Energy Prices

[az city]

Re: Energy Prices

Please don't patronise me. We are talking here about energy bills. As I said, I suspect you are unaware quite what was facing many people this winter and you offered no solution and just criticise anything or anyone that offers one.

You are the one who seemingly wants us to subsidise this winters bills with tax revenues that don't yet exist and won't exist for a year, and do so without borrowing. Good one. You are offering nothing, which is probably why the government is not going with a proposal you endorse.

Jimbo, don't be so tetchy.

I didn't realize you had been given the keys to the website and set a proviso that one had to proffer a solution different to a price cap in order to contribute to this thread.

I'll explain again. What Truss is doing is adding to general taxation for years to come which will have a big depressive effect on the UK economy. The merits of her particular price cap are moot. What she should have done is funded the price cap from excess energy company profits. When those profits are realized - they are actually flowing in already whereas the tax required to service the debt in her model is way further off in terms of its realization - doesn't matter.

Basically it's a huge money grab which will further enrich already wealthy shareholders at the expense of the poor.

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Energy Prices

Is anyone actually arguing that the government shouldn't borrow to pay for this?

The debate is about the fairness of how it should be repaid.

James is just arguing with himself about that because it is easier than facing the fact that this government has made an entirely ideological decision to not chase after companies profiteering from war.

My view on this is pretty simple, as long as the repayment is not regressive as was first mooted (I imagine leaked to see the reaction) with a flat levy on bills for years to come, then that is a bit of a win.

[JamesWales]

Re: Energy Prices

Jimbo, don't be so tetchy.

I didn't realize you had been given the keys to the website and set a proviso that one had to proffer a solution different to a price cap in order to contribute to this thread.

I'll explain again. What Truss is doing is adding to general taxation for years to come which will have a big depressive effect on the UK economy. The merits of her particular price cap are moot. What she should have done is funded the price cap from excess energy company profits. When those profits are realized - they are actually flowing in already whereas the tax required to service the debt in her model is way further off in terms of its realization - doesn't matter.

Basically it's a huge money grab which will further enrich already wealthy shareholders at the expense of the poor.

The profits are slowly flowing in, true (and a windfall tax does currently exist) but not at the rate to cover what is required to cover costs now, which is what is required.

I agree, we would all rather something be covered via someone else paying more tax, and it should be noted that extra profits will result in extra income. My point was rather that you dismissed the impact of borrowing when it suited, yet when it didn't you totally opposed it.

The reality is a solution was needed now and this winter, not just on bills, but to curb inflation and keep the economy going and preventing a recession (or a severe one). That, probably, has been done. Perfect? No. But people and businesses are in a much better position than yesterday and that should be recognised. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. To just simply claim 'oh we will pay for it with profits (that dont yet exist) sounds good but is no actual solution.

[az city]

Re: Energy Prices

My point was rather that you dismissed the impact of borrowing when it suited, yet when it didn't you totally opposed it.

There's no contradiction in what I posted today what I did some time ago. Paying debt down is NOT the same as servicing it.

[JamesWales]

Re: Energy Prices

There's no contradiction in what I posted today what I did some time ago. Paying debt down is NOT the same as servicing it.

And what is the difference in principle between borrowing for Covid to try and mitigate an economic catastrophe and doing so for energy bills that would also create an economic catastrophe? I agree, in theory, and in practice in future there are profits to be taxed (which will be, and no doubt go into the public purse as unanticipated revenue) but that doesn't help us subsidise bills which will be done for every single household and business in the country in 20 days time.

No one wants endless borrowing, least of all the government, but staring down the barrel as we, and the rest of europe, has been, I think whats been done is right.

[JamesWales]

Re: Energy Prices

FT's editorial on it:

https://www.ft.com/content/b5dbef50-bf66-41ed-9c06-cb1ee2682953

Liz Truss dislikes “handouts”, but she has shown a welcome readiness to be flexible when overwhelming need dictates. British families and households finally have some clarity that substantial support in paying crippling gas and electricity bills is on its way. The new prime minister’s bold package, including an energy price guarantee, is estimated to cost £150bn — more than double the Covid-19 furlough scheme. This is a huge sum, but so is the challenge.

Many more households will stay warm, fewer businesses will fail, and the economic slump this winter will feel slightly less grim. This will help to maintain resolve in the economic war against Vladimir Putin that the UK and its partners cannot afford to lose.

A two-year price cap for households is, nonetheless, a blunt instrument to tackle a multi-faceted crisis. The UK will be paying the cost for decades. As it subsidises costs regardless of income level, it provides a big giveaway to the better-off, while some of the most vulnerable will still struggle with prices at this level. The cap also lessens incentives to reduce consumption, though the price will still be significantly higher than prewar levels.

