Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,317
- Location
- Bristol
What does someone's income have to do with anything? I'd like to see you go out and find a gas pocket and get it's contents to your door for £50 less than they do.
British Gas Made Even More Profit Because We Used More Gas...
- Thread starter Mr Jones
- Start date
What does someone's income have to do with anything? I'd like to see you go out and find a gas pocket and get it's contents to your door for £50 less than they do.
Exactly they should never have been privatised, making money out of something that is essential to supporting life is morally wrong.
We have thousands of elderly people over winter who have to decide to eat or put the heat on, that isn't right in a so called modern western society. Meanwhile British gas etc. shareholders and fat cat bosses with MPs in their pockets make millions.
Isn't the entire point of a private company to make profit?
They can't make profit if you don't use them - if they're making too much profit then change to a cheaper supplier. That forces them (British Gas) to reduce their profit margins to compete. If you can't change supplier then they have a monopoly which should be acted upon by the government.
They can't make profit if you don't use them - if they're making too much profit then change to a cheaper supplier. That forces them (British Gas) to reduce their profit margins to compete. If you can't change supplier then they have a monopoly which should be acted upon by the government.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,317
- Location
- Bristol
To make up for £4.16 a month? What? Literally anything. Milk costs more, which is crazy when you consider both processes.
You realistically have to use one of the energy companies, as for finding one cheaper, they all follow the same trend with the price, it goes up.
But energy is a monopoly, they price fix, notice how they all put prices up together, and the government won't do anything as the politicians have too many places on boards of energy companies
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,317
- Location
- Bristol
So who should make a profit? Only those supplying non-essential products or services?
So that rules out food, clothing, housing and water companies then...
I'm not sure how that relates to what I said.
You said that people have a choice to not be a BG customer, I asked who the cheaper alternative is.
So your post gives me nothing........
It's the Governments job, not the energy companies, to provide help to the poor. Do you see Tesco offering discounted food to people on the breadline?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,317
- Location
- Bristol
Go out and chop some wood and stick it in a burner.
Of course it'd be easier to buy wood from someone and pay for their time. And of course you'll have to buy the burner, most likely with a profit to someone for their time and skill.
That your idea is ridiculous. Stop buying so many tin foil hats and I'm sure you'll save £50 a year
.Then why is this thread just about British Gas?
I've just moved away from British Gas to another provider called first-utility - I'm not sure of the exact tariffs but it's supposed to save me at least £100+ a year for dual fuel supply.
As for privatisation, if the profit margin is just £50 a year for BG, do you really think the government could run a 'not for profit' energy company for £50+ a year less than BG do? I know I don't. They'll have no incentives to make things more efficient and all the other things that come with private companies.
Go out and chop some wood and stick it in a burner.
Of course it'd be easier to buy wood from someone and pay for their time. And of course you'll have to buy the burner, most likely with a profit to someone for their time and skill.
That your idea is ridiculous. Stop buying so many tin foil hats and I'm sure you'll save £50 a year
It's not ridiculous why should greedy fat cats line their pockets from things needed to support life, it's a sad reflection on our greedy capitalist society.
This is the answer that gets wheeled out every time and the stance Russinating is arguing from.
Well, then maybe that should change. Companies don't live in isolation to society, so maybe the rule book should be re-written, especially for services that are essential, to include social responsibility and not just profit for shareholders > everything else.
Everyone knows a company has to make profits, for future investments etc, but it just galls when they say they have to put prices up to cover their 'increasing costs' then make a higher margin overall. And then when their 'costs' decrease, there isn't a comparable drop in retail price.
As for the argument of 'well change supplier', price fixing and inter-company colluding negates any form of free market competition being effective in this sector.
I don't expect the energy industry to suddenly become philanthropic - it's a business at the end of the day, the real point is - should services which the populations needs be run for profit.
Which goes back to the whole capitalism debate - but personally I'd prefer "capitalism light" - in which you work for money to pay for luxury goods, with all essentials being provided by the state (along with a token fund for minor entertainment).
You also have to stay with a certain percentage of your competition or you will lose your entire customer base - even if it means having a loss (which has happened for two years running for the domestic supply for one of my previous companies) - just to ensure they don't lose all their customers.
I've worked in energy trading & two pricing departments for two of the big 6 & have seen no evidence of price fixing or collusion.
On-top of this, if everybody started switching to them - they would get too big & the prices would rise to the standard.
Which goes back to the whole capitalism debate - but personally I'd prefer "capitalism light" - in which you work for money to pay for luxury goods, with all essentials being provided by the state (along with a token fund for minor entertainment).
I agree with the rest, but not on the last point - the market causes price merging (as they buy the commodities from the same place).
You also have to stay with a certain percentage of your competition or you will lose your entire customer base - even if it means having a loss (which has happened for two years running for the domestic supply for one of my previous companies) - just to ensure they don't lose all their customers.
I've worked in energy trading & two pricing departments for two of the big 6 & have seen no evidence of price fixing or collusion.
This is only so because the smaller suppliers are except from the additional green charges until they hit a set amount of customers (a few hundred thousand if I recall correctly) - the government is giving certain suppliers an unfair commercial advantage.
On-top of this, if everybody started switching to them - they would get too big & the prices would rise to the standard.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,317
- Location
- Bristol
Couldn't care less what you do. If you don't want to go out and collect wood every day then pay someone to do it for you and stop moaning. And that's where we are now.
Completely disagree. Please feel to start up a philanthropic energy company, don't make any profit and live off a salary of £0 pa.
Also, you don't need gas to support life.
Not for profit doesn't mean nobody receives a salary.