We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Campaign to ban Standing Charges
Options
Comments
-
Your argument doesn't make sense. Many of those groups you list will also benefit from easier to understand tariffs.ariarnia said:
we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.busybee100 said:
Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.ariarnia said:
no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does.busybee100 said:
OMG "lowest common denominator"😱ariarnia said:
we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.busybee100 said:
There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition.Deleted_User said:
The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone. Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.busybee100 said:Deleted_User said:
Why?busybee100 said:Lots of disingenuous arguments here.
It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.
Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.
Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.
If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user.
Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.
If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others. All that does is to but yet another break-point. How small would not "really impact the low user"? I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.
The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.
Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like??
There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.
The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.
Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.
And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.
If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄
Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff? What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?
Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use. You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.
And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position.
The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.
We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers?
I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.
there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?
Don't let matelodave see that 🤬
If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"
Happy to help 😁
people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs.
or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?
Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?
Because you should be 😉
the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.
not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?
No one has suggested removing choice. There could be more choice only we won't be taking advantage of people that can't understand the market. In my world it's not a minority ☹️1 -
Yes, people need to be taught so they understand. It's not quantum physics, people just don't know so need to be taught the information in a way that they can understand.wittynamegoeshere said:Do people seriously think it's not a problem that vast numbers of consumers, probably the majority, don't actually know how much they're paying for an essential service that is probably their biggest annual bill?My opinion's slightly off-topic but relevant, in that I believe it would be hugely beneficial for almost all if the standing charge was fixed. Whether that's £0 or £100 is irrelevant really, but if fixed then unit price could actually be compared between suppliers.
… It … basically is, already? The number of days in a year are usually 365, it doesn't depend on how much you use, and expressed in days rather than per year is transparent for if people move house and then pay a different charge because they're in a different region. Have I missed something where it's wildly different between suppliers?
I don't understand your argument that it obscures pricing. I really don't. Switching sites back when wholesale prices allowed proper competition had a section to type in your annual usage, it calculated the annual price for you. Then using the tariff results people could double-check by doing the calculation fit themselves if they wanted to. Even if people didn't use that our know how it's worked out, the comparison was done on an estimate which was the same for every quote for every tariff from every supplier.You don't need a computer to work out who's flogging the cheapest petrol at the moment,Unless you want to drive round checking out different petrol stations, or phone them up individually, yes you do. The charges there are all in the unit price, if we're going by analogies, so higher users do pay more of the business costs for that fuel than lower users.
Just like with a previous analogy you used, products in a supermarket, yes you do need a computer to check the prices to compare unless you have time and money to waste driving round every supermarket in the area to compare. And supermarkets from the same chain have different prices in different parts of the country (usually more expensive than their website says), along with different product availability.
5 -
you are assuming those people can't understand the current tariffs and shop around. in my epxereince those on the lowest income are the most careful to compare prices before buying. be that which supermarket to use or which insurance product to go for.busybee100 said:
Your argument doesn't make sense. Many of those groups you list will also benefit from easier to understand tariffs.ariarnia said:
we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.busybee100 said:
Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.ariarnia said:
no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does.busybee100 said:
OMG "lowest common denominator"😱ariarnia said:
we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.busybee100 said:
There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition.Deleted_User said:
The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone. Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.busybee100 said:Deleted_User said:
Why?busybee100 said:Lots of disingenuous arguments here.
It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.
Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.
Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.
If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user.
Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.
If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others. All that does is to but yet another break-point. How small would not "really impact the low user"? I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.
The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.
Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like??
There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.
The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.
Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.
And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.
If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄
Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff? What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?
Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use. You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.
And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position.
The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.
We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers?
I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.
there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?
Don't let matelodave see that 🤬
If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"
Happy to help 😁
people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs.
or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?
Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?
