keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 14, 2020 12:57:05 GMT
The costs of providing and maintaining the infrastructure all the way from source to your premises are the same for a low consumer as a high consumer. Shouldn't both types therefore contribute the same daily standing charge? The fact that you draw less energy than your neighbour has no impact on the infrastructure cost of delivering that energy to you both. It's interesting that in your separate thread about council tax recently, you argued it would be fairer if everyone were paying the same. I personally think the "flat fee plus consumption charge" is spot on as a charging model. I see it as exactly equivalent to "Road Fund Licence plus fuel duty" where every driver contributes at least a bare minimum to the roads infrastructure (supposedly), and then somewhat more if they actually choose to drive over it. That's why, IMHO, it would be wrong to scrap RFL (VED) and lump it on to extra fuel duty. Even an occasional road user needs to appreciate there is a significant cost behind providing the road for his/her very occasional use, and it's only fair that s/he contributes a meaningful figure (the VED) towards that. (I appreciate these days it all goes into the big Treasury pot, I'm talking here of the original principle). I suppose that's because like everyone I'm confused. It's something I see goes with the being green agenda. I thinks it's me thinking how we can encourage people to be green and use less water, Gas, Electricity etc. Personally it seems a nonsense that if I double my water usage my water bill will go up by 1/3. it would be interesting to see the effect on electricity & gas usage if they said we will halve the Standing charge but increase the charge per unit by a penny. Again a personal thing I'd like to see council tax abolished and everyone paying a percentage of income ( collected nationally and distributed down ) However the significant flaw in that is it makes councils less accountable to the public in the area, and removes the need to be careful with the budget. My Local Council was quite proudly saying the Council Tax bill had only gone up by £1 a week, but for many pensioners etc that is 25% of the rise they had in pensions. But Here in Blaenau Gwent the average council tax represents 8% of average income, down the road in Newport it's 5%, so a deprived area people effectively pays more for the services. Again I still see it as nonsense that an elderly widowed lady living alone in the house she had with husband and children can pay more than an extended family living in a terraced property ( I can think of one property near me that is band B, but has 6 adults living in it ). But I think local income tax become difficult if people move out of areas with high local income tax, and are you taxed where you work and earn the money or where you live.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 14, 2020 16:19:21 GMT
The costs of providing and maintaining the infrastructure all the way from source to your premises are the same for a low consumer as a high consumer. Shouldn't both types therefore contribute the same daily standing charge? The fact that you draw less energy than your neighbour has no impact on the infrastructure cost of delivering that energy to you both. It's interesting that in your separate thread about council tax recently, you argued it would be fairer if everyone were paying the same. I personally think the "flat fee plus consumption charge" is spot on as a charging model. I see it as exactly equivalent to "Road Fund Licence plus fuel duty" where every driver contributes at least a bare minimum to the roads infrastructure (supposedly), and then somewhat more if they actually choose to drive over it. That's why, IMHO, it would be wrong to scrap RFL (VED) and lump it on to extra fuel duty. Even an occasional road user needs to appreciate there is a significant cost behind providing the road for his/her very occasional use, and it's only fair that s/he contributes a meaningful figure (the VED) towards that. (I appreciate these days it all goes into the big Treasury pot, I'm talking here of the original principle). I suppose that's because like everyone I'm confused. It's something I see goes with the being green agenda. I thinks it's me thinking how we can encourage people to be green and use less water, Gas, Electricity etc.Personally it seems a nonsense that if I double my water usage my water bill will go up by 1/3. it would be interesting to see the effect on electricity & gas usage if they said we will halve the Standing charge but increase the charge per unit by a penny. Again a personal thing I'd like to see council tax abolished and everyone paying a percentage of income ( collected nationally and distributed down ) However the significant flaw in that is it makes councils less accountable to the public in the area, and removes the need to be careful with the budget. My Local Council was quite proudly saying the Council Tax bill had only gone up by £1 a week, but for many pensioners etc that is 25% of the rise they had in pensions. But Here in Blaenau Gwent the average council tax represents 8% of average income, down the road in Newport it's 5%, so a deprived area people effectively pays more for the services. Again I still see it as nonsense that an elderly widowed lady living alone in the house she had with husband and children can pay more than an extended family living in a terraced property ( I can think of one property near me that is band B, but has 6 adults living in it ). But I think local income tax become difficult if people move out of areas with high local income tax, and are you taxed where you work and earn the money or where you live. Yet somebody still has to pay all those salaries and infrastructure costs. If you were to pay less standing costs just because you've "gone green" in your consumption, somebody else with a family and ill able to afford it will have to pay correspondingly more to make up those standing costs. These fixed costs are a fact of life and they're not going away. How is it fairest to distribute them? I personally think they've got it right (even though I pay more than my share as a result, being only two of us at home). It's definitely worth comparing tariffs because there is quite some variance in the daily standing charges from different suppliers. The greenest, the most intent on cutting their consumption, can go for the lowest daily standing charge/higher pence-per-kWh tariff to save money. "if I double my water usage my water bill will go up by 1/3" - Just the usual economies of scale. If you double your consumption of coffee, each cup will cost you less (the double-size jar costing less than two smaller jars). If you consume twice the internet bandwidth, phone contract, etc, etc, you will always pay less than double. Always a big chunk of the price goes towards salaries, infrastructure, delivery, tax... C'est la vie.
|
|