I find your perspective highly confusing given I think you're an advocate for progressive taxation.
Lets take one component of why the standing charge went up a few years ago - the debt from failed suppliers.
When the banks failed in the 2008 crisis and rescued by the taxpayer, this cost was fully socialised into government books. This means that any cost impacts would have been spread proportionally across the population depending on their income. Higher incomes would have paid more towards this event than lower incomes.
Why then, when a bunch of energy suppliers went bust, was it the right thing to do to say that every household should bear an equal share of this, regardless of income?
Everyone in the country benefits from energy infrastructure. Even if you're off grid, you still benefit from the economic benefit in the rest of the country as a result of us having a national energy infrastructure. So why shouldn't this person pay towards network maintenance?
SC is too high, because lots of broader national level costs have been lumped into it, but I don't think the right answer is to throw all this onto the variable charge either. I think the right answer is to fund it from general taxation so the costs of this national infrastructure are spread proportionally across the population according to income, in the same way as every other public service is.
The fact its privatised is irrelevant, we could choose to collect the required costs from general taxation and pass it on to the network operators. It doesn't have to be collected the way it is now.
The failed supplier costs are one that probably should have been kept well away from the consumers. It was nothing to do with their usage or having the service provision, so yeah thats one that probably should have been paid from general taxation.
Problem is the last government were gash. So they used the contingency on things like hotels for immigrants whilst they pretended to be a fiscally responsible one.
Sure everyone benefits from energy infrastructure, but not equally. Again its socialism which until recently was a very very bad word in the UK when you consider the last 4-5 decades.
Maybe it is now as well.
I mean I thought you were a proponent of smaller government, now you want to let them spend more money.
As someone who does this kind of thing I would say I have found it incredibly difficult to find any relevant information (despite looking on Ofgem etc) that would allow me to make a decision on whether SC included stuff that should be included within unit costs.
Food is expensive, can we move some of that to general taxation. GPUs also, way too expensive, We need to socialise the cost of them.
Once you start socialising where do you stop. I dunno, I just find it a problem that people rush to shout "general taxation" when they need to pay for something.
Its not different to the people losing their minds over the RPI+2% type clauses on phone bills. Which were brought in when people we losing their minds over the fixed increases previously in contracts and when RPI was low.
"But but my bill is going up £2 because thats the contract, but if it was RPI it would only be 50p!!!!111!!!!! rip off!" so they change to RPI which was fine until RPI shot up. Now its reverting to fixed increases, which will be fine until inflation is low and someone gets the £2 rise again.
Simply, consumers never, ever, want to pay, and if its possible to think someone else could be forced to pay more so they dont have to, then general taxation becomes a favourite.
Until they start arguing about record tax levels and wanting smaller government
