# Fuel Poverty



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

There are headlines all over the place about how nearly a third of households are now living in energy poverty. 
According to page 5 of this the definition of Fuel/Energy Poverty is when households spend 10 % or more of their income to achieve WHO standards (21 C in living rooms and 18 C in all other rooms). There doesn't seem to be a definition for it here, just questionnaires and opinions. 
The average household income in Ireland is around €44k. The average household income for the bottom third of the country is around €14'500. That means for them to be in fuel poverty they need to be spending around €120 a month on energy. That is an average of families, retirees and single people. The average income per family with 2-3 children within that group is considerably larger. The average combined electricity and gas costs using the best deal on the market is €2,133. Source. 
Obviously households with low incomes aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices that would increase their bills so it's reasonable to think that their bills will be lower than the average but this does seem to be a real problem, though the emotive language used to describe it is silly. 
We should not be doing things like increasing fuel allowances for all pensioners since as a cohort they are at a low risk of poverty. 
What is clear is that many people are doing just fine so any measures to help people should be targeted and temporary.


----------



## TRS30 (16 Jun 2022)

A new buzz word/media sound bite, whatever term you want to use. Much like one of my personal pet hates- 'most vulnerable in society', which seems to be a catch all for anyone on less then €50K+.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

TRS30 said:


> A new buzz word/media sound bite, whatever term you want to use. Much like one of my personal pet hates- 'most vulnerable in society', which seems to be a catch all for anyone on less then €50K+.


Yes, the conflation of income and wealth again. If you are a homeowner and have no mortgage then spending 10% of your income on fuel it's no big deal. If you earn €80k a year but have a big mortgage or are paying a high rent then spending 5% of your income on fuel could be a huge deal.
We should be using after tax income less the net cost of housing, divided by the number of people in each household as a benchmark figure for all these types of calculations.


----------



## TRS30 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, the conflation of income and wealth again. If you are a homeowner and have no mortgage then spending 10% of your income on fuel it's no big deal. If you earn €80k a year but have a big mortgage or are paying a high rent then spending 5% of your income on fuel could be a huge deal.
> We should be using after tax income less the net cost of housing, divided by the number of people in each household as a benchmark figure for all these types of calculations.



Very true. We have a decent income (circa €130K) however don't feel wealthy. Increases in fuel cost alone would be manageable however when you factor in pretty much everything else we have to pay for is also increasing, the overall impact is much greater.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

TRS30 said:


> Very true. We have a decent income (circa €130K) however don't feel wealthy. Increases in fuel cost alone would be manageable however when you factor in pretty much everything else we have to pay for is also increasing, the overall impact is much greater.


So what's your after tax income less your mortgage repayments/rent?
Gross income really tells us very little.
I like this example;
Married couple with 2 small children on a €130,000 income.
Income after tax €89,895
Mortgage of €450k over 25 years.
Repayments including insurance €2100 per month, €25,200 per year.

Net income after cost of housing €64,695
The cost of childcare for two children (net of children's allowance) is €37,440

Net income after cost of tax, childcare and housing €27,255
Weekly disposable income per household member around €130.



Retired couple on income of €40k a year.
Income after tax €38,100
No mortgage.
No childcare costs. Medical card, free travel etc.

Net income after cost of housing €38,100.
Weekly disposable income per household member around €350.


The couple on €130k are rich.
The retired couple are part of the "Most Vulnerable in Society".

Which household will feel the most impact from higher energy costs?


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Obviously households with low incomes aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices that would increase their bills


Why wouldn't a low income family be using tumble dryers? (It's not as if it's an option to turn up at work or send a child to school in damp or dirty clothes.)


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Why wouldn't a low income family be using tumble dryers? (It's not as if it's an option to turn up at work or send a child to school in damp or dirty clothes.)


Clothes lines or clothes horses are perfectly fine for drying clothes. I never use the tumble dryer as it's expensive and bad for the environment.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Clothes lines or clothes horses are perfectly fine for drying clothes. I never use the tumble dryer as it's expensive and bad for the environment.


Many apartment dwellers are reliant on tumble dryers. Probably duplex town houses also.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Clothes lines or clothes horses are perfectly fine for drying clothes.


Not if a child has a dirty uniform jumper and it has to be washed and dried and ready for school in the morning.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> If you live in an apartment, likely reliant on a tumble dryer.


Or a clothes horse. That's what I used when I lived in an apartment.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Not if a child has a dirty uniform jumper and it has to be washed and dried and ready for school in the morning.


Make sure they have two jumpers. It's much cheaper than a tumble dryer.
I had 3 children in school at one stage and never needed a tumble dryer.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Or a clothes horse. That's what I used when I lived in an apartment.


That can be risky re: mould, depending on the property and how well heated \ ventilated it is.


----------



## joe sod (16 Jun 2022)

I heard the esri on this morning about not reducing fuel taxes but actually about giving a social welfare bonus instead.  Then last week another body was on about giving a grant to people that work from home.

What about the people on between 30 and 40k that drive to work every day that keep all the services  ,factories, hospitals and supermarkets running that worked all through the pandemic??
So give people on social welfare that don't drive to work a bonus   ,give people that work from home on high salaries mostly a grant but give nothing to the people that drive to work every day on modest incomes !!
The esri  have completely lost any credibility as an economic advisory years ago


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> That can be risky re: mould, depending on the property and how well heated \ ventilated it is.


Maybe, but that's a different issue. The point is that you can get by without one. It's not an essential so if you've a low income you shouldn't have an expectation that you should have one. The same goes for foreign holidays, smoking, takeaways, alcohol etc. If you can afford any of those you can afford to heat your home.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> I heard the esri on this morning about not reducing fuel taxes but actually about giving a social welfare bonus instead.  Then last week another body was on about giving a grant to people that work from home.
> 
> What about the people on between 30 and 40k that drive to work every day that keep all the services  ,factories, hospitals and supermarkets running that worked all through the pandemic??
> So give people on social welfare that don't drive to work a bonus   ,give people that work from home on high salaries mostly a grant but give nothing to the people that drive to work every day on modest incomes !!
> The esri  have completely lost any credibility as an economic advisory years ago


Most recipients of social welfare work.
A working family with 2 children qualifies for the Working Family Payment (formerly know as Family Income Supplement).
All families on 30-40k would qualify for Rent supports if they are renting.

People on high incomes tax high taxes and, as I pointed out above, have high costs.


----------



## elcato (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Why wouldn't a low income family be using tumble dryers? (It's not as if it's an option to turn up at work or send a child to school in damp or dirty clothes.)





odyssey06 said:


> Many apartment dwellers are reliant on tumble dryers. Probably duplex town houses also.


As My Ma used to say, "What did we do when tumble dryers weren't invented ......."


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Make sure they have two jumpers. It's much cheaper than a tumble dryer.
> I had 3 children in school at one stage and never needed a tumble dryer.


