Electricity Daily Standing Charge.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

The costs would still be paid out of revenues, it just would be in a different way.

The problem now is that SC isnt just covering the network costs, and isnt just network fixed costs either.  Ofgem keep moving more and more things to it, so its fast becoming a generic revenue increaser.

There is an argument to be made that costs for essential network work, should not be collected via the suppliers.  Or it can be separated from SC into its own specific itemised option.  Personally I think the best way is general taxation, its after all national infrastructure which the country needs, otherwise make it as a % of the bill or something on its own itemised option.

There could be a fixed charge per house hold for "fixed" costs.  Then a % charge per bill for utilisation based network costs.  However the way it should be working is the suppliers need the network to deliver energy to customers, so they should simply be paying the grid for that, and its part of the unit rate charged to customers.

If the costs are all the same, whatever they are, you cannot escape the fact that if some customers pay less then others will need to pay more.

Which customers should pay less and which customers should pay more?

If some of the costs are covered by general taxation, that means non tax payers won't contribute at all, how is that fair? As it is a national infrastructure for the country shouldn't the country pay, not just the tax payers?

Where is the extra general taxation going to come from, there isn't enough general taxation for all that it is meant to cover. already, adding to it will only make things worse.

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

bristolleedsfan said:

NorfolkCanary said:

bristolleedsfan said:

snip

No thanks. Using my current usage and Octopus' current flexible rates,  +£0.025p on each unit (day/night/gas) it would save me the sum total of £55. I can't see suppliers sticking with 2.5p over non SC charges to compensate, nor should they, based on that it's a no from me

Flexible can keep current charging method, how about others being given a choice ?  

"just need one supplier to put words into action and launch 12 month domestic fixed rate tariff with Zero standing charge as Octopus have done with a couple of Business 12 month fixed tariffs"

How will the network guarantee to generate all of the funds necessary to cover the fixed costs?

Surely if some customers start paying less towards standing charges others will need to pay more?

With the fixed costs spread equally over all of the customers the costs are guaranteed to be covered, once you introduce the opportunity for some customers to pay less then the guaranteed income is no longer guaranteed, there could be a shortfall.

And there is still the problem that many of the heaviest users of electricity are the poorest, the sick and the elderly and these people will be hit the hardest.

The costs would still be paid out of revenues, it just would be in a different way.

The problem now is that SC isnt just covering the network costs, and isnt just network fixed costs either.  Ofgem keep moving more and more things to it, so its fast becoming a generic revenue increaser.

There is an argument to be made that costs for essential network work, should not be collected via the suppliers.  Or it can be separated from SC into its own specific itemised option.  Personally I think the best way is general taxation, its after all national infrastructure which the country needs, otherwise make it as a % of the bill or something on its own itemised option.

There could be a fixed charge per house hold for "fixed" costs.  Then a % charge per bill for utilisation based network costs.  However the way it should be working is the suppliers need the network to deliver energy to customers, so they should simply be paying the grid for that, and its part of the unit rate charged to customers.

The suppliers already do pay additional charges to the network on a per kWh basis, that is part of the distribution costs included in the unit rate calculation. The standing charge covers the fixed costs of delivery, the variable costs of delivery are built into the unit rate, it is a very sensible, very logical system. 

markin

MattMattMattUK said:

bristolleedsfan said:

Centrica, Octopus and Ovo Chiefs are on record saying Standing Charges should be abolished, just need one supplier to put words into action and launch 12 month domestic fixed rate tariff with Zero standing charge as Octopus have done with a couple of Business 12 month fixed tariffs.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/british-gas-centrica-graham-british-sun-b1091360.html

There is a difference between what they say in press releases, designed to curry favour with an ignorant public and a febrile media and what is a sensible course of action. There is also the factor that whatever scheme was introduced to replace Standing Charges would be designed to insulate suppliers from the potential consequences, for them it would be cost/revenue neutral. 

Splitting the SC from the energy and making the DNO and NG bill the users by the kwh would still be inline with what they said, In most places in the world that do that the Grid usage bill is/was the largest bill, Example, 6p energy and 8p grid fees, (2 years ago pricing)

They would then get to wash their hands off it, but it would not actually change anything.

Qyburn

matt_drummer said:

If some of the costs are covered by general taxation, that means non tax payers won't contribute at all, how is that fair?

