Martin Lewis: How the new flat rate £200 energy bill loan really works

MattMattMattUK

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

jones56743 said:

So Boris answer to the energy crises is to increase the £200 extra dept on every home is to double it to £400. 

Having a bit of a Google about this point, all I can see is a couple of places reporting this as a rumour of something that might happen, rather than an official announcement?

Yep nothing other than speculation at the moment, personally I would rather they scrapped the whole thing, rathe than the stupid loan-not-loan followed by repayments-that-are-not-repayments. 

It's better than nothing, so if the choice became to have it or to scrap it I'd personally support the former. It would be good if assistance could be more targeted but how quick/easy this might be to implement is presumably the biggest issue.

Personally I think it is worse than nothing, so if the choice was have it or not then I would rather not. Giving me £200 in October, to make me pay it back in the following quarters is of no benefit. Once the costs of the scheme are factored in it will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run, which seems a rather pointless exercise. 

Ultrasonic

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

jones56743 said:

So Boris answer to the energy crises is to increase the £200 extra dept on every home is to double it to £400. 

Having a bit of a Google about this point, all I can see is a couple of places reporting this as a rumour of something that might happen, rather than an official announcement?

Yep nothing other than speculation at the moment, personally I would rather they scrapped the whole thing, rathe than the stupid loan-not-loan followed by repayments-that-are-not-repayments. 

It's better than nothing, so if the choice became to have it or to scrap it I'd personally support the former. It would be good if assistance could be more targeted but how quick/easy this might be to implement is presumably the biggest issue.

Personally I think it is worse than nothing, so if the choice was have it or not then I would rather not. Giving me £200 in October, to make me pay it back in the following quarters is of no benefit. Once the costs of the scheme are factored in it will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run, which seems a rather pointless exercise. 

The reason I'd say it's better than nothing is that it will be helpful to some. The fact that you don't need the immediate support doesn't render it pointless for everyone. 

MattMattMattUK

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

jones56743 said:

So Boris answer to the energy crises is to increase the £200 extra dept on every home is to double it to £400. 

Having a bit of a Google about this point, all I can see is a couple of places reporting this as a rumour of something that might happen, rather than an official announcement?

Yep nothing other than speculation at the moment, personally I would rather they scrapped the whole thing, rathe than the stupid loan-not-loan followed by repayments-that-are-not-repayments. 

It's better than nothing, so if the choice became to have it or to scrap it I'd personally support the former. It would be good if assistance could be more targeted but how quick/easy this might be to implement is presumably the biggest issue.

Personally I think it is worse than nothing, so if the choice was have it or not then I would rather not. Giving me £200 in October, to make me pay it back in the following quarters is of no benefit. Once the costs of the scheme are factored in it will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run, which seems a rather pointless exercise. 

The reason I'd say it's better than nothing is that it will be helpful to some. The fact that you don't need the immediate support doesn't render it pointless for everyone. 

The thing is I do not think it will be helpful for some, I think at best for them it will be kicking the can down the road, less pain now, more pain later and for those of us who can afford the increase it is an entirely pointless exercise. 

The government have eight months to do something targeted on the same date, something which might actually help alleviate the pain rather than just spreading it out. I know it is a difficult situation as in the UK the majority seem to not be willing to pay the taxes required to have a proper welfare state (as well as properly funded services), but I just don't see how this helps over the entire duration of the scheme. 

Ultrasonic

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

jones56743 said:

So Boris answer to the energy crises is to increase the £200 extra dept on every home is to double it to £400. 

Having a bit of a Google about this point, all I can see is a couple of places reporting this as a rumour of something that might happen, rather than an official announcement?

Yep nothing other than speculation at the moment, personally I would rather they scrapped the whole thing, rathe than the stupid loan-not-loan followed by repayments-that-are-not-repayments. 

It's better than nothing, so if the choice became to have it or to scrap it I'd personally support the former. It would be good if assistance could be more targeted but how quick/easy this might be to implement is presumably the biggest issue.

Personally I think it is worse than nothing, so if the choice was have it or not then I would rather not. Giving me £200 in October, to make me pay it back in the following quarters is of no benefit. Once the costs of the scheme are factored in it will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run, which seems a rather pointless exercise. 

The reason I'd say it's better than nothing is that it will be helpful to some. The fact that you don't need the immediate support doesn't render it pointless for everyone. 

The thing is I do not think it will be helpful for some, I think at best for them it will be kicking the can down the road, less pain now, more pain later and for those of us who can afford the increase it is an entirely pointless exercise. 

The government have eight months to do something targeted on the same date, something which might actually help alleviate the pain rather than just spreading it out. I know it is a difficult situation as in the UK the majority seem to not be willing to pay the taxes required to have a proper welfare state (as well as properly funded services), but I just don't see how this helps over the entire duration of the scheme. 

On the last point, it helps if this turns out to be a short-ish term price peak rather than a 'new normal' high cost. Details of how the repayment works can also be revisited of course.

As I said above I would absolutely like to see something more targeted.

I also think there needs to a greater mindset of shared responsibility to use less energy rather than solely focusing on costs. The more people who can technically afford to pay more still reduce their energy use, the better it will be environmentally, and will also help control price. 

EssexHebridean

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Ultrasonic said:

jones56743 said:

So Boris answer to the energy crises is to increase the £200 extra dept on every home is to double it to £400. 

Having a bit of a Google about this point, all I can see is a couple of places reporting this as a rumour of something that might happen, rather than an official announcement?

Yep nothing other than speculation at the moment, personally I would rather they scrapped the whole thing, rathe than the stupid loan-not-loan followed by repayments-that-are-not-repayments. 

It's better than nothing, so if the choice became to have it or to scrap it I'd personally support the former. It would be good if assistance could be more targeted but how quick/easy this might be to implement is presumably the biggest issue.

Personally I think it is worse than nothing, so if the choice was have it or not then I would rather not. Giving me £200 in October, to make me pay it back in the following quarters is of no benefit. Once the costs of the scheme are factored in it will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run, which seems a rather pointless exercise. 

The reason I'd say it's better than nothing is that it will be helpful to some. The fact that you don't need the immediate support doesn't render it pointless for everyone. 

Exactly this. We’re in the same position - we can cope with out it, and yes, would probably through choice not have it, and not then have the levy imposed for the following few years, BUT we’re in a fortunate position. One we’ve worked hard for, absolutely, but still fortunate. There are worrying numbers of people who aren’t in that same position, and for whom this £200 might make the difference between being able to use heating, and not. It really doesn’t inconvenience me particularly having the “loan-not-loan” if that is the easiest way of ensuring that those people get help. Down the line, it’s to be hoped that a way of ensuring that those in the worst fuel poverty don’t have to make the repayments is found.