If you're running a low income household, two of everything in a school uniform might be seen as quite a luxury, especially with children growing out of clothes all the time.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

elcato said:


> As My Ma used to say, "What did we do when tumble dryers weren't invented ......."


That's easy - people sent their kids to school in damp/dirty clothes. Time has moved on and if you do that now, all sorts of questions will be asked.


----------



## joe sod (16 Jun 2022)

In 2008 the oil price was $140 a barrel  yet the price of a litre of diesel or petrol was nowhere near now  , it was around 130cent a litre then.
Now the price of a barrel of oil is $120 yet the price of a litre of petrol is 220c almost a euro extra even though oil is lower now than 2008.
I know there are now higher refining costs but the vast bulk of that differential is large taxation increases.
To say that fuel taxes cannot be reduced is rubbish,  the esri are talking nonsense
If anyone needs a break it's the people that drive to work every day and keep this country running


----------



## Monbretia (16 Jun 2022)

Re the tumble dryer thing - I bought a tumble dryer last year after 30 yrs in this house!  Never had one before and managed with radiators mainly and line in summer, not a fan of the clothes horse as unless I popped it up in the kitchen there was no real space or home for it, might be fine with a decent size utility room.   I did have one but usually put it outside on a fine day, it's slow enough to dry on it indoors unless you have a very warm house.

Anyways my main reason for buying at this late stage (ironically now that energy costs are rising!) was visiting grandchildren who apparently need to change their clothes every day and wash the previous days.  Now there is no denying of course they must change them if dirty but a lot of the time they are not actually dirty and as small kids don't sweat they aren't sweaty either.   We definitely didn't wash clothes as often back years ago and I don't recall my school jumper being washed daily between wears, in fact it just couldn't have been as there was no means to dry it that fast.   Laundry seems to be a practically full time occupation in most houses with children these days, couple of loads a day most days and if it's raining well what do you do!


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> In 2008 the oil price was $140 a barrel  yet the price of a litre of diesel or petrol was nowhere near now  , it was around 130cent a litre then.
> Now the price of a barrel of oil is $120 yet the price of a litre of petrol is 220c almost a euro extra even though oil is lower now than 2008.
> I know there are now higher refining costs but the vast bulk of that differential is large taxation increases.
> To say that fuel taxes cannot be reduced is rubbish,  the esri are talking nonsense
> If anyone needs a break it's the people that drive to work every day and keep this country running


Joe it was that for an hour on the spot market,  and refining costs are up because their are fewer refineries, most are independent now as the big boys got out due to lower profits.

Also as oil is bought in dollars the exchange rate is another factor. 

And as you say taxes have added to the mix.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Maybe, but that's a different issue. The point is that you can get by without one. It's not an essential so if you've a low income you shouldn't have an expectation that you should have one. The same goes for foreign holidays, smoking, takeaways, alcohol etc. If you can afford any of those you can afford to heat your home.


And among those different issues could be a health issue. Or having to spend more money in the long run on heating trying to dry out the consequences of the extra moisture you are generating. Which is different to times past e.g. if you were drying the clothes beside a coal fire that was burning all day / or on radiators heated by a soild fuel back boiler. Try that now and tell me how much it costs today versus back then.

A tumble dryer is not in the same league as the other things you have listed. Look up the regs for rental accomodation and you'll see a tumble dryer listed as a requirement where the property does not have access to a yard or garden for drying clothes.

People got by without washing machines for a long time too, so not sure why you picked out tumble dryers.  Can't you get by without a washing machine too? Or heat in Ireland about 80% (insert more accurate percentage here) of the time it's put on it's not 'essential' (whatever essential means) more about being comfortable \ dry property versus staving off hypothermia.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> If you're running a low income household, two of everything in a school uniform might be seen as quite a luxury, especially with children growing out of clothes all the time.


Shirts/tops and trousers are cheap and can be bought in Dunnes or Penny's. The jumper is the only expensive bit. You just buy them a bit big at the start of the year. I've got three of them through school without a dryer. If it was a real emergency the radiator or one of those dryers at the petrol stations is always an option. 
I never sent them to school in damp clothes.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> If anyone needs a break it's the people that drive to work every day and keep this country running


The last thing we should do is subsidize driving. First stop driving where possible (work from home). Then promote alternatives (walking, cycling and public transport). Lastly, if there's no alternative, then target any supports at those who need it only.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> And among those different issues could be a health issue. Or having to spend more money in the long run on heating trying to dry out the consequences of the extra moisture you are generating. Which is different to times past e.g. if you were drying the clothes beside a coal fire that was burning all day / or on radiators heated by a soild fuel back boiler. Try that now and tell me how much it costs today versus back then.
> 
> A tumble dryer is not in the same league as the other things you have listed. Look up the regs for rental accomodation and you'll see a tumble dryer listed as a requirement where the property does not have access to a yard or garden for drying clothes.
> 
> People got by without washing machines for a long time too, so not sure why you picked out tumble dryers.  Can't you get by without a washing machine too? Or heat in Ireland about 80% (insert more accurate percentage here) of the time it's put on it's not 'essential' (whatever essential means) more about being comfortable \ dry property versus staving off hypothermia.


I think you're really stretching things now. The regulations for rental accommodation are ridiculous. The house I rent certainly isn't up to the required standards and that doesn't bother me at all.

If the wall vents are not blocked and there's central heating (a necessity) there'll be no issue with dampness. A washing machine is a necessity. A Tumble Dryer is not.
Either way this isn't not the core issue around fuel poverty.


----------



## gianni (16 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> The last thing we should do is subsidize driving. First stop driving where possible (work from home). Then promote alternatives (walking, cycling and public transport). Lastly, if there's no alternative, then target any supports at those who need it only.


I agree. Particularly with the WFH option. But vested interests will shout loud on this issue and put pressure to get ppl back into city centres.


----------



## TRS30 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> So what's your after tax income less your mortgage repayments/rent?
> Gross income really tells us very little.
> I like this example;
> Married couple with 2 small children on a €130,000 income.
> ...



A very clear and easy example to illustrate the differences between income and wealth. 

Using your above example our weekly disposable income per household member is around €65 (5 members). So as you said gives a clearer picture than gross income (which I used to illustrate my initial point).


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Shirts/tops and trousers are cheap and can be bought in Dunnes or Penny's. The jumper is the only expensive bit. You just buy them a bit big at the start of the year. I've got three of them through school without a dryer. If it was a real emergency the radiator or one of those dryers at the petrol stations is always an option.
> I never sent them to school in damp clothes.


Yes, but neither you nor I are heading a low income household.  Doing so brings all sorts of pressures. For example a single parent may find it difficult to get to a petrol station at short notice if there's no-one else there to mind children. And radiators may well be insufficient for thorough drying of clothes.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I think you're really stretching things now. The regulations for rental accommodation are ridiculous. The house I rent certainly isn't up to the required standards and that doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> If the wall vents are not blocked and there's central heating (a necessity) there'll be no issue with dampness. A washing machine is a necessity. A Tumble Dryer is not.
> Either way this isn't not the core issue around fuel poverty.


