Cost of living squeeze in 2022

[Sheets Tabuer]

Gweeds said:

Do you think all people on low incomes cba to work?

Where did I say that?

[brickwall]

chrisga said:

brickwall said:

chrisga said:

Probably missing something basic here as don't really understand how it all works but why are they putting the price cap up by 800 then giving everyone back 400? Why not just increase the price cap by 400 and save all the admin/hassle of getting the money back off the energy companies and putting it back in peoples accounts?

The price cap is not going up by 800. Unit prices for electricity and gas are going up by c.40%, which equates to 800 for the average bill.

Whereas the grant is a straight 400 to everyone.

If you live in a massive mansion your energy bill will be going up by a lot more than 800 and the grant will be noise on the signal, if you live in an ultra efficient 1-bed then you could be quids in on the grant.

If they distributed the money via the price cap instead, the biggest beneficiaries would be those with the biggest energy bills to start with. (Which tends to be those with the biggest houses)

Makes sense, thank you. Does the price cap affect both parts of the electricity bill, i.e. the standing daily charge and the unit cost of electricity?

The standing charge is regulated differently IIRC. It’s going through the roof because that’s how the cost of rescuing the bust suppliers is recovered.

[chrisga]

brickwall said:

The standing charge is regulated differently IIRC. It’s going through the roof because that’s how the cost of rescuing the bust suppliers is recovered.

Ah, I had noticed the daily charge had shot up but the unit charge had gone up but not by as much as I expected. Thanks.

[Mark Benson]

brickwall said:

This list just shows how clueless the public are when it comes to actually changing spending. I’m sure Mark Benson thinks himself more well-informed than average, but even he hasn’t got any ideas that’ll actually touch the sides.

Let’s look at this list in order shall we
- HS2: Already spent 14bn out of 44bn for phase 1. The remaining 30bn will be spent over the next 8 years, so 3.5bn per year…about 0.3% of the government’s budget.
- Foreign aid: Cut the lot, saves 12bn. Whoop-di-do, you’ve cut government spending by a grand 1%.
- Crossrail: Already built, too late. No money to be saved.
- Travel subsidies: 1-2bn saved. Pat yourself on the back for the incredible change you’ve made to government finances.
- Civil service: Total cost of civil service is ~ 13bn. Half of civil service employment are operational delivery (prison officers, job centre employees, HMRC call centre workers etc.). Total cost of “Whitehall” salaries is c. 1.5bn. Even taking very aggressive cuts you could perhaps save 5bn…0.5% of government spending.
- In-work benefits (raising the burden on employers to compensate): This works almost identically to a tax (because either way employers pay).
- Consolidate local councils: Total council spending is 106bn; 75% of this goes straight out the door in just 3 areas: education, social care, and ‘blue light’ (police and fire). If you cut council “central services” completely, you’d save 4bn.

So all Mark’s wonderful ideas add up to a grand total of (generously) 25bn, which is <2.5% of government spending. Our budget deficit for this year is > 100bn!

I'm sure you consider yourself incredibly clever with your snide comments but you failed to understand the context in which I was responding.

[Vanden Saab]

brickwall said:

The standing charge is regulated differently IIRC. It’s going through the roof because that’s how the cost of rescuing the bust suppliers is recovered.

Which is bloody ridiculous, the equivalent is those of us who buy a reliable car having an extra 50 quid on our mot to pay for the maintenance for those who buy a cheap unreliable car...

[Welshbeef]

Vanden Saab said:

Which is bloody ridiculous, the equivalent is those of us who buy a reliable car having an extra 50 quid on our mot to pay for the maintenance for those who buy a cheap unreliable car...

I’d wager if your provider went bust you’d be mighty relived to get the standing charge vs the highest rate?

If you don’t want it then you cannot force the remaining companies to take you on. Your a burden to them on the price cap. They factually don’t want your custom on the price cap as your forcing them to lose money through no fault of their own.

[brickwall]

Mark Benson said:

brickwall said:

This list just shows how clueless the public are when it comes to actually changing spending. I’m sure Mark Benson thinks himself more well-informed than average, but even he hasn’t got any ideas that’ll actually touch the sides.

