Cost of Living Crisis

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Snafu said:

` What do you mean?

Chicken Little.  Bubble boy.

[Salt n Vinegar]

I see that Martin Lewis has invited the successful leadership candidate to debate energy prices live on TV. 

I can feel a 'tub of lard' situation coming on. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

On 26/08/2022 at 21:10, Mark Connolly said:

So 28% of the population are effectively classed as "vulnerable" by the Prime Minister.

What a country

Almost a third of working adults are on <£20k a year. It's interesting to look at the government's figures on income percentiles. If Zahawi is saying that people on £45k and below will need help (which they will), that covers 80% of the country. It's going to need furlough levels of cash from the government.

 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

5 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

I see that Martin Lewis has invited the successful leadership candidate to debate energy prices live on TV. 

I can feel a 'tub of lard' situation coming on. 

Excellent.  If it takes place it could be the biggest mismatch since Ali despatched Richard Dunn.

[Billy Jean King]

Excellent.  If it takes place it could be the biggest mismatch since Ali despatched Richard Dunn.

Martin Boombayah

[strichener]

3 hours ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

Almost a third of working adults are on <£20k a year. It's interesting to look at the government's figures on income percentiles. If Zahawi is saying that people on £45k and below will need help (which they will), that covers 80% of the country. It's going to need furlough levels of cash from the government.

 

I think household income would be far better a measure than individual income.  There is no way two adult households earning £45k each should need help with an average £3.5k energy bill.  Our household income is less than that and my currrent annual energy bill is well above £3.5k.

I haven't really looked at the household incomes but I would be surprised if it required furlough levels of cash where the government was paying £1000s per month rather than per annum.

Edited August 31, 2022 by strichener

[Left Back]

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

I think household income would be far better a measure than individual income.  There is no way two adult households earning £45k each should need help with an average £3.5k energy bill.  Our household income is less than that and my currrent annual energy bill is well above £3.5k.

I haven't really looked at the household incomes but I would be surprised if it required furlough levels of cash where the government was paying £1000s per month rather than per annum.

No way I’m going to try and figure it out one way or the other but I’d suspect there are far more people earning less than £45k than those that were furloughed.  A lot of people on low wages (call centre workers etc.) would have worked from home during Covid.

Possibly not as black and white as it would appear to be although I suspect you’re probably correct.

[TxRover]

On 30/08/2022 at 09:07, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Several senior tories have written academic papers and books on moving to a US insurance model, Sunak in particular. The current chancellor is actively touting increasing privatisation. Im not entirely surprised that one of the biggest gammons on this forum thinks its a good thing to create a private system. 

 

On 30/08/2022 at 09:23, Dawson Park Boy said:

Every type of healthcare system should be looked at.

The US system is not one that endears itself to me.

However, to merely bury your head in the sand and say the NHS is wonderful is every bit as bad.

There will be increasing amounts of privatisation in the UK (including Scotland) to obtain greater efficiency which is exactly correct..

Dont you realise that all pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, buildings, GP’s, just to mention a few are provided privately.

The only point is - who pays at the end of treatment? 
If you look at dentistry, because the system is so badly funded by the SG more and more people are being forced to go private using private insurance. Is the NHS working there? No.

If all you can do is call people gammons then good for you.

About time you came up with a sensible proposal rather than letting loose on screeds of meaningless, inane drivel.

Just skip the U.S. system. I have very good health coverage here, and it’s still horrifying the copays and coinsurance you can expect to pay. One prescription in particular, covered by my insurance, costs $987.53 per month…but because I found a copay assistance program from the manufacturer, I pay $0. The question then is how many people don’t find one of these programs and have to pay that insane amount? Also, this drug assistance payment program only applies to 18 and older, so if your kid needed the medicine…

A single-payer system is the best choice, in my opinion.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, TxRover said:

A single-payer system is the best choice, in my opinion.

Even Trump admitted that to Trudeau when the mikes were still on.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

3 hours ago, strichener said:

I think household income would be far better a measure than individual income.  There is no way two adult households earning £45k each should need help with an average £3.5k energy bill.  Our household income is less than that and my currrent annual energy bill is well above £3.5k.

I haven't really looked at the household incomes but I would be surprised if it required furlough levels of cash where the government was paying £1000s per month rather than per annum.

According to the ONS, the average household income in the UK last year was £60k. 

I agree with you that households with two earners on that sort of wage shouldn't need help based on the October price cap. I'd worry if any of the current forecasts for January or April are even vaguely accurate though. I realise it's very London-centric, but I think there will be lots of decent earners down here who don't have a huge amount of wiggle room at the end of the month. Certainly, if the cap was to go up to £6k or 7k, we'd be paying for it partially out of our savings (I realise we're in a fortunate position to have savings and many don't) and, by national standards, we have a reasonably high household income.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Carl Cort's Hamstring

[Paco]

There’s also the knock-on effect of households who previously had much higher disposable income suddenly having energy eat it all up. Will people be out for pints, coffee, shows, days out, holidays?