Precise details will need to be ironed out quickly. Many businesses will also be anxious about how they will cover costs after the government’s six-month price guarantee passes. Truss’s team may need to develop their package as the crisis evolves. Yet with many households and enterprises just weeks away from financial ruin, the government had to opt for speed.

The cap should pull down near-term inflation, reducing immediate debt interest costs, while also potentially easing inflation expectations. But the additional boost to demand may mean inflation proves stickier. And if wholesale prices go even higher, the government’s outlay to maintain the price freeze will increase.

After giving ground on “handouts”, Truss is determined to maintain her campaign pledge to reverse this year’s increase in national insurance and freeze corporation tax at current rates. If she goes ahead, however, borrowing will soar further, and there is little room elsewhere for cutting spending.

Revenue will have to be raised from somewhere. Sterling has crashed to its lowest since 1985 and gilt yields have pushed higher. Investors are jittery over the hefty borrowing and the risks that debt, already at 96 per cent of gross domestic product, could become unsustainable. The Bank of England will have to reassure markets that it remains committed to fighting high inflation despite the government’s intervention. A planned fiscal statement this month also needs to provide precise details on the funding plans, and an independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Attempting to boost energy security — in part by short-term steps to exploit more UK fossil fuels — and to reform pricing to better reflect the country’s energy mix are reasonable goals. But they must not detract from vital efforts to reduce long-term reliance on oil and gas and accelerate the transition to renewable and nuclear energy. In the near-term, gas supplies may become even more scarce, while the price cap might not restrain demand. That makes it vital for the government to push ahead with an information campaign for households and businesses to save energy and raise efficiency.

Today’s package is a crucial step in the battle against Putin’s weaponisation of gas. It will certainly not be the last. But the government must balance the urgency to protect consumers and win the economic war with the Kremlin with the need to preserve Britain’s invaluable reputation for economic prudence.

[blue matt]

Re: Energy Prices

Ive been driving around today a lot with the radio on, its been a long work day ( 6am till 10.30 pm ) I needed to catch up after my holibobs ( and pay for it )

I heard the news about the Price cap set at £2500 for 2 years, thought, thats not at high at £3500 for Oct, 5500 for Jan and 6600 for April 23, so well done the government, they have done something to help the situation

I then thought, I cant wait to see how the " CCMB left " have reacted to the news, of course its good news that its 2500 rather than over 6600 inside the year, it might not be ideal, but its better than leaving the mess run, but the Tories have done it, so its going to be bad, at least it'll be a good read

I was right

[Claude Blue]

Re: Energy Prices

The profits are slowly flowing in, true (and a windfall tax does currently exist) but not at the rate to cover what is required to cover costs now, which is what is required.

I agree, we would all rather something be covered via someone else paying more tax, and it should be noted that extra profits will result in extra income. My point was rather that you dismissed the impact of borrowing when it suited, yet when it didn't you totally opposed it.

The reality is a solution was needed now and this winter, not just on bills, but to curb inflation and keep the economy going and preventing a recession (or a severe one). That, probably, has been done. Perfect? No. But people and businesses are in a much better position than yesterday and that should be recognised. Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. To just simply claim 'oh we will pay for it with profits (that dont yet exist) sounds good but is no actual solution.

But extra profits will result in extra income for whom James?

In the main I support what the government are doing but abhor the fact that they are refusing to claw back some of the money they are giving these companies from the excessive profits they undoubtably will make - profits that they do not have to lift a finger for.

I'm sure lots of already well-renumerated executives will be licking their lips when their salaries increase and bonuses fly in. After all, profiting from war is hardly a new thing.

Us plebians will just have to put up with cost of repaying the borrowing, either through tax increases or - more likely - reduced expenditure on our vital public services.

[Claude Blue]

Re: Energy Prices

Ive been driving around today a lot with the radio on, its been a long work day ( 6am till 10.30 pm ) I needed to catch up after my holibobs ( and pay for it )

I heard the news about the Price cap set at £2500 for 2 years, thought, thats not at high at £3500 for Oct, 5500 for Jan and 6600 for April 23, so well done the government, they have done something to help the situation

I then thought, I cant wait to see how the " CCMB left " have reacted to the news, of course its good news that its 2500 rather than over 6600 inside the year, it might not be ideal, but its better than leaving the mess run, but the Tories have done it, so its going to be bad, at least it'll be a good read

I was right

And of course you would never say "Labour bad, Tory good" would you?!!

