Extending the EPG at its current level for the 3 months April-June 2023 - For or Against?

TheElectricCow

With the warmer weather coming in meaning things like heating and hot water should become less of an absolute necessity for most, I’d rather the money either be directed somewhere potentially more useful or not be spent at all with an aim to reduce the constant racking up of national debts.

It often feels like there’s a lot of kicking the can down the road with these issues where the solution has been to spend more money helping treat an immediate problem and then figuring out how that’ll be paid for later on. Not saying whether that’s the right thing to do or not and I personally definitely don’t have a better idea (although I’m not running the country), but a line has to be drawn somewhere so we can start working towards improving things in a potentially uncertain future rather than seeking immediate relief.

If we’re keeping to the energy theme, perhaps that money would be better spent as an additional investment in improving energy efficiency of poorly insulated low income housing. Yes it may not immediately help the people in those houses, but next winter and every single  year after they could benefit from much lower heating costs which I’m sure would ultimately cut down on the need for extra spending on utility bill reductions down the line.

But naturally investing in the future doesn’t exactly bring the current government much support, and if by the time we see those benefits there could be a change in government they’re likely to be less inclined to pursue such things.

EssexHebridean

There are definitely some situations where almost the only option is to throw money at the problem and then work out how that can be funded, but once a situation has been ongoing for a while, it should be IMO that some forward planning has been happening simultaneously alongside the initial almost "knee jerk" support being given, and that should enable better more targeted help. In this instance for whatever reason this doesn't seem to be happening though. (For what it's worth, and where possible, that forward thinking should be happening at a consumer level as well as at a government one - it's a bit like not going out and signing up to a brand new expensive mobile phone deal when you have a strong feeling that your job might be at risk). 

What_time_is_it

I think there is a wider philosophical argument that the long-term solution to overspending and overconsumption should never really be based in consuming more. I know lots of people who buy more things because they are "better for the environment" - some new plastic-free containers delivered by Amazon, a new hybrid car, a set of recycleable straws, etc, etc. If I'm ever asked what I'm doing for the environment I always answer "less". 

Scot_39

TheElectricCow said:

With the warmer weather coming in meaning things like heating and hot water should become less of an absolute necessity for most, I’d rather the money either be directed somewhere potentially more useful or not be spent at all with an aim to reduce the constant racking up of national debts.

It often feels like there’s a lot of kicking the can down the road with these issues where the solution has been to spend more money helping treat an immediate problem and then figuring out how that’ll be paid for later on. Not saying whether that’s the right thing to do or not and I personally definitely don’t have a better idea (although I’m not running the country), but a line has to be drawn somewhere so we can start working towards improving things in a potentially uncertain future rather than seeking immediate relief.

If we’re keeping to the energy theme, perhaps that money would be better spent as an additional investment in improving energy efficiency of poorly insulated low income housing. Yes it may not immediately help the people in those houses, but next winter and every single  year after they could benefit from much lower heating costs which I’m sure would ultimately cut down on the need for extra spending on utility bill reductions down the line.

But naturally investing in the future doesn’t exactly bring the current government much support, and if by the time we see those benefits there could be a change in government they’re likely to be less inclined to pursue such things.

I suspect the govt also doesn't or will not get that much electoral credit for the £100s in handouts such as the EBSS and Council Tax credits.
Or for the £10s-£100s in savings on monthly energy bills for this winter under the EPG.
And probably even less so for the £100s in payments to those on means tested benefits.

How many unions demanding inflation matching rises for last 13 years - look at the net savings after IT PA and NI threshold increases - that's c £1550 net take home increase. On median income £33k, thats c5% rise in take home pay, even when factor in 1% higher NI rate (11% to 12% in 2011).  Even more for lower paid.

And when it comes to govt debt and deficits - that's c£47bn annually - bigger than pre Covid deficit lows.  Or about 30% of NHS Eng budget.

Despite the last "3 govts" in end serving multiple terms (79-97, 97-2010 and 2010-??) - short termism and kicking the debt can down the road been normal - last 22 years govts have run deficits. 

No savings for the bad times.

Headline debt interest of £100bn plus forecast this tax year and next.  
Compare that to nhs Eng budget of £151bn.
Or income tax, ni and cgt revenue of around £400bn.

Extending the EPG just another way of adding to that debt.
And that future debt interest.

The_Green_Hornet

I'm not a betting person but I suspect that the EPG will be kept at £2500 for another three months as politicians just can't resist making grand gestures especially around budget time.

Grant Shapps is apparently sympathetic to the idea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64797779

Sea_Shell

The_Green_Hornet said:

I'm not a betting person but I suspect that the EPG will be kept at £2500 for another three months as politicians just can't resist making grand gestures especially around budget time.

Grant Shapps is apparently sympathetic to the idea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64797779

I agree.      They'll fold under the pressure.

What_time_is_it

Grant Shapps is apparently sympathetic to the idea.

But what does Michael Green think? Or Sebastian Fox?

Grandad2b

There's a lot of talk about reduced use of heating in April to June. That's true to an extent, if temperatures rise as expected but sometimes we get a cold spring and the heating stays on.
Just looking at last years figures is difficult for me as I got bounced out of my (svt) contract with PurePlanet onto svt with Shell but didn't get a bill from Shell for 3 months. However, over that 3 months (from mid October to mid January) my gas cost me just as much it did for the whole of January this year because the cost of gas trebled.
I don't like the thought of my bills going up by £75 a month for 3 months but I can afford it if it happens. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who can't and for that reason I think the EPG should stay at £2500.

The_Green_Hornet

What_time_is_it said:

Grant Shapps is apparently sympathetic to the idea.

But what does Michael Green think? Or Sebastian Fox?

We all use aliases.

strawb_shortcake

Against, I've built up £500 of credit over the winter, I don't need any more hand outs, the government should wait and see what happens next winter with energy prices before handing out any more subsidies.

Albeit anecdotally, I've seen lots of people complaining about the government not doing enough to help them, then in the next breath they are showing off new piercings, talking about new pets and take aways, so with people I know my sympathy is wearing thin. 

Maybe make hardship funds more available but with an appropriate level of due diligence.

I do think that there will be a high proportion of people that have not or could not make suitable provisions for when the  current £66/67 monthly help comes to an end which will catch people out.