Because you should be 😉
the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.
not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?
so removing the standing charge wont help those people and they will be worse off if the price per unit is higher.
if the standing charge is 10p and the price per unit is 10p then to cover the standing charge the price per unit would have to be 11p. anyone using more than 11 units will be worse off.No one has suggested removing choice. There could be more choice only we won't beat the moment the choices are
higher standing charge and low unit rate (good for high users)
middle standing charge and middle unit rate (good for some users)
low or 0 standing charge and higher unit rate (good for low users)
you want to take away two lots of 'type' of deal. that's less choice.
taking advantage of people that can't understand the market. In my world it's not a minority ☹️how are you deciding who can't understand the market. because it doesn't include all people who don't do a price comparison. from the threads on here of people who 'don't understand' most do as soon as its explained to them. meaning the fix is taking the time to explain. not removing choice.
Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you. Anne Lamott
It's amazing how those with a can-do attitude and willingness to 'pitch in and work' get all the luck, isn't it?
Please consider buying some pet food and giving it to your local food bank collection or animal charity. Animals aren't to blame for the cost of living crisis.4 -
ariarnia said:
you are assuming those people can't understand the current tariffs and shop around. in my epxereince those on the lowest income are the most careful to compare prices before buying. be that which supermarket to use or which insurance product to go for.busybee100 said:
Your argument doesn't make sense. Many of those groups you list will also benefit from easier to understand tariffs.ariarnia said:
we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.busybee100 said:
Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.ariarnia said:
no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does.busybee100 said:
OMG "lowest common denominator"😱ariarnia said:
we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.busybee100 said:
There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition.Deleted_User said:
The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone. Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.busybee100 said:Deleted_User said:
Why?busybee100 said:Lots of disingenuous arguments here.
It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.
Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.
Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.
If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user.
Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.
If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others. All that does is to but yet another break-point. How small would not "really impact the low user"? I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.
The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.
Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like??
There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.
The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.
Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.
And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.
If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄
Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff? What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?
Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use. You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.
And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position.
The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.
We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers?
I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.
there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?
Don't let matelodave see that 🤬
If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"
Happy to help 😁
people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs.
or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?
Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?
Because you should be 😉
the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.
not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?
so removing the standing charge wont help those people and they will be worse off if the price per unit is higher.
if the standing charge is 10p and the price per unit is 10p then to cover the standing charge the price per unit would have to be 11p. anyone using more than 11 units will be worse off.No one has suggested removing choice. There could be more choice only we won't beat the moment the choices are
higher standing charge and low unit rate (good for high users)
middle standing charge and middle unit rate (good for some users)
low or 0 standing charge and higher unit rate (good for low users)
you want to take away two lots of 'type' of deal. that's less choice.
taking advantage of people that can't understand the market. In my world it's not a minority ☹️how are you deciding who can't understand the market. because it doesn't include all people who don't do a price comparison. from the threads on here of people who 'don't understand' most do as soon as its explained to them. meaning the fix is taking the time to explain. not removing choice.
We are not all equal. Many people can not read their bills, the tariffs are too complicated for them to compare. The rest of us benefit from that.
There's no point in me constantly repeating myself if you don't understand, we all have shortcomings.1 -
Who do you classify as elderly, 60, 70, 80 ,90.busybee100 said:
Denigrating 😳 not my intention at all. I can only speak as I find, my elderly relatives struggle my younger ones don't.matelodave said:Why pick on older people - there are probably just as many, if not more, younger people who dont understand their bills. TBH they really shouldn't be all that difficult to understand especially if you put the effort into reading and checking them regularly.
Most of the older people you are denigrating could quite happliy work out pounds shillings and pence as well as yards, feet and inches therefor multiplying the cost of a kwh by the number uses should be easy, likewise multiplying the daily s/c by the number of days is also a doddle.
Where people seem to fall down is understanding the difference between a standing order and a bill or the difference between typical, average, estimate and actual.
Does that make your elderly relatives less intelligent than others who do understand and dont need their hands holding, hopefully not.
