Cost of living crisis.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Big multinationals. Ie the types that were disentangling from Russian clients and hedging their energy needs long before putin invaded and not saying ‘it’s all his fault what can we do!!’ And are probably disentangling from China now. Food crisis, climate crisis, cost of living, political crisis, breakdown of multiple public systems, loss of livelihood. I don’t know what more we need for a good few months of riots. I imagine many are preparing for this 

The problem is that what we have now has barely scratched the surface of just how difficult the Earth might make life for usin the near future.

[bmt]

On 10/08/2022 at 18:52, filthyfox said:

I must be completely doing things wrong.  My energy bill isn't unaffordable.

Energy bill is £95 per month for a three bedroom house. This has £150 credit currently.

 

I really am unsure where this "project fear" stuff is coming from.  Admittedly, I do live on the South Coast.

Oh your personal experience of energy bills, in an unprecedented dry and hot summer, has a bearing on how people less wealthy than you are going to struggle in the winter?

 

Cool.

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

No. Say if you’re on 100 grand a year, you’re paying 30 grand into the system, if you’re on 10 grand you’re paying virtually nothing into the system so the person on 100 grand is covering at least 3 people on 10 grand, let’s make that person on 100 grand pay more into the system and make that person on 10 grand still pay virtually nothing. Is that fair? Cos if I were that person on 100 grand a year, I’d be asking for a pay cut.

So are you saying in the current crisis that the best way to help people facing hardship is to do nothing for them but a tax cut which benefits those than earn more is the priority. This will also affect the public services that we all need. The price for a loaf of bread is the same for the poor as it is for the wealthy. This all has further ramifications for crime, health and so on. The rich man will be hiding behind his gated property if this carries on. 

[yorkie1999]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess the answer to that comes down to if one thinks the system should be driven by self- interested Social Darwinism or not.

 

Speaking personally, IMO there's a plethora of historical records showing why that is critically flawed.

But it isn’t though is it. The system, our society, is driven by those paying more into it.

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

So are you saying in the current crisis that the best way to help people facing hardship is to do nothing for them but a tax cut which benefits those than earn more is the priority. This will also affect the public services that we all need. The price for a loaf of bread is the same for the poor as it is for the wealthy. This all has further ramifications for crime, health and so on. The rich man will be hiding behind his gated property if this carries on. 

No, I’m saying blaming liz truss for those who pay more into public services, the nhs etc isn’t exactly the brightest thing to do

[grobyfox1990]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The problem is that what we have now has barely scratched the surface of just how difficult the Earth might make life for usin the near future.

Im not being jovial here but that won’t be a problem for tens (hundreds maybe) of millions of people, because we’ll be dead 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

But it isn’t though is it. The system, our society, is driven by those paying more into it.

Right, which is why in order for that system to actually keep going, those people paying more have to continue doing so.

 

And like I said, whether that is "fair" or not comes down to whether or not one wants an equitable functional society or one where there is no rule but survive and those with power can do what they like to those without in the name of it.

 

And there are both moral and practical reasons in favour of the first of those two options.

[Trumpet]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

So are you saying in the current crisis that the best way to help people facing hardship is to do nothing for them but a tax cut which benefits those than earn more is the priority. This will also affect the public services that we all need. The price for a loaf of bread is the same for the poor as it is for the wealthy. This all has further ramifications for crime, health and so on. The rich man will be hiding behind his gated property if this carries on. 

And will struggle to get hold of essentials and luxuries which are manufactured or handled by a supply chain of the working class. It should be in everyone’s best interests to help each other through this as the people on the lower incomes will undoubtedly become more desperate for a solution which will have a much wider impact on all levels of society.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Im not being jovial here but that won’t be a problem for tens (hundreds maybe) of millions of people, because we’ll be dead 

That is a sad but extreme probability.

 

I would say though that the majority of death and suffering will (at first) likely be away from the UK and so possibly abstract to some people even then

[Legend_in_blue]

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, yorkie1999 said:

No, I’m saying blaming liz truss for those who pay more into public services, the nhs etc isn’t exactly the brightest thing to do

She is open to criticism because she is only playing to her gallery of Tory members rather than offering some sort of hope to people. She betrays her feelings by describing possible help as handouts 

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Right, which is why in order for that system to actually keep going, those people paying more have to continue doing so.

 

And like I said, whether that is "fair" or not comes down to whether or not one wants an equitable functional society or one where there is no rule but survive and those with power can do what they like to those without in the name of it.