It was part of your opening argument, that lower income households should have lower than average energy requirements.
Tumble dryers were cited but even without them, I really don't think you have remotely justified it.
Central heating is essential and washing machines are essential but tumble dryers are not. For no other reason than your definition of essential.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Yes, but neither you nor I are heading a low income household.  Doing so brings all sorts of pressures. For example a single parent may find it difficult to get to a petrol station at short notice if there's no-one else there to mind children. And radiators may well be insufficient for thorough drying of clothes.


I head a single parent household.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> It was part of your opening argument, that lower income households should have lower than average energy requirements.
> Tumble dryers were cited but even without them, I really don't think you have remotely justified it.
> Central heating is essential and washing machines are essential but tumble dryers are not. For no other reason than your definition of essential.


Lower income households will have less stuff; fewer TV's, Gaming Consoles, etc and, of course, they will be more tuned in to saving money. That's why you don't see takeaway's a Bookmakers and Off-licences in poorer areas...

When my net monthly disposable income was under €700 I couldn't afford to turn on the heat for more than an hour a day, I never got takeaways, never bought alcohol and fed a family of 4 for €50 a week. If you have a low income you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. That or work longer hours or a second job or get a better job.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I head a single parent household.


And...?


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> And...?


And what?


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Yes, but neither you nor I are heading a low income household.  Doing so brings all sorts of pressures. For example a single parent may find it difficult to get to a petrol station at short notice if there's no-one else there to mind children. And radiators may well be insufficient for thorough drying of clothes.


There's a limitless amount of whataboutery that you can throw at this but suggesting that a Tumble Dryer is an essential, or worse that the absence of one can be a health risk, is nonsense.

Edit: According to the CSO in 2016 64.8% of households has a Tumble Dryer. 94.9% had a Washing Machine.
Are 35.2% of households suffering deprivation?!


----------



## Jazz01 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> That's why you don't see takeaway's a Bookmakers and Off-licences in poorer areas...


Don't think that is entirely true... or maybe it's my perception of what a _poor area _is ...


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

gianni said:


> I agree. Particularly with the WFH option. But vested interests will shout loud on this issue and put pressure to get ppl back into city centres.


Either we keep doing things as we have been doing them and just throw money at the problem. Or else we change our behaviour and work from home more (where possible). Less energy use. Less commuting. Better quality of life. Less housing pressure in the cities. We can't keep pandering to vested interests. Those in fuel poverty have an interest in the decision also.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Lower income households will have less stuff; fewer TV's, Gaming Consoles, etc and, of course, they will be more tuned in to saving money. That's why you don't see takeaway's a Bookmakers and Off-licences in poorer areas...
> 
> When my net monthly disposable income was under €700 I couldn't afford to turn on the heat for more than an hour a day, I never got takeaways, never bought alcohol and fed a family of 4 for €50 a week. If you have a low income you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. That or work longer hours or a second job or a better job.


A lower income household might have more members, kids and teenagers, which means more washing, more heating, more cooking etc.

Or it might be a retired couple, one of who is housebound, who feels the cold and has the heating on a lot.

Would we expect people on lower incomes to be living in properties with lower BER ratings?

Versus a high income couple with no kids who are out in an office all day working, eat out a lot etc.

Would we expect people on higher incomes to be living in properties with higher BER ratings?

Maybe, for all we know, those on higher incomes can afford more efficient heating systems, properties, appliances etc

This is what you wrote: "so it's reasonable to think that their bills will be lower than the average"

Has it been established? Not event remotely. And nope, your anecdotes don't even begin to form the basis for it.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> There's a limitless amount of whataboutery that you can throw at this but suggesting that a Tumble Dryer is an essential, or worse that the absence of one can be a health risk, is nonsense.


I don't think I suggested either of those things. I did query your claim that lower income households "_aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices_", which is itself nonsense.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> A lower income household might have more members, kids and teenagers, which means more washing, more heating, more cooking etc.
> 
> Or it might be a retired couple, one of who is housebound, who feels the cold and has the heating on a lot.
> 
> Versus a high income couple with no kids who are out in an office all day working, eat out a lot etc.


They could indeed, or the opposite could be true. Remember that if they've a plethora of kids then the social transfer they receive will move them out of the bottom third of households by income. Also remember that Pensioners are far less likely to live in poverty than children and, as a cohort, are the richest group in the country. 


odyssey06 said:


> This is what you wrote: "so it's reasonable to think that their bills will be lower than the average"
> 
> Has it been established? Not event remotely. And nope, your anecdotes don't even begin to form the basis for it.


People on lower incomes have less money than people on higher incomes. In most cases they'll also probably have a lower disposable income. If you have less money you should be spending less on electricity and gas, as, well, you have less money. 

Oh, hang on, do you think that heating (and drying clothes) is the only thing that consumed energy in a house?


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Either we keep doing things as we have been doing them and just throw money at the problem. Or else we change our behaviour and work from home more (where possible). Less energy use. Less commuting. Better quality of life. Less housing pressure in the cities. We can't keep pandering to vested interests. Those in fuel poverty have an interest in the decision also.


Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I don't think I suggested either of those things. I did query your claim that lower income households "_aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices_", which is itself nonsense.


So you think people should use descressionary items which they can't afford? That the notion that "I won't get a Tumble Dryer because I can't afford the cost" isn't going to cross people's minds? Rather they'll think they must use one or their child's jumper might be damp...

My contention is that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things.
In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?


The solution to high energy costs is to use less energy. That might mean using the car less or having shorter showers or not using the Tumble Dryer (if you can afford to have one ) or whatever. The solution isn't to whine about it and expect someone else to give you money to subsidise your usage.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> They could indeed, or the opposite could be true. Remember that if they've a plethora of kids then the social transfer they receive will move them out of the bottom third of households by income. Also remember that Pensioners are far less likely to live in poverty than children and, as a cohort, are the richest group in the country.
> 
> People on lower incomes have less money than people on higher incomes. In most cases they'll also probably have a lower disposable income. If you have less money you should be spending less on electricity and gas, as, well, you have less money.
> 
> Oh, hang on, do you think that heating (and drying clothes) is the only thing that consumed energy in a house?


It was your claim, not mine. I'm querying the basis for that claim because what has been put forward to justify it so far is anecdote and opinion.

So what's the breakdown of energy consumed in a house on essentials? How much of heating is 'essential'? Where's this accepted list of 'essentials'?

Sometimes because people have less money they have higher costs.

Would we expect people on lower incomes to be living in properties with lower BER ratings?
Would we expect people on higher incomes to be living in properties with higher BER ratings?
Maybe, for all we know, those on higher incomes can afford more efficient heating systems, properties, appliances etc
Or maybe it's the opposite.