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers1 -
i understand we are all different. that is exactly why i say more choice is better than less choice. i have said the best fix for someone who doesn't understand there bill is to make sure there is help and information available for people who are struggling or can't understand. not to remove choice for everyone. especially given if someone can't understand there bill then theres no reason to think they will understand the bill without standing charges.busybee100 said:ariarnia said:
you are assuming those people can't understand the current tariffs and shop around. in my epxereince those on the lowest income are the most careful to compare prices before buying. be that which supermarket to use or which insurance product to go for.busybee100 said:
Your argument doesn't make sense. Many of those groups you list will also benefit from easier to understand tariffs.ariarnia said:
we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.busybee100 said:
Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.ariarnia said:
no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does.busybee100 said:
OMG "lowest common denominator"😱ariarnia said:
we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.busybee100 said:
There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition.Deleted_User said:
The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone. Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.busybee100 said:Deleted_User said:
Why?busybee100 said:Lots of disingenuous arguments here.
It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.
Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.
Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.
If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user.
Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.
If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others. All that does is to but yet another break-point. How small would not "really impact the low user"? I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.
The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.
Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like??
There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.
The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.
Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.
And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.
If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄
Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff? What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?
Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use. You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.
And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position.
The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.
We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers?
I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.
there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?
Don't let matelodave see that 🤬
If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"
Happy to help 😁
people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs.
or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?
Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?
Because you should be 😉
the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.
not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?
so removing the standing charge wont help those people and they will be worse off if the price per unit is higher.
if the standing charge is 10p and the price per unit is 10p then to cover the standing charge the price per unit would have to be 11p. anyone using more than 11 units will be worse off.No one has suggested removing choice. There could be more choice only we won't beat the moment the choices are
higher standing charge and low unit rate (good for high users)
middle standing charge and middle unit rate (good for some users)
low or 0 standing charge and higher unit rate (good for low users)
you want to take away two lots of 'type' of deal. that's less choice.
taking advantage of people that can't understand the market. In my world it's not a minority ☹️how are you deciding who can't understand the market. because it doesn't include all people who don't do a price comparison. from the threads on here of people who 'don't understand' most do as soon as its explained to them. meaning the fix is taking the time to explain. not removing choice.
We are not all equal. Many people can not read their bills, the tariffs are too complicated for them to compare. The rest of us benefit from that.
There's no point in me constantly repeating myself if you don't understand, we all have shortcomings.
the most common problem on here is not understanding that the dd is not the bill and that the price quoted for a year isnt an all you can eat price. neither of those problems are fixed by removing standing charges. the dd will remain 1/12 of there expected use and it will still go up or down depending on if they use more or less than estimated.
and you still havent explained how 'everyone' will benifit from 'simpler' tariffs if they have no problems with the current tariffs.Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you. Anne Lamott
It's amazing how those with a can-do attitude and willingness to 'pitch in and work' get all the luck, isn't it?
Please consider buying some pet food and giving it to your local food bank collection or animal charity. Animals aren't to blame for the cost of living crisis.0 -
We are not all equal. Very true.busybee100 said:ariarnia said:
you are assuming those people can't understand the current tariffs and shop around. in my epxereince those on the lowest income are the most careful to compare prices before buying. be that which supermarket to use or which insurance product to go for.busybee100 said:
Your argument doesn't make sense. Many of those groups you list will also benefit from easier to understand tariffs.ariarnia said:
we use about half the national 'average' energy for both gas and electric. removing the standing charge and increasing unit rates would actually probably cut our bill. as i have said on the thread before. that's because we can afford to have the top rated efficient appliances and spend a small fortune on insulating our home.busybee100 said:
Listen to yourself. Not everyone on prepayment has been in debt.ariarnia said:
no you dont. you can advocate for different things for different groups. that is what martin regularly does.busybee100 said:
OMG "lowest common denominator"😱ariarnia said:
we are a consumer site. doesn't that mean we should advocate for the best arrangement for all consumers not the lowest common denominator? making bills and tarrifs easier to understand and making sure there's help available to understand them if people want that help doesn't mean removing choice from the market so everyone has to be on the same (worse) deal. but a lot of people at least until recently werent interested not didn't understand.busybee100 said:
There you go again, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about encouraging competition.Deleted_User said:
The standing charges are not the same for everyone because the directly attributable costs are not the same for everyone. Absorbing it into the unit price doesn't fix this, and just removes a point by which suppliers can compete.busybee100 said:Deleted_User said:
Why?busybee100 said:Lots of disingenuous arguments here.
