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

[Deleted User]

We really need to find you some sarcasm tags

Apodemus

Deleted_User said:

We really need to find you some sarcasm tags

Lol!  I read Miser's post as sarcasm, but then I do that for so many posts on here that turn out to be serious! 

[Deleted User]

Apodemus said:

Deleted_User said:

We really need to find you some sarcasm tags

Lol!  I read Miser's post as sarcasm, but then I do that for so many posts on here that turn out to be serious! 

I did as well, as I’ve seen similar humour from Miser elsewhere.

Some would immediately take it seriously and start a blazing row.

Mstty

What should be the sarcasm emoji?😜

lisyloo

SnakePlissken said:

lisyloo said:

SnakePlissken said:

Plisyloo said:

SnakePlissken said:

SnakePlissken said:

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

To clarify adding additional income tax bands and rates is easily acheivable with no need to invlove energy companies. It is very simple thing  to do.

In Scotland where income tax is devolved the rates and bands were tweaked several years ago to be more progressive and tax the higher earners more than the lowest earners. With 2 new income tax bands added.

So you’d catch everyone hard working on paye and miss all the rich toffs getting their income from dividends?

Do you know ahat percentage of uk population that is perchance?

Capital gains tax already  taxes income from shares, if you want we could decrease the threshold to 2k income. 

But how would you then target those who have built up isa share holdings as these are tax free?


Share dividends are also used by a lot of pension schemes from councils to companies.
How do younavoid penalising a person on 25000 pension sheme?

Anyone earning over 40000 is in richest 25% in the uk.


https://www.mygov.scot/income-tax-rates-and-personal-allowances

If you raise taxes on those above 45000 and again at over 150000 and again at over 500000 and then  over 1 million  thats hardly penalising hard working ordinary people.

No I don’t know the % but thats not usually a factor when we are discussing fairness.

a lot of wealthier people are not employees, they will be operating limited companies.
it’s common for contractors to take about £9k income so they don’t pay national insurance.

I don’t have answers, just pointing out it’s not that easy and there are ways of avoiding tax
e.g. Couple paying basic rate dividend tax rather than income tax or salary sacrifice into pensions.
ironically these tax breaks are available to and afforded by the better off.
poorer people can’t afford to put £40k into their pension to avoid income tax and NI.

Agree there is no easy solution, but an income tax model where higher earners pay a higher percent  is fairer than VAT and a windfall tax would be the fairest method.

Ok so you’d just like to make it a bit fairer but not bother with too much effort to make it totally fair.
I think that’s largely what the govt do TBH.

lisyloo

Miser1964 said:

If Britain had something like China's 'social credit' system, then unit rates could be linked to the bill payers score as a member of society. Caught speeding or annoy neighbors with loud parties - unit rates up! Do charity work or help elderly with shopping - unit rates down! Simple and fair. 

That sounds great.

markin

[Deleted User] said:

Does your energy supplier mind if you use more and give them more profit? - no, of course not, that’s how business works.

Is there some sort of shadowy conspiracy preventing people from energy saving? - no, that’s tin foil hat stuff.

The is a cabal of companies that insist on making 70% profit on rolling out loft insulation, Installing heat pumps, Or making them, And installing solar.

MattMattMattUK

markin said:

[Deleted User] said:

Does your energy supplier mind if you use more and give them more profit? - no, of course not, that’s how business works.

Is there some sort of shadowy conspiracy preventing people from energy saving? - no, that’s tin foil hat stuff.

The is a cabal of companies that insist on making 70% profit on rolling out loft insulation, Installing heat pumps, Or making them, And installing solar.

They might be making 70% gross profit, I very much doubt that is their net profit.

[Deleted User]

markin said:

[Deleted User] said:

Does your energy supplier mind if you use more and give them more profit? - no, of course not, that’s how business works.

Is there some sort of shadowy conspiracy preventing people from energy saving? - no, that’s tin foil hat stuff.

The is a cabal of companies that insist on making 70% profit on rolling out loft insulation, Installing heat pumps, Or making them, And installing solar.

Then start a company that makes only 50% profit, all the customers will come to you and you’ll be a millionaire.

Or maybe that isn’t what’s happening.

Any reference to “the powers that be” is either a 90’s Buffy spin-off reference or a tin foil hat conspiracy.

jbuchanangb

Everyone is different. My case, no council tax rebate, due to Band E property. Switched to fixed tariff on 2 July, calculated £120 extra to pay to end September, followed by savings against forecast price cap increase of ~60%. Felt smug with fix until end June 2023. Then along comes EPG. That £120 extra doesn't look so clever. Will still get the £400 spread over 6 months. Will also get £300 Cost of Living payment, added to the £200 Winter Fuel Allowance. If the chancellor decides to reduce National Insurance, this will not help as pensioners don't pay it.