Having a FiT!

[Dave2002]

Will the possible (leaked) changes to the Feed in Tariffs be a bad move?

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-homeowners

It is clear to me that the handling of energy matters by this and previous governments is not great.

It may be that those who don't have houses resent the payouts to home owners who can afford to spend their
money on PV panels on the roof. On the other hand, what else should those home owners spend money on?

The amount of electricity generated by a PV array is perhaps not that great. A few inefficient appliances (say freezers, fridges) in a house can use more than the average total generated by PVs.

Against this, the UK is likely to need more generating capacity if "the lights are to stay on". Oil and coal are bad news for the environment, and prices are likely to rise. Nuclear is better for the environment, providing we don't have a disaster, in which case it would be much worse.
Recent governments have abandoned plans to use tidal energy.

Although PV arrays don't generate nearly enough energy to cope with typical domestic consumption, they could nevertheless make a modest contribution to reducing the overall need for homes to draw energy from the grid, and as such they may be relatively benign.

If there is a sharp reduction in expected payout rates, with almost immediate effect, I would expect many home owners to shelve plans to install such PV arrays almost immediately, and the solar panel and installer industry will be cut back severely. Possibly those who have already had PV arrays installed will find it hard to keep them maintained if the industry implodes.

Despite the arguments by some that the PV tariffs represent a good investment for those lucky enough to afford it (i.e a "it's yet another opportunity for the rich to get richer") it may be the best that can be done in order to kick start what does not seem a totally hopeless plan for longer term energy sufficiency.

What else would you rather have richer people spend money on? Bigger cars perhaps? Foreign holidays?
Should they not be encouraged to spend money on things that might be good/useful, rather than activities which
have little long term benefit?

[mangerton]

What else would you rather have richer people spend money on? Bigger cars perhaps? Foreign holidays?
Should they not be encouraged to spend money on things that might be good/useful, rather than activities which
have little long term benefit?

We have learned this week that directors' pay has risen in the last year by 49%, and that UK inflation is now in excess of 5% pa.

Like tens of thousands of other public sector employees, I got no pay rise this year, and won't get one next year. With inflation, that is effectively a pay CUT.

Frankly, as Denis Healey didn't say, I'd tax the rich until their pips squeaked, and have a much more equitable distribution of wealth in the country.

But with our politicians jumping into bed with bankers, there is not a chance of this happening.

[Frances_iom]

the original FIT's made no sense - I assumed that they were intended as a free gift to the well-off (akin to PFI) to rip-off existing electricity consumers - household sized PVs for most of British Isles offer little or no advantage (it would be better to instal solar water heating) but would appear that the industry had the ear of our generally technically inept politicians - hence the belated realisation that the existing FITs are grossly over expensive for other consumers - eventually I suspect we will realise that off shore wind is also grossly hyped but I suspect that will be after the first of the major power rationing exercises we will see in a cold winter.

[teamsaint]

the answer to short term energy is under our feet. 300 years of coal, which, for now , can be clean burned. While this is seeing us through, we can develop thorium reactors and renewables.

Trouble is, the rich folks don't like coal....it gives us energy security(which they actually dont want as they can't make money out of security), and it also provides good jobs for our workers, which they also don't want, having so successfully destroyed these centres of opposition 30 years ago.
They have figured out that they can make lots of money out of shortage and fear... (which is what the climate change lobby is about , incidentally).

[Anna]

We have learned this week that directors' pay has risen in the last year by 49%, and that UK inflation is now in excess of 5% pa.

Like tens of thousands of other public sector employees, I got no pay rise this year, and won't get one next year. With inflation, that is effectively a pay CUT.

Frankly, as Denis Healey didn't say, I'd tax the rich until their pips squeaked, and have a much more equitable distribution of wealth in the country. But with our politicians jumping into bed with bankers, there is not a chance of this happening.

I've never worked in public sector but for small businesses and pay increases have depended on whether the profits can justify a pay increase, never a guarantee of an annual rise. Apart from one brief foray into estate agency neither have I relied on commission or bonuses.

Earlier this week the figures from the Office of National Statistics showed that households' disposable income grew by only 0.1pc last year – the worst year since the recession of 1982 when incomes contracted by 0.1pc.

So basically, like mangerton, income remains static whilst costs are spiralling. What really infuriated me, although he later changed the proposed speech, was Cameron telling people to pay off their credit cards! Hollow laugh and what planet comes into it.

