"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote

I see the gov. are bent on building Hinkley

Because they realise that the alternatives are even worse
economically.

if you read the first item you will see that the complaint is about the
choice of technology, not the choice of fuel

I wasn't talking about fuel economy.

Though it does annoy me that they persist in claiming it's a "taxpayer
subsidy" when what they mean is "consumer subsidy", not all consumers
pay "tax"

There are very few consumers who don't pay at least some VAT, just those
tho never buy anything but zero rated items and there are damned few of
those now.

I know but the point is the money does not come out of the taxes that I
already pay

Still paid by the tax payers, not all consumers

There was no claim it was paid by "all" consumers

It ought to be bleeding obvious even to one brain cell Wodney that the
meaning was "electricity consumers"

, particularly
not by the consumers whose entire income is benefits,
whose only tax paid is effectively paid by other taxpayers
because of their entire income is benefits.

Wrong

If they are leccy bill payer they will be paying this subsidy - it is added
to their leccy bill and (in the UK) benefits claimants are not excepted from
such charges (which we already have)

It is an additional amount that needs to be paid

Sure, but mostly by taxpayers, not all consumers.

it will all be paid by consumers - that they may also be taxpayers is
irrelevant because it is an additional charge to their taxes


And they meant subsidised by the taxpayers, they aren't subsidised by
all consumers, particularly those who are not grid connected.

well obvious not

but the subsidy is most definitely paid by consumers (of electricity)

Not directly with those whose entire income is
benefits, that is actually paid for by taxpayers.

If you are going to make that argument you could say that "normal" people
don't pay for anything themself, it is all paid for by their employer.

It is a nutty extrapolation

it will be taken away from you by adding it to your leccy bill, it does
not come out of the common pool of already collected taxes

It does with those whose entire income is benefits.

IMO it's a distinction that doesn't really matter.

Of course it does

the implication of saying in a newspaper that something is being "paid for
by taxpayers" is that it will be taken out of the funds already collected.

This is not the case here. It is an additional amount that people will have
to pay

tim