And tax payers who don't have a supply would be paying just as much as those who do. Admittedly thats a small number with no electricity supply, but if you extend it to gas that would be around 20% of the population paying for something that's never going to be available to them.

Chrysalis

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

bristolleedsfan said:

NorfolkCanary said:

bristolleedsfan said:

snip

No thanks. Using my current usage and Octopus' current flexible rates,  +£0.025p on each unit (day/night/gas) it would save me the sum total of £55. I can't see suppliers sticking with 2.5p over non SC charges to compensate, nor should they, based on that it's a no from me

Flexible can keep current charging method, how about others being given a choice ?  

"just need one supplier to put words into action and launch 12 month domestic fixed rate tariff with Zero standing charge as Octopus have done with a couple of Business 12 month fixed tariffs"

How will the network guarantee to generate all of the funds necessary to cover the fixed costs?

Surely if some customers start paying less towards standing charges others will need to pay more?

With the fixed costs spread equally over all of the customers the costs are guaranteed to be covered, once you introduce the opportunity for some customers to pay less then the guaranteed income is no longer guaranteed, there could be a shortfall.

And there is still the problem that many of the heaviest users of electricity are the poorest, the sick and the elderly and these people will be hit the hardest.

The costs would still be paid out of revenues, it just would be in a different way.

The problem now is that SC isnt just covering the network costs, and isnt just network fixed costs either.  Ofgem keep moving more and more things to it, so its fast becoming a generic revenue increaser.

There is an argument to be made that costs for essential network work, should not be collected via the suppliers.  Or it can be separated from SC into its own specific itemised option.  Personally I think the best way is general taxation, its after all national infrastructure which the country needs, otherwise make it as a % of the bill or something on its own itemised option.

There could be a fixed charge per house hold for "fixed" costs.  Then a % charge per bill for utilisation based network costs.  However the way it should be working is the suppliers need the network to deliver energy to customers, so they should simply be paying the grid for that, and its part of the unit rate charged to customers.

The suppliers already do pay additional charges to the network on a per kWh basis, that is part of the distribution costs included in the unit rate calculation. The standing charge covers the fixed costs of delivery, the variable costs of delivery are built into the unit rate, it is a very sensible, very logical system. 

The SC covers now in 2023 more than fixed costs of delivery.  I dont know how many times I need to post this,

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

The costs would still be paid out of revenues, it just would be in a different way.

The problem now is that SC isnt just covering the network costs, and isnt just network fixed costs either.  Ofgem keep moving more and more things to it, so its fast becoming a generic revenue increaser.

There is an argument to be made that costs for essential network work, should not be collected via the suppliers.  Or it can be separated from SC into its own specific itemised option.  Personally I think the best way is general taxation, its after all national infrastructure which the country needs, otherwise make it as a % of the bill or something on its own itemised option.

There could be a fixed charge per house hold for "fixed" costs.  Then a % charge per bill for utilisation based network costs.  However the way it should be working is the suppliers need the network to deliver energy to customers, so they should simply be paying the grid for that, and its part of the unit rate charged to customers.

If the costs are all the same, whatever they are, you cannot escape the fact that if some customers pay less then others will need to pay more.

Which customers should pay less and which customers should pay more?

If some of the costs are covered by general taxation, that means non tax payers won't contribute at all, how is that fair? As it is a national infrastructure for the country shouldn't the country pay, not just the tax payers?

Where is the extra general taxation going to come from, there isn't enough general taxation for all that it is meant to cover. already, adding to it will only make things worse.

I dont know what road you going down here, but you seem to be advocating that you against ability to pay funding mechanisms (essentially our tax system, benefit system etc).  So a socialised contribution system alongside a captalist earning system.

The water companies e.g. have a social tariff.

It seems your views have become affected by selfish desires of what is fair and unfair based on ideology.

My comments are based on practicalities, affordability and the affect on the network costs from customers who use more or less utilisation at peak hours (which is what the grid's needs are based on).

Since we are both looking at it from different directions I am not sure if its possible to try and explain where I am coming from.

I will give it one more go.

So the worst revenue collecting system for things like this is "fixed amount per household", it doesnt achieve either result.

