On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:23:54 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Jun 13, 12:23*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:32 am, John Rumm wrote:

On 13/06/2011 09:59, RobertL wrote:

On Jun 13, 9:15 am, Jim *wrote:
arsehole relative is forging ahead and crowing abt it all in usual
manner- anyone care to give me a *succinct indefensible argument to
hopefully reinforce what a prick he is?

He pays, say, 12,000 for installation and will never see that money
again. He can't 'back out' and get his money back. *It will be 10
years or so before he starts to see any net positive result from his
investment. *After 25 years the income stops.

Nobody would buy an investment bond like that.

Due to the distortion of the market by the subsidies that we are all
paying owners of these systems, he will yield a return approaching 10% a
year. Compared to the rates available elsewhere, that's currently quite
a good deal.

Do a quick spreadsheet of 12K compounded at 5% and compare it to the
typical FiT income. Even ignoring the offset of some electricity not
purchased the numbers can look attractive.

So looked at in hard financial terms, it makes sense if you have the
capital sat there doing nothing and no immediate use for it. (obviously
ignoring all the valid arguments over the environmental pointlessness of it)

ah curses - he may have a point!?

what is typical FiT over say 10years

What is the typical tax rate going to be in 10 years time? The
government could change the scheme on a whim.

And the more popular the scheme is the more likely they will be to
change it.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.