Let’s look at this list in order shall we
- HS2: Already spent 14bn out of 44bn for phase 1. The remaining 30bn will be spent over the next 8 years, so 3.5bn per year…about 0.3% of the government’s budget.
- Foreign aid: Cut the lot, saves 12bn. Whoop-di-do, you’ve cut government spending by a grand 1%.
- Crossrail: Already built, too late. No money to be saved.
- Travel subsidies: 1-2bn saved. Pat yourself on the back for the incredible change you’ve made to government finances.
- Civil service: Total cost of civil service is ~ 13bn. Half of civil service employment are operational delivery (prison officers, job centre employees, HMRC call centre workers etc.). Total cost of “Whitehall” salaries is c. 1.5bn. Even taking very aggressive cuts you could perhaps save 5bn…0.5% of government spending.
- In-work benefits (raising the burden on employers to compensate): This works almost identically to a tax (because either way employers pay).
- Consolidate local councils: Total council spending is 106bn; 75% of this goes straight out the door in just 3 areas: education, social care, and ‘blue light’ (police and fire). If you cut council “central services” completely, you’d save 4bn.

So all Mark’s wonderful ideas add up to a grand total of (generously) 25bn, which is <2.5% of government spending. Our budget deficit for this year is > 100bn!

I'm sure you consider yourself incredibly clever with your snide comments but you failed to understand the context in which I was responding.

You were offering ideas to cut spending so that there is room to cut tax.
I am merely pointing out that your ideas cut spending only minimally, and therefore create room only for minimal tax cuts.

[JagLover]

chrisga said:

Probably missing something basic here as don't really understand how it all works but why are they putting the price cap up by 800 then giving everyone back 400? Why not just increase the price cap by 400 and save all the admin/hassle of getting the money back off the energy companies and putting it back in peoples accounts?

The companies money is being raised from in "windfall taxes" and the companies supplying your gas and electricity are not necessarily the same.

For starters we import around half the gas we consume so the money is going to the likes of Norway and if the energy cap isn't lifted it would merely mean the company supplying you with Norwegian gas would go bankrupt.

[Throttlebody]

Thanks Rishi, I really, really don’t need the £400.

Not sure what to blow it on, something unique to celebrate another Govt universal nanny state money print.

[KTF]

Throttlebody said:

Thanks Rishi, I really, really don’t need the 400.

Not sure what to blow it on, something unique to celebrate another Govt universal nanny state money print.

Apparently its going to be paid directly into your electricity account. I guess you could ask for it back if you are in credit from your provider at that point.

Edited by KTF on Thursday 26th May 14:48

[anonymous-user]

KTF said:

Throttlebody said:

Thanks Rishi, I really, really don’t need the 400.

Not sure what to blow it on, something unique to celebrate another Govt universal nanny state money print.

Apparently its going to be paid directly into your electricity account. I guess you could ask for it bask if you are in credit from your provider at that point.

I don't need it either. I'd rather it was all means tested and rather than everyone getting £400 that people who were genuinely financially struggling got more of a top up.

The money should go to protecting the most vulnerable, not bribing the comfortable middle classes and above. And I absolutely include pensioners in that, they should be means tested too.

[anonymous-user]

xeny said:

J210 said:

So we print more money to stem the issue created by printing more money....

Surely an actual cut in VAT/green levies off fuel would be better rather than just giving a hand out.

The article goes on to say:

"The support, to be announced by Chancellor Rishi Sunak later, is expected to be largely funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas firms that could raise 7bn."

which doesn't read like money printing?

So the windfall tax on oil companies that took serious hits during the pandemic with £billion losses and didn't ask for a bailout, add in even bigger losses due to pulling out of Russia so are probably £15 billion of losses. They now make a bit of money and everyone is clammering to take it away.

Wonder how long these companies will stay in the UK, wouldn't blame them if they fked off elsewhere and by the way, the billions being taken are robbing everyones current and future pensions which will hurt a lot of people later on.

[Chebble]

KTF said:

Throttlebody said:

Thanks Rishi, I really, really don’t need the 400.

Not sure what to blow it on, something unique to celebrate another Govt universal nanny state money print.

Apparently its going to be paid directly into your electricity account. I guess you could ask for it back if you are in credit from your provider at that point.

