tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
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

Never said there was. It is however more accurate to say
it is paid by the taxpayers than by consumers when you
allow for the fact that so many of the consumers who in
theory are paying for it via the cost of the electricity they
pay for are in fact having that paid by the taxpayers.

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

And I never said otherwise and given that most people are
electricity consumers that is close enough to all 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

Nope.

If they are leccy bill payer they will be paying this subsidy

No they aren't when their entire income is benefits. That subsidy is
in fact being paid by the taxpayers who are paying their benefits.

- it is added to their leccy bill

And that is paid for using their benefits which are paid
for by taxpayers when their entire income is benefits.

and (in the UK) benefits claimants are not excepted from such charges
(which we already have)

Never said they were, just who is actually paying that
subsidy when their entire income is benefits. That is
clearly the taxpayer who is paying those benefits.

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

Yes, but those whose entire income is benefits,
will be having the subsidy paid by taxpayers, not
the consumer whose entire income is benefits.

- that they may also be taxpayers is irrelevant because it is an
additional charge to their taxes

Paid for by other taxpayers when their entire income is benefits.

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.

That isnt true of those who are self employed or of those who no longer
work and who are retired and those who live off their investments etc etc
etc.

It is a nutty extrapolation

It isnt nutty and it isnt an extrapolation, it's a fact.

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.

Nope, ALL it means is that it is the taxpayers who pay for the subsidy.

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

Irrelevant to the fact that it is ALWAYS the taxpayers who are actually
paying for it.