 

And there are both moral and practical reasons in favour of the first of those two options.

They are continuing to pay into it. Now if they stopped paying into it, then you might have some sort of social Darwinism.

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Trumpet said:

And will struggle to get hold of essentials and luxuries which are manufactured or handled by a supply chain of the working class. It should be in everyone’s best interests to help each other through this as the people on the lower incomes will undoubtedly become more desperate for a solution which will have a much wider impact on all levels of society.

Yes, funny how quickly some forget lower paid that kept things going in pandemic. Care workers for example 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

They are continuing to pay into it. Now if they stopped paying into it, then you might have some sort of social Darwinism.

I'm sorry, unless I am mistaken, the argument upstream was that they *should* pay less or that them paying more was "unfair", thus encouraging that outcome?

 

[Trumpet]

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Yes, funny how quickly some forget lower paid that kept things going in pandemic. Care workers for example 

But we clapped!

 

In all seriousness, if I had to pay an additional 10% in tax as the solution to solving this mess I’d have no complaints. It’s amazing how delicately everything hangs together and social unrest among the masses would see a lot of it fall apart.

 

edit - not saying a tax increase for those that can comfortably afford is the solution… I haven’t got a ****ing clue 

Edited 12 August 2022 by Trumpet

[Brizzle Fox]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

He is the proof that you can be wealthy and still care about other people.

Spot on. It's the epitome of Levelling Up.

 

Surely if you have a nice, comfortable life you would want that for others as well, not to have all the benefit for yourself.

 

I'm probably what you'd call a relatively high earner, and would be more than happy to pay more tax if it was to help the poorest in society and I'd hope that most people in a similar situation would be happy to do the same. 

 

Maybe I have too much faith in human nature though!

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Spot on. It's the epitome of Levelling Up.

 

Surely if you have a nice, comfortable life you would want that for others as well, not to have all the benefit for yourself.

 

I'm probably what you'd call a relatively high earner, and would be more than happy to pay more tax if it was to help the poorest in society and I'd hope that most people in a similar situation would be happy to do the same. 

 

Maybe I have too much faith in human nature though!

To say nothing of the fact that comfortable, nice life is entirely reliant on thousands of things done by thousands of other people that are taken mostly for granted.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, unless I am mistaken, the argument upstream was that they *should* pay less or that them paying more was "unfair", thus encouraging that outcome?

 

She’s on about getting rid of the recent ni rise so effectively people would be better off, but no better off than they were before April. But this cost of living crisis hasn’t been caused by the government, it’s been caused by big energy firms killing off the small energy firms and therefore removing the competition allowing them to charge what they want. Also reducing tax on high earners is not going to result in low earners being better off, same as windfall taxes, that money never filters down to the people who need it. I would have thought that substantially raising the minimum wage and then decreasing corporation tax to firms would be a far better way of putting money in peoples back pockets.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

She’s on about getting rid of the recent ni rise so effectively people would be better off, but no better off than they were before April. But this cost of living crisis hasn’t been caused by the government, it’s been caused by big energy firms killing off the small energy firms and therefore removing the competition allowing them to charge what they want. Also reducing tax on high earners is not going to result in low earners being better off, same as windfall taxes, that money never filters down to the people who need it. I would have thought that substantially raising the minimum wage and then decreasing corporation tax to firms would be a far better way of putting money in peoples back pockets.

I see, thank you.

 

That didn't seem to be the ideas being posited further up the thread, so thank you for clarifying.

[RobHawk]

What everyone is forgetting amongst the worry of our own energy bills is what this is doing for inflation. 

 

The bank of England took alot of flack for increasing interest rates last week, but what little choice did they have? At least they are trying to do something unlike the government who are literally sitting around having a popularity contest. 

 

If energy bills continue to rise, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up. 

[Greg2607]

22 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

She’s on about getting rid of the recent ni rise so effectively people would be better off, but no better off than they were before April. But this cost of living crisis hasn’t been caused by the government, it’s been caused by big energy firms killing off the small energy firms and therefore removing the competition allowing them to charge what they want. Also reducing tax on high earners is not going to result in low earners being better off, same as windfall taxes, that money never filters down to the people who need it. I would have thought that substantially raising the minimum wage and then decreasing corporation tax to firms would be a far better way of putting money in peoples back pockets.

That isn't true. 

