Why will mansion owners get over £20k gift in energy bill reductions when typical households get around £1.5k?

[Malthus123]

I am sorry but I just don't understand,

I've done some maths on it (happy to share if anyone wants) and the 2-year govt. energy price guarantee could result in around £12bn going to the 2.8m UK households earning over £91k per year. £4bn will go to the top 1% of energy users, this will include mansions with heated pools!

My energy bill is going through the roof, over 2m people had to use foodbanks last year. But at the same time, the wealthiest in the UK are getting unnecessary government-funded energy bill subsidies to top up their bank accounts???

£12bn could give £4,200 to each of the poorest 2.8m households, feeding kids and heating homes.

Am I living in some sort of dystopian fantasy world? How do we stop this!!

@hariseldonscalculator and will a subsidy of maybe £8-9k per year make you less or more likely to spend money on trying to improve the insulation?

My point is I’m not getting a subsidy - my price per kWh at 17.5p is way below Liz’s cap. I don’t benefit from it. As I said before a lot of high users tie themselves into long term fixes because they are high users.

As to energy efficiency, my house is almost six hundred years old and listed so not a lot can be done to it and still maintain its history.

DH works for a consultancy in which part of the company specialises in energy efficiency. The biggest, single, issue we have in UK, is that it is often impossible to retrofit old houses with modern insulation or heat/ground pumps. There are so many barriers to doing so. Listing, buildings materials, house construction, allowing air flow, etc etc etc.

A friend of mine needed a new roof - great, opportunity to invest and insulate. All good, although needed to use old/reclaimed tiles and various limits to what they could achieve. However, made a big difference to their house. They are not allowed to change their windows though, and they have several open fires, and are also not allowed to remove walls or doors to for more efficiency. Their house dates from thee 1500's and had several additions over the millenia. They are not even allowed to re-instate some of the original layout, which is bonkers.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1600629/rishi-sunak-swimming-pool-bill-britain-hammered-energy-crisis

Taking the figures from this article Vs expected and capped energy tariffs.

Rishi Sunak, may get up to £18k energy bill support just to heat his new pool!!! Not including energy use in the rest of their mansion.

He and his wife are thought to earn over £11m per year.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone did the sums on Rishi's swimming pool. I wasn't expecting it to be the Express to do it though - there's a whiff of desperation in trying to smear him because he benefits from a policy which he didn't design and has no choice about benefiting from.

To continue: the fact that the taxpayer are subsidising Sunak by 18 grand to run his swimming pool isn't a flaw in Sunak, it's a flaw with the subsidy. Possibly justified by the benefit of simplicity, but possibly not.

Odd stance there @CredibilityProblem, I guess it doesn't really make much difference that it it is Rishi specifically. We could replace the word Rishi with "wealthy mansion owner" if you like. He also just happens to be just one of the very high net worth and high income Tory MPs who will benefit from a Tory gov. policy...

Even before Rishi's time all the richest MPs were Tories www.businessinsider.com/the-richest-mp-in-terms-of-second-incomes-2017-8

They will all be getting thousands of pounds of unnecessary energy bill support. We just happen to have the data to quantify this for poor unfortunate, blameless, Rishi Sunak. I guess he might already allow the local fuel poor to use his pool as a public bath house?

I'd say you need some more information before you build the outrage

I would say the OP has plenty of information and facts. And there is no need to 'build outrage' .

The polls at the moment are saying what the voters are thinking

Election Maps UK collated the YouGov data and found if a general election was held tomorrow Labour would gain 296 seats to have a majority of 346, with the Tories losing 304 seats, leaving them with just 61 MPs.

I was expecting "Rishi's swimming pool" to come up, because it's an obvious example of the flaw in the policy, but expecting it to come from left-leaning sources to attack the policy in particular or Truss/the Conservatives in general.

Seeing it come from The Express who are very right wing and still very much pro-Truss, used to attack Sunak for being the passive beneficiary from Truss's policy is what surprised me. Obviously I've got limited sympathy for Sunak: I was the person who objected to my taxes subsidising his swimming pool in the first place. He'd have been a better prime minister than Truss, but that's not exactly a high bar.

@Malthus123 I read somewhwere that in Germany their policy is to provide energy supplemental payments for the first amount - ie the first 1500 quid for example, and then those using more than the minimum portion pay the full amount on it.

God forbid we might actually have a sensible system like that. Oh and possibly extending windfall taxes on Shell and BP. But no, our elected government chooses to tank the whole lot, kit and caboodle.

Thank you for setting out the facts so clearly as its obvious many people simply don't understand facts.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone did the sums on Rishi's swimming pool.

Granted his is an indoor pool but I'm not sure the sums quoted are principally due to the pool. Hands up, I have a pool. I wouldn't ever put one in but it was here when I bought the house and it costs thousands to fill in it (according to someone I know who had theirs filled in).

I calculated the incremental cost this summer and it was £260 (using an electric powered air source heat pump) for 3 months at which point it's turned off until next summer. So just under £800.

My subsidy is apparently a third of my fuel bill so, were the pool still on, I'd be effectively getting £267 a year subsidised. I agree, it seems a complete piss-take when families can't afford to have a basic level of heating.

But the swimming pool is click-bait, the main debate is about giving a subsidy to those that don't need it. As someone said, many of our houses are old, not energy efficient and use a lot of energy without getting particularly warm (mine certainly does). The larger your house, the more you pay and the higher the subsidy.

Irrespective of income, it would be good from an environmental perspective to try to improve the energy efficiency of older homes. I can also understand why people are angry with the way the subsidy will work, although I guess it's simple to implement.

