, free insulation, free boiler and so on. These pensions and benefits will not exist if the current 20 year olds ever make it to the ever increasing pensionable age.

I'm happy you stayed at home with the children, I think its great for society. However for most people thinking of starting a family these days that is a luxury that they could never afford, many can't even buy a house.

That's great that you retired at 64, but 20 somethings these days are facing a life of renting forever and working forever.

It's nothing personal, just what the selfish baby boomers have done to the rest of the country and having a name like "give me money" exemplifies what the boomers have done.

dori2o

We moved into our house in 2002. 2 up 2 down terraced.

Our bills have increased 92% since then.

In the same period our useage has dramatically reduced. We've replaced a very uneconomical boiler with a a+ rated combi, had cavity wall insulation fitted, draught proofing done, 18" of insulation in the loft, DG and PVC doors. So we've pretty much exhausted the heat loss issues of the house. We are not powering anything more than we were powering back in 2002.

Inflation over the same period equates to approx 29% in real terms.

Over the past 4 years gas and electricity has increased over 30% despite wage inflation over that period being approx 0.1% on average

Where do these companies think people get the money from to pay their 7 figure salaries and bonuses?

The CEO of OVO energy confirmed yesterday quite clearly that the price increases are not down to wholesale price rises. In fact wholesale costs have remained relatively similar over the past 5 years. He confirmed that OVO are paying the same price for their energy as they were paying in 2011.

These people are taking the mick.

You also have the incomprehensible issue that those who both generate for the market and sell to the public, are in a double bubble situation.

not only do they sell energy to their competitors, but they sell it to themselves.

The energy producing side of the company sell the energy to the retail side of the company, thus increasing the price for the consumer.

Surely if a utility company has the ability to produce energy it should use this energy to provide cheaper energy to its retail customers, but that isn't what happens.

It seems that since people in this country really started to reduce the amount of energy they use, these companies have decided they cannot allow their profits to be damaged by the reduction in use, and have combatted that by increasing prices to protect their salaries/bonuses/dividends etc etc.

These companies keep telling us prices are going to continue rising, but people only have so much money and can only suffer so much of their income being used to power their homes.

It's sheer greed and nothing else.