 

Energy retailers have strict controls on the level of profit they can make with the consumer (i think it is something like 3%) - Therefore, the Price Cap was originally designed, to make sure that the energy retailers could stay profitable when prices rose versus the rate they had agreed with the consumer. 

 

Generally speaking, smaller energy companies acquire customers by undercutting the Big 6, and hoping that customers don't switch away at a point that the fixed rate runs out (which is often tiny margins or even a loss leader) and stay on a rate that is more profitable.   The ones that go bust, are typically because they don't have the cashflow, to buy the next tranche of energy because the customers they acquired previously aren't profitable enough. 

 

The Energy PRODUCERS however, have no such cap and because of the amount of energy controlled by Russia, the cost of the energy in the wholesale market (i.e the price the energy retailers are having to pay) has gone through the roof.   THIS is where the Super Profits are being made.  Not in the energy retailers per se (albeit, I concede, the retailers are also making profit) 

 

As a country, we have zero nationalised Energy Producers, so our retailers can only buy at the market rate.  There is no mechanism to control this. 

 

I'm sure the government could try to design a market cap for the producers, stating that they HAVE to sell at a certain rate, but ultimately, they will sell the energy elsewhere, at a higher price, as it is currently a scare commodity. Supply has been reduced. 

 

Intervention will have to come in the form of handouts from Government, BUT they could tax the energy PRODUCERS to pay for the handouts, from the unexpected level of profits being made. 

 

the Cost of living crises isn't PURELY energy costs though.  It's also supply side pressures due to brexit, causing the cost of everything to go up as well.  THe government can absolutely take the blame for that one. Also, idealogically, they have crushed low earners and removed safety nets.  When you have more foodbanks in the UK, than you do McDonalds, and ALL of these have proliferated under a tory government, you absolutely can blame them for that. 

Edited 12 August 2022 by Greg2607

[Lako42]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

No. Say if you’re on 100 grand a year, you’re paying 30 grand into the system, if you’re on 10 grand you’re paying virtually nothing into the system so the person on 100 grand is covering at least 3 people on 10 grand, let’s make that person on 100 grand pay more into the system and make that person on 10 grand still pay virtually nothing. Is that fair? Cos if I were that person on 100 grand a year, I’d be asking for a pay cut.

Yea, they could go and get a job that pays £10k and see which scenario they prefer I suppose. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Got an email saying our dual fuel DDM has to go from £167 to £267 a month.

 

Symptom of the times in that this almost feels like a good result instead of a complete WTF? moment that it would've done at any other point

Edited 12 August 2022 by Bellend Sebastian

[yorkie1999]

35 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

That isn't true. 

 

Energy retailers have strict controls on the level of profit they can make with the consumer (i think it is something like 3%) - Therefore, the Price Cap was originally designed, to make sure that the energy retailers could stay profitable when prices rose versus the rate they had agreed with the consumer. 

 

Generally speaking, smaller energy companies acquire customers by undercutting the Big 6, and hoping that customers don't switch away at a point that the fixed rate runs out (which is often tiny margins or even a loss leader) and stay on a rate that is more profitable.   The ones that go bust, are typically because they don't have the cashflow, to buy the next tranche of energy because the customers they acquired previously aren't profitable enough. 

 

The Energy PRODUCERS however, have no such cap and because of the amount of energy controlled by Russia, the cost of the energy in the wholesale market (i.e the price the energy retailers are having to pay) has gone through the roof.   THIS is where the Super Profits are being made.  Not in the energy retailers per se (albeit, I concede, the retailers are also making profit) 

 

As a country, we have zero nationalised Energy Producers, so our retailers can only buy at the market rate.  There is no mechanism to control this. 

 

I'm sure the government could try to design a market cap for the producers, stating that they HAVE to sell at a certain rate, but ultimately, they will sell the energy elsewhere, at a higher price, as it is currently a scare commodity. Supply has been reduced. 

 

Intervention will have to come in the form of handouts from Government, BUT they could tax the energy PRODUCERS to pay for the handouts, from the unexpected level of profits being made. 

 

the Cost of living crises isn't PURELY energy costs though.  It's also supply side pressures due to brexit, causing the cost of everything to go up as well.  THe government can absolutely take the blame for that one. Also, idealogically, they have crushed low earners and removed safety nets.  When you have more foodbanks in the UK, than you do McDonalds, and ALL of these have proliferated under a tory government, you absolutely can blame them for that. 

Seems odd that all these suppliers went bust before any hint of a reduction in supplies.

