The new Energy price ceiling of £2,500 - some questions on reflection about winners and losers.

[Deleted User]

I think Miser was making an obvious nonsense suggestion to point out how you can describe this in many many ways depending on what message you want to send. 

You've done very well at backing up their point.

SnakePlissken

MWT said:

Deleted_User said:

As there is no upper limit to a homes energy use that gets subsidised the winners are the higher than average users. From those in large detached homes to those in mansions with swimming pools and stables.

 

... to the elderly living in poorly insulated bungalows...

Not every high user lives in a mansion... nor for that matter is every large detached home using higher than 'average' amounts of energy...

Agree, in Scotland  current new builds enjoy  enhanced levels of  insulation, solar panels and  some also have hybrid heating with an air heat pump and also  gas for when temperature in Scotland drops as it regularly does, below zero in the winter.

And even 90s onwards houses  have better insulation than 40s/50s/60s/70s/80s housing.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

There aren't that many massive mansions with swimming pools and stables, but there are a lot of under-insulated detached homes owned or occupied by people with lower and middle incomes.

I'd rather accidentally give the subsidy to some that don't need it, than deliberately not give it to people who do.

Do you think that it is impossible to distinguish between the two via a limit on the amount of energy use subsidised per home or by any other means available to the government. That to exclude the high energy costs of mansions with swimming pools and stables would inevitably have caused poorly insulated bungalows to be excluded.

Also as I have pointed out the subsidy is not targeted at need and is a subsidy per kWh not a cash grant. It provides the greatest help to the highest users regardless of how excessive to need their use is. Not the greatest help to those with heating costs they cannot afford for example due to being elderly and living in a poorly insulated bungalow.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

There aren't that many massive mansions with swimming pools and stables, but there are a lot of under-insulated detached homes owned or occupied by people with lower and middle incomes.

I'd rather accidentally give the subsidy to some that don't need it, than deliberately not give it to people who do.

Do you think that it is impossible to distinguish between the two via a limit on the amount of energy use subsidised per home or by any other means available to the government. That to exclude the high energy costs of mansions with swimming pools and stables would inevitably have caused poorly insulated bungalows to be excluded.

Also as I have pointed out the subsidy is not targeted at need and is a subsidy per kWh not a cash grant. It provides the greatest help to the highest users regardless of how excessive to need their use is. Not the greatest help to those with heating costs they cannot afford for example due to being elderly and living in a poorly insulated bungalow.

Impossible? No.

An inefficient use of time and resources to address an issue that isn't much of a problem in the grand scheme of things?  Yes.

Miser1964

Consider scaling the kWh unit cost by the Council Tax band for extra chuckles, with the local Councils supplying the info to power suppliers.

Band A home would have the standard rates multiplied by 0.75, through to band C at 1.0 to band H multiplied by 4 to soak the "toffs". Fair?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

There aren't that many massive mansions with swimming pools and stables, but there are a lot of under-insulated detached homes owned or occupied by people with lower and middle incomes.

I'd rather accidentally give the subsidy to some that don't need it, than deliberately not give it to people who do.

Do you think that it is impossible to distinguish between the two via a limit on the amount of energy use subsidised per home or by any other means available to the government. That to exclude the high energy costs of mansions with swimming pools and stables would inevitably have caused poorly insulated bungalows to be excluded.

Also as I have pointed out the subsidy is not targeted at need and is a subsidy per kWh not a cash grant. It provides the greatest help to the highest users regardless of how excessive to need their use is. Not the greatest help to those with heating costs they cannot afford for example due to being elderly and living in a poorly insulated bungalow.

Impossible? No.

An inefficient use of time and resources to address an issue that isn't much of a problem in the grand scheme of things?  Yes.

What time and resources?

A simple upper limit on the energy use subsidised per home would be simplicity itself.

While even a far more complex system based on housing type, age and size would also be easy to implement as the government data already exists and is used for the new warm homes discount scheme. Which is done automatically with no need to apply.

Isn't much of a problem?

It's throwing away vast amounts of taxpayers money on people who have excessive use.

Money that could instead be targeted at need.

SnakePlissken

Deleted_User said:

[Deleted User] said:

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

There aren't that many massive mansions with swimming pools and stables, but there are a lot of under-insulated detached homes owned or occupied by people with lower and middle incomes.

I'd rather accidentally give the subsidy to some that don't need it, than deliberately not give it to people who do.

