Correct. Specifically any that directly line the pockets of a minority who have by a majority who have not.
No, I'm saying that's exactly how it should be.
Yes, those things that *would* be deemed by anyone with a fully functional moral compass as being 'theft'.
How?
Maybe (whatever that means / is), if it means that stuff should be considered fair and equal.
Cheers, T i m
So that would include the disabled and the unemployed and sick as well as anyone getting any sort of benefit like vouchers for child care or tax benefits?
But that is lining the pockets of people that want to send mail to far off places using cash from people that want to send to local places. That's what you said you didn't want.
People paying for what they get, some may not be able to afford it. Pay more for long services. More for using the roads. Pay to use the library. etc.
Fair is you pay what it costs for what you use, it may not be what you want but life is not fair. Personally I think the way it is is better and spending a bit on others is a good idea.
I'm not sure their gains are index linked and guaranteed for 20 years ... or based on 'dubious' ethics though are they (but nice try).
No, see, I'm not sure I am ever going to explain the difference of
*financial gain* (of an individual) versus 'uniform cost' to everyone (as a society). The reason I won't be able to get you to see (or except) those facts is you too have taken said theft up. ;-(It is?
Quite, that's why the FIT theft is immoral.
What?
Yes, anything that allows people to earn money at the expense of others (and for dubious causes) is wrong.
No, we should all pay for that, use it or not.
Then you would prefer to pay the full cost of posting something a distance ... or paying extra for electricity that has come from Scotland because you should contribute towards all the infrastructure between them and you and ... (the ridiculous list would go on of course).
No one is suggesting one shouldn't pay for what one uses and at a fair and reasonable rate (if social) and all bets are off if it's commercial but why do you think many governments, agencies and companies subsidise stuff to make stuff available to people cheaper or more easily.
*Completely* different to *paying* a minority for indulging themselves.You (in a desperate attempt to justify your own morally corrupt position) are trying to mix everything up but it won't wash (and never will).
Of course you do, as long as it's you (and your kind) the rest of us are forced to spend more on.
Do something for society and few will have any issues you getting something out of it yourself.
Do something for yourself and with a direct cost to others and those others will have issues with you.
Cheers, T i m
So you don't want to pay electricity producers to build plant and supply electricity then?
Its that attitude that has got is in a mess.
I am just pointing out that your position is wrong and a simple extension of what you say will destroy society as we know it.
Its the sort of extension that the extreme right wing appears to want so I guess you are extreme right wing or just haven't actually thought it through.
But you spend money on stuff like that all the time, its where tax goes.
Maybe you would have been happier if the government paid FITs and stuff out of general taxation and just put a carbon tax on fuel? Then they could have spent it on defence or stuff like that without you knowing or complaining.
Well at the time the first solar panels were being installed with the expensive FIT rates people were being told that they were for the good of everyone else.
Oh, I didn't realise you or harry was building his own nuke! (about the only form of dependable power we have right now)
Quite. Not sure what that has got to do with paying the likes of you or harry to produce and consume their own energy?
But it isn't, it's how good society has worked for millions of years. People looking after each other (often whilst trying to fend off the greedy and selfish).
Only the 'what I say' that you seem to have twisted into something else.
Like I said, if you want to try to pigeon hole what I say to make it better for you to understand then so be it. I have no interest in politics so can't be held responsible for anything you make up or don't understand about my words.
What, that actually benefits individuals financially and directly and without any justification?
At least that might have made a bit more sense but I still haven't seen any real justification to the FIT in the first place (and I don't consider a knee-jerk reaction to avoiding a fine *justification* to anything. It's like being told you will be fined if you don't get your car MOT'd when it should have been MOT'd in the first place.
But I'm not discussing those things (and I'm sure there are loads), I'm just discussing this one thing (but nice distraction again).
Quite, and so was smoking and drinking an Elixir that contained mercury but some people had the brains to see though all the hype before science proved us right.
Given that your solar hot water installation was cheap, how about you proving that you *are* better than the harrys of this work and taking yourself off the FIT scheme? Or if you can't, donating any FIT money you are paid to a charity? I don't want to hear about you having to recoup the initial costs first because 1) no one told you you had to do it and 2) any real 'green' solution should be able to stand on it's own two feet (shouldn't it)?
If I decide to buy a car that is supposed to do better mpg than my existing one I look into all the facts and estimate the payback time. If it's not worth doing then I don't so it and I certainly wouldn't drag other people into it (especially without their permission).
I have no issues with making use of solar PV and water (I've used both when camping to good effect) but neither are a real solution for the country and therefore others shouldn't be further penalised for the whole scam.
Cheers, T i m
Drivel as usual.
Yeah, it's all working out well for some in Auz eh and they get 3 times the sunshine we do, have half the population we do, 30 x the size (more room for panels or windmills) and a massively bigger coastline than we do (tidal / wave / windmills).