1. Effortless – September 2020
2. Tonik Energy – October 2020
3. Yorkshire Energy – December 2020
4. Simplicity Energy – January 2021
5. Green Network Energy – January 2021
6. Hub Energy – August 2021
7. PfP Energy – September 2021
8. MoneyPlus Energy – September 2021
9. Utility Point – September 2021
10. People’s Energy – September 2021
11. Green - September 2021
12. Avro Energy - September 2021
13. Igloo Energy - September 2021
14. Symbio Energy - September 2021
15. ENSTROGA - September 2021
16. Pure Planet - October 2021
17. Colorado Energy - October 2021
18. Daligas - October 2021
19. GOTO Energy - October 2021
20. Bluegreen Energy Services Limited - November 2021
21. Omni Energy Limited - November 2021 
22. MA Energy Limited - November 2021 
23. Zebra Power Limited - November 2021
24. Ampoweruk Ltd - November 2021
25. CNG Energy - November 2021
26. Neon Energy - November 2021
27. Social Energy Supply - November 2021
28. Bulb in 'special administration' meaning it will continue to operate as normal under its administrators - November 2021
29. Entice Energy - November 2021
30. Orbit Energy - November 2021
31. Zog Energy - December 2021
32. Together Energy and Bristol Energy - January 2022
33. Whoop Energy and Xcel Power - February 2022

A further 19 have gone under since 2019:

1. GB Energy – November 2016
2. Future Energy – January 2018
3. National Gas and Power – July 2018
4. Iresa – July 2018
5. Gen4u – September 2018
6. Usio Energy – October 2018
7. Extra Energy – November 2018
8. Spark Energy Supply Limited – November 2018
9. OneSelect – December 2018
10. Economy Energy – January 2019
11. Our Power - 2019
12. Brilliant Energy – March 2019
13. Cardiff Energy Supply – August 2019
14. Solarplicity – August 2019
15. Eversmart – September 2019
16. Rutherford Energy – October 2019
17. Toto Energy – October 2019
18. Breeze Energy – December 2019
19. Gnergy – March 2020

[Greg2607]

21 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Seems odd that all these suppliers went bust before any hint of a reduction in supplies.

1. Effortless – September 2020
2. Tonik Energy – October 2020
3. Yorkshire Energy – December 2020
4. Simplicity Energy – January 2021
5. Green Network Energy – January 2021
6. Hub Energy – August 2021
7. PfP Energy – September 2021
8. MoneyPlus Energy – September 2021
9. Utility Point – September 2021
10. People’s Energy – September 2021
11. Green - September 2021
12. Avro Energy - September 2021
13. Igloo Energy - September 2021
14. Symbio Energy - September 2021
15. ENSTROGA - September 2021
16. Pure Planet - October 2021
17. Colorado Energy - October 2021
18. Daligas - October 2021
19. GOTO Energy - October 2021
20. Bluegreen Energy Services Limited - November 2021
21. Omni Energy Limited - November 2021 
22. MA Energy Limited - November 2021 
23. Zebra Power Limited - November 2021
24. Ampoweruk Ltd - November 2021
25. CNG Energy - November 2021
26. Neon Energy - November 2021
27. Social Energy Supply - November 2021
28. Bulb in 'special administration' meaning it will continue to operate as normal under its administrators - November 2021
29. Entice Energy - November 2021
30. Orbit Energy - November 2021
31. Zog Energy - December 2021
32. Together Energy and Bristol Energy - January 2022
33. Whoop Energy and Xcel Power - February 2022

A further 19 have gone under since 2019:

1. GB Energy – November 2016
2. Future Energy – January 2018
3. National Gas and Power – July 2018
4. Iresa – July 2018
5. Gen4u – September 2018
6. Usio Energy – October 2018
7. Extra Energy – November 2018
8. Spark Energy Supply Limited – November 2018
9. OneSelect – December 2018
10. Economy Energy – January 2019
11. Our Power - 2019
12. Brilliant Energy – March 2019
13. Cardiff Energy Supply – August 2019
14. Solarplicity – August 2019
15. Eversmart – September 2019
16. Rutherford Energy – October 2019
17. Toto Energy – October 2019
18. Breeze Energy – December 2019
19. Gnergy – March 2020

Where did I say that they went bust due to supply side constraint??

 

I said The ones that go bust, are typically because they don't have the cashflow, to buy the next tranche of energy because the customers they acquired previously aren't profitable enough.