Little point helping those on lower pay with outrageous energy bills if their jobs disappear.

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

There’s also the knock-on effect of households who previously had much higher disposable income suddenly having energy eat it all up. Will people be out for pints, coffee, shows, days out, holidays?

Little point helping those on lower pay with outrageous energy bills if their jobs disappear.

This is an oft-overlooked point when people are talking about those who don't really need any support with their bills.

If bills get to about £4-5k a year then there will be a big economical impact beyond ensuring those on much lower incomes can afford to survive the winter.

I suspect this is what Zahawi meant when he spoke about those on £45k needing support rather than meaning it literally.

Decoupling electric prices from gas (particularly in the UK where 45% of energy is produced from renewable sources) would immediately help, and it then becomes much more of a winter problem, which should, in theory, be less expensive to offer adequate support 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[Salt n Vinegar]

Anyone know if there's any intention to link support to what folk are actually paying/will actually pay?

It seems to me that if support is based only on the prevailing energy price, won't folk who are on longer term deals disproportionately benefit?

As an example, our present fixed rate deal runs until next October. The support announced so far, to address the situation as thought about months ago, is fair enough as our rate which runs for 2 year ending in October 2023 is much higher than our previous deal. It is now a little below what would now be payable if we didn't have a deal, but it's way below the rates that are expected to apply from October this year and next January. 

(Not sure if I've explained that particularly well, but hopefully you get the gist.) 

I suspect that it would be difficult to target it so accurately, but if the government ends up, however unwillingly, shelling out cash to folk whose bills haven't gone up, or haven't gone up in line with the market rates, won't that be a problem and end up costing more than it has to? 

[strichener]

43 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Anyone know if there's any intention to link support to what folk are actually paying/will actually pay?

It seems to me that if support is based only on the prevailing energy price, won't folk who are on longer term deals disproportionately benefit?

As an example, our present fixed rate deal runs until next October. The support announced so far, to address the situation as thought about months ago, is fair enough as our rate which runs for 2 year ending in October 2023 is much higher than our previous deal. It is now a little below what would now be payable if we didn't have a deal, but it's way below the rates that are expected to apply from October this year and next January. 

(Not sure if I've explained that particularly well, but hopefully you get the gist.) 

I suspect that it would be difficult to target it so accurately, but if the government ends up, however unwillingly, shelling out cash to folk whose bills haven't gone up, or haven't gone up in line with the market rates, won't that be a problem and end up costing more than it has to? 

They could easily target the support fairly by reducing the unit price per kWh.  Say, for example, reducing it by 50%.  Someone on a higher tariff  would see more benefit than you would on your lower tariff.  It also means that usage is then a factor rather than a blanket payment.  People in the lower incomes are more likely to be in council houses and rely on electric for heating.  This means that the average price cap is totally meaningless for them when they are having to heat their home with energy that is three times the price of someone with gas.

Edited September 1, 2022 by strichener

[Left Back]

55 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Anyone know if there's any intention to link support to what folk are actually paying/will actually pay?

It seems to me that if support is based only on the prevailing energy price, won't folk who are on longer term deals disproportionately benefit?

As an example, our present fixed rate deal runs until next October. The support announced so far, to address the situation as thought about months ago, is fair enough as our rate which runs for 2 year ending in October 2023 is much higher than our previous deal. It is now a little below what would now be payable if we didn't have a deal, but it's way below the rates that are expected to apply from October this year and next January. 

(Not sure if I've explained that particularly well, but hopefully you get the gist.) 

I suspect that it would be difficult to target it so accurately, but if the government ends up, however unwillingly, shelling out cash to folk whose bills haven't gone up, or haven't gone up in line with the market rates, won't that be a problem and end up costing more than it has to? 

A few things here.

How are the government supposed to figure out who is on a reasonable fixed rate deal in any reasonable timeframe?

Where do they draw the line?  Who determines that someone like yourself who (as it sounds) probably doesn't need any help but someone else who could be on the same deal does?  Which deals would be reasonable and therefore people on them unworthy of help?  Are they supposed to compare income against energy bills to make that determination?

This sounds like means testing which is demeaning and wrong according to the masses even if it could be done in any decent timeframe.

[Salt n Vinegar]

I think that's a key issue - means testing. With it, governments are accused of micromanagement etc. Without it, folk strop up over folk like Sunak and Lord Sugar getting help. I don't envy those who have to come up with a scheme, but clearly "something must be done!" 

[vikingTON]

Distributing support via council tax banding would have the benefit of simplicity but the drawback of being a blunt instrument. It would certainly target more deserving cases than waste resources but the tears and snotters would be of epic proportion. 

[RiG]

Truss focusing on the real problems facing the British people. Soaring inflation? Nope. Massive energy bills? Nah. Runaway food costs? No chance. Driving faster on the M1? Hell yes!

 

[10menwent2mow]

Apparently we just need a new kettle.

[Dunfermline Don]

57 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Apparently we just need a new kettle.

Spout, handle, lid of metal.

How much can we save with a new Kettle?