Have you looked in detail at the Energy Price Cap?

[Ollygon]

I'm on a 1 year fixed rate deal with OVO which expires in 4 weeks time.

If the "new" price cap is the only option, my electricity usage charges will go up by 290%, and my gas usage charges by 402%.

Yes, it could have been worse but these increases are eye watering.

I'll be able to find the money to pay this, but this will be at the expense of lots of other items of expenditure. But how the hell are families on low incomes going to cope?

 

[SeasideKurt]

I'm on a 1 year fixed rate deal with OVO which expires in 4 weeks time.

If the "new" price cap is the only option, my electricity usage charges will go up by 290%, and my gas usage charges by 402%.

Yes, it could have been worse but these increases are eye watering.

I'll be able to find the money to pay this, but this will be at the expense of lots of other items of expenditure. But how the hell are families on low incomes going to cope?

Simply, they won't. I have my electric rise offset a bit by solar panels but not by much. I've got about 550 quid in credit as I've overspent. I'm fortunate in reality but a lot of others won't be.

The proposal by Liz Truss isn't great. She should have gone after the profits these companies are making.

 

[bill40]

There is no detail to look at as she didn't give any, all it is at the moment is vague promises. The 'cap' is double the amount it ought to be because she refuses to tax literal windfall profits of the producers. There will be some help for the pooest but as usual it's those who are just about managing who get shafted. If I ration my heating I'll get by but like the O/P said everything else will have to go. I'm hoping I squeeze one frugal visit to the pub a month just a drink no food. God help our local economy because it looks like the Tories won't.

 

[traffordtang]

Simply, they won't. I have my electric rise offset a bit by solar panels but not by much. I've got about 550 quid in credit as I've overspent. I'm fortunate in reality but a lot of others won't be.

The proposal by Liz Truss isn't great. She should have gone after the profits these companies are making.

“When Liz Truss rejects a windfall tax on the £170,000,000,000 profits oil and gas giants are expected to make, it's worth remembering: She's a former Shell employee whose party has taken more than £1,500,000 in donations from the oil and gas industry since the last election.”

A total of £30,000 was given by individuals who steer an influential Tory-aligned group pushing for fracking to be restarted and which recently suggested that the UK’s climate targets could be watered down in favour of “energy security and affordability”.

Support for transport costs was also provided by the trustee of an Exxon-backed think tank that has proposed fracking across Europe as a partial solution to the ongoing energy crisis.

Truss also received 100k donation to her campaign from the the wife of ex BP executive. Presumably contacts from her own employment with Shell. Given how well she appears to have done from the oil and fracking industry I think there’s little chance the oil companies will be asked to do anything to help out anyone but their own. How fortuitous for them at this critical time to have someone so well connected to the oil and fracking industry in power to look out for them.

 

[gjr69]

That £100,000 one of the energy companies gave to the Liz Truss campaign must be the best £100,000 ever spent by big business!!
No windfall tax is a terrible decision.
Putting so much of what was once disposable income into the hands of the energy companies is going to hit our economy so hard.
The leisure sector is a huge area for employment in this country, they are going to be hit hardest by this situation.

 

[Bloodtangerine]

Is this a Truss pile on?…you lads know how to enjoy yourselves

 

[glasshalffull]

Is this a Truss pile on?…you lads know how to enjoy yourselves

Come on this situation is ** shit. I am sure all any of us want is some common sense.
She’s done some good fair enough, but if nothing else she will get shafted at the polls if she doesn’t go after some of this money. We all know where it is!
She could apparently get 40 billion plus without too much pushback.
Not far off a third of what her policy will lump on our debt. Might as well have it.

 

[Bloodtangerine]

Come on this situation is ** shit. I am sure all any of us want is some common sense.
She’s done some good fair enough, but if nothing else she will get shafted at the polls if she doesn’t go after some of this money. We all know where it is!
She could apparently get 40 billion plus without too much pushback.
Not far off a third of what her policy will lump on our debt. Might as well have it.

you think I have to agree with you. You think she’s not realised she could levy a windfall tax? You think she’s not doing it out of some sort of “badness”. You want her to freeze the Bills but want to tell her exactly how she should fund it? you think in worked up fifth former terms possibly?

