Truss’ Energy Bailout

Are we asking for any shares from the energy companies?

DorothyGlamour, I believe but not 100% sure as things might have changed over the years, that tariffs can be set at higher rates and landlords use to set them high and then keep the rebate from over payment. Your thought about paying for energy at the point of use is an idea but there are others who prefer to pay a set amount via a monthly payment, this does help them to organise their finances in a away they think fit. Room for both I think. Ofcom did say in a report that a standing charge wasn’t necessary but energy companies have still kept them, to drop them would help many.

I agree we need to be looking at every aspect and challenging those areas that might be put to better use to provide more options and enable more support to be offered and not necessarily only linked to the money side of things but to help manage payments too. The problem now with the fixed payment is that these might be too high for some and if unpaid then arrears will immediately follow. People should have more options as to how they pay.

DorothyGlamour

Barmeyoldbat, I agree however my point is that instead of allowing meters to always be associated with something bad, lets see if we can put them to better use, and use them, if people want to, as a way of paying for fuel before it is used and avoiding bills.

If there are no arrears, I don't believe ( but may be wrong) that metered energy is increased in cost but rather that if paying by Direct Debit for example it is discounted slightly, so the energy providers should be able to set the rate for meters at a similar rate to dd or even less as it is pre paid, if there are no arrears.

a very good comment DorothyGlamour and I just love your user name. I used to like that actress in all the Road films with Bob Hope.
there is definitely a place for these meters but your point is a good one.

Prentice, yes those films were great weren't they? So much fun. Not so much fun in gas meters is there?

So pleased to see that Kwartang has his priorities right.

He has ended the cap on bankers bonuses.

Oh and the EU is raising £140bn windfall tax from the energy companies to assist the consumer.

Truss hasn’t yet announced what she intends to do, but let us hope that Labour, the Lib Dems and now every country in Europe becomes her guiding light.

Taxing the consumer is imo not an option.

Ending the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a sensible move WWM. Our economy relies heavily on the financial services industry and our banks need to be competitive. Also, a lot of the money paid out in bonuses will find its way to the Treasury via taxes and to businesses through spending. Retained by the banks, it would have been taxed at a much lower rate.

Germanshepherdsmum

Ending the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a sensible move WWM. Our economy relies heavily on the financial services industry and our banks need to be competitive. Also, a lot of the money paid out in bonuses will find its way to the Treasury via taxes and to businesses through spending. Retained by the banks, it would have been taxed at a much lower rate.

I can understand your argument up to a point, but the real issue with the confetti money they received prior to the crash in 2008 was the fact that it encouraged the very thing which caused the crash.

If you cap the bankers bonus they take far fewer reckless risks. Kwartang May go for bonus deferrals, but it has been shown not to reduce the level of risk as much as capping does. Capping works because the bankers get paid the same, no matter how much profit they make their bank. There is as a result less incentive to go gambling on the money markets and invent reckless snd ultimately illegal leverage schemes which caused the market to crash so disastrously.

That is good news for the tax payer who was forced to bail the banks out as a result if this uncontrolled gambling. No doubt the debt incurred by supporting the banks is still washing around in the system.

The capping was if course enforced by EU policy so it is no surprise that Kwartang is intent on getting rid of it, but he must also take responsibility for the increase in risk.

The Guardian reported in February that there was a run on the poshest champagne as a result of the highest bonuses paid since 2008.. so I hardly think that the poor souls are exactly scrapping the barrel, snd with the cost of living crises hitting so many, it is not a good look.

There are far more checks and balances now than before the crash. I’m not concerned about the optics, merely about the flow of more money into the Treasury for distribution.

I read that the EU has raised billions by selling Green Bonds.

The revenue will be used to pay for environmentally beneficial projects.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are far more checks and balances now than before the crash. I’m not concerned about the optics, merely about the flow of more money into the Treasury for distribution.

Tax is not used for distribution.

Germanshepherdsmum

Ending the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a sensible move WWM. Our economy relies heavily on the financial services industry and our banks need to be competitive. Also, a lot of the money paid out in bonuses will find its way to the Treasury via taxes and to businesses through spending. Retained by the banks, it would have been taxed at a much lower rate.

Can you name one occasion, in our economy or others, where trickle actually worked, GSM. I know you believe it should, but I can't find any economy where it has.

On the other hand, the economic expansion in the UK, after the war and the New Deal in the US, after the Great Recession both worked to grow people out of poverty and the countries into very high levels of wealth.

There was greater equality post war than now.

My post wasn’t primarily about trickle. It was about increasing the flow of tax into the Treasury without raising taxes.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are far more checks and balances now than before the crash. I’m not concerned about the optics, merely about the flow of more money into the Treasury for distribution.

Only about 25% of the money which goes to the Treasury comes from income tax. It's far more important for a healthy economy that money flows between all members of a society. Much of it will, of course, flow through the Treasury at some point via a variety of taxes, which can be redistributed to causes which benefit everybody.

A healthy economy does not consist of many people who cannot afford more than the very basics because opportunities aren't being created for people to provide additional services and goods; it becomes a subsistence economy - and that's where the UK is heading - with a handful of people in their "counting houses" counting out their money

Germanshepherdsmum

My post wasn’t primarily about trickle. It was about increasing the flow of tax into the Treasury without raising taxes.

You do that by giving more people access to money, not a handful.

‘We’ are not giving this handful of people access to more money, which would otherwise be retained by their employers (and maybe paid to shareholders such as me, yet I’m wholly supportive of it). What are you losing here growstuff? This move costs the taxpayer nothing but results in payment of more higher rate tax. I really fail to see the objections to this, beyond the good old politics of envy.