[mangerton]

I've never worked in public sector but for small businesses and pay increases have depended on whether the profits can justify a pay increase, never a guarantee of an annual rise. Apart from one brief foray into estate agency neither have I relied on commission or bonuses.

Anna, believe me, I feel your pain, and I would not disagree for a moment with what you've said. Your pay increases are at least dependent to some extent on your own decisions and efforts, not on others'. My pay freeze is decreed by those who ensure that their own trough is still well filled, and their snouts well dug in.

teamsaint #4 - I agree totally with what you have written. Thatch saw to it in the 80s that the coal industry was well shafted - no pun intended - and that much of that 300 years' supply of coal became much more difficult and expensive to reach.

I do not understand why the electorate cannot grasp the fact that politicians - of any hue, but especially the tories' - do not care about "us", but are in it solely for what is in it for them.

[Anna]

Anna, believe me, I feel your pain, and I would not disagree for a moment with what you've said. Your pay increases are at least dependent to some extent on your own decisions and efforts, not on others'. My pay freeze is decreed by those who ensure that their own trough is still well filled, and their snouts well dug in.

Indeed mangerton but then, am I to be controversial? Forgive if I am. Why not? If my efforts to increase the Firm's profits in the private sector and hence pay rise depend upon my efforts, why should Public Sector employees expect to have guaranteed increases and a super deluxe pension and many private sector employees have no ability to contribute to a pension other than the State one? Something is terribly rotten in the State of Denmark.

[amateur51]

Indeed mangerton but then, am I to be controversial? Forgive if I am. Why not? If my efforts to increase the Firm's profits in the private sector and hence pay rise depend upon my efforts, why should Public Sector employees expect to have guaranteed increases and a super deluxe pension and many private sector employees have no ability to contribute to a pension other than the State one? Something is terribly rotten in the State of Denmark.

I thought that the myth of the super-pension had been laid to rest. That nice Mr Serwotka tells us that the average pension of his Public Service Members is £4,500, scarcely a King's ransom (but handy I agree).

The only people who get the superdeluxe pensions are Private Sector bosses and MPs ... and we know who decides the level of those pensions

Nice new avatar, btw Anna - you must let me know who your personal King Kong is ;laugh:

[teamsaint]

Indeed mangerton but then, am I to be controversial? Forgive if I am. Why not? If my efforts to increase the Firm's profits in the private sector and hence pay rise depend upon my efforts, why should Public Sector employees expect to have guaranteed increases and a super deluxe pension and many private sector employees have no ability to contribute to a pension other than the State one? Something is terribly rotten in the State of Denmark.

I think the (rather simplistic ) answer to this is that we have to look after each other.....fighting amongst ourselves is what those at the top want us to do.
i was self employed for 20 years. My choice, just about made a living. At the end of it all i will have no pension other than what I have paid for in NI contributions.
We have to expect quality work from state employees (I was one for 3 years), and fair rewards. We also , as a country, owe something to those who contribute by being self reliant, perhaps by way of enhanced pensions.
In my work I visit a lot of state run operations, and my experience is that i see good staff being well and truly taken for granted. There are plenty in the state sector who are on easy street. So it goes.

It is a scandal that self employed pay 2 types of NI , and get close to zero benefits for it.

[teamsaint]

This statement gleaned from the tabloid press is inaccurate on many counts. First, the article referred to the FT100. There are something like 5 million businesses in the UK. Not all directors got a 49% pay rise. But even there, that figure is grossly distorted. The truth is that for most their basic salary only went up by about 3-4% and the rest they will only get if performance targets are met...ie the company does well, creates value and creates jobs. And these are non-trivial jobs. We are talking about the expertise required to run and grow multi-billion pound international companies. There are not that many people around who can do that successfully. I'd rather have someone doing the job well and getting rewarded than offering a package worth tuppence and getting someone who will run the company into the ground.

I do agree that bankers and professional footballers get paid way way too much.

I agree that if someone can REALLY run a big business well, that it is money well spent for them to get a big , reward based package. however, its all too cleat that too often these rewards are based on "bad incentives".

Example. why do books like Harry Potter get discounted so heavily, when all logic says you should sell them across the board at top dollar?Answer: the sales director probably gets his bonus based on sales not margin...hence sell 500k copies to tesco in advance at massive discount, bonus earned. Shareholders and competition stuffed, but bonus in bag....a. bonus that can never be taken back.Short termism.
and a question....who are these few people who are the only ones who can do these jobs?
Don't defend the greedy...ask difficult questions....like the ones I get asked in my median pay job with no pension !!