Do we include transport costs too? Someone with an electric car might have a higher energy bill but overall be spending far less than some with an ICE engine on their costs.

So the claim that lower income households should have lower than average bills is very doubtful.
There are other factors in the mix such as household size, what types of property they are likely to live in etc etc


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> It was your claim, not mine. I'm querying the basis for that claim because what has been put forward to justify it so far is anecdote and opinion.
> 
> So what's the breakdown of energy consumed in a house on essentials? How much of heating is 'essential'? Where's this accepted list of 'essentials'?
> 
> ...


Yep, that's why we can only speak in general terms.
And no, transport costs are not factored in though if you have an electric car then clearly you aren't poor. 
We do know that BER ratings don't vary that much between income levels but house size does so any variations probably cancel themselves out.

I agree that much of heating isn't essential. My parents house is like a furnace all winter as they walk around with light clothing. That's a disgraceful waste of energy.

Therefore I refer you to my previous point;


Purple said:


> My contention is that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things.
> In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.



If households are using the average or above average amounts then clearly they can afford to do so. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing so.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> The solution to high energy costs is to use less energy. That might mean using the car less or having shorter showers or not using the Tumble Dryer (if you can afford to have one ) or whatever. The solution isn't to whine about it and expect someone else to give you money to subsidise your usage.


I haven't "whined" about anything. Nor have I even mentioned subsidy, let alone advocated for same.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?


Yes it is. But that should be offset by the commute being eliminated. Unless it's a very short commute in which case ditch the car and then no energy is used. 

If possible.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> *So you think people should use discretionary items which they can't afford? *That the notion that "I won't get a Tumble Dryer because I can't afford the cost" isn't going to cross people's minds? Rather they'll think they must use one or their child's jumper might be damp...


Where did I say that? It's a fact of life that many people use discretionary items which they can't afford. Whether they should or shouldn't make those choices is a matter for them. Every such decision has trade-offs.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Yes it is. But that should be offset by the commute being eliminated. Unless it's a very short commute in which case ditch the car and then no energy is used.
> 
> If possible.


Indeed, but that actually doesn't alter my what I said.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Yep, that's why we can only speak in general terms.
> And no, transport costs are not factored in though if you have an electric car then clearly you aren't poor.
> We do know that BER ratings don't vary that much between income levels but house size does so any variations probably cancel themselves out.
> 
> ...


A lot of circular arguments and shifting of goalposts going on there.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Indeed, but that actually doesn't alter my what I said.


Hmm.. The goal is to save energy / money. If working from home is possible and is cheaper (commute costs are higher than the increase bills through home energy use) then people should be encouraged to work from home where possible. Yes, as you said, domestic energy usage / costs may increase but if the nett result is lower energy costs over all is that not a good thing? 

My initial point was that we shouldn't cut fuel tax across the board until all other alternatives have been considered.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Hmm.. The goal is to save energy / money. If working from home is possible and is cheaper (commute costs are higher than the increase bills through home energy use) then people should be encouraged to work from home where possible.


That presupposes that the decision on whether or not to have people working from home should be predicated primarily or fully on whether it's cheaper in energy/money terms than having them turn up at the workplace, ignoring all other variables. That's quite a presupposition.


PGF2016 said:


> Yes, as you said, domestic energy usage / costs may increase but if the nett result is lower energy costs over all is that not a good thing?


Well if costs the householder/worker more and saves money for the company who employs them, it certainly is good for the latter.


PGF2016 said:


> My initial point was that we shouldn't cut fuel tax across the board until all other alternatives have been considered.


That's an entirely different question.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I haven't "whined" about anything. Nor have I even mentioned subsidy, let alone advocated for same.


Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were whining. That's certainly not your style.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> It's a fact of life that many people use discretionary items which they can't afford. Whether they should or shouldn't make those choices is a matter for them. Every such decision has trade-offs.


True, but it's reasonable to say that people who can afford to do things that are descressionary are more likely to do those things than people who can't afford to do them.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> A lot of circular arguments and shifting of goalposts going on there.


Really?
I've shown that less then two thirds of households have a Tumble Dryer, as that small point seems to have become so important to the broader discussion, and thankfully that's been put to bed.
We are now left with my more general contention that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things. In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life. 

A more extreme example would be to say that rich people are more likely to charter a private jet than poor people. I have no proof to back that up but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. 
In the case of energy usage the idea that people on low incomes are luxuriating in long hot showers, leaving the heating on all day and have the place lit up like a Christmas tree without any consideration of the cost seems less likely than the private jet chartering household doing the same. 
So we're back to the contention that lower income households are "less likely" to use as much energy as a higher income household. That is unless they are entitled and/or ignorant and making that sort of assumption would certainly not be nice.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> True, but it's reasonable to say that people who can afford to do things that are descressionary are more likely to do those things than people who can't afford to do them.


Yes, but it's also reasonable to say too that the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend it on stuff generally.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

Jazz01 said:


> Don't think that is entirely true... or maybe it's my perception of what a _poor area _is ...


I may have forgotten to add the   to the end of my post.


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Yes, but it's also reasonable to say too that the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend it on stuff generally.


Exactly!


----------



## Peanuts20 (16 Jun 2022)

what's that old saying about people being asset rich and cash poor?

We do need to bear in mind however that in some cases (and pensioners are a classic example), they'll go through more fuel then younger people. My 90 yr old mother would have the heating on on a summer's day and still complain of the cold. If we visited, we'd be sweating and she is all wrapped up. She would not be unique in that respect. 

Modern houses draw on more power anyway. Last night we would have had 3 laptops going at one stage in the house (student, work and shopping respectively), 2 proper PC screens as well as the TV (and Virgin box) for the youngest. Then the dishwasher, washing machine, a phone charging, wifi router. It all adds up and yet for most family's, it's not an unusual usage.


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Really?
> I've shown that less then two thirds of households have a Tumble Dryer, as that small point seems to have become so important to the broader discussion, and thankfully that's been put to bed.
> We are now left with my more general contention that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things. In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.
> 
> ...



You've gone from a tumble dryer, which is listed as a requirement for many rental properties to chartering a private jet.

From that strawman, it's clear your argument jumped the shark long ago.

I've really no idea what point you think you are trying to make, but if the point of your opening post was to convince other AAMers of your view, you've certainly lost me.


----------



## joe sod (16 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> The last thing we should do is subsidize driving. First stop driving where possible (work from home). Then promote alternatives (walking, cycling and public transport). Lastly, if there's no alternative, then target any supports at those who need it only.


that attitude is just wilful ignorance because much of the workforce cannot work from home

Who manufactures the microchips here
Who manufactures the pharmaceuticals
Who runs the power stations
Who runs the hospitals
Who runs the food plants  (Kerrygold is now the most bought brand in Germany)

All these plants are not situated in central Dublin, All these along with many others were essential services during the pandemic, they run 24 hours a day, their workforce is spread all over the country, there is no public transport infrastructure to service this.
The ESRI a government body also seems to be wilfully ignorant of this fact and wants to penalise this workforce that work unsociable hours and keep this country running


----------



## RichInSpirit (16 Jun 2022)

Maybe relax turf and timber cutting bans at the moment. It would help with fuel poverty.


