AIBU to crave for a honest transparent pricing system in this country that doesn't make me lose the will to live.

[mumsfretter]

I don't want to calculate everything in the supermarket to get the best deal, decoding grams to oz and pounds to quantity.

I don't want to spend my weekend mornings on the phone to energy companies trawling comparison sites for the best deal.

I don't want to re check all the fucking deals on my mortgage and insurance every year or end up paying more.

AIBU to crave for a honest transparent pricing system in this country that doesn't make me lose the will to live.

AIBU to want my loyalty to a brand to count for something other than getting my spending habits, name and address sold on so I can drown under a sea of junk mail and cold calls.

Both cackle and youngmother you seems think it's people not being "arsed" to shop around when it is the most vulnerable in society who don't have the means or where how to get the best deal.

You say there are a wealth of organisations to help but the working poor may not have the know how to get that help and many of the over 75's are really scared of the internet.

I stand by my argument that it is not the poor in society that will lose out if pricing was more transparent but in many cases they would gain.

I agree with the sentiment of your post, nobody would argue that the vulnerable should lose out, but I do disagree with your proposed solution - it just feels like a 'race to the bottom'.

There does come a point at which people have to take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the rest of society to carry them.

The organisation I work for (nationwide, free and very well known) has a philosophy of empowering individuals. We aim to upskill our clients so that they are less vulnerable, therefore less likely to be poor and more able to manage their own affairs.

I fear that your solution would only ever fix the one problem we are discussing here. Providing people with the necessary tools to understand complicated documents, and generally manage their lives will give people the confidence they need to solve many different problems they face.

Much like the old saying 'if you give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day; teach him to fish and you've fed him for a lifetime'

Also - there are nearly 63million people in the uk, of which only 5million are over the age of 75 (2011 census data)

It would be reasonable to assume that at least some of those are living in full time residential care.

Therefore the actual group of people you are referring to is relatively small.

IMO, is is not reasonable to legislate to protect such a small number of individuals when they are in such a small minority - there are other means available to solve the issue you have highlighted which do not have an adverse affect on such a large majority.

cake

There is a massive difference between needing to understand documents and penalising people that don't go through the laborious task of finding the latest best quote on gas and electric which depends upon one having access to the internet.

It's certainly not a race to the bottom because a majority of over 75's don't want to feed information into the web in order to get the best price. This does not make them stupid or unable to read documents.

Just as an example. My grandparents are extremely bright and intelligent people but have a fear of using the internet, too much change for them having been born in the 1910's. Who are we to judge why? They also have huge mobility problems although self sufficient. They are loathed to 'burden' me with sorting this kind of thing out for them.

Why should people like this have to get a poor deal because the company they are with might not give them the best deal?

cake

The stats I showed relate to pensioners in the UK having internet access in 2010.

Did you read them because I wouldn't say 6 million people over 65 not having internet access is relatively small at all.

Sorry 6 million over 65 NOT having internet access.

of the 63 million

10 million are over 65 of which only half have internet access and of those over 75 only 23% have internet access.

And only 54% of poorer people have internet access.

These people should not be subsidising the 88% of A/B wealthier/younger households that do. And no argument will persuade me otherwise. Many older people are living alone, some with no relatives to help and just about managing financially with limited mobility and failing eye sight to ponder prices and small print. These people should have transparent pricing.

I disagree.

a majority of over 75's don't want to feed information into the web in order to get the best price

I don't want to either, just as I don't want to read the small print that pertains to my bank account, or indeed my mortgage. I have to do it, because I am an adult, and this is part of adult life.

Many older people are living alone, some with no relatives to help and just about managing financially with limited mobility and failing eye sight to ponder prices and small print

There are many, many agencies out there who will help people in this situation. I don't think it unreasonable to expect such individuals to at least seek out this help, do you?

Before you say how harsh I am being, please remember that I give up a large portion of my time to volunteer at an agency that helps people in this situation. We have found time and time again that empowerment and upskilling are the best way to help people.

FWIW. A large reason for the lack of uptake of this assistance is because people (especially older people) don't wish to be infantalised. Which is exactly what your 'solution' is doing.

