31% increase on electricity daily standing charge, is this fair and just?

pochase

Fair

Do I like the increased cost? Of course not, but it is not going to the suppliers as a profit like many here still claim, even so it has explained over and over again and is clearly documented.

The standing charges are the cost for being connected to the grid, why should some people pay less for it? 

I am not driving much with my car, but I still pay the same road tax as my neighbour who drivers 50000 miles.

MattMattMattUK

Fair

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

And? It reflects a proportionate cost of a grid for each household, so it is a per household charge.

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair?

Yes, a flat rate of income tax would be fair, or do you mean a flat amount, which would not be fair?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

dealyboy said:

or council tax?

Council tax is flat in the sense that it is fixed per property grade regardless of income, however it would also be fair it was a per-household amount as well, as it could be fair if it was also a local income tax, because "fairness" is subjective.

dealyboy said:

or car tax?

Car tax is a fixed amount based on emissions (although with a large penalty charge for cars with a list price of more than £40k), it does not vary by mileage or income.

dealyboy said:

paying the same as everybody else.

Paying the same for the same thing is fair, paying different amounts for the same thing is not fair.

dealyboy said:

It should be a percentage ... perhaps 5% to replace the VAT.

It should not be a percentage, because that cost would fall disproportionately on average and high users, subsidising low users, where as the actual cost of providing the connection to the network is the same regardless. Replacing/removing the VAT from the would provide marginal benefit to the individual consumer and cost the treasury billions so it would be an idiotic idea. 

dunstonh

Fair

Its fair and its hard to see why anyone could think otherwise if they actually understood what the charge is for.  Too many think the money goes to the supplier or its the supplier that sets it.

The infrastructure costs money to maintain.  Someone has to pay for it.   Some properties will cost more than others in terms of supply.  e.g. rural properties will typically be more expensive than city properties as the cables/piping could go for mile between each property and will often be above ground and can be damaged by trees or animals.   However, town and city will be underground, bringing its own costs.    

So, there no easy way to even out the costs to each individual property.   So, it is broken down into areas of the country.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair? or council tax? or car tax?

A flat rate of income tax would be fair in percentage terms.  The current system results in the highest earners paying the highest amount in monetary terms but they still get criticised by lower earners despite the fact that the top earners significantly cross-subsidising the lower earners.

Council tax is unfair.   Councils provide services to people.   Only a tiny bit is services to a house.  Yet a band D property with 6 people will pay less than a band G property with 2 people.     However, the attempt to link it to people resulted in the fall of the Government.

Car tax is also unfair.   The additional cost to cars costing over £40k is not justifiable but political. 

agentcain

Rip off

It's a rip-off, not because of its flat rate nature regardless of consumption but because costs hardly increased as much, with some of the costs coming from poor choices of regulators and cowboy companies that allowed the recent wave of supplier failures. They escaped unharmed whereas the consumer pays the increased bill. It's a rip-off as it comes at a time where general costs increase and wholesale energy prices drop, yet the previous narrative of nonhedged energy miraculously does not apply now, at least not to the proper extent, as unit prices did drop a bit (but not to the level they should be) 

MattMattMattUK

Fair

agentcain said:

It's a rip-off, not because of its flat rate nature regardless of consumption but because costs hardly increased as much, with some of the costs coming from poor choices of regulators and cowboy companies that allowed the recent wave of supplier failures. They escaped unharmed whereas the consumer pays the increased bill. It's a rip-off as it comes at a time where general costs increase and wholesale energy prices drop, yet the previous narrative of nonhedged energy miraculously does not apply now, at least not to the proper extent, as unit prices did drop a bit (but not to the level they should be) 

I would hardly say that the companies being liquidated and shareholders losing their entire investment is "escaped unharmed". The energy we are using now was bought or hedged earlier, that feeds into the prices we are paying, the major suppliers have always hedged, yet were also forced to sell at below cost for more than a year. The unit prices have dropped proportionately, but that will not feed through until Q3.

mac.d

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair? or council tax? or car tax? ... paying the same as everybody else.

It should be a percentage ... perhaps 5% to replace the VAT.

