http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.

On 04/08/2013 08:27, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will
want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient energy
nor to improve insulation.

Then add in how this could be assessed fairly?

Crackpot idea. No wonder you are hailing it.

--
Rod

On 04/08/2013 08:34, polygonum wrote:
On 04/08/2013 08:27, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy


Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will
want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient energy
nor to improve insulation.

Then add in how this could be assessed fairly?

Crackpot idea. No wonder you are hailing it.

Did you read any of the comments?

"These 'green fascists' as you refer to them are not environmentalists.
The UK-GBC is a charity (and it is charity calling it a charity) founded
by a consortium of banks and building trades organisations in Britain."

"So the fuel poor homes would be taxed more. Makes a lot of sense. Pour
it on the poor and the middle classes. Wonderful idea!

And how many homes are rented instead of purchased? Many - perhaps 1/2?
And those renters, whilst not responsible for the energy ratings of
their homes and in no position to pay for modifications, are
nevertheless responsible for paying the council taxes. Yes, brilliant idea."

Obviously not reading beyond the headline...

--
Rod

Hmm, then you need energty efficient people to live in and use them, ie not
with kids that never shut doors etc.
Of course the conspiracy folk would treat the reevaluation of the house as
a chance to make the cost get adjusted so everyone ends up paying morebefore
the discount.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.

polygonum wrote:

On 04/08/2013 08:27, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.

Then add in how this could be assessed fairly?
Crackpot idea. No wonder you are hailing it.

It's just another way to sell an EPC to people who aren't selling their
house.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.

Oh

so they've come with a scheme which no-one wants to take up because it is
financially flawed and instead of standing back and asking, "why is no-one
taking it up, how should we change it so that they will?"

it's "lets beat with a big stick into taking it"

tim

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


You really do come up with some stupid ideas.

This is just a system to make people pay more tax, hidden by hind a screen
of a few people paying less. And even those will end up paying more when
they've increased the tax to take account of their discount.

I had an EPC done recently on a house that I'm selling, it was pathetic. The
guy doing it marked the property down on the assumption that there wasn't
sufficient loft insulation - but he didn't actually go in the loft, just
made the assumption. And he also marked it down for not having cavity wall
insulation, but again that was an assumption and not an actual inspection.

And of course, the treasury gets a VAT payment on every report, it's taxes
all round.

Some people are so gullible, that they are easily convinced into paying more
tax, under the guise of helping the environment.

"harryagain" wrote in message ...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


Brilliant if you're a council strapped for cash I'd say

Does ****all for me...1890 solid wall semi dethatched cottage. Rented, side
walls exposed to elements, opposite 200 acres of golf course where the wind
howls down and batters the front, 150 acres of open farmland behind does
similar tricks to the rear, and the landlord is tighter than a ducks arse in
a sandstorm.

I'd have to envelope the pair of cottages inside a ****ing great tent to get
any protection !

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will
want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient energy
nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

And the slightly higher earnings will reduce/eliminate Child/Working
Tax Credits as well. Essentially I work more, earn more but see no
overall increase in my standard of living, if anything it gets worse.
No incentive to get out there and find work at all.

If they want this scheme to work or the Green Deal they need to show
that people will have money in their pockets now. I'm not surprised
that the Green Deal hasn't been taken up. Any, not guaranteed,
savings are taken straight back by paying off the loan. Then there is
the uncertainty of the effect a GD loan on a property will have on
it's sale value.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will
want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient
energy nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it seemed
inappropriate.

--
Adam

On 04/08/2013 13:32, ARW wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will
want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient
energy nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it seemed
inappropriate.

Number of illnesses doesn't help.

The right illness does - or getting sufficiently older. Or relocating to
Scotland/Wales.

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On 04/08/2013 13:32, ARW wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone
will want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto
energy inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither
sufficient energy nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it
seemed inappropriate.

Number of illnesses doesn't help.