Anyway, at least we know how hard you worked today. Bless.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Energy Prices

Yeah, I'm defending the government who will knock £66 off my monthly bills for 6 months, are giving my kids household £1000 and are subsidising energy bills to prevent imminent economic catastrophe and total disaster for many families.

The absolute Tory - first thoughts are "what's in it for me".

[az city]

Re: Energy Prices

And what is the difference in principle between borrowing for Covid to try and mitigate an economic catastrophe and doing so for energy bills that would also create an economic catastrophe?

Jimbo, you really don't see the difference? You don't think energy providers are profiteering and should pay as a result?

[az city]

Re: Energy Prices

Ive been driving around today a lot with the radio on, its been a long work day ( 6am till 10.30 pm ) I needed to catch up after my holibobs ( and pay for it )

I heard the news about the Price cap set at £2500 for 2 years, thought, thats not at high at £3500 for Oct, 5500 for Jan and 6600 for April 23, so well done the government, they have done something to help the situation

I then thought, I cant wait to see how the " CCMB left " have reacted to the news, of course its good news that its 2500 rather than over 6600 inside the year, it might not be ideal, but its better than leaving the mess run, but the Tories have done it, so its going to be bad, at least it'll be a good read

I was right

You shouldn't be so smug. All Truss did was to delay YOU having to foot the bill (through increased taxes) in the future.

[blue matt]

Re: Energy Prices

You shouldn't be so smug. All Truss did was to delay YOU having to foot the bill (through increased taxes) in the future.

True, I know that, but it was better than not doing anything and ignoring the situation ( which appeared to be happening )

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: Energy Prices

FT's editorial on it:

https://www.ft.com/content/b5dbef50-bf66-41ed-9c06-cb1ee2682953

Liz Truss dislikes “handouts”, but she has shown a welcome readiness to be flexible when overwhelming need dictates. British families and households finally have some clarity that substantial support in paying crippling gas and electricity bills is on its way. The new prime minister’s bold package, including an energy price guarantee, is estimated to cost £150bn — more than double the Covid-19 furlough scheme. This is a huge sum, but so is the challenge.

Many more households will stay warm, fewer businesses will fail, and the economic slump this winter will feel slightly less grim. This will help to maintain resolve in the economic war against Vladimir Putin that the UK and its partners cannot afford to lose.

A two-year price cap for households is, nonetheless, a blunt instrument to tackle a multi-faceted crisis. The UK will be paying the cost for decades. As it subsidises costs regardless of income level, it provides a big giveaway to the better-off, while some of the most vulnerable will still struggle with prices at this level. The cap also lessens incentives to reduce consumption, though the price will still be significantly higher than prewar levels.

Precise details will need to be ironed out quickly. Many businesses will also be anxious about how they will cover costs after the government’s six-month price guarantee passes. Truss’s team may need to develop their package as the crisis evolves. Yet with many households and enterprises just weeks away from financial ruin, the government had to opt for speed.

The cap should pull down near-term inflation, reducing immediate debt interest costs, while also potentially easing inflation expectations. But the additional boost to demand may mean inflation proves stickier. And if wholesale prices go even higher, the government’s outlay to maintain the price freeze will increase.

After giving ground on “handouts”, Truss is determined to maintain her campaign pledge to reverse this year’s increase in national insurance and freeze corporation tax at current rates. If she goes ahead, however, borrowing will soar further, and there is little room elsewhere for cutting spending.

Revenue will have to be raised from somewhere. Sterling has crashed to its lowest since 1985 and gilt yields have pushed higher. Investors are jittery over the hefty borrowing and the risks that debt, already at 96 per cent of gross domestic product, could become unsustainable. The Bank of England will have to reassure markets that it remains committed to fighting high inflation despite the government’s intervention. A planned fiscal statement this month also needs to provide precise details on the funding plans, and an independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Attempting to boost energy security — in part by short-term steps to exploit more UK fossil fuels — and to reform pricing to better reflect the country’s energy mix are reasonable goals. But they must not detract from vital efforts to reduce long-term reliance on oil and gas and accelerate the transition to renewable and nuclear energy. In the near-term, gas supplies may become even more scarce, while the price cap might not restrain demand. That makes it vital for the government to push ahead with an information campaign for households and businesses to save energy and raise efficiency.

Today’s package is a crucial step in the battle against Putin’s weaponisation of gas. It will certainly not be the last. But the government must balance the urgency to protect consumers and win the economic war with the Kremlin with the need to preserve Britain’s invaluable reputation for economic prudence.

Is that from the financial Times?

Or the Conservative party ?

Or you ?

Your continual creeping up the asses of the Tories is vomit inducing