----------



## peemac (16 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> In 2008 the oil price was $140 a barrel  yet the price of a litre of diesel or petrol was nowhere near now  , it was around 130cent a litre then.
> Now the price of a barrel of oil is $120 yet the price of a litre of petrol is 220c almost a euro extra even though oil is lower now than 2008.
> I know there are now higher refining costs but the vast bulk of that differential is large taxation increases.
> To say that fuel taxes cannot be reduced is rubbish,  the esri are talking nonsense
> If anyone needs a break it's the people that drive to work every day and keep this country running


There are two major differences between 2008 and today.
But firstly, oil reached $140 for a few hours back then, but agitators and media love using the figure.
The 5 day average close was $131. That's a better measure.

So the two big differences.
In 2008, exchange rate was $1.45, last week it was $1.04.

In 2008 average refining cost was $15. Last week it hit $65. 

So 2008 = $131/barrel + $15 refining,  159 Litres, $1.45 exchange. Net 63c

2022 = $124/barrel, $65 refining. Exchange $1.05. Net = €1.13


----------



## Pinoy adventure (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I think you're really stretching things now. The regulations for rental accommodation are ridiculous. The house I rent certainly isn't up to the required standards and that doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> If the wall vents are not blocked and there's central heating (a necessity) there'll be no issue with dampness. A washing machine is a necessity. A Tumble Dryer is not.
> Either way this isn't not the core issue around fuel poverty.


Gone are the days of washing by hand it seems.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> that attitude is just wilful ignorance because much of the workforce cannot work from home
> 
> Who manufactures the microchips here
> Who manufactures the pharmaceuticals
> ...


Wilful ignorance? Maybe read the post again. I said consider and promote alternatives first. How is that willfully ignorant? 

And let's consider your first example. You may be ignorant to the fact that a large proportion of the staff of the Intel have been working from home for more than 2 years. And while that plant may not be in central Dublin it is well served by public transport.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Jun 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That presupposes that the decision on whether or not to have people working from home should be predicated primarily or fully on whether it's cheaper in energy/money terms than having them turn up at the workplace, ignoring all other variables. That's quite a presupposition.


No it doesn't. Maybe read it again. 



T McGibney said:


> Well if costs the householder/worker more and saves money for the company who employs them, it certainly is good for the latter.


As we're talking about those in fuel poverty the comment was about lower nett costs for the employee, not the employer.


----------



## newirishman (16 Jun 2022)

Pinoy adventure said:


> Gone are the days of washing by hand it seems.


Yes, and good riddance. Washing machines and dish washers are significantly more effective and cheaper than any hand job. 

Even taking into account the cost of buying.


----------



## Silversurfer (16 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> So what's your after tax income less your mortgage repayments/rent?
> Gross income really tells us very little.
> I like this example;
> Married couple with 2 small children on a €130,000 income.
> ...


Yes but who decides what mortgage is affordable? Should the couple on €130k not have been more prudent and have less debt? Personal responsibility plays a part as does lifestyle creep.  Vulnerable could mean physical frailty also. Elderly people who do not leave their homes require constant heat. Everything is relative.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 Jun 2022)

Reading through this thread got me thinking and my observations on this are simply these.
Households are probably more energy consuming than anytime in the history of mankind.
Everyone now has mobile phones that need charging ,computers,  multiple in many cases  even low income households.
We are "cleaner" ,not necessarily healthier,  as we shower more often, we wash our clothes more often and of course we all have more clothes.

Washing machines,  tumble dryers ,microwave ovens, double ovens ,large fridge freezers with fresh water filtered are in every household now.

Multiple TVs,  cars ,garden tools ,DIY tools the list is endless.

All this energy consumption easily becomes habitual as we get used to it and humans are simple creatures once we taste the good life we are slow to give it up. My home is as guilty as anyone else.

Alternative energy is not the panacea of  this but it certainly would help , however the cost, efficiency of solar ,wind energy generation is still prohibitive for the majority ,this is where progress needs to be made and if the cost of getting households generating electricity became more reasonable more households would use it.

Households need the capital cost spread over a reasonable term,  excess electricity needs to get back to the grid at a reasonable cost this is an investment in our electricity system that benefits the entire country.

Community energy projects litter the European continent and if nothing else takes small towns and villages either off the grid or certainly reduce the cost of electricity for its inhabitants, here in Ireland we have wind and streams everywhere and could be used for power generation.

Fossil fuels are past tipping point now, and scarcity only drives up prices further so either we are going to read reports on the issue or actually do what's required.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> You've gone from a tumble dryer, which is listed as a requirement for many rental properties to chartering a private jet.
> 
> From that strawman, it's clear your argument jumped the shark long ago.
> 
> I've really no idea what point you think you are trying to make, but if the point of your opening post was to convince other AAMers of your view, you've certainly lost me.


I'm making the point that people on low incomes are less likely to have high energy consuming non-essential items such as Tumble Dryers and so have lower energy costs. 
You countered by saying that Tumble Dryers are an essential item.
I pointed out that less than two thirds of households have Tumble Dryers but you seem to still think that they are an essential item. 

That's all.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> Yes but who decides what mortgage is affordable? Should the couple on €130k not have been more prudent and have less debt? Personal responsibility plays a part as does lifestyle creep.  Vulnerable could mean physical frailty also. Elderly people who do not leave their homes require constant heat. Everything is relative.


Yes, but the older person has that personal responsibility as well. They can trade down to an apartment with a A energy rating and have a nice cash lump sum. What provision did they make for their own future? Should they have been more prudent?


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

Pinoy adventure said:


> Gone are the days of washing by hand it seems.


Yes, and rightly so for clothes but the dishes can be washed by hand... or is a dishwasher also an essential item now?


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

newirishman said:


> Washing machines and dish washers are significantly more effective and cheaper than any hand job.
> 
> Even taking into account the cost of buying.


That depends on how you use them verses how you wash the dishes. A dishwasher can be cheaper and greener but the real answer is "it depends".


----------



## odyssey06 (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> SI'm making the point that people on low incomes are less likely to have high energy consuming non-essential items such as Tumble Dryers and so have lower energy costs.
> You countered by saying that Tumble Dryers are an essential item.
> I pointed out that less than two thirds of households have Tumble Dryers but you seem to still think that they are an essential item.
> 
> That's all.


They are an essential item in some properties.
Why is a washing machine an essential item if you can get by without it?
Why is central heating an essential item if you can get by without it?
Your list of essential items is entirely subjective, arbitrary and based on your own limited (as is everyones) personal experience.
You even brought in the angle that people on low income wouldn't buy a tumble dryer, ignoring that they are provided by regulations in many rental properties, especially apartments.