The right illness does - or getting sufficiently older. Or relocating
to Scotland/Wales.

What illness could be worse than relocating to Wales?

--
Adam

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:32:28 +0100, ARW wrote:

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it seemed
inappropriate.

B-)

Hers is "just" high blood pressure, mine is brain rot, aka
Parkinsons. Other than those we are generally very healthy, could go
years without needing a prescription.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:
You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone will want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto energy
inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither sufficient energy
nor to improve insulation.
Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.
HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.
And the slightly higher earnings will reduce/eliminate Child/Working
Tax Credits as well. Essentially I work more, earn more but see no
overall increase in my standard of living, if anything it gets worse.

If your employer has a flexible benefits scheme, look into that.
This is the sort of thing where you can sacrifice some of your
salary for some benefit, e.g. to increase your employer's pension
contribution, provide a company car, etc.

No incentive to get out there and find work at all.
If they want this scheme to work or the Green Deal they need to show
that people will have money in their pockets now. I'm not surprised
that the Green Deal hasn't been taken up. Any, not guaranteed,
savings are taken straight back by paying off the loan. Then there is
the uncertainty of the effect a GD loan on a property will have on
it's sale value.

The big issue with most of these energy efficiency measures is that
the cost of getting someone to do it for you wipes out the benefits.
If you can get a large program of DIY enery efficiency measures
going, there's a real potential to save energy, instead of taxing
people to create jobs which don't do anything to help this country's
bottom line. However, since it's largely driven by the industries
which hope to make a profit from energy saving lobbying the government,
this sadly seems unlikely to happen.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Nthkentman" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message ...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


Brilliant if you're a council strapped for cash I'd say

Does ****all for me...1890 solid wall semi dethatched cottage. Rented,
side walls exposed to elements, opposite 200 acres of golf course where
the wind howls down and batters the front, 150 acres of open farmland
behind does similar tricks to the rear, and the landlord is tighter than a
ducks arse in a sandstorm.

I'd have to envelope the pair of cottages inside a ****ing great tent to
get any protection !


They need to find some way of penalising/incentivising the landlord in your
case..

"ARW" wrote in message
...
polygonum wrote:
On 04/08/2013 13:32, ARW wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone
will want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto
energy inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither
sufficient energy nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it
seemed inappropriate.

Number of illnesses doesn't help.

The right illness does - or getting sufficiently older. Or relocating
to Scotland/Wales.

What illness could be worse than relocating to Wales?


I lived there for 20 yrs.
It was OK apart from the rain.
Houses much cheaper.

They were far ahead of the English in the field of energy saving. Ten or
fifteen years I would say.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:32:28 +0100, ARW wrote:

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it seemed
inappropriate.

B-)

Hers is "just" high blood pressure, mine is brain rot, aka
Parkinsons. Other than those we are generally very healthy, could go
years without needing a prescription.

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

In message , Andy
Burns writes
polygonum wrote:

On 04/08/2013 08:27, harryagain wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.

Then add in how this could be assessed fairly?
Crackpot idea. No wonder you are hailing it.

It's just another way to sell an EPC to people who aren't selling their
house.

I can see the arguments against it, but I continue to believe that we
should get a Council Tax rebate for not paving over the lawn, having
trees etc.

I reckon 1% per tree, 0.5% for a hedge and so on.

A genuine green incentive, and it would save our family a fortune..
--
Bill

On Sunday, 4 August 2013 14:32:45 UTC+1, Bob Minchin wrote:
Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

I get 3-month prescriptions.

Owain

Bill wrote:

I continue to believe that we should get a Council Tax rebate for not
paving over the lawn, having trees etc.

I reckon 1% per tree, 0.5% for a hedge and so on.
A genuine green incentive, and it would save our family a fortune..

What's the justification to lower your council tax costs for something
that doesn't lower the council's costs? A bit of a rebate on drainage
rates for not contributing to rapid run-off ... maybe.