So if we look at it from your point of view "everyone should pay the same regardless of ability to pay and their effect on the network", then "fixed amount per household" fails, as it means households with more occupants pay less per person than households with singletons.

If we look at it from my point of view "costs are based on usage and also factor in the needs of those who struggle to pay", then only the actual costs that are grid side and are fixed should be a fixed charge for the property, currently this is only a small part of the SC, less than half of it.

Other costs such as network transmission costs should be lower for households who use less energy, these are not fixed costs.  Should be part of the unit rate or a fixed % of the bill like VAT is.

There is also all the costs in the SC which now are for suppliers, they shouldnt be in there at all, how these are claimed to me isnt as simple, there is many ways, I think the debt recovery stuff shouldnt be claimed at all, suppliers should like any other companies in that area, SolR recovery probably should have been in general taxation.

The problem is I think you just dont care, I wont be popular saying this, but I think you are looking at it from a "me" perspective, why should "I " pay more.

I think at the very least though we should stop pretending the SC is just for fixed network costs, Ofgem have been playing with it for 2 years now.

--

If I go out for for a meal with my wealth and I have friends invited who can barely afford to turn their lights on, I am making sure they not paying any part of the bill, would you be making them pay an equal share because its "fair"? Life isnt fair and we adjust things to make it not so unfair.  That is why we have our tax system and a system that distributes support to those who need it the most, this is extremely important.

I earn 40k a year and I pay more tax than someone on min wage and I pay for things that someone with no income doesnt pay for, why on earth would I think thats unfair? I am clearly the winner as I have more money.  your comment is just odd.

I havent even gone down the road of the problem that someone cant even routinely decide to not have gas at all to stop themselves paying for an idle system, its a complicated and expensive disconnection process.

matt_drummer

Chrysalis said:

I dont know what road you going down here, but you seem to be advocating that you against ability to pay funding mechanisms (essentially our tax system, benefit system etc).  So a socialised contribution system alongside a captalist earning system.

The water companies e.g. have a social tariff.

It seems your views have become affected by selfish desires of what is fair and unfair based on ideology.

My comments are based on practicalities, affordability and the affect on the network costs from customers who use more or less utilisation at peak hours (which is what the grid's needs are based on).

Since we are both looking at it from different directions I am not sure if its possible to try and explain where I am coming from.

I will give it one more go.

So the worst revenue collecting system for things like this is "fixed amount per household", it doesnt achieve either result.

So if we look at it from your point of view "everyone should pay the same regardless of ability to pay and their effect on the network", then "fixed amount per household" fails, as it means households with more occupants pay less per person than households with singletons.

If we look at it from my point of view "costs are based on usage and also factor in the needs of those who struggle to pay", then only the actual costs that are grid side and are fixed should be a fixed charge for the property, currently this is only a small part of the SC, less than half of it.

Other costs such as network transmission costs should be lower for households who use less energy, these are not fixed costs.  Should be part of the unit rate or a fixed % of the bill like VAT is.

There is also all the costs in the SC which now are for suppliers, they shouldnt be in there at all, how these are claimed to me isnt as simple, there is many ways, I think the debt recovery stuff shouldnt be claimed at all, suppliers should like any other companies in that area, SolR recovery probably should have been in general taxation.

The problem is I think you just dont care, I wont be popular saying this, but I think you are looking at it from a "me" perspective, why should "I " pay more.

I think at the very least though we should stop pretending the SC is just for fixed network costs, Ofgem have been playing with it for 2 years now.

--

If I go out for for a meal with my wealth and I have friends invited who can barely afford to turn their lights on, I am making sure they not paying any part of the bill, would you be making them pay an equal share because its "fair"? Life isnt fair and we adjust things to make it not so unfair.  That is why we have our tax system and a system that distributes support to those who need it the most, this is extremely important.

I earn 40k a year and I pay more tax than someone on min wage and I pay for things that someone with no income doesnt pay for, why on earth would I think thats unfair? I am clearly the winner as I have more money.  your comment is just odd.

I havent even gone down the road of the problem that someone cant even routinely decide to not have gas at all to stop themselves paying for an idle system, its a complicated and expensive disconnection process.

You have it completely wrong about me.

If some or all of the standing charge was moved to the unit costs then I would pay less and possibly even nothing at all.

I would happily pay even more in standing charges if I thought it would go to help those most in need.

My concern has always been that it is quite often the case that the poorest and most in need are the highest users of electricity and would be disadvantaged the most by your plans.

I am far from selfish in this respect, I am happy to pay my standing charge or more if required.

Why are you arguing for change, would it suit you financially to have standing charges moved to unit costs?



I am looking at this from exactly the same side as you, I suspect the difference between us is that I am thinking entirely about other people and arguing against your suggestions even though they would benefit me financially. 

Chrysalis

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

I dont know what road you going down here, but you seem to be advocating that you against ability to pay funding mechanisms (essentially our tax system, benefit system etc).  So a socialised contribution system alongside a captalist earning system.

The water companies e.g. have a social tariff.

It seems your views have become affected by selfish desires of what is fair and unfair based on ideology.

My comments are based on practicalities, affordability and the affect on the network costs from customers who use more or less utilisation at peak hours (which is what the grid's needs are based on).

Since we are both looking at it from different directions I am not sure if its possible to try and explain where I am coming from.

I will give it one more go.

So the worst revenue collecting system for things like this is "fixed amount per household", it doesnt achieve either result.

So if we look at it from your point of view "everyone should pay the same regardless of ability to pay and their effect on the network", then "fixed amount per household" fails, as it means households with more occupants pay less per person than households with singletons.

If we look at it from my point of view "costs are based on usage and also factor in the needs of those who struggle to pay", then only the actual costs that are grid side and are fixed should be a fixed charge for the property, currently this is only a small part of the SC, less than half of it.

Other costs such as network transmission costs should be lower for households who use less energy, these are not fixed costs.  Should be part of the unit rate or a fixed % of the bill like VAT is.

There is also all the costs in the SC which now are for suppliers, they shouldnt be in there at all, how these are claimed to me isnt as simple, there is many ways, I think the debt recovery stuff shouldnt be claimed at all, suppliers should like any other companies in that area, SolR recovery probably should have been in general taxation.

The problem is I think you just dont care, I wont be popular saying this, but I think you are looking at it from a "me" perspective, why should "I " pay more.

I think at the very least though we should stop pretending the SC is just for fixed network costs, Ofgem have been playing with it for 2 years now.

--

If I go out for for a meal with my wealth and I have friends invited who can barely afford to turn their lights on, I am making sure they not paying any part of the bill, would you be making them pay an equal share because its "fair"? Life isnt fair and we adjust things to make it not so unfair.  That is why we have our tax system and a system that distributes support to those who need it the most, this is extremely important.

I earn 40k a year and I pay more tax than someone on min wage and I pay for things that someone with no income doesnt pay for, why on earth would I think thats unfair? I am clearly the winner as I have more money.  your comment is just odd.

I havent even gone down the road of the problem that someone cant even routinely decide to not have gas at all to stop themselves paying for an idle system, its a complicated and expensive disconnection process.

You have it completely wrong about me.

If some or all of the standing charge was moved to the unit costs then I would pay less and possibly even nothing at all.

I would happily pay even more in standing charges if I thought it would go to help those most in need.

My concern has always been that it is quite often the case that the poorest and most in need are the highest users of electricity and would be disadvantaged the most by your plans.

I am far from selfish in this respect, I am happy to pay my standing charge or more if required.

Why are you arguing for change, would it suit you financially to have standing charges moved to unit costs?



I am looking at this from exactly the same side as you, I suspect the difference between us is that I am thinking entirely about other people and arguing against your suggestions even though they would benefit me financially. 

Would it suit me depends on the changes made.  I am arguing for change as I suppose I am a champion of ability to pay and also what I consider to be fairness in terms of how costs are collected (I see myself quite similar to Martin in this respect).

I would benefit I think if they made the changes I propose to reduce the fixed payment just to cover the fixed costs, and moved transmission costs to a % system. But not if they shifted costs to general taxation and then raised one of the many taxes I pay.   But at the same time the impact on me from that wouldnt be big enough to make it worth my while to have these discussions on here, so this isnt being done for personal gain.  I am fairly satisfied with what I currently pay for energy, ironically I pay about 30% lower than I was in summer 2021.  Back then I was paying £95 a month.  My bills are now typically around £60-70 a month.  Have had monthly costs as low as about £50.earlier this year.  The reason for this is I had a faulty meter over reading and the fixed DD system was over estimating my annual usage which led to an inflated DD.  The fact I have bills on the low side has highlighted to me the problem with the SC as I have observed of course the high % of the bill the SC is currently.

If you check my posts you will find I fight for things that dont affect me positively personally, this is consistent in my posting behaviour.  I would still have this point of view if I lived in a house with 5 other people, I might not shout as loud about it, but it wouldnt change my opinion.

There was very little complaints about SC before Ofgem started tinkering and adding non fixed costs to the charge.  They have ended up drawing attention to it and with people out there desperate to save every penny they can and only find the charging system is fighting against them I hope you can understand why this is a problem.

One thing I wouldnt mind as an example paying extra for is to fund a social tariff.  I also wouldnt mind paying extra to make sure is a proper warm home discount scheme without the controversial energy cost criteria.  Although again I would want to pay for these via an increase in income tax, NI or some other form of payment that the poorest dont get hit by as much, not by a standardised per household SC premium.

MattMattMattUK

Chrysalis said:

matt_drummer said:

Chrysalis said:

The costs would still be paid out of revenues, it just would be in a different way.

The problem now is that SC isnt just covering the network costs, and isnt just network fixed costs either.  Ofgem keep moving more and more things to it, so its fast becoming a generic revenue increaser.

There is an argument to be made that costs for essential network work, should not be collected via the suppliers.  Or it can be separated from SC into its own specific itemised option.  Personally I think the best way is general taxation, its after all national infrastructure which the country needs, otherwise make it as a % of the bill or something on its own itemised option.

There could be a fixed charge per house hold for "fixed" costs.  Then a % charge per bill for utilisation based network costs.  However the way it should be working is the suppliers need the network to deliver energy to customers, so they should simply be paying the grid for that, and its part of the unit rate charged to customers.

If the costs are all the same, whatever they are, you cannot escape the fact that if some customers pay less then others will need to pay more.

Which customers should pay less and which customers should pay more?

If some of the costs are covered by general taxation, that means non tax payers won't contribute at all, how is that fair? As it is a national infrastructure for the country shouldn't the country pay, not just the tax payers?

Where is the extra general taxation going to come from, there isn't enough general taxation for all that it is meant to cover. already, adding to it will only make things worse.

I dont know what road you going down here, but you seem to be advocating that you against ability to pay funding mechanisms (essentially our tax system, benefit system etc).  So a socialised contribution system alongside a captalist earning system.

The water companies e.g. have a social tariff.

Social tariffs are a flawed system, so flawed that they should not be used.

Chrysalis said:

It seems your views have become affected by selfish desires of what is fair and unfair based on ideology.

My comments are based on practicalities, affordability and the affect on the network costs from customers who use more or less utilisation at peak hours (which is what the grid's needs are based on).

Your position is just as ideological as theirs, if not more so. Your position is not rational or practical. 

Chrysalis said:

Since we are both looking at it from different directions I am not sure if its possible to try and explain where I am coming from.

I will give it one more go.

So the worst revenue collecting system for things like this is "fixed amount per household", it doesnt achieve either result.

It depends what you define as "worst", I suspect by worst you mean "least progressive". 

Chrysalis said:

So if we look at it from your point of view "everyone should pay the same regardless of ability to pay and their effect on the network", then "fixed amount per household" fails, as it means households with more occupants pay less per person than households with singletons.

That is already the way for most things, TV license, mortgage, council tax (the 25% SO discount does not really scale), broadband etc. With regard to the maintenance of a connection to the dwelling, that is largely a fixed cost and that should be reflected in the price paid, cross subsidies are not good.

Chrysalis said:

If we look at it from my point of view "costs are based on usage and also factor in the needs of those who struggle to pay", then only the actual costs that are grid side and are fixed should be a fixed charge for the property, currently this is only a small part of the SC, less than half of it.

Your suggestion is that you move some of the overall costs of energy (social costs, generation subsidies, SoLR etc) to be paid for somewhere else. It is fair to argue that those are not directly related to the supply of energy, but they are related to the overall cost of energy. If you want to remove those costs from the standing charge that means that they are moved to the unit rate, which means higher users, most often the disabled and pensioners, will end up paying more.

Chrysalis said:

Other costs such as network transmission costs should be lower for households who use less energy, these are not fixed costs.  Should be part of the unit rate or a fixed % of the bill like VAT is.

The unit rate already reflects the cost of transmission, that is factored in. Residential users are generally well within the tolerances built into the system, those business users with larger power draws do pay more, reflective of not just the energy they use but the peak draw that they can place on the grid and will even have a capped draw at certain times of day.

Chrysalis said:

There is also all the costs in the SC which now are for suppliers, they shouldnt be in there at all, how these are claimed to me isnt as simple, there is many ways,

I presume you mean the SoLR costs? The theory is that everyone potentially benefits, so everyone pays and so that everyone pays the cost was added to the standing charge on the electricity rate.

Chrysalis said:
I think the debt recovery stuff shouldnt be claimed at all, suppliers should like any other companies in that area, SolR recovery probably should have been in general taxation.

In any other company the costs would be written off against the creditors, SoLR insulates the members of the public who are creditors, however every other creditor looses out just as normal. There are arguments either way for SoLR being paid for via energy bills or general taxation, none of them are particularly compelling and there is no solid argument either way.

Chrysalis said:

The problem is I think you just dont care, I wont be popular saying this, but I think you are looking at it from a "me" perspective, why should "I " pay more.

Claiming that people do not care because they have a different viewpoint is irrational and is almost always a sign that one cannot defend their position. Me personally, I do not think social tariffs should exist, I think the fixed costs should be covered in the standing charge and I think the unit rate should be reflective of the unit delivery cost. Cross subsidies are bad, social tariffs create cliff edges, handouts are blunt instruments, they are bad solutions. My proposed solution has been and still is that benefits should have a COLA component, with general benefits rising in line with overall inflation, but also a flexible COLA to account for variances in costs that occur in time outside of general inflation. That component would fall as well as rise, for instance it would have increased as energy costs rose and it would have fallen as energy costs dropped back, whilst things like the increased cost of food would be covered in the general inflationary increase as those are costs which will never drop back. That system, increasing benefits, would ultimately involve me paying more, because I am a net taxpayer and I would not gain directly from those increases, although I would stand to gain somewhat in a societal sense, as we all would. 

Chrysalis said:

I think at the very least though we should stop pretending the SC is just for fixed network costs, Ofgem have been playing with it for 2 years now.

No one is "pretending" that the Standing Charge is only for the fixed costs of energy delivery, which is what I think you mean. It does cover the fixed network costs, which also include SoLR, WHD, Smart Meter rollout, various green elements, etc., it is not pretending to call those fixed costs, because that is what they are.

Chrysalis said:

If I go out for for a meal with my wealth and I have friends invited who can barely afford to turn their lights on, I am making sure they not paying any part of the bill, would you be making them pay an equal share because its "fair"? Life isnt fair and we adjust things to make it not so unfair.

What you do with your money is entirely up to you, I, like most people, have treated less fortunate friends and family members, is is not about fairness or anything else other than me choosing how I spend my post tax income, when you start spending my money it becomes slightly different. Your example of a meal out, but in relation to energy bills, is that you want to take your friends out and treat them to a meal, but you want me to pay, that is not your decision to make.

Chrysalis said:
That is why we have our tax system and a system that distributes support to those who need it the most, this is extremely important.

That is what our tax system does, we have a very redistributive tax system, one of the largest tax free allowances in the world, the largest of any major economy, the largest in the EU, our top rates of taxation are comparable to those of most advanced economies other than the USA where taxes are very low. Now I am in favour of increased taxes for social spending and investment, investment in health, education, infrastructure, debt repayments etc. and I think taxes should rise for everyone, that includes me, not just tax rises for "someone else".

Chrysalis said:

I earn 40k a year and I pay more tax than someone on min wage and I pay for things that someone with no income doesnt pay for, why on earth would I think thats unfair? I am clearly the winner as I have more money.  your comment is just odd.

Fairness is an entirely subjective concept. It can easily be argued both ways, why should I pay more for less, when you get more whilst paying in less? Why should I get the same state pension as everyone else despite paying more in National Insurance than everyone else? Going down the route of things being "unfair" or "fair" is not a good one to go down, because every answer is subjective and there is no one answer.