You seem to think a tumble dryer is comparable with a foreign holiday or chartering a plane.

If you want to prove your point come up with some real data.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> They are an essential item in some properties.
> Why is a washing machine an essential item if you can get by without it?
> Why is central heating an essential item if you can get by without it?
> Your list of essential items is entirely subjective, arbitrary and based on your own limited personal experience.
> ...


Here's some data;
About a third of households don't have a tumble dryer.
About a third of people don't go on a foreign holiday each year.
95% of households have a washing machine.

I never suggested that a tumble dryer is comparable to chartering a plane. I'm surprised that you didn't understand that. 

I'm aware that tumble dryers are provided in rental properties. There's no compulsion to use them if you are finding cash tight. We all have to make an effort to live within our means. That's just part of being an adult. 
If you can afford things like a foreign holiday or the use of nonessential high energy cost items then you are not poor. It is nonsensical to give people who can afford these things more of other people's money.


----------



## Silversurfer (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, but the older person has that personal responsibility as well. They can trade down to an apartment with a A energy rating and have a nice cash lump sum. What provision did they make for their own future? Should they have been more prudent?


That is a very good point. Perhaps our buildings should be purely for our needs. We could introduce bedroom taxes. That way nobody would be over housed at any stage in their life. We could start with social housing. Houses that were once allocated for large families and now have only the parents at home. There are many of these.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> That is a very good point. Perhaps our buildings should be purely for our needs. We could introduce bedroom taxes. That way nobody would be over housed at any stage in their life.


We have property tax. It should be increased significantly This would increase affordability for first time buyers.


Silversurfer said:


> We could start with social housing. Houses that were once allocated for large families and now have only the parents at home. There are many of these.


This absolutely should be done. The State's assets should be used for the greatest social good. It is outrageous that there are homeless families while there are State owned family homes with single occupants.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

RichInSpirit said:


> Maybe relax turf and timber cutting bans at the moment. It would help with fuel poverty.


What are the downsides to this?


----------



## Silversurfer (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> We have property tax. It should be increased significantly This would increase affordability for first time buyers.
> 
> This absolutely should be done. The State's assets should be used for the greatest social good. It is outrageous that there are homeless families while there are State owned family homes with single occupants.


Yes and for those occupants whose income has increased since the start of their tenancy they should pay property tax too.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> Yes and for those occupants whose income has increased since the start of their tenancy they should pay property tax too.


There should be a needs assessment done every 3-5 years on all tenants in all State funded housing. If your income increases enough you'll no loner qualify for HAPS. Council housing should be no different.


----------



## dubdub123 (17 Jun 2022)

One thing that I havent seen mentioned is how some of the households most at risk of poverty due to rising fuel costs are people being forced to use pre-pay energy and paying above the cost of billpay, i hear stories of people topping up meters and they are distraught at how much it has increased.
The increase in the cost of petrol/gas could crush the finances of some households. A few years back, i had no option but to drive 600km per week to get to/from work. Any additional increase at that time would have been catastrophic to my household.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> One thing that I havent seen mentioned is how some of the households most at risk of poverty due to rising fuel costs are people being forced to use pre-pay energy and paying above the cost of billpay, i hear stories of people topping up meters and they are distraught at how much it has increased.
> The increase in the cost of petrol/gas could crush the finances of some households. A few years back, i had no option but to drive 600km per week to get to/from work. Any additional increase at that time would have been catastrophic to my household.


Very good point. Landlords should not be able to compel tenants to use those very expensive providers.


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Very good point. Landlords should not be able to compel tenants to use those very expensive providers.


Landlords don't and can't compel tenants on which provider to use. Tenants choose the prepay model so they can monitor and manage their usage.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Jun 2022)

You are correct @dubdub123, we must look at things in the round and not just the cost of domestic fuel.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Landlords don't and can't compel tenants on which provider to use. Tenants choose the prepay model so they can monitor and manage their usage.


When my son was renting he was forced to use a pre-pay system.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> You are correct @dubdub123, we must look at things in the round and not just the cost of domestic fuel.


Yes, people can choose to reduce their domestic energy consumption much easier than they can reduce their cost of commuting to and from work. This is particularly the case in rural areas.


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> When my son was renting he was forced to use a pre-pay system.


Your son had the right to pay to remove the prepay meter with the landlords consent and get a credit account from the energy supplier. 

Why would a landlord care how a tenant pays for energy. It has nothing to do with the landlord as the relationship is between the tenant and the energy supplier.


----------



## joe sod (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Wilful ignorance? Maybe read the post again. I said consider and promote alternatives first. How is that willfully ignorant?
> 
> And let's consider your first example. You may be ignorant to the fact that a large proportion of the staff of the Intel have been working from home for more than 2 years. And while that plant may not be in central Dublin it is well served by public transport.


I know that the essential staff at Intel are not working from home, yes some of the staff can work from home but who fixes the faults at 3am in the morning not the guy WFH 9 to 5. There is a huge staff in that plant that need to drive there every day for work .

I mean there is a wilfull ignorane in government organisations like the esri who were lucky enough to all avail of WFH. They are wilfully ignorant of the reality of the Irish economy and their latest suggestions were based on utopian ideas not reality.  Luckily enough the government seems to also have dismissed their latest report


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Your son had the right to pay to remove the prepay meter with the landlords consent and get a credit account from the energy supplier.


Yes, that, in effect, is a compulsion. The Landlord has pre-installed the most expensive option and the tenant is forced to use it unless they incur significant a extra cost. That makes using luxury items (such as tumble dryers ) even more expensive.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> who fixes the faults at 3am in the morning not the guy WFH 9 to 5


Someone on site.
Or else someone at home from their laptop.
Or else someone in Malaysia or in Arizona. And those folks from abroad don't commute to the site by car.



joe sod said:


> There is a huge staff in that plant that need to drive there every day for work .


I get that. Which is why I said alternatives should be considered first if possible. 

And of course not all of them need to drive every day. A lot of them choose to when alternatives are available.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

UK article but relevant https://theconversation.com/petrol-prices-are-rising-but-fuel-duty-cuts-arent-the-answer-185188


----------



## newirishman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, that, in effect, is a compulsion. The Landlord has pre-installed the most expensive option and the tenant is forced to use it unless they incur significant a extra cost. That makes using luxury items (such as tumble dryers ) even more expensive.


Indeed. There's a few landlords that insist on pre-pay meters so they don't get hit by unpaid electricity bills. 
I would steer clear from those landlords or properties, but given the choice nowadays...


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 Jun 2022)

joe sod said:


> I know that the essential staff at Intel are not working from home, yes some of the staff can work from home but who fixes the faults at 3am in the morning not the guy WFH 9 to 5. There is a huge staff in that plant that need to drive there every day for work .
> 
> I mean there is a wilfull ignorane in government organisations like the esri who were lucky enough to all avail of WFH. They are wilfully ignorant of the reality of the Irish economy and their latest suggestions were based on utopian ideas not reality.  Luckily enough the government seems to also have dismissed their latest report


Joe, Intel is a 24hr/7/365 operation and nothing is "left to chance " the staff covering 3am breakdowns are already on site from whenever their shift starts.

