To think that very few people can manage £4200 energy bills

[Butterflyfluff]

news.sky.com/story/energy-bills-forecast-to-rise-even-higher-than-previously-thought-12668906

This simply isn’t manageable for the majority of people.

Where’s this going to end?

www.euronews.com/next/2022/07/29/energy-bills-are-soaring-in-europe-what-are-countries-doing-to-help-you-pay-them

Interesting summary of how each country is handling the crises. One thing of note is that EU VAT on bills has been 21%, when ours has been 8% reduced to 5%, so already very low. UK also seems to be ahead in cash payments.

They also state this:

Electricity wholesale prices have increased in the first quarter of 2022 by 411 per cent in Spain and Portugal, 343 per cent in Greece, 336 per cent in France and 318 per cent in Italy compared to the same period in 2021, according to the European Commission but with so many different numbers being disseminated hard to know which is true.

Wholesale prices... completely different to what the end user pays, which your link talks about, country by country.

Fwiw & for balance - IF Labour is just proposing a freezing of the cap, then they are pathetic, such a waste of over 35 billion.

That benefits the hi end wealthy user far more than someone on MW or fixed income.

We need tiered unit prices, so the poor pay far less and the wealthy pay far more.

A social tariff is a good idea, not sure how it would be administrated/assessed though.

I think a social tariff would be great.. but..

There's already a narrative.pushed by the media and government that the ills of the country are partly because of the Scroungers, immigrants and pensioners.
A social tariff for the poor would see certain posters of MN going ballistic and further push them into hating the poor, elderly and disabled.
There was one poster not too long ago that was raging because a parent of a disabled child claimed benefits...

I don’t think that’s fair. I think the issue is almost 50% of the country don’t contribute any tax at all. Of those that do many are negative net contributors. The so called squeezed middle (I am so thankful I’m not there) pay a fuck tonne in (the majority) and get nothing back. There is only so much you can squeezd these people to shoulder the burden of supporting everyone else. There is a real risk these people are going to lose homes in the winter. They can’t keep paying and paying. No safety net and no rental support for them.

Hoever there is a narrative on MN they should put up and shut up and pay more to support everyone else.

Oh and who was raging? I read that thread and I saw every single person say she deserved every single penny so don’t be so dishonest to spin your point. If you keep expecting the net contributors who are in the minority to pay and pay and pay. Eventually, they can’t and they will become negative contributors (a real risk this winter) then there will be nothing left to to support others.

Almost 50% of people don't pay tax...

Source?

Because you've just claimed that 50% of people don't buy from shops. Don't put petrol in a car. Don't pay VED. Etc.

Negative net contributors...

Source?

Because once factoring in health care, education, food etc that's all subsidised by tax, I'd imagine most take more than they give in the grand scheme.

All the figures are out there. Tell you what, source your comments about “the raging poster” and I’ll link you in the ons details.

I agree. Means testing only serves to punish those just above the cut-off point.

Pensioners? The poor pensioner hunched over a one-bar fire wringing arthritic hands is becoming increasingly outdated. I saw some statistics which showed that with house wealth (or even without) people in their 60s+are the richest demographic. As for assets in property, would you be prepared to hand over double the winter fuel allowance to someone in a £500k house when you are on a modest income with a considerable mortgage?

Even if your 60 plus and not badly off , your still going to be miffed at at huge gas / electricity bill
It's human nature isn't it ?

@ThighMistress indeed. Coincidentally, I've just posted this on another thread:

'There's lots of anomalies.

A young family could have a relatively high income but have little left after rent, childcare and commuting costs, but not be able to absorb price increases or be entitled to any help except that what is given universally.

Is the classic 'poor widow' who sees a lot of her small pension go on utilities and other essentials really more deserving of help when she owns her house outright and has benefitted from substantial six figure house price growth?