@MrsDoyle351 Thanks :). I agree completely. That the Germans can do this in a fairer and more equitable way is a clear indication that this can be done. Even giving £2k to all 28m homes, even with no means testing, would cost £56bn Vs the bizzare tariff linked reduction costing almost £90-100bn, with subsidy weighted towards the biggest energy using and thus highest pollution households.

I think people like Rishi can easily donate the amount that they benefit from to food banks etc.
Even others who can take the hit and don't need the subsidy as much could/should do this.
God knows the food banks will need any extra cash they can get.

'Choosing between heat and nappies is my biggest worry' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63072980

While Rishi Sunak gets up to £18k govt energy bill support just to heat his new pool!

Morally bankrupt!

Because it costs a lot more to run a mansion? If your house is costing you £30k a month rather than £300 the saving is in proportion.

@Malthus123 my electricity comes from 100% renewable sources and I’ve always been happy to pay a premium for that. My energy also comes from a 75% state owned supplier, so majority of profits are going back into the state. I’m not seeing any negatives here.

news.sky.com › story › nearl...
Nearly half of UK's offshore wind capacity owned by state-owned foreign entities ... and about 20% uk grid electricity is supplied by state owned suppiers, just not ours... They could see the profit up or grabs for their citizens. Thanks Maggie.

Most companies selling renewable power are just selling very cheap carbon offsets. Dont be fooled. They buy dirty fossil power and then cheap renewable certificates to fool consumers that their power is clean. Not against the rules, but it is basically dirt cheap carbon offsettng.
www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/18782/the-problem-of-greenwashing-october-2020.pdf

It’s owned by my home country so I don’t have an issue with them getting the profits🙂

They source their energy from renewable energy producers direct - I’m happy that they are what they say they are.

news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-uks-offshore-wind-capacity-owned-by-state-owned-foreign-entities-analysis-shows-12705500

The UK has sold off most of its family silver, our enviable wind resource. It costs very little to produce wind power, but our elec prices are sky high. As a result much of the £100bn subsidy will end up in the public purse of other European countries.

£100bn could buy roughly 30-50GW of offshore wind. That could generate around 100-150TWh of power a year or about 50% of the UKs current total electricity demand. Enough to entirely decarbonise the UK grid and generate wealth for this and future generations.

It feels like we are being offered the 'magic sponge' and a lollipop, when we need major surgery. Maybe so the surgeon has tme to find a buyer for our organs?

:) im glad your company sources renewables direct :) most dont. Shell for examle claims 100% renewable, but buys mostly fossil fuels. By "my home country" i guess you mean another European country than the UK or maybe Scottish hydro? Loads of the Uk energy bill subsidy cash will flow to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy (wind) and France (nuclear)

@red4321, I've got 6 bedrooms and my bill is never more than £5k a year and I cook a lot and use tumble dryer sometimes. Do you have heating on 24/7?

You sound bitter OP.
I’m almost certain that Rishi didn’t just decide to build a pool as soon as the energy subsidy was announced. In fact, he may well have started to plan for this improvement 2 years ago. He may well have also decided not to use the pool at the moment, what with energy prices being so high.
Do you also object to families existing solely on benefits having a hot tub installed in their gardens? After all, it’s a luxury that tax payers will be subsidising according to your reasoning.
We don’t live in a communist state - fortunately. There will be some people who benefit more than others for myriad reasons. Once we start to say that certain groups of people don’t deserve to be treated the same as everyone else it’s a slippery slope. Our household income is well below £50k, but because we have savings and no mortgage we can well afford to pay higher fuel prices compared to others who may live next door or further down our street. Someone earning £100k a year will take home around 60% of their gross pay, someone on £50k will take home 70% of their gross pay. The £100k earner will not benefit from Child benefit, 15 / 30 hours free childcare, their children will receive the minimum student loan based on parental income. There are many ways they end up paying out more as a result of earning more.

You sound bitter OP.

The OP is bitter. Because it's a blatantly unfair system.

And just because a person would prefer a fairer and less wasteful system does not make them a communist (FFS_ really?)

The opposite. Dry washing outside, only use the tumble dryer to soften towels for 10 minutes a week. Heating on for 45 minutes to an hour in the morning in winter, and maybe an hour in the evening if it's really cold.

Really conscious of turning off lights, plugs at the switch etc. My average monthly direct debit this year has been £300-£380 so I'm not sure what the £15k forecast from my energy supplier is based on (albeit my fixed rate has just ended).

Thanks @MrsDoyle351 , @Soontobe60 , re your statement:
"Do you also object to families existing solely on benefits having a hot tub installed in their gardens? After all, it’s a luxury that tax payers will be subsidising according to your reasoning."

I'm pretty sure we don't share much in the way of politics, but maybe we can agree on maths :).

The UK households benefits cap is set at £20k and a basic home hot tub costs £3-6k. I'm not sure that many households on benefits would fork out 15-30% of their entire annual income on this luxury. Maybe this would be a lower % if they get disability benefits too. People on low incomes are also 3x less likely to have access to a garden (ONS).

Even if a household on benefits got a second hand tub, or was lucky enough to come into some money. Heating and circulating pumps on a small home hot tub would use about 3KW. If used for 100hrs a year this would consume 300kWh of electricity. This would cost £78 per year under the energy price guarantee, about £193 without, a £115 annual subsidy. More or less the same cost as running an extra fridge.

Compare this to the average £8k a year public subsidy for the 250,000 largest homes. Money they just don't need! That would be enough to run hot tubs for a year in more than 10 million homes, or provide £1,000 each to the 2m people who had to use food banks last year.

The simple fact is that this government is needlessly and gratuitously shovelling eye-watering sums of money at the wealthiest, while the poorest are starving and shivering.