Energy Prices

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Energy Prices

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze which many people believe. Let's use a windfall tax to pay for the energy increases and tax these nasty companies they say. That will go down well with the population.

The reality is that a second windfall tax (over and above the 65% they already pay) won't go anywhere near paying for the energy crisis but who cares if that brilliant idea will get one over on the Tories. They must think we are dumb but clearly the population must be if they really believe a second windfall tax is the answer to their problems. The amounts of money required are eye watering and it is only economic growth that will get us out of this mess. The public won't end up paying that much (only 30.3% of income tax is accounted for in government revenue) which is the belief of many. If the economy stagnates we are stuffed.

I’d say it’s all very, very simple - it’s just natural justice that companies like BP and Shell ( the company I was told would be my utility provider when the one I was with went bust last year) pay more than they are doing. I equate it to the more sympathetic reaction unions are getting with their pay claims this time around, most people can see that offers of, say, three per cent when inflation is running at more than three times that are unfair and insulting.

[goats]

Re: Energy Prices

Where did I say we shouldn't have a windfall tax? What I was saying is that a second windfall tax would not go anywhere near paying for the energy crisis and the Labour Party has been very clever in convincing people that one would be of such significance.

You are correct that Shell and BP have very clever accountants and for the reason you explain these accountants would be able to dodge a second windfall tax in the same way they will be likely to avoid the first. I agree that the 65% tax rate is largely irrelevant and that few will pay much of it. So, why do you think a second tax is likely to be any better.

So unlike Labour (or any opposition party) to say they could do something and not actually have a clue what that means in real terms, you sure?

[Vindec]

Re: Energy Prices

So unlike Labour (or any opposition party) to say they could do something and not actually have a clue what that means in real terms, you sure?

Could someone enlighten me about what the above post from goats actually means? It makes no sense as it stands. Despite all the arguments back and forth nobody seems to have disputed the point, which was that a second windfall tax will not pay for the cost of the energy crisis, that some of the public including the occasional poster on here believe it will. Nobody seems to know either how much of the alleged £170bn that would be subject to tax will actually be taxable in the UK given the global nature of these companies. Of course any additional tax taken will be of benefit but let's not kid ourselves that a second windfall tax will pay for the crisis as was alleged (although not specifically said) by Starmer at PMQs on Wednesday.

[Fine Lines]

Re: Energy Prices

I’ve just changed my payment with OVO to “on demand” basically instead of them guessing how much I use , I only pay for what I use.

They wanted to increase my Direct Debit from ?£110 to £280 a month. I’m £450 in credit with them also.

My winter bills for last year were around £100 a month. All predictions seem to suggest that will double this winter , which is well below the £280 they want throughout the year.

On top of that there’s the £60 a month from government for next 6 months , plus my £450 in credit I won’t be paying any bills till the spring at least.

Absolutely charlatan’s the lot of them. They do t want anyone owing them money so they over estimate what people need to pay.

[poc]

Re: Energy Prices

I’ve just changed my payment with OVO to “on demand” basically instead of them guessing how much I use , I only pay for what I use.

They wanted to increase my Direct Debit from ?£110 to £280 a month. I’m £450 in credit with them also.

My winter bills for last year were around £100 a month. All predictions seem to suggest that will double this winter , which is well below the £280 they want throughout the year.

On top of that there’s the £60 a month from government for next 6 months , plus my £450 in credit I won’t be paying any bills till the spring at least.

Absolutely charlatan’s the lot of them. They do t want anyone owing them money so they over estimate what people need to pay.

im with you on this

[Dorcus]

Re: Energy Prices

im with you on this

The other thing that irks me is that these give a "small", nay "tiny" discount if you pay your bills by Direct Debit. If you would prefer to pay for only what you consume you lose the discount. In effect they penalise you heavily if you would prefer not to be constantly in credit with them.

Managing your own energy consumption and paying fairly for just what you use should be a basic protected right for any individual, particularly in these constrained circumstances. Surely the very basic regulation the government should impose is that there should be no difference in cost whether you choose to pay by DD or otherwise.

I hear there counter argument that the energy firms do this to minimise non payment but Heaven help us these are big boys now they should be able to sort themselves out without resorting to this seedy practice.

[Vindec]

Re: Energy Prices

The biggest scandal is the standing charge that has nothing to do with increased energy prices. OFGEM have never really explained the reason for increasing the cost of the standard charge. It's allowable under their rules but why?

[Dorcus]

Re: Energy Prices

The biggest scandal is the standing charge that has nothing to do with increased energy prices. OFGEM have never really explained the reason for increasing the cost of the standard charge. It's allowable under their rules but why?

Totally agree that's something else the Government could force them to do away with.

[az city]

Re: Energy Prices

Totally agree that's something else the Government could force them to do away with.

OFGEM's rationale for the increases in the standing charge is to cover the cost of collapsing energy suppliers and defaulting consumers. (I'm not saying I think it's justifiable, though standing charges are in general.)

[dml1954]

Re: Energy Prices

She could have cut the obscene profits directly of the energy companies . But that goes against her stupid tory ideology

Instead she is going to saddle future generations with huge debt

But she will wait a while till she puts up taxes to pay for it

The masses will rejoice , it seems like you have fallen for it

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

[splott parker]

Re: Energy Prices

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

Of course they have to make a profit, that understandable. Isn’t the gripe about excess profit in order to pay shareholders? I’ve no problem with people playing the stock market, it’s only gambling after all but shareholders profiting out of people’s hardship can’t be right. Gas, electric etc are essentials in life that should be managed carefully not in a way to line gamblers pockets (although it’s seems a sure bet at the moment, not a gamble).

[Dorcus]

Re: Energy Prices

If you take all the profits off the energy companies, they will stop investing in infrastructure, development of alternative resources and most importantly, staff. How is that going to help anything or anyone ? People like you also continually advocate re nationalisation of energy companies - how much do you think that will cost ? A lot more than subsidising energy prices now to the tune of £180bn is the answer. You moan about taxes going up to pay for it, yet you support political ideas that would tax people until the pips squeak. Your socialist ideals are morally and economically bankrupt and luckily the majority of the population can see through it.

Socialist ideals are hardly morally and economically bankrupt. You need to get out more David.

[PontBlue]

Re: Energy Prices

Of course they have to make a profit, that understandable. Isn’t the gripe about excess profit in order to pay shareholders? I’ve no problem with people playing the stock market, it’s only gambling after all but shareholders profiting out of people’s hardship can’t be right. Gas, electric etc are essentials in life that should be managed carefully not in a way to line gamblers pockets (although it’s seems a sure bet at the moment, not a gamble).

Utilities should not be run for shareholder profit as they are too vital to the country. Imagine how much more could have been invested in infrastructure and renewables if they hadn't been lining shareholder pockets.

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Energy Prices

Utilities should not be run for shareholder profit as they are too vital to the country. Imagine how much more could have been invested in infrastructure and renewables if they hadn't been lining shareholder pockets.

Aka the Margaret Thatcher Fallacy.