If she can't pay her utility bills, she could always downsize or release equity, rather than expect the taxpayer to pay her utility bills as a near millionaire'

If I was in charge, you'd pay a low rate for the first xx kWh for each person. I live alone, am very careful, and use about 5 kWh per day, so say the first 4kWh is cheap - 16kWh for a family of four.
After that, it would go up to the full rate, whatever that is. That way, the basic cost would be low, and everyone would have a big incentive to save power. People heating houses that are too big for them would have to pay the difference or sell. People who can't be bothered putting on jumpers in winter would pay for the privilege.
And no more of those expensive pay-as-you-go rates - that's just exploiting poor people.

This would be easy to do, even for people without smart meters.

Also, I'd make every company offer a variable source tariff - where you paid a much cheaper rate for renewables when they are available, a fixed rate for nuclear (because it is fixed) and a variable rate for gas / oil /coal. Its not fair that the rate is the same whether its from cheaper wind / solar, or extremely expensive gas.

This would be a bit tricky to programme, but I reckon its not far off what Octopus are doing with their agile tariff.

This is the problem isn’t it and there were some eye watering examples on previous threads. You have families literally crippled with rent, childcare, etc. Who will receive no help. You can see why these people maybe a bit miffed that they can’t pay their bills but their is the expectation they pay more to support others. The ones with mortgages are worse off and there is real risk this demographic will lose their homes as UC will not help much with a mortgage.

Yet you could have a pensioner, with a tidy final salary pension and sitting on 1m+ equity getting the triple lock, winter fuel allowance etc.

There was a thread where a lady was quite open about her benefits (the post refenced above) I think it was roughly a 40k salary equivalent without DLA and 60k with. Everyone was supportive and the op was quite open about how she wasn’t that badly off. It then threw up a few anaomolies that there is a point that as a parent, renting. You would be better off on UC with all the extras, fsm, uniform grant and would be better off than the family next door on 50k to turn tune of about 10 grand. Others started giving examples to go against the grain that everyone on benefits is destitute. I’m not saying they aren’t, especially without children.

These anaomolies need looking at. It’s not benefit bashing to say they exist and denying it will see working families destitute over the winter with no help at all.

Neither and that’s libellous so I’ve reported it.

Libellous... Lol...

Go you.

I'm sure MN can see the thread
"What's the point if you're always going to have no money?"
And all the posts I'm referring too.

Image showing deleted thread I've referenced.

I've started several threads on income and fuel poverty

It raises some interesting questions

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4611058-about-50-of-people-will-not-be-in-fuel-poverty-by-definition-even-if-they-spend-all-their-income-on-energy

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4610834-to-think-this-income-savings-and-wealth-calculator-might-give-people-some-perspective-on-where-they-fit-in

It is hard to work out how much disposable income someone has - and then to look at the reasons behind it.

Some people are high income but high spenders
Some people are low income but asset rich.

How should people be supported?

How should people be supported?

I think there should be a system akin to the Warm Home Discount type claim.

People apply for it and give evidence as to their income and outgoings and the energy company and government decide if they qualify.

The system is there with the warm home discount really so it shouldn't be that hard to implement. But I don't work for energy companies etc.

I agree with @FredtheCatsMum but I don't know how it would be implemented

Some people are wasteful with energy. People should be able to use energy wisely. If there was a rationing system, or a scheme so you had tiers of costs per KWH, then people might be persuaded not to waste energy.

Subsidising energy bills does not stop people wasting it.

There is only so much energy to go around - and if we can find a way to ensure that people get 'what they need' at an affordable price and then get charged more if they exceed that, then that might work

But I have no idea how that would be implemented fairly. The point is that Rishi Sunak would pay a lot to heat his swimming pool compared to someone who needed energy to pay to heat their small house (but he can afford that)

The warm homes discount is funded by the social and environmental levy (aka the green levy) which Truss wants to get rid of.

But I bet she doesn't realise that.

I agree with this.

Now I thought, and I maybe wrong, that the energy suppliers funded the WHD?
I know British Gas do, or did when I spoke to them about it.

Interesting.