It's periodically touted that petrol and diesel should include an amount to contribute towards the infrastructure ie. higher users should pay more. As it is because it comes from taxes we each pay a different amount based on our income. The parallel would be to pay a standing fee based on income but that isn't going to happen.
Someone's suggested a shopping comparison which is completely unrelated, apples and oranges.
Regardless of winners and losers it should be easier to compare. Either a flat rate for everyone or built in to the unit price.
If it's to be a standing charge it should be small enough it doesn't really impact the low user.
Note. I only get a good deal at the expense of someone who can't or doesn't compare tariffs. One day I will be that person. So will you.
If it's to be a standing charge, surely it should be the actual cost - not some arbitrary small number that will affect some and not others. All that does is to but yet another break-point. How small would not "really impact the low user"? I'm sure you could pick any number and some would say that it is unaffordable, or pointless, or just out for profit, or all the usual things.
The disingenuous arguments on this thread all appear to come from one point of view, which unsurprisingly you seem to be agreeing with.
Disingenuous on one side, as in you don't recognise the comparisons are not like for like??
There's not just an either or here, the problem is the standing charges are not the same for everyone. It needs addressing.
The arguments being given are to accept it in it's present form or completely absorb it into the unit price.
Alongside that is the argument to encourage lower use.
And more importantly enable people to compare prices and encourage them to use unit prices to work out their costs.
If you can tell my POV, go for it 🙄
Why is there always this repeated false argument saying that the way to encourage competition and switching would be to effectively ban suppliers from offering different types of tariff? What's wrong with a supplier having a lower SC & higher UR tariff alongside their 'normal' one and then letting customers choose?
Having a lower unit rate encourages lower use. You don't need to do anything to the standing charges to have that effect.
And disingenuous in the form of determining that an analogy is false and inappropriate because it is not precisely like-for-like (of course it isn't, it's an analogy) when used to disagree with their perspective. yet then using an almost identical analogy in the following paragraph to support their position.
The benefit of having uncomplicated tariffs is to make it easier for the consumer. Many older people cannot understand their bills. The more complicated you make the system the more you ostracise them, the more they can be taken advantage of.
We are a consumer site. Should we not advocate for all consumers?
I don't understand how "a lower unit rate encourages lower use" that just doesn't make sense.
there has always been a group of people who dont shop around for a new fixed morgage or home insurance or car insurance or phone contract and will just go with whatever the currently provider recommends. thats why the standard variable price cap was introduced in the first place. why should the people who are willing to spend 5 mins using a comparison site pay higher prices because some people can't be bothered?
Don't let matelodave see that 🤬
If you're advocating for all then by default you have to advocate for the "lowest common denominator"
Happy to help 😁
people who have particular problems understanding things like bills should have a campaign to get them the help they need to understand. that doesn't mean everyone needs that help and choice should be removed from others because of those people's needs.
or do you think the choice to pay by variable dd or monthly dd should be taken away and everyone put on pre payment meters because some people get into debt otherwise?
Why not make it easier for everyone to understand? There will still be a choice of tariffs or are you worried that making it easier for more people to compare will mean you have to pay more?