Edited by KTF on Thursday 26th May 14:48

Could always donate £400 that would otherwise be spent on energy bills to a charity that will help those who need it if he’s feeling particularly charitable?

[kiethton]

gottans said:

So the windfall tax on oil companies that took serious hits during the pandemic with billion losses and didn't ask for a bailout, add in even bigger losses due to pulling out of Russia so are probably 15 billion of losses. They now make a bit of money and everyone is clammering to take it away.

Wonder how long these companies will stay in the UK, wouldn't blame them if they fked off elsewhere and by the way, the billions being taken are robbing everyones current and future pensions which will hurt a lot of people later on.

100% this - awful precedent for our economy which will just stifle international investment and set a negative precedent for the future

We're seeing it everywhere - extra taxes on residential developers as another example....

[757]

So, excuse my dumbness, but where does the 400 get credited too, is it like the 150 council tax rebate some got, it just goes into you bank directly?

Edit, just seen a post further up, it goes to you billing company...so if your bill is £400 for example, it is technically paid for that month...

[Rufus Stone]

757 said:

So, excuse my dumbness, but where does the 400 get credited too, is it like the 150 council tax rebate some got, it just goes into you bank directly?

Credited to your suppliers electricity account.

[757]

Rufus Stone said:

757 said:

So, excuse my dumbness, but where does the 400 get credited too, is it like the 150 council tax rebate some got, it just goes into you bank directly?

Credited to your suppliers electricity account.

So it will just stay on credit for you to use instead of your own money every month until it's used up I guess.

[KTF]

757 said:

So it will just stay on credit for you to use instead of your own money every month until it's used up I guess.

Exactly.

[Mark Benson]

brickwall said:

Mark Benson said:

brickwall said:

This list just shows how clueless the public are when it comes to actually changing spending. I’m sure Mark Benson thinks himself more well-informed than average, but even he hasn’t got any ideas that’ll actually touch the sides.

Let’s look at this list in order shall we
- HS2: Already spent 14bn out of 44bn for phase 1. The remaining 30bn will be spent over the next 8 years, so 3.5bn per year…about 0.3% of the government’s budget.
- Foreign aid: Cut the lot, saves 12bn. Whoop-di-do, you’ve cut government spending by a grand 1%.
- Crossrail: Already built, too late. No money to be saved.
- Travel subsidies: 1-2bn saved. Pat yourself on the back for the incredible change you’ve made to government finances.
- Civil service: Total cost of civil service is ~ 13bn. Half of civil service employment are operational delivery (prison officers, job centre employees, HMRC call centre workers etc.). Total cost of “Whitehall” salaries is c. 1.5bn. Even taking very aggressive cuts you could perhaps save 5bn…0.5% of government spending.
- In-work benefits (raising the burden on employers to compensate): This works almost identically to a tax (because either way employers pay).
- Consolidate local councils: Total council spending is 106bn; 75% of this goes straight out the door in just 3 areas: education, social care, and ‘blue light’ (police and fire). If you cut council “central services” completely, you’d save 4bn.

So all Mark’s wonderful ideas add up to a grand total of (generously) 25bn, which is <2.5% of government spending. Our budget deficit for this year is > 100bn!

I'm sure you consider yourself incredibly clever with your snide comments but you failed to understand the context in which I was responding.

You were offering ideas to cut spending so that there is room to cut tax.
I am merely pointing out that your ideas cut spending only minimally, and therefore create room only for minimal tax cuts.

No, I was responding to a post which read:

Gecko1978 said:

I agree tax is too high however....Universal Credit, NHS, Civil Service, local council, police, fire, military, MPs, Foreign aid, travel subsidises, cross rail, HS2....all has to be paid for an if we cur tax then something has to give...pick one

I made no claims about effectiveness whatsoever.
Maybe spend some time understanding what you're responding to before trying to insult people to prove how clever you are.

[Brave Fart]

kiethton said:

100% this - awful precedent for our economy which will just stifle international investment and set a negative precedent for the future
We're seeing it everywhere - extra taxes on residential developers as another example....

The windfall tax on energy companies does seem rather illogical. "If you make unexpected losses, well tough, you're on your own. But if you make unexpected profits then we'll have that off you, thanks very much. Oh, unless you're an online retailer or you make bombs and missiles. In that case, keep the money."