 

[tommytwojags]

The price cap will save the average household at least £1,000 a year from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households. Stop whining.

 

[Lost Seasider]

“When Liz Truss rejects a windfall tax on the £170,000,000,000 profits oil and gas giants are expected to make, it's worth remembering: She's a former Shell employee whose party has taken more than £1,500,000 in donations from the oil and gas industry since the last election.”

Some context for that £170 billion figure: https://order-order.com/2022/09/08/starmer-stumped-by-corporation-tax-questions/

Labour frontbenchers have been claiming this week that a windfall tax should pay for the energy price freeze, though Labour’s own sums accept the current windfall tax funds just £8 billion of their £29 billion spending proposals. Asked by Tory MP Jacob Young precisely what tax level on energy giants’ profits should be set at, Sir Keir totally dodged the question. Asked again by Mark Harper how high he wants a windfall tax to go, he once again ignored the question.

Mark Harper also raised another key point. During his statement Starmer referred to £170 billion of unexpected excess profits by energy giants – a figure being repeated by Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner among others. This £170 billion, Labour implies, is completely up for grabs if only the billionaire-boot licking Tories would take the opportunity to tax it. Unfortunately for Labour this is also wrong. The £170 billion figure is global profits, only a fraction of which are registered in the UK and therefore taxable. As Joe Armitage points out, the figure for the UK, projected in 2022, is around £40 billion. Which is already, as stated, taxed at 65%.

And also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567801032150814725

 

[glasshalffull]

you think I have to agree with you. You think she’s not realised she could levy a windfall tax? You think she’s not doing it out of some sort of “badness”. You want her to freeze the Bills but want to tell her exactly how she should fund it? you think in worked up fifth former terms possibly?

I don’t know or care what you think. Daft not to claw some money back,

 

[Bloodtangerine]

I don’t know or care what you think. Daft not to claw some money back,

Well why did you originally reply to me then? You’ve contradicted yourself. why not let the PM get on with her job and you try to get in local Council and influence things yourself

 

[Wizaard]

you think I have to agree with you. You think she’s not realised she could levy a windfall tax? You think she’s not doing it out of some sort of “badness”. You want her to freeze the Bills but want to tell her exactly how she should fund it? you think in worked up fifth former terms possibly?

She's painted herself into a corner by saying there will be no windfall tax. She can't afford to be seen to u turn within a week of taking over.

Instead we will all be stuffed by increased bills and the National Debt going through the roof.

All from the Party of economic prudence.

 

[tommytwojags]

Sensible move by the government. Hopefully will support business as well as private users and leaves the windfall tax option available if required.

 

[glasshalffull]

Well why did you originally reply to me then? You’ve contradicted yourself. why not let the PM get on with her job and you try to get in local Council and influence things yourself

Haha nice one.

As you will know if I did get involved with local politics to try to influence national energy policy I would probably be thwarted by a £100,000 bribedonation spent in the sweetspot which will save them billions.

My apologies for catching you in the crossfire of my anger.I won’t bore you with the details, but Shell Energy are bastards!!
You were trying to shut down debate though.

 

[foggy]

Some context for that £170 billion figure: https://order-order.com/2022/09/08/starmer-stumped-by-corporation-tax-questions/

Labour frontbenchers have been claiming this week that a windfall tax should pay for the energy price freeze, though Labour’s own sums accept the current windfall tax funds just £8 billion of their £29 billion spending proposals. Asked by Tory MP Jacob Young precisely what tax level on energy giants’ profits should be set at, Sir Keir totally dodged the question. Asked again by Mark Harper how high he wants a windfall tax to go, he once again ignored the question.

Mark Harper also raised another key point. During his statement Starmer referred to £170 billion of unexpected excess profits by energy giants – a figure being repeated by Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner among others. This £170 billion, Labour implies, is completely up for grabs if only the billionaire-boot licking Tories would take the opportunity to tax it. Unfortunately for Labour this is also wrong. The £170 billion figure is global profits, only a fraction of which are registered in the UK and therefore taxable. As Joe Armitage points out, the figure for the UK, projected in 2022, is around £40 billion. Which is already, as stated, taxed at 65%.

And also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567801032150814725

Where do they say the 170bn is completely up for grabs? Seems like a reach.

 

[Bloodtangerine]

Haha nice one.

As you will know if I did get involved with local politics to try to influence national energy policy I would probably be thwarted by a £100,000 bribedonation spent in the sweetspot which will save them billions.

My apologies for catching you in the crossfire of my anger.I won’t bore you with the details, but Shell Energy are bastards!!
You were trying to shut down debate though.

I have literally no idea what you are on about but hope you are ok mate

 

[foggy]

Sensible move by the government. Hopefully will support business as well as private users and leaves the windfall tax option available if required.

So you think Truss would be making a mistake to have a windfall tax?

 

[glasshalffull]

I have literally no idea what you are on about but hope you are ok mate

Pretty sure you have, but I am good thanks,
hope are too.

 

[tommytwojags]

So you think Truss would be making a mistake to have a windfall tax?

Do I?

 

[TangoDave]

The price cap will save the average household at least £1,000 a year from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households. Stop whining.

So our current bills will drop by £1400? Otherwise its not saving us the square root of fuck all! Bill's will go up still, just not as much as they may have done. Bit like getting rid of 20,000 coppers and then recruiting 20,000 and saying you have 20,000 more police! (Repeat for nurses etc).

 

[Shandypants]

Some context for that £170 billion figure: https://order-order.com/2022/09/08/starmer-stumped-by-corporation-tax-questions/

Labour frontbenchers have been claiming this week that a windfall tax should pay for the energy price freeze, though Labour’s own sums accept the current windfall tax funds just £8 billion of their £29 billion spending proposals. Asked by Tory MP Jacob Young precisely what tax level on energy giants’ profits should be set at, Sir Keir totally dodged the question. Asked again by Mark Harper how high he wants a windfall tax to go, he once again ignored the question.

Mark Harper also raised another key point. During his statement Starmer referred to £170 billion of unexpected excess profits by energy giants – a figure being repeated by Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner among others. This £170 billion, Labour implies, is completely up for grabs if only the billionaire-boot licking Tories would take the opportunity to tax it. Unfortunately for Labour this is also wrong. The £170 billion figure is global profits, only a fraction of which are registered in the UK and therefore taxable. As Joe Armitage points out, the figure for the UK, projected in 2022, is around £40 billion. Which is already, as stated, taxed at 65%.

And also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567801032150814725

Tom Harwood

 

[Shandypants]

The price cap will save the average household at least £1,000 a year from October and is in addition to the £400 energy bills discount for all households. Stop whining.

Fairly predictable who the boot lickers are from your post and likes.

 

[foggy]

Do I?

Yes I was asking you a question

 

[foggy]

Tom Harwood

Lots of 'well actually' from Conservatives about this 170bn number. Never heard anyone suggest it's all in the UK or we can tax all of it. More of an illustration of how big these companies are. It's a classic Tory tactic is to try diminish support for taxing massive, multi-billion companies by getting people who earn 20 or 30k a year to feel like it could have been them. Bizarrely it works.

Saw it just last week when Truss at PMQs said 'Labour doesn't understand aspiration' and how it's typical left taxation, how the Tories want to give 'you' more money. Shows how ** out of touch she is if she thinks people at home are sitting on global excess profits of £170bn. Not sure that's what asipiration means. Literally trying to spin the public paying for it instead of energy giants as 'more money for working people'. Absolutely brazen.

Repeating their overall profits is a good reminder that working people should not be footing this bill, and just gives a sense of the scale of it all. Didn't think it was a hard concept to grasp, personally.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Here is one take on it in the context of the war in Ukraine that underpins the energy price shock. I cannot understand why Truss is not investing in wind and insulation of existing homes. Her argument is that windfall taxes stifle investment, if she believes this she should legislate to ensure that excess profits are actually invested in research and development. In that way the UK economy will get something for its massive borrowing to fund the cap.

Putin is waging an economic war with Europe. Britain’s absurd energy plan plays into his hands | Will Hutton

The Tories’ ideology of daffy libertarianism seeks to triumph over evidence and reason

www.theguardian.com

 

[Shandypants]

Lots of 'well actually' from Conservatives about this 170bn number. Never heard anyone suggest it's all in the UK or we can tax all of it. More of an illustration of how big these companies are. It's a classic Tory tactic is to try garner support for raising taxes on massive, multi-billion companies by getting people who earn 20 or 30k a year to feel like it could have been them. Bizarrely it works.

Saw it just last week when Truss at PMQs said 'Labour doesn't understand aspiration' and how it's typical left taxation, how the Tories want to give 'you' more money. Shows how ** out of touch she is if she thinks people at home are sitting on global excess profits of £170bn. Not sure that's what asipiration means. Literally trying to spin the public paying for it instead of energy giants as 'more money for working people'. Absolutely brazen.

Repeating their overall profits is a good reminder that working people should not be footing this bill, and just gives a sense of the scale of it all. Didn't think it was a hard concept to grasp, personally.

The tories have successfully made tax a dirty word and when I think back since the Thatcher era its been the sole tory policy. Even austerity was a policy to avoid tax rises. Its quite a bizarre thing, theyll rely on stealth taxes such as vat and NI rather than increase income tax, other European countries have a higher tax burden and surprise surprise they have great public transport. A grown up debate needs to address the impact on tax cuts on services, I'm sure most people would be happy to pay more for tangible benefits. Unfortunately we are governed by slogan merchants, war on wokeism types, send them to Rwanda. That stirs up enough of the population for their needs.

 

[tommytwojags]

So our current bills will drop by £1400? Otherwise its not saving us the square root of fuck all! Bill's will go up still, just not as much as they may have done. Bit like getting rid of 20,000 coppers and then recruiting 20,000 and saying you have 20,000 more police! (Repeat for nurses etc).

That would be correct if it was the government that was inflating the prices in the first place. In this case you're getting a reduction of £1400. Enjoy it.

 

[Always tangerine]

Here is one take on it in the context of the war in Ukraine that underpins the energy price shock. I cannot understand why Truss is not investing in wind and insulation of existing homes. Her argument is that windfall taxes stifle investment, if she believes this she should legislate to ensure that excess profits are actually invested in research and development. In that way the UK economy will get something for its massive borrowing to fund the cap.

Putin is waging an economic war with Europe. Britain’s absurd energy plan plays into his hands | Will Hutton

The Tories’ ideology of daffy libertarianism seeks to triumph over evidence and reason

www.theguardian.com

Very good article from Will Hutton.

 

[tommytwojags]

Here is one take on it in the context of the war in Ukraine that underpins the energy price shock. I cannot understand why Truss is not investing in wind and insulation of existing homes. Her argument is that windfall taxes stifle investment, if she believes this she should legislate to ensure that excess profits are actually invested in research and development. In that way the UK economy will get something for its massive borrowing to fund the cap.

Putin is waging an economic war with Europe. Britain’s absurd energy plan plays into his hands | Will Hutton

The Tories’ ideology of daffy libertarianism seeks to triumph over evidence and reason

www.theguardian.com

Is that the "We desperately need to rejoin the single market" Will Hutton?

It's not like the Guardian to publish the opinions of anti-Tory, anti-Brexit extremists

 

[Lytham_fy8]

As usual with the Tory government, it's like someone stealing your car then giving you a tyre cap back as compensation.

The cap doffing cunts who keep voting for these pricks should pay everyone else's bill.

 

[Always tangerine]

Is that the "We desperately need to rejoin the single market" Will Hutton?

It's not like the Guardian to publish the opinions of anti-Tory, anti-Brexit extremists

Hes hardly an extremist, at least not to most people, but maybe to those of you dropping off the extreme right of the planet.....

 

[Always tangerine]

Is that the "We desperately need to rejoin the single market" Will Hutton?

It's not like the Guardian to publish the opinions of anti-Tory, anti-Brexit extremists

Of course you could read the article and see he might have some good ideas re the energy crisis.

 

[tommytwojags]

Hes hardly an extremist, at least not to most people, but maybe to those of you dropping off the extreme right of the planet.....

If he becomes any more left wing he'll be getting offered a job at the BBC.

 

[tommytwojags]

Of course you could read the article and see he might have some good ideas re the energy crisis.

There is no need to read the LWNJ's articles. They are all the same. Inflation is due to Brexit, High cost of living due to Brexit, increasing fuel costs due to Brexit, war in Ukraine due to Brexit, Liverpool's struggles in the Champions League due to Brexit.

 

[SeasideTerrier]

Some context for that £170 billion figure: https://order-order.com/2022/09/08/starmer-stumped-by-corporation-tax-questions/

Labour frontbenchers have been claiming this week that a windfall tax should pay for the energy price freeze, though Labour’s own sums accept the current windfall tax funds just £8 billion of their £29 billion spending proposals. Asked by Tory MP Jacob Young precisely what tax level on energy giants’ profits should be set at, Sir Keir totally dodged the question. Asked again by Mark Harper how high he wants a windfall tax to go, he once again ignored the question.

Mark Harper also raised another key point. During his statement Starmer referred to £170 billion of unexpected excess profits by energy giants – a figure being repeated by Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner among others. This £170 billion, Labour implies, is completely up for grabs if only the billionaire-boot licking Tories would take the opportunity to tax it. Unfortunately for Labour this is also wrong. The £170 billion figure is global profits, only a fraction of which are registered in the UK and therefore taxable. As Joe Armitage points out, the figure for the UK, projected in 2022, is around £40 billion. Which is already, as stated, taxed at 65%.

And also:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567801032150814725

GB News, a well balanced source - Even Farage is left of that media scam

 

[Tangerinemoss]

That would be correct if it was the government that was inflating the prices in the first place. In this case you're getting a reduction of £1400. Enjoy it.

No, we are getting an increase of £600, cut the propaganda

 

[Lytham_fy8]

Is that the "We desperately need to rejoin the single market" Will Hutton?

It's not like the Guardian to publish the opinions of anti-Tory, anti-Brexit extremists

Have you read 'The State We're In'?

About as anti Tory as Lizz Truss.

 

[tommytwojags]

No, we are getting an increase of £600, cut the propaganda

If someone takes £2000 off you and someone else gives you £1400 who's your gripe with?

 

[Lost Seasider]

GB News, a well balanced source - Even Farage is left of that media scam

Anything factually wrong with what they say?

Another one to ignore if you like:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567775055945338881

Edit: Mr Armitage's source above if you want to check: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data...and-publications/ukcs-income-and-expenditure/

 

[foggy]

Anything factually wrong with what they say?

Another one to ignore if you like:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567775055945338881

Edit: Mr Armitage's source above if you want to check: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data...and-publications/ukcs-income-and-expenditure/

The bit where you pretend Labour are saying all 170bn is taxable and not just pointing out these are mega coprorations profiting off this crisis

 

[SeasideTerrier]

Anything factually wrong with what they say?

Another one to ignore if you like:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567775055945338881

Edit: Mr Armitage's source above if you want to check: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data...and-publications/ukcs-income-and-expenditure/

To illustrate my point and your perspective of 'my stats' are bigger than your view:

FACT :Putin justified the invasion (Military action) of Ukraine as necessary to stop the Western hostility towards Russian borders.
FACT: China are being benevolent towards the Uyghur people by providing 're-edcuation centres
FACT: The Labour party membership increased from 190,000 in 05.2015 to 520,000 in 07.2016, thus proving Corbyn to be an inspiration leader.

All the above are indeed facts, but utter bollocks.

After seat belts were made compulsory in 1993, the number of deaths attributed to people wearing seatbelts increased 10-fold compared to prior. So, introducing seatbelts was a ridiculous policy, providing you igmore the FACT that seatbelt wearing increased by approx 94% after it became compusory.

Statistical presentation plays a funny old game with the ill-informed browser

 

[Lost Seasider]

To illustrate my point and your perspective of 'my stats' are bigger than your view:

FACT :Putin justified the invasion (Military action) of Ukraine as necessary to stop the Western hostility towards Russian borders.
FACT: China are being benevolent towards the Uyghur people by providing 're-edcuation centres
FACT: The Labour party membership increased from 190,000 in 05.2015 to 520,000 in 07.2016, thus proving Corbyn to be an inspiration leader.

All the above are indeed facts, but utter bollocks.

After seat belts were made compulsory in 1993, the number of deaths attributed to people wearing seatbelts increased 10-fold compared to prior. So, introducing seatbelts was a ridiculous policy, providing you igmore the FACT that seatbelt wearing increased by approx 94% after it became compusory.

Statistical presentation plays a funny old game with the ill-informed browser

What on earth are you on about?

 

[SeasideTerrier]

What on earth are you on about?

LS, you quoted facts to justify your view. I responded with facts that I hoped might set off a glimmer of thought.
And to rehash your question, "I am actually thinking about the Earth and the greed of fossil fuel companies. In time, you may look back at the 'healthy cigarette' adverts of the 50s as being a precursor for the stance of the energy companies now.

 

[rockontommy]

Anything factually wrong with what they say?

Another one to ignore if you like:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567775055945338881

Edit: Mr Armitage's source above if you want to check: https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/data...and-publications/ukcs-income-and-expenditure/

Do a graph

 

[Stony Hill]

Simply, they won't. I have my electric rise offset a bit by solar panels but not by much. I've got about 550 quid in credit as I've overspent. I'm fortunate in reality but a lot of others won't be.

The proposal by Liz Truss isn't great. She should have gone after the profits these companies are making.

£550 overspent. No, you haven’t overspent!
This is what really gets under my fingernails. You have not overspent. You have been abused by your supplier.
Think about it. If everyone is abused to that extent, it’s BILLIONS in the energy supplier’s kitty. No wonder their ‘top brass’ award themselves huge bonuses because they’ve done such good work for their company.
This is what Liz Truss should be sinking her teeth into.
I got back from my hols/home move last week and have been putting off trawling for a new energy supplier. I will publish what I get on here and folk can make up their mind.

 

[Lost Seasider]

LS, you quoted facts to justify your view. I responded with facts that I hoped might set off a glimmer of thought.
And to rehash your question, "I am actually thinking about the Earth and the greed of fossil fuel companies. In time, you may look back at the 'healthy cigarette' adverts of the 50s as being a precursor for the stance of the energy companies now.

Your "facts" were ludicrous claims that have nothing to do with the question at hand.

Now I'll repeat my earlier question, is there anything factually wrong with the suggestion that Labours claim of £170bn "excess profits" is wildly exaggerated.

 

[SeasideTerrier]

Your "facts" were ludicrous claims that have nothing to do with the question at hand.

Now I'll repeat my earlier question, is there anything factually wrong with the suggestion that Labours claim of £170bn "excess profits" is wildly exaggerated.

I must be thick then.
If facts are deemed ludicrous claims, how do the Daily Express and Daily Mail still exist?
The claims of £170bn excess profits may prove to be excessive in due course, But lets ignore the fact that energy companies have, and continue to make excess profits (when @bleach51 and @Dave62 studied the term was 'supernormal profits'

The facts I listed are true and validated, so please explain how they are ludicrous. GBNews might help the uninformed

 

[Tangerinemoss]

If someone takes £2000 off you and someone else gives you £1400 who's your gripe with?

I believe that question is known as a Red Herring. The Government has allowed our "free market" in energy to get totally out of control. It has allowed the Customer's Advocate, OFGEM, to become the mouthpiece of the energy industry. And before you say anything about wholesale prices, a) forward buying has proved disastrous and b) other countries have never allowed their citizens to be held to ransom like the UK.

 

[Mark_GT]

I must be thick then.
If facts are deemed ludicrous claims, how do the Daily Express and Daily Mail still exist?
The claims of £170bn excess profits may prove to be excessive in due course, But lets ignore the fact that energy companies have, and continue to make excess profits (when @bleach51 and @Dave62 studied the term was 'supernormal profits'

The facts I listed are true and validated, so please explain how they are ludicrous. GBNews might help the uninformed

I'd say on balance it's a fact we are being royally shafted by the energy giants. It's also a fact that vast amounts of energy are wasted through inefficient buildings - domestic, commercial, industrial. Something that could be addressed, thus reducing our demand and at the same creating jobs and future critical skills by squeezing the energy companies for more of their windfall.