Do you think that it is impossible to distinguish between the two via a limit on the amount of energy use subsidised per home or by any other means available to the government. That to exclude the high energy costs of mansions with swimming pools and stables would inevitably have caused poorly insulated bungalows to be excluded.

Also as I have pointed out the subsidy is not targeted at need and is a subsidy per kWh not a cash grant. It provides the greatest help to the highest users regardless of how excessive to need their use is. Not the greatest help to those with heating costs they cannot afford for example due to being elderly and living in a poorly insulated bungalow.

Impossible? No.

An inefficient use of time and resources to address an issue that isn't much of a problem in the grand scheme of things?  Yes.

What time and resources?

A simple upper limit on the energy use subsidised per home would be simplicity itself.

While even a far more complex system based on housing type, age and size would also be easy to implement as the government data already exists and is used for the new warm homes discount scheme. Which is done automatically with no need to apply.

Isn't much of a problem?

It's throwing away vast amounts of taxpayers money on people who have excessive use.

Money that could instead be targeted at need.

Do you know what the admin costs would be on any form of means testing

In scotland prior to scrapping prescription charges in Scotland, around 25% to 33% was used on adminstering the scheme. This normal for most means testing.

Have you thought of another far far far simpler way  and administration for it is already in place, so no extra costs....

Raise income taxes and add new bands with different rates.

That way money for cap  given to richer people who do not need it, heating swimming pools or otherwise; the money can be easily recouped.

Its only because Bampot Truss is ideologically opposed to tax that this is not being considered. Similarly to why windfall tax  is discounted

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

Deleted_User said:

There aren't that many massive mansions with swimming pools and stables, but there are a lot of under-insulated detached homes owned or occupied by people with lower and middle incomes.

I'd rather accidentally give the subsidy to some that don't need it, than deliberately not give it to people who do.

Do you think that it is impossible to distinguish between the two via a limit on the amount of energy use subsidised per home or by any other means available to the government. That to exclude the high energy costs of mansions with swimming pools and stables would inevitably have caused poorly insulated bungalows to be excluded.

Also as I have pointed out the subsidy is not targeted at need and is a subsidy per kWh not a cash grant. It provides the greatest help to the highest users regardless of how excessive to need their use is. Not the greatest help to those with heating costs they cannot afford for example due to being elderly and living in a poorly insulated bungalow.

Impossible? No.

An inefficient use of time and resources to address an issue that isn't much of a problem in the grand scheme of things?  Yes.

What time and resources?

A simple upper limit on the energy use subsidised per home would be simplicity itself.

While even a far more complex system based on housing type, age and size would also be easy to implement as the government data already exists and is used for the new warm homes discount scheme. Which is done automatically with no need to apply.

Isn't much of a problem?

It's throwing away vast amounts of taxpayers money on people who have excessive use.

Money that could instead be targeted at need.

You've already argued that an upper limit on the amount subsidised wouldn't be appropriate - you wanted an upper limit that was different based on the personal circumstances of every household.

You can't use the idea that it's simple to put in a simple system to argue that it's also simple to put in a complex system.

[Deleted User]

While I do not live in a mansion. I do live in a comfortably sized 4 double bedroom detached house. My home has a circa 1990s non combi gas boiler, as far as I know no cavity wall insulation, and only 75mm of loft insulation. Due to my home's size and inefficient by today's standards heating system and installation, my gas kWh are far higher than average. If I was on a variable energy tariff I would be a big beneficiary of the energy price guarantee. But only because I am well off enough to have a large detached home and well off enough to be able to pay energy bills twice as high as last year. 

Meanwhile some people far less fortunate than me will be unable to afford their heating this winter.

In my opinion government assistance should have been via a cash grant based on average UK use. Possibly with a bespoke top up based on housing and income data which the government has and is using this year for the £150 warm homes discount eligibility. Not the more you use the more you benefit from subsidised energy prices for all.

Or if subsidising energy per kWh for all the government should have abolished standing charges and had a extra lower social tariff at the same rate as winter 2021/2022 for low income households.

[Deleted User]

So now we discover that your "simple" system includes re-writing the whole charging structure of the industry and creating new tariffs, with maybe a flat cash payment.

Rich single banker living in London penthouse - small bill - ends up with enough cash to cover the whole amount.

Hard working rural family in a poorly insulated house - massive bill - gets a bit of cash thrown at them and still has a large bill.