I know this because I know dozens who work there.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Joe, Intel is a 24hr/7/365 operation and nothing is "left to chance " the staff covering 3am breakdowns are already on site from whenever their shift starts.
> 
> I know this because I know dozens who work there.


Not correct. There are many staff who work remotely who have the the ability to fix issues.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Not correct. There are many staff who work remotely who have the the ability to fix issues.


How can you pick up and use a tool remotely? Or open a door,  mop a floor?


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, that, in effect, is a compulsion. The Landlord has pre-installed the most expensive option and the tenant is forced to use it unless they incur significant a extra cost. That makes using luxury items (such as tumble dryers ) even more expensive.


Depending on the property I suspect either (a) a previous tenant had the meter installed or (b) the landlord felt he was responsible for a previous tenants unpaid energy bill. 

I have never heard of any property built were a prepay meter was installed rather than a normal meter. 

If it was cost efficient your son could have paid for the prepaid meter removal and enjoyed lower cost energy. 

It would appear he did not.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> How can you pick up and use a tool remotely? Or open a door,  mop a floor?


You said the staff covering break downs were already on site. That is incorrect. It's a massively automated operation and there are support staff on site but also at home and overseas reacting to issues at all hours. That is a fact. Not all fixes require a mop or an on site presence.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Depending on the property I suspect either (a) a previous tenant had the meter installed or (b) the landlord felt he was responsible for a previous tenants unpaid energy bill.


Probably, but the next tenant was still left with a more expensive option in situ.


The Horseman said:


> I have never heard of any property built were a prepay meter was installed rather than a normal meter.


Either have I.


The Horseman said:


> If it was cost efficient your son could have paid for the prepaid meter removal and enjoyed lower cost energy.
> 
> It would appear he did not.


Yes, because that required a larger up-front cost for the tenant. In effect the cost of the landlords relationship with the previous tenant falls on the next tenant. That shouldn't be the case.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> You said the staff covering break downs were already on site. That is incorrect. It's a massively automated operation and there are support staff on site but also at home and overseas reacting to issues at all hours. That is a fact. Not all fixes require a mop or an on site presence.


Another side argument gets legs...
The employees who are required to be on site have no choice but to be on site and so have to commute. The CSO and other State employees who can work from home see things from their own perspective. That's the point that was being made. 

With the right IT set-up many diagnostic decisions in healthcare can be made remotely. An MRI or a X-ray can be read from home but there still needs to be doctors on site to treat the patient.


----------



## joe sod (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Someone on site.
> Or else someone at home from their laptop.
> Or else someone in Malaysia or in Arizona. And those folks from abroad don't commute to the site by car.


I'm afraid you don't know, Intel and many pharma plants are big industrial complexes  ,many things can go wrong  , chemical leaks  ,pumps stopping,  the guy on his laptop from Malaysia can make mistakes that have to be rectified immediately by guys on site at 3am.
Yes you can switch on and off a pump at 3am but you can't fix downstream problems that result from this.  Therefore these plants would always have critical processes controlled by guys on the ground never remotely. These people are not peripheral or inconsequential they are core workers. 

Those guys don't get to their jobs on the 46a bus at 1am because no such service exists


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Probably, but the next tenant was still left with a more expensive option in situ.
> 
> Either have I.
> 
> Yes, because that required a larger up-front cost for the tenant. In effect the cost of the landlords relationship with the previous tenant falls on the next tenant. That shouldn't be the case.


Yeah but removing the prepaid meter could have saved your son in the long term. Your son rented the property as it was.

Why when the lease was been agreed did your Son not mention the issue and let the landlord decide if he wished to proceed with the lease.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Yeah but removing the prepaid meter could have saved your son in the long term. Your son rented the property as it was.
> 
> Why when the lease was been agreed did your Son not mention the issue and let the landlord decide if he wished to proceed with the lease.


I'm not suggesting that the landlord broke any laws. I'm not looking at this from a legalistic perspective. I'm suggesting that landlords should be required to make the most economical energy supply option available to the tenant at no cost to the tenant.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> You said the staff covering break downs were already on site. That is incorrect. It's a massively automated operation and there are support staff on site but also at home and overseas reacting to issues at all hours. That is a fact. Not all fixes require a mop or an on site presence.


I know people who are on site during the night who are maintenance engineers clean room operators etc , yes there is a lot of automation but there are also a lot of employees, exact figures not officially released,  but right now its estimated at 5000. Equally not all fixes can be done remotely either.


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I'm not suggesting that the landlord broke any laws. I'm not looking at this from a legalistic perspective. I'm suggesting that landlords should be required to make the most economical energy supply option available to the tenant at no cost to the tenant.


This type of issue goes to the heart of the issues landlords face. It would have cost the landlord to install a prepaid meter (assuming he did) or the previous tenant. 

The landlord should have retained the cost of prepaid meter removal from the previous tenant. 

No matter what a landlord does they are in the wrong. If they don't have a prepaid meter a tenant will want one. If they do a tenant will want it out. Tenants are responsible for themselves.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> This type of issue goes to the heart of the issues landlords face. It would have cost the landlord to install a prepaid meter (assuming he did) or the previous tenant.
> 
> The landlord should have retained the cost of prepaid meter removal from the previous tenant.
> 
> No matter what a landlord does they are in the wrong. If they don't have a prepaid meter a tenant will want one. If they do a tenant will want it out. Tenants are responsible for themselves.


I agree that landlords are in a difficult position. In this case I'm suggesting that the landlord should have to provide the cheapest option. If the tenant wants a more expensive option they should have to cover the cost. The cost of restoring the cheapest option should be covered by the departing tenant or deducted from their deposit before it is returned at the end of the tenancy.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> Another side argument gets legs...
> The employees who are required to be on site have no choice but to be on site and so have to commute. The CSO and other State employees who can work from home see things from their own perspective. That's the point that was being made.
> 
> With the right IT set-up many diagnostic decisions in healthcare can be made remotely. An MRI or a X-ray can be read from home but there still needs to be doctors on site to treat the patient.


Point being made is that there are many jobs where remote working is possible. Where it's not possible then alternatives should be considered before removing fuel taxes and thereby promoting driving over alternatives (where alternatives exist). 



joe sod said:


> I'm afraid you don't know, Intel and many pharma plants are big industrial complexes  ,many things can go wrong  , chemical leaks  ,pumps stopping,  the guy on his laptop from Malaysia can make mistakes that have to be rectified immediately by guys on site at 3am.
> Yes you can switch on and off a pump at 3am but you can't fix downstream problems that result from this.  Therefore these plants would always have critical processes controlled by guys on the ground never remotely. These people are not peripheral or inconsequential they are core workers.
> 
> Those guys don't get to their jobs on the 46a bus at 1am because no such service exists


What exactly don't I know? I've never said that an on site presence is not needed. I said that many employees in Intel can and do work remotely. And for those tasks that require an on site presence then commuting alternatives should be explored before changing fuel taxes.


