Help towards energy rise for ALL

ness3765

I keep hearing that pensioners & people on benefits will receive more help towards these horrendous energy prices, but what about the people who are just outside qualifying for help.

I am absolutely worried how I am suppose to pay in the future as we budget and live within our means but have no extra cash to deal with these expected hikes.
 

Even families from Ukraine & Immigrants could be more eligible than me & my family for support. ( No I don't begrudge them receiving all the help they can get before anyone comments )

Where is the equality that this country so prides itself on ? 

Mstty

There are definitely holes in the system and those just above the "set lines" of get or don't get.

The problem with reaching out to individual cases is the cost of administration is often as costly as the amount being claimed so these generic lines in the sand have to be used.

That doesn't help you in any way of course but I suggest reaching out to your energy company early. Ask them what assistance there is for you.

Research other charities and help available and get talking to them early before everyone else does come October.

jimjames

Why should it be for ALL? A millionaire doesn't need £150 towards their bills.

MattMattMattUK

ness3765 said:

I keep hearing that pensioners & people on benefits will receive more help towards these horrendous energy prices, but what about the people who are just outside qualifying for help.

They have already had the £150 Council Tax payment and will get £400/£66 pcm from October.

ness3765 said:

I am absolutely worried how I am suppose to pay in the future as we budget and live within our means but have no extra cash to deal with these expected hikes.

You need to look at all options, reducing energy usage further and more/better paid work to bring in extra income being the main factors. You can also check on Entitled To to see if you are missing out on any elements of UC.

ness3765 said:

Even families from Ukraine & Immigrants could be more eligible than me & my family for support. ( No I don't begrudge them receiving all the help they can get before anyone comments )

They would be eligible for more help, but that is generally because they have nothing, or almost nothing, so they would be substantially worse off than you before things even started and even with the help they get they would still be a lot worse off than you.

ness3765 said:

Where is the equality that this country so prides itself on ? 

The kind of equality that the UK aims for is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

[Deleted User]

jimjames said:

Why should it be for ALL? A millionaire doesn't need £150 towards their bills.

High earners contribute much more in the way of taxes ( direct and indirect) than those on low incomes. Following your argument through to its logical conclusion, high earners should be denied use of the NHS; schools etc because they can afford to pay for these things themselves.

Life sadly isn’t fair, and having been through the last great inflation period in the 70s, I have considerable sympathy with the OP. How can the provision of State support to someone earning £X a year be defended when someone earning just £X+1 doesn’t get a penny? Our Government is not very good at administering these schemes: I hear the argument about the cost of administration.

Finally, it is worth unpicking for a moment the clamour for social tariffs. Again, there will no doubt be an arbitrary cut off point if these are implemented. The unfairness for the OP and others is that if he is/they are above the tariff earnings limit, he/they will be expected to contribute to the tariff in the form of higher energy costs. The Government can then claim that it is helping people while quietly ignoring the fact that is other energy consumers who are paying for their policy. As I said, life isn’t fair.

nyermen

Dolor said:

jimjames said:

Why should it be for ALL? A millionaire doesn't need £150 towards their bills.

High earners contribute much more in the way of taxes ( direct and indirect) than those on low incomes. Following your argument through to its logical conclusion, high earners should be denied use of the NHS; schools etc because they can afford to pay for these things themselves.

Life sadly isn’t fair, and having been through the last great inflation period in the 70s, I have considerable sympathy with the OP. How can the provision of State support to someone earning £X a year be defended when someone earning just £X+1 doesn’t get a penny? Our Government is not very good at administering these schemes: I hear the argument about the cost of administration.

Finally, it is worth unpicking for a moment the clamour for social tariffs. Again, there will no doubt be an arbitrary cut off point if these are implemented. The unfairness for the OP and others is that if he is/they are above the tariff earnings limit, he/they will be expected to contribute to the tariff in the form of higher energy costs. The Government can then claim that it is helping people while quietly ignoring the fact that is other energy consumers who are paying for their policy. As I said, life isn’t fair.

Agreed. Also - what is the definition of a millionaire?  Someone earning a million a year?  Or someone with a million because they have a house in london, but are maybe more income sensitive?  What about a sole trader with a business that happens to be "worth that".  (Ps. Yes they can probably afford the rises, so could people with a lot less - btw, not a millionaire! Dont even earn close to 6 figures, and my house is mostly owned by HSBC).

I suspect we mean "the rich" - but often the definition of the rich seems to be "someone earning more than me".

Personally, I'd much rather all these things are provided to all, and the tax system adjusted to pay for it - like the NHS is.  I dont see how the current approach supports more equality, especially since it can seem like a lot is paid for by those who don't benefit.  Plus imagine the amount of means testing that wouldn't be required. (although maybe this is getting into universal income discussions).

Astria

jimjames said:

Why should it be for ALL? A millionaire doesn't need £150 towards their bills.

They may not need it but they shouldn't be denied it just because they have managed to work enough to make that amount of money. Turning your statement around, it's like saying people who couldn't be bothered to work and have been scrounging from the government all their life and now can't afford anything should now be given even more money.

A fairer system might be that only people how are unable to work sufficiently to pay their bills get help with those bills, people with disabilities and illnesses that prevent them from working for example.

Spoonie_Turtle

ness3765 said:

… what about the people who are just outside qualifying for help.

I am absolutely worried how I am suppose to pay in the future as we budget and live within our means but have no extra cash to deal with these expected hikes.

Further to the suggestion of contacting your energy supplier, if you find yourself struggling to pay for necessities it is also worth applying to your local council for the Household Support Fund. 

There is zero guarantee they'll have anything available to help you but there is nothing to lose by asking, and in the guidance for councils it specifically states that anyone can receive the discretionary help; it is partly there on recognition that people who haven't been eligible for other help may still be struggling.

uk1

I think the direct transfer from government to energy company accounts is the easiest way to help everyones’ monthly payments. 

The government could then instruct ALL energy companies to reduce ALL of the monthly debits or payments by say for example £50 if the government has given them £600 for each customer.

uk1

Astria said:

jimjames said:

Why should it be for ALL? A millionaire doesn't need £150 towards their bills.

They may not need it but they shouldn't be denied it just because they have managed to work enough to make that amount of money. Turning your statement around, it's like saying people who couldn't be bothered to work and have been scrounging from the government all their life and now can't afford anything should now be given even more money.

A fairer system might be that only people how are unable to work sufficiently to pay their bills get help with those bills, people with disabilities and illnesses that prevent them from working for example.

You’ve said that it is unfair to those that have worked enough but then that it would be fairer to do so!  I understand your point though but disagree.  I agree more with your first  

matelodave

The stupidity of the system, apart from cliff-edge benefit limits is that we all pay towards some of the hand backs even those who get the hand back. Perhaps if the prices were a bit more equitable without all the extra levies then we'd all pay a bit less

The people who come out worse in all of this are those on the lower salary scales who end up paying all their costs NI, tax, travel, glasses, dentist, prescriptions, rent rates - the lot compare to those who are just under the threshold and get the lot. It also strikes me that those who've never contributed are those who whinge the most

IMO if you pay for a benefit through you NI, Tax or even to an insurance company then why should you be denied it because someone who hasn't thinks they deserve more. To take the point, a millionare has probably paid tens of thousands into the system whereas someone on  benefits or minimum wage may not have paid anything. Why should the millionaire be denied what he's entitled to which is, in most cased significantly less than those who've never contributed. He wont get a lot of any of the other benefits that are available to those who've paid less or nothing
 
In fact why shouldn't the millionaire get a lot more because he's paid a lot more into the system, coz thats really what should happen in a fair world.