National News has the government failed the people with the latest energy price cap?

[Scrongo]

Government after government has failed the people, since the day I was born.
The bickering on this forum is zilch compared to PM 'S questions. It's absolutely pathetic.
Less words more action!!!!!!!!

 

[QR]

Can we be angry about both? Asking for a friend.

Some seem to be angry about everything!

I think you're talking about my friend.

 

[Essexyellows]

Corporation Tax, close loopholes, increase the top rates (but to a degree), additional VAT on very high end luxury goods, restart the mechanisms for taxing North Sea Oil/Gas back to what it was in 2015 when stopped (or maybe even a slightly higher %). Other countries have citizens pay more tax and manage. Actually increase investment in the HMRC to crack down on tax evasion*. There are plenty of options.

*There where a series of articles in Public Finance, analysing cuts that pointed out Inspectors (if that is the correct title) brought in far, far more than they cost and cuts here were a significant false saving.

The problem with that is that those who write the rules often jump ship to companies that advise how to be "tax efficient".
Our Corp Tax is marginally lower than many so there is room there.

Highest Taxed Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Or there is the FTT?
A proposed tax on stock market transactions.
A tax of just 0.05% would raise £4.7 billion.
A 1% tax would raise £94 billion.
It only hits people trading stocks, 90% of whom are in the richest 1%.

If (if) that was done globally the numbers become very big, very quickly - A 0.05% FTT would raise £250 billion a year globally. A 1% tax would raise £5 trillion a year.

The trade won`t stop but the returns would certainly help.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

The problem with that is that those who write the rules often jump ship to companies that advise how to be "tax efficient".
Our Corp Tax is marginally lower than many so there is room there.

Highest Taxed Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Or there is the FTT?
A proposed tax on stock market transactions.
A tax of just 0.05% would raise £4.7 billion.
A 1% tax would raise £94 billion.
It only hits people trading stocks, 90% of whom are in the richest 1%.

If (if) that was done globally the numbers become very big, very quickly - A 0.05% FTT would raise £250 billion a year globally. A 1% tax would raise £5 trillion a year.

The trade won`t stop but the returns would certainly help.

Yeah...but how does that work with all those blokes in the pub you keep banging on about[emoji848][emoji1787]

 

[MarkG]

Hello there already is a 0.5 % stamp duty on buying uk stocks…

 

[Marked Ox]

The problem with that is that those who write the rules often jump ship to companies that advise how to be "tax efficient".
Our Corp Tax is marginally lower than many so there is room there.

Highest Taxed Countries 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

Or there is the FTT?
A proposed tax on stock market transactions.
A tax of just 0.05% would raise £4.7 billion.
A 1% tax would raise £94 billion.
It only hits people trading stocks, 90% of whom are in the richest 1%.

If (if) that was done globally the numbers become very big, very quickly - A 0.05% FTT would raise £250 billion a year globally. A 1% tax would raise £5 trillion a year.

The trade won`t stop but the returns would certainly help.

Other countries manage so I'm sure we could if we tried.

 

[Essexyellows]

Hello there already is a 0.5 % stamp duty on buying uk stocks…

Think the bloke talking about it was suggesting a transaction tax rather than stamp duty.

 

[Essexyellows]

Yeah...but how does that work with all those blokes in the pub you keep banging on about[emoji848][emoji1787]

Check the last couple of lines of that......... if you need to be told.

 

[tonyw]

Not sure if ive missed a point here buddy but the outrage is that the british worker, lower to upper middle class, is being hammered into poverty while foreign states/companies make records profits off that poverty

Where is the money raised? Its so obvious im shocked its even a question.

Increase corporation tax (mandatory)
Reduce income tax (optional)

The 'market' wont bear it? - We have amongst the lowest corp tax in europe
Deters inward investment? - 1000% less than brexit

Tories and increasingly the concern is labour wont offer this because it doesnt serve their paymasters

Baby boomers - sorry your hearts and minds were in the right place and it should have worked - but i think we have to think bigger picture and accept that capitalism is failing.,

Of course, Rishi is planning on raising corporation tax - substantially in fact, up to 25%. It was in his earlier budget, and is slated for next year.
Course he's going to lose, and Liz is going to scrap the corporation tax increase, lower income tax and pay for it all from.....errrrm......the magical money tree?