It's not really a flat rate though is it? I know they use the infrastructure excuse for more remote parts of the country, but why should someone in Edinburgh or Liverpool pay so much more than someone in London?

With the new rates, someone in south of Scotland or north Wales has to pay £60+ more a year than someone in east of England. Someone in the north of Scotland has to pay £75 more than someone in London. Particularly galling for those in the north who have not only colder climate and so need to spend more, but watch as all the surplus green energy is transferred south to those who are paying less.

MattMattMattUK

Fair

mac.d said:

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair? or council tax? or car tax? ... paying the same as everybody else.

It should be a percentage ... perhaps 5% to replace the VAT.

It's not really a flat rate though is it? I know they use the infrastructure excuse for more remote parts of the country, but why should someone in Edinburgh or Liverpool pay so much more than someone in London?

The number of homes served by a single substation, km of gas main, overhead line, pressure booster is vastly higher in London than anywhere else in the country due to the considerably higher due to it having very high population density compared to the rest of the country. 

mac.d said:

With the new rates, someone in south of Scotland or north Wales has to pay £60+ more a year than someone in east of England. Someone in the north of Scotland has to pay £75 more than someone in London. Particularly galling for those in the north who have not only colder climate and so need to spend more, but watch as all the surplus green energy is transferred south to those who are paying less.

Most of the wind farms are in England, or off of England's coasts. There are vastly fewer dwellings per km of cables or pipes in the north of Scotland than in London, there are vastly fewer people per substation and the maintenance is harder to complete (adverse weather, distance from major conurbations etc.). Also whilst the infrastructure cost, reflected in the Standing Charge is higher in Scotland than in London, the per kWh price in Scotland is around 6% less, reflective of comparison is transmission losses over large distances (eg. there are no power plants within the M25 anymore), most are on the coast. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_onshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom

SnakePlissken

Rip off

mac.d said:

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair? or council tax? or car tax? ... paying the same as everybody else.

It should be a percentage ... perhaps 5% to replace the VAT.

It's not really a flat rate though is it? I know they use the infrastructure excuse for more remote parts of the country, but why should someone in Edinburgh or Liverpool pay so much more than someone in London?

With the new rates, someone in south of Scotland or north Wales has to pay £60+ more a year than someone in east of England. Someone in the north of Scotland has to pay £75 more than someone in London. Particularly galling for those in the north who have not only colder climate and so need to spend more, but watch as all the surplus green energy is transferred south to those who are paying less.

Its not just the standing charge, its the connection charges for power generation in Scotland are higher than london. Yet majority of the  renewable generation is in Scotland, with another 10gw being added over next few years.

At least very soon, we will see a scottish grid controlled by a scottish government. Not a uk one that looks after its buddies.

Goodbye rip off UK!

MattMattMattUK

Fair

SnakePlissken said:

mac.d said:

dealyboy said:

... it's a flat rate.

Would you consider flat rate income tax fair? or council tax? or car tax? ... paying the same as everybody else.

It should be a percentage ... perhaps 5% to replace the VAT.

It's not really a flat rate though is it? I know they use the infrastructure excuse for more remote parts of the country, but why should someone in Edinburgh or Liverpool pay so much more than someone in London?

With the new rates, someone in south of Scotland or north Wales has to pay £60+ more a year than someone in east of England. Someone in the north of Scotland has to pay £75 more than someone in London. Particularly galling for those in the north who have not only colder climate and so need to spend more, but watch as all the surplus green energy is transferred south to those who are paying less.

Its not just the standing charge, its the connection charges for power generation in Scotland are higher than london. Yet majority of the  renewable generation is in Scotland, with another 10gw being added over next few years.

The majority of renewable generation capacity is not in Scotland. Even if there was 10gW of capacity installed in Scotland it will still have lower generation capacity than England and over the next decades there is approved planning or proposals for nearly 100gW of renewable generation capacity to be deployed in Englan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_onshore_wind_farms_in_the_United_Kingdom

SnakePlissken said:

At least very soon, we will see a scottish grid controlled by a scottish government. Not a uk one that looks after its buddies.

Goodbye rip off UK!

Ok, fine, bye.

Marvel1

Rip off

Those are in low income areas are paying more.