Nthkentman wrote:
"harryagain" wrote in message ...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.


Brilliant if you're a council strapped for cash I'd say

Does ****all for me...1890 solid wall semi dethatched cottage.
Rented, side walls exposed to elements, opposite 200 acres of golf
course where the wind howls down and batters the front, 150 acres of
open farmland behind does similar tricks to the rear,

and the
landlord is tighter than a ducks arse in a sandstorm.

The correct sayings are "tighter than a camels arsehole in a sand storm" or
"as tight as a ducks arse".

The duck is not in the sandstorm:-)


--
Adam

On 04/08/2013 14:19, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article o.uk,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:
You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone
will want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto
energy inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither
sufficient energy nor to improve insulation.
Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other. HMG seem to
be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes. Last
financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid above
the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have
need at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each
*individuals* prescription requirement *not* the households. And
the slightly higher earnings will reduce/eliminate Child/Working
Tax Credits as well. Essentially I work more, earn more but see no
overall increase in my standard of living, if anything it gets
worse.

If your employer has a flexible benefits scheme, look into that. This
is the sort of thing where you can sacrifice some of your salary for
some benefit, e.g. to increase your employer's pension contribution,
provide a company car, etc.

No incentive to get out there and find work at all. If they want
this scheme to work or the Green Deal they need to show that people
will have money in their pockets now. I'm not surprised that the
Green Deal hasn't been taken up. Any, not guaranteed, savings are
taken straight back by paying off the loan. Then there is the
uncertainty of the effect a GD loan on a property will have on it's
sale value.

The big issue with most of these energy efficiency measures is that
the cost of getting someone to do it for you wipes out the benefits.
If you can get a large program of DIY enery efficiency measures
going, there's a real potential to save energy, instead of taxing
people to create jobs which don't do anything to help this country's
bottom line. However, since it's largely driven by the industries
which hope to make a profit from energy saving lobbying the
government, this sadly seems unlikely to happen.

Sadly a company car is seen as more income when it comes to tax credits!

A company mobile phone is just about the only tax free perk I can think of?

On 04/08/2013 08:27, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...iciency-energy

Roll on I say! Brilliant idea.




And what will really happen:

The energy survey can only be performed by a "registered" surveyor at a
cost of £500 a visit.

The council will decide that the revaluation of your house puts up your
council tax charge by 2 bands.

And then you get a 5% discount.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 04/08/2013 14:32, Bob Minchin wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:32:28 +0100, ARW wrote:

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it seemed
inappropriate.

B-)

Hers is "just" high blood pressure, mine is brain rot, aka
Parkinsons. Other than those we are generally very healthy, could go
years without needing a prescription.

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.


That will not save any money. It will not exempt them from prescription
charges. it just puts a yearly limit on the cost at £104 per person.
--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In message , Andy
Burns writes
Bill wrote:

I continue to believe that we should get a Council Tax rebate for not
paving over the lawn, having trees etc.

I reckon 1% per tree, 0.5% for a hedge and so on.
A genuine green incentive, and it would save our family a fortune..

What's the justification to lower your council tax costs for something
that doesn't lower the council's costs? A bit of a rebate on drainage
rates for not contributing to rapid run-off ... maybe.

Oh, come on, have you no soul? Is life just about money?

If I tidied up a bit, I'd help provide a green and pleasant land.

I'm also helping to provide the air that they breathe while capturing
tons of carbon. And the wind doesn't have to blow for it to work.
--
Bill

Bill wrote:

Andy Burns writes

What's the justification to lower your council tax costs for something
that doesn't lower the council's costs?

Oh, come on, have you no soul? Is life just about money?

life isn't but certainly tax is. The more spurious discounts dished
out, the higher the tax is for everyone else.

If I tidied up a bit, I'd help provide a green and pleasant land.

I'm also helping to provide the air that they breathe while capturing
tons of carbon.