Yes, and you could add a graph showing that burning babies could be a form of sustainable fuel but it wouldn't *actually* would it? ;-(
Until they invent a better form of energy storage, no energy source that can't be relied on 24/7 is worth a squat and then it STILL needs to be ecologically (and ethically, no getting a great number of people to pay a small number of people to play house and solar PV) sound.
Any *truly good* energy source will ... stand on it's own two feet financially, will be available 24/7 and won't consume more energy and create more pollution in its inception than it can give out in it's lifetime.
It will be like the concept of MagLev in that it works, offers great performance potential and has few moving parts so little to wear out / maintain (all adding to the cost / carbon footprint).
Or geo-thermal community heating projects or locating datacentres where the environment can keep them cool.
Or peoples living in a way where they don't consume more than the earth can naturally provide or it can naturally recycle.
Now I'm enough of a realist to know we are currently way past that point but who knows if / how long it will now last?
All I do know is that the likes of solar PV and without any realistic storage solution on the horizon isn't it, well whilst we still have a batch of dark *every* 24 hours that is. Now, ignoring the questionable carbon neutrality of solar PV, and even when we can cover our own (UK) load and had ay 60GW's worth of feed from countries that were lit when we were dark, what when it's overcast everywhere?
It's just lucky your moral compass was broken when the government first forced the rest of us to fund you putting that while elephant on your roof. ;-(
Ere, this could be fun ... tell us the total carbon footprint of your solar PV system ... that's including say mining the aluminium ore to make the frames and moving it to the smelting plant and forming it in to the profiles etc etc (same for the panels, inverters, cables, installation and final disposal) versus how much energy they will generate during their lifetimes.
And then how much cash you predict you will earn off us over the same period, along with how much pollution you think you will save (considering solar and wind aren't there 24/7 or even close to it).
And you must have done all these numbers, considering 1) your previous job and 2 (therefore) deciding if to go ahead with the installation or not (fully considering ethical and ecological grounds of course?).
In the meantime ... I would be happy to contribute towards you FIT payments if you would go off grid (from a consumption POV).
Talk about wanting us to buy your cake, you eating it and rarely sharing any (without us having to pay over the top for it anyway!).
Cheers, T i m
It would appear your moral compass is a bit biased imo.
You obviously don't buy from any company that employs accountants as that is investing money to get more money out of others. Even worse when they do the vAT/tax returns to avoid paying too much tax as that costs everyone more.
I wonder if you support drug dealers as they make stuff cheaper?
Not sure how you think you could possibly judge that!
WHF tangent are you off on now?
1) It's nothing to do what I do but people taking FIT payments from others. 2) Accountants aren't generally *earning* money for people but more often getting others to pay what they owe and trying to *save* the company money (although the difference between earning and saving seems to continue to evade you). The accountancy departments are rarely profit centres.How can it be any worse than getting a group of people to pay an individual for energy they generate but use themselves?
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?
[1] Those of us at the bottom of steep E/W valleys exposed to neither wind nor sun have an excuse.
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...
Or avoiding fines based on some bogus 'Green' / pollution scam ...
Yes, *especially* when the people paying the money in aren't 'The people' via their taxes but those who buy electricity.
As do those of us with ethics ...
I'm sure there are loads of similar scams going on and of course there are people happy to take money from those who can least afford it but with this (the whole FIT thing), *no one* had to sign up for the FIT scheme to do what they did.
There must be more grid-isolated Solar PV and water systems around the world than those connected to the grid and certainly than those
*earning money* from others though it (whilst consuming the energy themselves).Even a solar farm where the landowner doesn't actually draw any energy off themselves but exports it all to the grid, (whilst claiming the FIT) is less questionable IMHO.
Cheers, T i m
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.
Yes, there are loads of 'other things' we could discuss, but we aren't atm. ;-)
Other than that was 1) what was being discussed and 2) no one *had* to take it up? I'm sure there must be a way to generate electricity and simply get paid for what you generate, and that it?
No, the *reason* the likes of harry took it up was simply to earn the money from it (and that's the big issue, when *we* are paying him).
Not 'someone's' Roger, 'many peoples'. I bet there are even people out there who have solar PV and are getting paid the FIT and have no idea who is actually paying it and some ... who may even feel sufficiently ashamed to then give the payments away or come off the system?
No, although many have passed the latter onto charity .... but even those aren't the same as installing a solar PV system and doing so just to get in before the initial FIT reduction, simply to earn (more) money from it.
Did you have to go out of your way to get those things, or did they just happen? Did either thing give you an index linked and guaranteed rate for 20 years?
Did you get other 'uninvolved people to pay for it based on some bogus 'it's better for all of us' plan?
Even giving someone who regularly lives and drives in one of our big and polluted cities a grant against the price of an electric car makes
*some* sense as it reduces kerbside emissions ... but *only* on those grounds (as any other 'eco' credentials are also bs and I've had a Plug-In EV for around 30 years).Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.