[amateur51]

This statement gleaned from the tabloid press is inaccurate on many counts. First, the article referred to the FT100. There are something like 5 million businesses in the UK. Not all directors got a 49% pay rise. But even there, that figure is grossly distorted. The truth is that for most their basic salary only went up by about 3-4% and the rest they will only get if performance targets are met...ie the company does well, creates value and creates jobs. And these are non-trivial jobs. We are talking about the expertise required to run and grow multi-billion pound international companies. There are not that many people around who can do that successfully. I'd rather have someone doing the job well and getting rewarded than offering a package worth tuppence and getting someone who will run the company into the ground.

I do agree that bankers and professional footballers get paid way way too much.

Hasn't this tired old argument been run into the ground yet? It's a feature of capitalism. It's unsupportable. It's great if you're getting it. Don't expect ordinary people to like it. Get over it, big boys.

If Sir Martin Sorrell believes it's a good thing to go on national radio and say that his base pay (£1m/year) is not excessive and he's worth his extra (£6m?) in bonuses then he's on the planet Zog and deserves whatever kicking in the media that he gets.

[mangerton]

Indeed mangerton but then, am I to be controversial? Forgive if I am. Why not? If my efforts to increase the Firm's profits in the private sector and hence pay rise depend upon my efforts, why should Public Sector employees expect to have guaranteed increases and a super deluxe pension and many private sector employees have no ability to contribute to a pension other than the State one? Something is terribly rotten in the State of Denmark.

No-one should expect to have guaranteed increases. I quite agree. That should mean "no-one". It doesn't. It doesn't affect those who make the rules for the rest of us - ie Cameron and his merry band of MPS, who are living examples of Orwell's pigs who are more equal than others. Their allowances and pensions go merrily on.

[mangerton]

This statement gleaned from the tabloid press is inaccurate on many counts. First, the article referred to the FT100. There are something like 5 million businesses in the UK. Not all directors got a 49% pay rise. But even there, that figure is grossly distorted. The truth is that for most their basic salary only went up by about 3-4% and the rest they will only get if performance targets are met...ie the company does well, creates value and creates jobs. And these are non-trivial jobs. We are talking about the expertise required to run and grow multi-billion pound international companies. There are not that many people around who can do that successfully. I'd rather have someone doing the job well and getting rewarded than offering a package worth tuppence and getting someone who will run the company into the ground.

If all these companies are doing so well meeting performance targets, creating values and creating jobs, why is unemployment rising and why is the country on the brink of recession?

[johnb]

This statement gleaned from the tabloid press is inaccurate on many counts. First, the article referred to the FT100. There are something like 5 million businesses in the UK. Not all directors got a 49% pay rise. But even there, that figure is grossly distorted. The truth is that for most their basic salary only went up by about 3-4% and the rest they will only get if performance targets are met...ie the company does well, creates value and creates jobs. And these are non-trivial jobs. We are talking about the expertise required to run and grow multi-billion pound international companies. There are not that many people around who can do that successfully. I'd rather have someone doing the job well and getting rewarded than offering a package worth tuppence and getting someone who will run the company into the ground.

That's all very well but it still doesn't get away from the fact that, according to Incomes Data Services own summary of the report:

Total earnings of FTSE 100 directors rose across the board, with the breakdown as follows:

• CEOs received an average increase of 43.5%
• Finance directors received an average increase of 34.1%
• All other directors received an average increase of 66.5%

The average increase for directors as whole is 49% (higher than the CEOs who actually run the companies concerned). But what hasn't received much attention is that this is the second year running in which those heading up the FTSE100 companies have received increases in total earnings of approximately 50%.

Yes, the second year running.

[MrGongGong]

It is a scandal that self employed pay 2 types of NI , and get close to zero benefits for it.

absolutely

i was recently ill and had to spend 2 weeks in hospital
it turned out not to be as serious as they thought which was a huge relief
but obviously being self employed and having paid the stamp and earnings related NI for 25 years I was entitled to absolutely ziltch
had i been seriously ill long term (many people DO get cancer !) then I would also be entitled to NOTHING and eventually get the same as someone on ESA which is what you get if you have never bothered to do any work.........

I don't mind the insecurity of self employment
BUT
we do treat the Self Employed (and this includes the players in most of the UK's Orchestras !) atrociously

the idea that you can take out "insurance" against these things is a joke, the only insurance that is affordable excludes most of the things that are likely to make you stop work (back pain, depression, most types of cancer etc etc )