Temporarily, until someone chops it down and burns it.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:19:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Essentially I work more, earn more but see no overall increase in
my
standard of living, if anything it gets worse.

If your employer ...

That'll be me then, self employed ...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 14:55:17 +0100, Bill wrote:

I can see the arguments against it, but I continue to believe that we
should get a Council Tax rebate for not paving over the lawn, having
trees etc.

I reckon 1% per tree, 0.5% for a hedge and so on.

Or for not having street lights, nearest one to here is a mile and
half a way, street/verge cleaning, gully clearing, litter bins in
town, traffic wardens, etc

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:32:45 +0100, Bob Minchin wrote:

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

For the purposes of a prescription charge what defines an "item"?

Both her and my meds come in 28 day packets, so 8 weeks would require
two packs, two items? Google tells me that mine might be available in
112 size packs but I can't actually find any other reference to that
pack size.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 17:04:33 +0100, alan wrote:

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

That will not save any money. It will not exempt them from prescription
charges.

But if we only have to pay for 12 prescriptions a year rather than
24... All depends on what defines an "item" in prescription terms.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 04/08/2013 14:25, harryagain wrote:
They were far ahead of the English in the field of energy saving. Ten or
fifteen years I would say.

Two nuclear power stations for what, two or three million people? that
was a real contribution to maintaining our energy supply.

--
Rod

On 04/08/2013 17:39, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 13:19:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Essentially I work more, earn more but see no overall increase
in
my
standard of living, if anything it gets worse.

If your employer ...

That'll be me then, self employed ...


Then by forming a ltd company you can nominally set your own income and
make sure you get all these benefits.

If you take the mickey HMRC might have some words, but anywhere near the
threshold and you're a winner. Plus you can get further expenses such
as 45p per mile for running your car and company mobile for you and your
employed wife?

Self employments and benefits don't mix.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:32:45 +0100, Bob Minchin wrote:

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

For the purposes of a prescription charge what defines an "item"?

It's per drug.

If it's two packets of the same drug it's still one item

tim

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 17:04:33 +0100, alan wrote:

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

That will not save any money. It will not exempt them from prescription
charges.

But if we only have to pay for 12 prescriptions a year rather than
24... All depends on what defines an "item" in prescription terms.

if you know that you're going to need it all year just buy a "season" ticket

tim

On 04/08/2013 18:14, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:32:45 +0100, Bob Minchin wrote:

Could you ask your GP for 8 week prescriptions? They are usually
sympathetic if the situation is explained to them.

For the purposes of a prescription charge what defines an "item"?

Both her and my meds come in 28 day packets, so 8 weeks would require
two packs, two items? Google tells me that mine might be available in
112 size packs but I can't actually find any other reference to that
pack size.



A prescription is a single item on the form irrespective of the number
of tablets. My charge for a prescription didn't go up when the doctor
doubled the dose.

You don't need a 8 weeks supply per item - you want fewer prescriptions
therefore 6 months supply per prescription. You may find however that a
doctor is unwilling to prescribe more than 3 months supply in one go.

It's interesting to see the wholesale prices for the medication you may
be taking. Most of my (generic) prescribed medicines comes out at less
than 50p packet (£1.50 to £3 for a three month supply) but I once had
some "paint" for a foot infection that was £160 for 10ml and I went
through 5 bottles.

Prices found around 4 years ago when I first started taking long term
prescribed drugs.



--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 04/08/2013 14:19, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

SNIP

The big issue with most of these energy efficiency measures is that
the cost of getting someone to do it for you wipes out the benefits.

Any government scheme tends to work out like that. I've looked at a few
schemes and one that springs to (money saving, not energy saving) was
grants to retro-fit cars for LPG. I looked at it, as at the time I was
doing high mileages, but it turned out that it would be around £1200 to
get it done at the local, approved fitter, but I could get around £800
grant if I went to the goverment grant scheme approved fitter - who
charged £2000!