I also stand by my point that for every individual who is in the situation we are discussing here, there are (IME) many more who quite simply cannot be arsed. I fail to see why these people should be 'let off' their responsibility as an adult to manage their own affairs if they want the best deal.

Shopping around is laborious and dull but part of living in a market-led economy. I read about one man who was saving 9k a year by analysing every energy/phone/credit card/ bank account offer. It sounded exhausting because he was constantly on the case, checking new deals, looking at his spread sheets, moving money between accounts etc. Still, 9k - it's like getting a tax free pay rise isn't it?

Reading small print on your mortgage has nothing to do with this discussion.
I find your lack of compassion and understanding of older people quite shocking.
I'll leave it there and be thankful that the dog eat dog attitude doesn't prevail all through society.

I agree that the market economy is not ideal and there are 'losers', but the same can be said for any economic system. Whilst it would be lovely to have a system that benefits everyone, so far, nobody has been able to find one that works.

Interfering in the market has consistently produced negative results (falls in GDP, unemployment etc). These affect every individual in the country, and in the current climate I don't think we can afford to allow this to happen.

It is naive in the extreme to think that we should hamper the entire country's economic growth to benefit a very small number of people who could find support and all the assistance they want if they chose to do so.

benandbolly I will bear in mind your comments about my lack of compassion the next time I spend a whole (unpaid) day filling in someone's DLA application form for them.

Compassion and realism are not mutually exclusive.

Hold on Cake

There is a massive difference between a market economy and companies purposefully trying to confuse consumers with elaborate and damn right misleading pricing schemes.

It is exactly these type of elaborate free market systems that many would say caused the crash of the global economy. Deregulation of the banks led to ever more complex bonds, borrowing and lending systems which most the the bank bosses didn't even understand themselves. Free market is one thing, confusing and ever more complex pricing systems is another.

I also don't think the fact you volunteer has anything to do with the way your views will be received on here. Your ideas are very much get savvy or you deserve to pay more. I just don't think it's that simple, especially when dealing with elderly or less able people.

Really interesting thread.

The problem with the 'free market' is that it isn't free - that is the point of the OP, surely. A true free market would allow simple comparison of products.

I think Cake has a good point too though. Education has to be part of the answer, surely, to help consumers overcome this kind of trickery?

I think another part of the answer should be legislation - it would be a start, anyway. Enforcing producers to label food with nutritional information was an improvement, even if it still isn't a perfect system.

YABU to some extent.

I do think that energy companies should be forced to have a small number of tariffs that are easily comparable, at least across each company.

But aside from that, it is up to each of us as consumers to ensure we are getting the best deal. Companies have no moral obligation to charge us the least amount of money.

I'm interested that people find supermarket pricing so confusing. I do about 70% of my shopping at Waitrose, the other 30% at Sainsbury's. The pricing in Waitrose is clearer, and more transparent by far. A lot of their ranges are very competitively priced item by item, so you don't need to buy 3/4/5 of something to feel like you are getting a good deal - which leads to less wastage and so on.

One thing about limited number of tariffs is it limits choice to consumers. Look at fuel:

Pay by quarterly DD of bill amount, cheque, monthly dd, prepayment meter
Fuel, gas or electric or dual
standing charge or not
economy 7
variable % of 'green' power - say 3 options

These simple choices, which we all may want different things and are not obscure, leads to (for electric):

4 payment methods X 2 (dual or electric) X 2 (standing charge or no) X 2 (economy 7 or not) X 3 (% green energy). This is 96 possible tarrifs

add in other options ( such as more than 3 choices % of green) you get more. Limit the companies to say 12 as mentioned up post and which options are you removing from my choice?

They ate not talking about payment methods young mother they are talking about tariffs.

Different payment methods have different costs and different tariffs - DD is cheaper than quarterly cheque

youngermother

At the risk of sounding pedantic you are wrong. Payment ways are not tariffs. You can be on the same tariff and pay different ways. The reduction for paying by direct debit is transparent and obvious why it's cheaper.

I have not been talking about this, I am talking about someone receiving the same service for the same utility from the same supplier and having to trawl through the latest tariffs changes continually for the best deal.

Even if you remove the payment options, my basic example gives 24 tarrifs