On the more general point, I wouldn't describe myself as completely anti-privatisation. There's definitely instances where private companies do run services more efficiently than government, and they can do so whilst slicing off a profit for themselves. But the problem is that when you've got a product which is more expensive for you to buy than your customers can reasonably afford - then you don't have a functioning business. And that's where we are at the moment with energy.

And if you have a business that just doesn't work economically - then it should close. That's how the market is supposed to work; or if it's providing a vital service - then it should be taken on by government, and operated as efficiently as possible whilst providing that vital service for citizens, without having to worry about profits or shareholders.

But that's not where the Tories seem to be - they're continually in the mode of 'Let's continue to let these non-functioning businesses make their profits and pay their dividends, while they squeeze every last drop out of our citizens, and then we'll subsidize if we have to.......'. And it's taking us down a pretty dark path.

 

[Wallop]

Listening to Times Radio last night, the presenter and a guest commentator discussed this topic. The commentator stated that 'there is an easy solution to this' to which I thought 'yeah right'. However, the solution which according to the commentator, the energy companies are fully behind is for the Government to underwrite some sizeable commercial loans to the energy companies to get through the current period which they would then pay back over a c.20 year period on a smoothed basis. This would enable the energy companies to freeze the amount charged to consumers at the current levels.

I don't have the intricate detail of this but the positives appear to be:

- Energy bills are frozen at current levels
- The energy companies pay back the loan amounts over an extended period - this of course would be passed onto the consumer but on a very smoothed basis which the vast majority of consumers would welcome
- The serious stress and MH issues that will arise under the current situation will abate somewhat
- The impact on inflation of a spike in energy bills will reduce
- The impact on the wider economy e.g. hospitality sector, of people having less disposable income will lessen
- The Government and new PM would get a serious bounce in terms of popularity

The only counter-argument that the commentator could come up with is that Labour and the Lib Dems have suggested it and so they would make political capital out of the new PM introducing it. If that is where our politics has sunk to i.e. put a small political embarrassment ahead of what appears to be an incredibly sensible course of action with massive benefits to the population, then God help us.

Does anyone have other counter arguments to the above suggestion - I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Essexyellows]

Listening to Times Radio last night, the presenter and a guest commentator discussed this topic. The commentator stated that 'there is an easy solution to this' to which I thought 'yeah right'. However, the solution which according to the commentator, the energy companies are fully behind is for the Government to underwrite some sizeable commercial loans to the energy companies to get through the current period which they would then pay back over a c.20 year period on a smoothed basis. This would enable the energy companies to freeze the amount charged to consumers at the current levels.

I don't have the intricate detail of this but the positives appear to be:

- Energy bills are frozen at current levels
- The energy companies pay back the loan amounts over an extended period - this of course would be passed onto the consumer but on a very smoothed basis which the vast majority of consumers would welcome
- The serious stress and MH issues that will arise under the current situation will abate somewhat
- The impact on inflation of a spike in energy bills will reduce
- The impact on the wider economy e.g. hospitality sector, of people having less disposable income will lessen
- The Government and new PM would get a serious bounce in terms of popularity

The only counter-argument that the commentator could come up with is that Labour and the Lib Dems have suggested it and so they would make political capital out of the new PM introducing it. If that is where our politics has sunk to i.e. put a small political embarrassment ahead of what appears to be an incredibly sensible course of action with massive benefits to the population, then God help us.

Does anyone have other counter arguments to the above suggestion - I'm genuinely interested.

The flipside/other view of an otherwise simple & pragmatic plan is that across those 20 years or so said companies would continue to pay out exec bonuses, share bonuses etc without "recognising" we have bailed them out - like the banks.

The impact on the wider economy based purely on fuel price is not to be underestimated.... everything uses fuel and businesses are less "protected" than the domestic consumer. Perfect storm for things like cafe`s, pubs etc - we have less to spend, they have more to pay out.

 

[Scotchegg]

Listening to Times Radio last night, the presenter and a guest commentator discussed this topic. The commentator stated that 'there is an easy solution to this' to which I thought 'yeah right'. However, the solution which according to the commentator, the energy companies are fully behind is for the Government to underwrite some sizeable commercial loans to the energy companies to get through the current period which they would then pay back over a c.20 year period on a smoothed basis. This would enable the energy companies to freeze the amount charged to consumers at the current levels.

I don't have the intricate detail of this but the positives appear to be:

- Energy bills are frozen at current levels
- The energy companies pay back the loan amounts over an extended period - this of course would be passed onto the consumer but on a very smoothed basis which the vast majority of consumers would welcome
- The serious stress and MH issues that will arise under the current situation will abate somewhat
- The impact on inflation of a spike in energy bills will reduce
- The impact on the wider economy e.g. hospitality sector, of people having less disposable income will lessen
- The Government and new PM would get a serious bounce in terms of popularity

The only counter-argument that the commentator could come up with is that Labour and the Lib Dems have suggested it and so they would make political capital out of the new PM introducing it. If that is where our politics has sunk to i.e. put a small political embarrassment ahead of what appears to be an incredibly sensible course of action with massive benefits to the population, then God help us.

Does anyone have other counter arguments to the above suggestion - I'm genuinely interested.

I completely agree, however the counter argument (presented by others) was that the Government were effectively bailing out the energy companies rather than the consumers and that this was wrong, particularly if the loan was set at a level where these companies were still making large profits.

However, I don't think we have any alternative, and a condition of the loan can be made where any profits during this period must be reinvested in renewable energies which maintains the green agenda and stops those at the top creaming off huge bonuses.

This will allow hard working families, businesses and the most vulnerable to survive this winter at least, and have some certainty going into next year. I honestly can't see any alternative that remotely helps.

 

[Wallop]

I completely agree, however the counter argument (presented by others) was that the Government were effectively bailing out the energy companies rather than the consumers and that this was wrong, particularly if the loan was set at a level where these companies were still making large profits.

However, I don't think we have any alternative, and a condition of the loan can be made where any profits during this period must be reinvested in renewable energies which maintains the green agenda and stops those at the top creaming off huge bonuses.

This will allow hard working families, businesses and the most vulnerable to survive this winter at least, and have some certainty going into next year. I honestly can't see any alternative that remotely helps.

Could someone please let Liz Truss know .

Joking aside, this course of action with the add-ons that @Scotchegg has suggested would be incredibly popular and more importantly relieve the stress for millions of hard-working people who are in no way to blame for something that is outside of their control but could have a devastating effect on their lives.

 

[Scotchegg]

Could someone please let Liz Truss know .

Joking aside, this course of action with the add-ons that @Scotchegg has suggested would be incredibly popular and more importantly relieve the stress for millions of hard-working people who are in no way to blame for something that is outside of their control but could have a devastating effect on their lives.

In addition to the points already raised, if the energy cap was frozen as it is, it could be restricted to reduce the daily standing charge but a slight increase in the cost of each unit of gas/electric. This would mean that the current average bill remains the same but will encourage those that are able to reduce usage to save money.

Alongside making energy efficient savings through public buildings etc, we can commit to a national reduction in energy usage by >5%, which alongside increased use of renewable energy, we could almost become self sufficient and would no longer be held hostage by global prices.

It is win, win, win, win, and would meet the needs of millions of households, businesses, the economy, maintains our environmental commitments and not only meet short term needs but looks even better long term.

Of course, all of this means that it won't happen!

 

[holdsteady]

My fixed deal has just just come to an end and shopping around got me a deal that took my gas and electric from £96 a month to £366 a month. I am lucky that I just got a new job with a pay rise, but that has now been wiped out and we will have to economise more as well. This is obviously before further price rises.

No way are a lot of people going to be able to pay these prices (and more to come) and if they do it will be at the expense of other stuff so the economy will tank, with it only just coming back to normal after Covid how many will survive another huge blow so quickly?

The ridiculous situation of having to wait to find out what will be done while the conservatives hold a very drawn out leadership election has not helped, especially while the current PM has gone awol on holidays and trying to sort himself out a new job instead of doing his current one.

 

[chuckbert]

Listening to Times Radio last night, the presenter and a guest commentator discussed this topic. The commentator stated that 'there is an easy solution to this' to which I thought 'yeah right'. However, the solution which according to the commentator, the energy companies are fully behind is for the Government to underwrite some sizeable commercial loans to the energy companies to get through the current period which they would then pay back over a c.20 year period on a smoothed basis. This would enable the energy companies to freeze the amount charged to consumers at the current levels.

I don't have the intricate detail of this but the positives appear to be:

- Energy bills are frozen at current levels
- The energy companies pay back the loan amounts over an extended period - this of course would be passed onto the consumer but on a very smoothed basis which the vast majority of consumers would welcome
- The serious stress and MH issues that will arise under the current situation will abate somewhat
- The impact on inflation of a spike in energy bills will reduce
- The impact on the wider economy e.g. hospitality sector, of people having less disposable income will lessen
- The Government and new PM would get a serious bounce in terms of popularity

The only counter-argument that the commentator could come up with is that Labour and the Lib Dems have suggested it and so they would make political capital out of the new PM introducing it. If that is where our politics has sunk to i.e. put a small political embarrassment ahead of what appears to be an incredibly sensible course of action with massive benefits to the population, then God help us.

Does anyone have other counter arguments to the above suggestion - I'm genuinely interested.

Could it be made with a covenant that the energy companies have completed the transition to renewables over a certain time period. Otherwise they’ll end up going out of business before they’ve managed to repay the loan.

 

[Marked Ox]

In addition to the points already raised, if the energy cap was frozen as it is, it could be restricted to reduce the daily standing charge but a slight increase in the cost of each unit of gas/electric. This would mean that the current average bill remains the same but will encourage those that are able to reduce usage to save money.

Alongside making energy efficient savings through public buildings etc, we can commit to a national reduction in energy usage by >5%, which alongside increased use of renewable energy, we could almost become self sufficient and would no longer be held hostage by global prices.

It is win, win, win, win, and would meet the needs of millions of households, businesses, the economy, maintains our environmental commitments and not only meet short term needs but looks even better long term.

Of course, all of this means that it won't happen!

I'd add that the Cap and Energy market/auction process should be reviewed and maybe changed for the medium to long term.

 

[Essexyellows]

I`ll go back to the bank bail out - HMG could have given every taxpayer £10k or so rather than giving it to the institutions.

Almost the same situation - you help the people directly or the institutions.

And that ladies and gents is why politics is fudged - we don`t trust them, they don`t trust us.

If we lend the energy companies the money we will only see/feel a small percentage of the help over a prolonged period of time and the companies will benefit far more than you or I.

 

[tonyw]

Could it be made with a covenant that the energy companies have completed the transition to renewables over a certain time period. Otherwise they’ll end up going out of business before they’ve managed to repay the loan.

I wonder if you could make it a convertible loan, with some pretty strict stipulations.

As I mentioned in my post earlier - these are essentially now failing businesses; on their own, they can't provide services to their customers at a price that many of those customers are willing or able to pay. So simply giving them a loan just provides short term relief - it doesn't solve the structural problems in the industry. That's probably only possible now by switching the production mix to bring in more renewables.

Then if the energy companies either don't work to transition to renewables, or they fail to pay back the loans without passing on all the costs to the customers, Britain can convert the loans to equity and take ownership of the companies. Essentially set it up so that failure automatically leads to renationalisation.

Shareholders won't like it - but they've been taking advantage of some perverse market economics in the energy sector for years.

 

[Essexyellows]

I wonder if you could make it a convertible loan, with some pretty strict stipulations.

As I mentioned in my post earlier - these are essentially now failing businesses; on their own, they can't provide services to their customers at a price that many of those customers are willing or able to pay. So simply giving them a loan just provides short term relief - it doesn't solve the structural problems in the industry. That's probably only possible now by switching the production mix to bring in more renewables.

Then if the energy companies either don't work to transition to renewables, or they fail to pay back the loans without passing on all the costs to the customers, Britain can convert the loans to equity and take ownership of the companies. Essentially set it up so that failure automatically leads to renationalisation.

Shareholders won't like it - but they've been taking advantage of some perverse market economics in the energy sector for years.

31 energy companies have already gone bust and some 2 million customers have been shifted to new suppliers by Ofgem.

Do you wait for the whole deck of cards to collapse, or just say "National Need/Security" goes first and just nationalise the lot in September?

Those that remain, and are already failing, don`t deserve the opportunity to carry on or be bailed out by us.

All well and good looking long term but, as has been posted already, that won`t help over this Winter.