Similar pricing differences seem to occur with most goverment grant schemes.

If you can get a large program of DIY enery efficiency measures
going, there's a real potential to save energy.

Instead you get no financial help and they require you to pay the local
council to inspect and approve your improvements!

instead of taxing
people to create jobs which don't do anything to help this country's
bottom line. However, since it's largely driven by the industries
which hope to make a profit from energy saving lobbying the government,
this sadly seems unlikely to happen.

I'd say "unlikely" is being severely over-optimistic!

SteveW

On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 19:12:51 +0100, tim..... wrote:

But if we only have to pay for 12 prescriptions a year rather than
24... All depends on what defines an "item" in prescription terms.

if you know that you're going to need it all year just buy a "season"
ticket

The break even point for the 12 month "season" ticket is 14
prescriptions per year. A year, at 4 week intervals, is 13
prescriptions, odd that...

I may well get SWMBO'd to have a word with the GP about hers as that
is under control and stable. For me it's a little more complicated as
I'm under a specialist not the GP and I'm probably about to switch
from an MAO-B inhibitor to a dopamine agonist as my symptoms have got
a bit worse in last few months.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"ARW" writes:

polygonum wrote:
On 04/08/2013 13:32, ARW wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 08:34:16 +0100, polygonum wrote:

You keep telling us that fuel costs will keep rising so everyone
will want, indeed be forced, to super-insulate. Add a tax onto
energy inefficiency and they will not be able afford neither
sufficient energy nor to improve insulation.

Quite give (reduction in council tax) with one hand take (high
interest rates on the Green Deal loan) with the other.

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Get a better illness or more illnesses? I woud have put:-) but it
seemed inappropriate.

Number of illnesses doesn't help.

The right illness does - or getting sufficiently older. Or relocating
to Scotland/Wales.

What illness could be worse than relocating to Wales?

Some would say "relocating to Scotland" !


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 04/08/2013 23:06, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 19:12:51 +0100, tim..... wrote:

But if we only have to pay for 12 prescriptions a year rather than
24... All depends on what defines an "item" in prescription terms.

if you know that you're going to need it all year just buy a "season"
ticket

The break even point for the 12 month "season" ticket is 14
prescriptions per year. A year, at 4 week intervals, is 13
prescriptions, odd that...

I may well get SWMBO'd to have a word with the GP about hers as that
is under control and stable. For me it's a little more complicated as
I'm under a specialist not the GP and I'm probably about to switch
from an MAO-B inhibitor to a dopamine agonist as my symptoms have got
a bit worse in last few months.

Unfair, isn't it?

A prepayment certificate does still have advantages. Like protection
against increases in charges. And against finding yourself needing
another prescription for any reason - connected or not with your main
problems.

--
Rod

On 04/08/2013 13:02, Dave Liquorice wrote:

HMG seem to be very good at generating these "poverty trap" schemes.
Last financial year our *household* income went a few hundred quid
above the NHS Tax Credit Exemption limit. We are both on 4 weekly
prescriptions which we will now have to pay for at 13 x 2 x 7.85 =
£204.10. The prescription pre-payment isn't any use as you have need
at least 14 prescriptions/year and is based on each *individuals*
prescription requirement *not* the households.

Ask the GP to do them every two months.
Even better ask them to do them every three months, buy a 3 month prepay
and get them dispensed, then do it a day earlier at the end and have 6
months for the price of three.

And the slightly higher earnings will reduce/eliminate Child/Working
Tax Credits as well. Essentially I work more, earn more but see no
overall increase in my standard of living, if anything it gets worse.
No incentive to get out there and find work at all.

If they want this scheme to work or the Green Deal they need to show
that people will have money in their pockets now. I'm not surprised
that the Green Deal hasn't been taken up. Any, not guaranteed,
savings are taken straight back by paying off the loan.

that's not how it is supposed to work.
they should estimate the minimum saving and that should be the maximum paid.