Because you should be 😉
the people who would be hurt by this suggestion are the people who CAN'T afford to reduce there energy use because they have essencial medical equiptment or can't do anything about the age of there white goods/home insulation (inclcluding those in rentals)., that's why i think it's a bad idea to reduce choice and competition in the market.
not everyone on pre payment has been on debt. not everyone who doesn't do a price comparison for the best tariff can't understand the tariffs. listen to yourself. your suggesting we remove choice for the majority and make it because of a small number who can't understand the tariffs. why not work on helping the (few) people who genuinely can't understand tariffs get the best deals?
so removing the standing charge wont help those people and they will be worse off if the price per unit is higher.
if the standing charge is 10p and the price per unit is 10p then to cover the standing charge the price per unit would have to be 11p. anyone using more than 11 units will be worse off.No one has suggested removing choice. There could be more choice only we won't beat the moment the choices are
higher standing charge and low unit rate (good for high users)
middle standing charge and middle unit rate (good for some users)
low or 0 standing charge and higher unit rate (good for low users)
you want to take away two lots of 'type' of deal. that's less choice.
taking advantage of people that can't understand the market. In my world it's not a minority ☹️how are you deciding who can't understand the market. because it doesn't include all people who don't do a price comparison. from the threads on here of people who 'don't understand' most do as soon as its explained to them. meaning the fix is taking the time to explain. not removing choice.
We are not all equal. Many people can not read their bills, the tariffs are too complicated for them to compare. The rest of us benefit from that.
There's no point in me constantly repeating myself if you don't understand, we all have shortcomings.
Many people do not read there bills. Most people can read their bills, with a little help or guidance.
A minority of people who would actually be engaged and involved with the system might consider the tariffs too complicated. I give most people a lot more credit than that, and would hope that they could understand the huge complexity of two numbers.
A simpler system would make many people worse off unnecessarily and probably not actually benefit the people that you claim to be advocating for.
There's no point in you repeating yourself, because all you want to say is "if one person doesn't understand - all bad, ban it all". This is not our shortcoming.3 -
Have none of you never come across something you don't understand? Even when someone's tried to explain it to you?
You know everything about pensions and double entry, even airmiles? 🤷🏻♀️
Simplifying the system would enable more people to take part in the comparison game.
And once they can understand the tariffs and billing there's a whole new conversation about comparison site gaming the options.
If you say they didn't you know less than you think you did.
0 -
There are plenty of things that I don't understand or only partially understand, even after research or having it explained to me. That's life.busybee100 said:
Have none of you never come across something you don't understand? Even when someone's tried to explain it to you?
You know everything about pensions and double entry, even airmiles? 🤷🏻♀️
Simplifying the system would enable more people to take part in the comparison game.
And once they can understand the tariffs and billing there's a whole new conversation about comparison site gaming the options.
If you say they didn't you know less than you think you did.
What I do in those situations is either find an expert to act on my behalf, engage only with the simpler parts of the system that I can understand, or accept that I might not act in a completely optimal manner that someone with a better understanding might be able to do.
What I don't do in those situations is demand that someone re-writes the system to the detriment of the other users, in the hope that I will suddenly begin to understand and/or change my behaviour.
I'll say it again. To understand comparisons in the energy supply market, you must be able to deal with the concept of a bill in two parts. Two. That's all. It really isn't that complicated. There are many parts of the system that are more complicated and unnecessarily confusing, but tariffs are not one of them.4 -
But this is fundamental. It's not an option. They are forced to take part and subsidise people who do understand the system.[Deleted User] said:
There are plenty of things that I don't understand or only partially understand, even after research or having it explained to me. That's life.busybee100 said:
Have none of you never come across something you don't understand? Even when someone's tried to explain it to you?
You know everything about pensions and double entry, even airmiles? 🤷🏻♀️
Simplifying the system would enable more people to take part in the comparison game.
And once they can understand the tariffs and billing there's a whole new conversation about comparison site gaming the options.
If you say they didn't you know less than you think you did.
What I do in those situations is either find an expert to act on my behalf, engage only with the simpler parts of the system that I can understand, or accept that I might not act in a completely optimal manner that someone with a better understanding might be able to do.
What I don't do in those situations is demand that someone re-writes the system to the detriment of the other users, in the hope that I will suddenly begin to understand and/or change my behaviour.
I'll say it again. To understand comparisons in the energy supply market, you must be able to deal with the concept of a bill in two parts. Two. That's all. It really isn't that complicated. There are many parts of the system that are more complicated and unnecessarily confusing, but tariffs are not one of them.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards