Energy prices £250 cheaper a year - my electric only £8.83 cheaper??

MattMattMattUK

powerful_Rogue said:

wild666 said:

Chris_b2z said:

matt_drummer said:

Chris_b2z said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

Chris_b2z said:

pseudodox said:

Should the people who work in the industry be paid minimum wages?

Really? Bumper earnings for National Grid come as energy firms are accused of ‘greedflation’

National Grid’s John Pettigrew, one of the country’s highest-profile energy executives, took home £7.2m last financial year, up from £6.6m a year earlier, according to the FTSE 100 power networks company. His fixed pay fell but variable pay, which includes bonuses and long-term incentives, rose from £5.2m to almost £6m.

Okay, so we take his 7.2 million away from him and share it out amongst UK households... which account would you like your 26p depositing into? 

Thank you for that constructive suggestion.

I'm sure that National Grid under John's leadership will continue to generate healthy shareholder returns. So it's £7.2m worth spent.

The thing that bugs me is that he stands to pay exactly the same standing charge contribution as @Helen_ and everyone else that's struggling financially or making an effort to reduce energy usage.

Why would he have to pay more for the same service?

Would his food be more expensive at the same supermarket?

Does he have to pay for for his broadband or mobile telephone from the same providers as the rest of us?

I will quote Martin Lewis as my response -

I call standing charges a 'poll tax' as you pay it regardless of usage – for example, many elderly who only use gas for winter heating still pay for their meters in summer. I believe it is a moral hazard, as those on lower usage get less benefit and are disincentivised from cutting bills.

I believe SC's were first introduced as a short term measure in the 70's it's certainly time they were abolished 

Where would the addiditonal money come from to keep the grid running?

I suspect the usual answer, paid for by "someone else".

Chris_b2z

Some of you may find this report interesting -

The Warm This Winter coalition has released its third Tariff Watch report, revealing covert charges keeping electricity bills high.

‍

Gerry1

wild666 said:

I believe SC's were first introduced as a short term measure in the 70's it's certainly time they were abolished 

You keep making this claim.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80414815/#Comment_80414815

But it's been pointed out to you that it's not true.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80420837/#Comment_80420837

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

MattMattMattUK said:

We would also have to answer whether subsidy from general taxation is desirable, personally I think not. Those in need should be helped through the benefits/welfare system, but we should not create market distortions and subsidies. 

I don't think the individual should be subsidised (any more than they already are) but the job of government is to better the lives of the people it governs, clearly energy to our homes has become a baseline for a certain standard of living and the costs of achieving that should be paid via taxation IMHO.

MattMattMattUK said:

Also maybe the UK should have a lower personal allowance, the EU average is €1,800, possibly charge VAT on food as every other EU country does, have higher fuel duties as nearly every other EU country does, etc.  55% of households receive more in cash benefits than they pay in tax (the highest level in the EU. The bottom and middle third of earners pay the lowest effective rate of income taxation in the EU (the top third pay the fifth highest). The only other country to offer non-dom status is Ireland as part of it's tax haven operations. Unfortunately the UK is a low tax country, our taxes might be the highest for thirty years, but they are still low by the standards of an advanced economy, we certainly do not pay enough for the services we currently have (hence the deficit), let alone the ones we claim we want (according to polling on what the public want from services). 

It's very easy to focus on the individual but the money is going up and not coming back down fast enough.

An Oxfam report suggests of the 42 odd trillion USD of wealth created since 2020 almost two thirds went to the top 1%.

With 8 billion people that was spread around 80 million people and there are around 59 million millionaires in the world, this money isn't being spread evenly enough. 

Their report showed 95 food and energy companies doubled profits in 2022. 

Collectively billionaires have increased their wealth by 2.7 billion USD a day. 

Obviously it's a global problem but the rich* are not taxed enough, they avoid inheritance tax and pay lower rates of tax on money earnt off of things like assets compared to the tax taken on work. 

I appreciate the drive to excel created by capitalism and understand that relatively to a global population even those on the bread line in the UK are very fortunate but as you say our services aren't running to the best of their abilities and the reason for that shouldn't necessarily be stated due to a lack of VAT on food but rather because of a handful of the global population squirrelling away vast fortunes, taxed at relatively low rates then being passed on tax free to descendants.  

*I think a lot of people think those who pull in 50k a year are "rich", it's all relative but they aren't, the rich have hundreds of millions to their name. 

pseudodox

Perhaps it is time we had separate bills for supply of energy (ie standing charge) and actual energy consumption.

1. An annual bill for every household for the cost of supplying energy, maintenance, repairs, infrastructure, wages, overheads, proft margin for the service operators etc etc.  Payable like Council Tax as a whole amount, half-yearly or monthly.  The onus would be on the providers to budget for operations and project costs for the next 12 months, with no interim rises to consumers allowed.

2. A monthly bill for whatever gas/electricity a household actually consumes, the cost of which as we know fluctuates widely according to wholesale cost, often governed by war outbreaks, natural disasters etc etc.

Maybe then more people would understand the difference between the cost of supply and the cost of consumption, which is one of the the most common issues discussed over and over here on this forum.

I am a relatively low user of energy and half the year the s/c is a large part of the gas element of my bill.  I don't like the current level of s/c but it's a price I pay for having energy available at the flick of a switch for less per day than the price of a pint of milk, the cost of being connected to the world via broadband and telephone, or the £2.50 a day it costs to have my car sitting on the drive even if I don't put petrol in and drive anywhere.

MattMattMattUK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

MattMattMattUK said:

We would also have to answer whether subsidy from general taxation is desirable, personally I think not. Those in need should be helped through the benefits/welfare system, but we should not create market distortions and subsidies. 

I don't think the individual should be subsidised (any more than they already are) but the job of government is to better the lives of the people it governs, clearly energy to our homes has become a baseline for a certain standard of living and the costs of achieving that should be paid via taxation IMHO.

The same could be argued of lots of things though, food and water for example even clothing and transport, but we do not expect (well, most of us) do not expect the state to subsidise those things. I want to see the government better the lives of it's electorate, but personally I would rather see that done through a better health service, improved education, roads that are not covered in potholes, adequate policing numbers, investment in skills and training. I say that as someone who is prepared to pay more tax, so long as everyone pays more, everyone should be contributing more. I also say this as someone who has no children, so education has little to no impact on me, someone who has not had any direct interaction with the health service for many years and based on current health is unlikely to need to for many more, I would not directly benefit from skills and training. Though of course the key point is that we all benefit from those things through a better society, especially true for policing as an example. Now of course someone will be along saying we need to stop waste and I agree, there is still inefficiency in healthcare, local councils still manage to splurge what budget is not spent on statutory services on vanity projects that offer no tangible benefit etc. but there are also other efficiency savings, for example should councils be forced to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds a week to keep someone living at home, when they can be housed supported living or care homes for considerably less if done properly (as many other countries have shown). 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

*I think a lot of people think those who pull in 50k a year are "rich", it's all relative but they aren't, the rich have hundreds of millions to their name. 

I agree, a lot of people have a very distorted view of what is rich and £50k a year certainly is not rich, in London or much of the south east it is barely enough to rent, though in other parts of the country one could live comfortably on that amount. Whilst I know it was not received well I also agree with Hunt, that in parts of the country even a household income of £100k is not huge, especially when those people could easily have mortgage payments of £35k a year (out of a take home of say £52-55k). I am not saying it is not a nicer problem to have than being on £25k, but it is far from plain sailing either, as you rightly point out that requires a net worth of millions. 

Gerry1

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/claire-coutinho-considers-axing-4bn-of-green-levies-from-electricity-bills/ar-BB1kSF0C

NorfolkCanary

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Obviously it's a global problem but the rich* are not taxed enough, they avoid inheritance tax and pay lower rates of tax on money earnt off of things like assets compared to the tax taken on work. 

I appreciate the drive to excel created by capitalism and understand that relatively to a global population even those on the bread line in the UK are very fortunate but as you say our services aren't running to the best of their abilities and the reason for that shouldn't necessarily be stated due to a lack of VAT on food but rather because of a handful of the global population squirrelling away vast fortunes, taxed at relatively low rates then being passed on tax free to descendants.  

*I think a lot of people think those who pull in 50k a year are "rich", it's all relative but they aren't, the rich have hundreds of millions to their name. 

Ummmm.....Really?

Food for thought, in the UK, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of all income tax.

The 'richest' 1% pay 30% of all government tax income. But I guess "because it's someone else paying, they can".

There's plenty of people that are drags on tax system, i.e. taking more out than in. But we digress.

Same with the S.C. if I have time I'll calculate it, but assume (conveniently) my monthly costs will increase if S.Cs were lumped with unit rates, but I guess that's okay to ki-bosh SCs?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

NorfolkCanary said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Obviously it's a global problem but the rich* are not taxed enough, they avoid inheritance tax and pay lower rates of tax on money earnt off of things like assets compared to the tax taken on work. 

I appreciate the drive to excel created by capitalism and understand that relatively to a global population even those on the bread line in the UK are very fortunate but as you say our services aren't running to the best of their abilities and the reason for that shouldn't necessarily be stated due to a lack of VAT on food but rather because of a handful of the global population squirrelling away vast fortunes, taxed at relatively low rates then being passed on tax free to descendants.  

*I think a lot of people think those who pull in 50k a year are "rich", it's all relative but they aren't, the rich have hundreds of millions to their name. 

Ummmm.....Really?

Food for thought, in the UK, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of all income tax.

The 'richest' 1% pay 30% of all government tax income. But I guess "because it's someone else paying, they can".

There's plenty of people that are drags on tax system, i.e. taking more out than in. But we digress.

It is indeed true the top 1% in the UK put in around a third but the rates of tax are not equal among that 1%, not all are paying the comparative rate to the rest of us. 

And this is just the individual, look at Starbucks, earn money in the UK, pay Starbucks NL money to use trademarks to reduce tax liability in the UK and get the funds out of the EU via NL.

It used to be known as a Dutch sandwich, I think it's now a double Irish, Dutch sandwich due to amendments in the tax system years back. Apple, Google and pharmaceutical companies are also known for using this type of tax system to avoid paying tax in the area they earn it but rather shifting profits to jurisdictions with lower taxes, years of corporations depriving the UK of tax income from revenue generated here. 

MattMattMattUK said:

The same could be argued of lots of things though, food and water for example even clothing and transport, but we do not expect (well, most of us) do not expect the state to subsidise those things. I want to see the government better the lives of it's electorate, but personally I would rather see that done through a better health service, improved education, roads that are not covered in potholes, adequate policing numbers, investment in skills and training. I say that as someone who is prepared to pay more tax, so long as everyone pays more, everyone should be contributing more. I also say this as someone who has no children, so education has little to no impact on me, someone who has not had any direct interaction with the health service for many years and based on current health is unlikely to need to for many more, I would not directly benefit from skills and training. Though of course the key point is that we all benefit from those things through a better society, especially true for policing as an example. Now of course someone will be along saying we need to stop waste and I agree, there is still inefficiency in healthcare, local councils still manage to splurge what budget is not spent on statutory services on vanity projects that offer no tangible benefit etc. but there are also other efficiency savings, for example should councils be forced to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds a week to keep someone living at home, when they can be housed supported living or care homes for considerably less if done properly (as many other countries have shown). 

This is true but in an ideal world the hospitals would be empty and the police would be twiddling their thumbs, obviously there will always be some people who are ill and a criminal element but our current system of living places a heavy burden on everyone, apart from a few, for the benefit of that few.

I think we've become overly indulged in the enjoyment and convenience aspects of life at the expense of a more worthwhile existence.

We are far off topic here but going back to energy (and things like water and to a degree food), at a basic level it should be available to everyone, off the back of a contribution but not necessarily in exchange for money IMHO.

SAC2334

NorfolkCanary said:

K_S said:

Martin has been campaigning against high and rising standing charges for a while now and OFGEM has conducted a review on this over the past few months. They will issue a final response soon so hopefully that will result in a more reasonable outcome than the current one.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2023/11/energy-standing-charges-ofgem-review/

Martin campaigns against a lot of things, and I'd suggest for some degree of self promotion and to keep the 'brand alive', without substantial forethought of who / what pays instead.

In this case the cost of maintaining the existing network increase YoY due to material costs, wage increases, inflation, safety standards, end of lifecycle costs. How is this supposed to be funded going forwards? Increased unit costs? Out of the suppliers miniscule profit margins?
If the former, a running leap springs to mind. If the latter we can expect another round of failures in the years to come

Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy is saying exactly the same thing about OFGEMS racket of standing charges payments and says OFGEM is "out of control " . 
I like Martin Lewis a lot but defer to Greg Jackson when it comes to energy advice , certainly more than any contributor on the Energy Forum dishing out their advice