The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 13/02/17 11:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
T i m wrote:

On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:56:04 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:
snip

How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an
individual for energy they generate but use themselves?

I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?

At least drug dealers give something back for taking peoples money!
What do we get back from paying you your FIT payments?

Cheers, T i m

If the government, for presumably sound political reasons of its own
related to international affairs, wants to pay us[1] for doing something
entirely pointless who are we to unpatriotically refuse to take the
money?

Whose money is the government using to pay us?

In teh end money spent = someone's time bought: the question is could
that person have been doing something more useful and productive than
digging holes and filling them in again.

Ultimately cost benefitr analysis shows that many many jobs would be
best completely abolished and the people who do them put on the dole.
Even if their standards of living didn't suffer, the roads would be less
crowded...

Follow that logic and we should probably not have started invading the
Middle East and Asia. The point being that it is a bit mean to pick on
the particular inept piece of governance involved in FIT payments for
special moral opprobrium. But I realise I am intruding on someone
else's longstanding argument.

I never used to refuse mortgage interest relief either. Let alone
winter heating allowance.


--

Roger Hayter