----------



## The Horseman (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree that landlords are in a difficult position. In this case I'm suggesting that the landlord should have to provide the cheapest option. If the tenant wants a more expensive option they should have to cover the cost. The cost of restoring the cheapest option should be covered by the departing tenant or deducted from their deposit before it is returned at the end of the tenancy.


The fuel poverty issue in the private rental market with the planned min ber ratings for rental properties is going to see more landlords exit. 

Unless a landlord can recoup the costs they are not going to invest.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

The Horseman said:


> The fuel poverty issue in the private rental market with the planned min ber ratings for rental properties is going to see more landlords exit.
> 
> Unless a landlord can recoup the costs they are not going to invest.


I agree. It's a nonsense rule.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Point being made is that there are many jobs where remote working is possible. Where it's not possible then alternatives should be considered before removing fuel taxes and thereby promoting driving over alternatives (where alternatives exist).


I broadly agree but there are many jobs and many parts of the country where no such alternative is available or can be made available. he people in the ERSI making suggestions are from a rather narrow cohort and so see the world from that narrow perspective. It reminds me of all the talk about going back to the office post-Covid when the majority of the country don't work in offices but the majority of the people working in the State institutions making such comments and providing the narrative which leads to the setting of policy overwhelmingly do work in offices.


----------



## PGF2016 (17 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I broadly agree but there are many jobs and many parts of the country where no such alternative is available or can be made available. he people in the ERSI making suggestions are from a rather narrow cohort and so see the world from that narrow perspective. It reminds me of all the talk about going back to the office post-Covid when the majority of the country don't work in offices but the majority of the people working in the State institutions making such comments and providing the narrative which leads to the setting of policy overwhelmingly do work in offices.


Problems with the ESRI aside what do you think about cuts to fuel taxes? 

My take - for those (1) in fuel poverty and (2) with absolutely no alternative then some support should be provided. 

Drawing up legislation for that is obviously not trivial.


----------



## Purple (17 Jun 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Problems with the ESRI aside what do you think about cuts to fuel taxes?
> 
> My take - for those (1) in fuel poverty and (2) with absolutely no alternative then some support should be provided.
> 
> Drawing up legislation for that is obviously not trivial.


On balance I'm be in favour of a reduction in fuel taxes. I don't see a problem with it benefitting everyone. Yes, those who are better off will also benefit but so what, they already pay most of the taxes and we already have some of the highest levels of social transfer in the world.


----------



## tomdublin (20 Jun 2022)

The elephant in the room is what should be a clear distinction between social welfare recipients who are genuinely looking for work/training for work/unable to work and those who are simply choosing to be parasitic on society without ever contributing anything.  The former should be treated more generously and the latter more harshly.  Most advanced European welfare states draw that distinction but in Ireland it seems somehow socially unacceptable to do so. Maybe because it recalls Victorian notions of "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor, but it's an irrational hangup.   Having lived in Ireland for over 20 years it's one aspect of Irish culture I still don't understand.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

tomdublin said:


> The elephant in the room is what should be a clear distinction between social welfare recipients who are genuinely looking for work/training for work/unable to work and those who are simply choosing to be parasitic on society without ever contributing anything.  The former should be treated more generously and the latter more harshly.  Most advanced European welfare states draw that distinction but in Ireland it seems somehow socially unacceptable to do so. Maybe because it recalls Victorian notions of "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor, but it's an irrational hangup.   Having lived in Ireland for over 20 years it's one aspect of Irish culture I still don't understand.


It's worth remembering that most welfare goes to people who do work. The rate of long term unemployment is low and even within that cohort a significant proportion are working in the black economy. The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.
The fact that long term unemployment benefits are the same as short term benefits is indeed bizarre. I think that within the EU only the UK (now formerly within the EU) and Ireland have such a system.
All of that is interesting but when it comes to fuel poverty, or poverty in general, I'd like to see a shift from looking at gross income to income per person net of taxes and housing costs. As I showed earlier a high income household can have a far lower net income than a lower gross income household when these factors are taken into account.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> The fact that long term unemployment benefits are the same as short term benefits is indeed bizarre.


I presume you mean long(er) term allowances versus shorter term benefits? Bear in mind that the former are means tested and may involve other conditions and the latter are PRSI linked. And some other qualifying conditions apply in both cases (e.g. Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit are conditional on genuinely seeking work and engagement with agencies that check and assist with this).


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

ClubMan said:


> I presume you mean long(er) term allowances versus shorter term benefits? Bear in mind that the former are means tested and may involve other conditions and the latter are PRSI linked. And some other qualifying conditions apply in both cases (e.g. Jobseeker's Allowance/Benefit are conditional on genuinely seeking work and engagement with agencies that check and assist with this).


Yes, that's what I meant. The condition that the person is genuinely seeking work is hard to prove though. That said our extremely generous redistribution of incomes benefits a very large cohort of people, most of whom are working.


----------



## TRS30 (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> It's worth remembering that most welfare goes to people who do work. The rate of long term unemployment is low and even within that cohort a significant proportion are working in the black economy. The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.
> The fact that long term unemployment benefits are the same as short term benefits is indeed bizarre. I think that within the EU only the UK and Ireland have such a system.
> All of that is interesting but when it comes to fuel poverty, or poverty in general, I'd like to see a shift from looking at gross income to income per person net of taxes and housing costs. As I showed earlier a high income household can have a far lower net income than a lower gross income household when these factors are taken into account.



If you are on disability benefit then I don't believe you have to prove you are actively looking for work. I could be wrong however would make sense for the 'don't want to work (officially)' cohort to be on disability so as not to interfere with their 'work'.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

TRS30 said:


> If you are on disability benefit then I don't believe you have to prove you are actively looking for work. I could be wrong however would make sense for the 'don't want to work (officially)' cohort to be on disability so as not to interfere with their 'work'.


In any system there will be abuse. That's the price of providing help to people who need it. I don't think we are particularly bad when it comes to welfare fraud. I'd rather tolerate that then see people living in real poverty or for them to have to live with the indignity of an American style Food Stamps system.
My issue with statistics around poverty, and this discussion about Fuel Poverty in particular, is that it only looks at gross income and excludes wealth. If we want real comparisons then we should be looking at after tax income less the cost of housing provision.
As I detailed in this post a working couple with two children and a mortgage with a household income of €130k can be significantly worse off than a retired couple who own their house with an income of €40k.


----------



## TRS30 (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> In any system there will be abuse. That's the price of providing help to people who need it. I don't think we are particularly bad when it comes to welfare fraud. I'd rather tolerate that then see people living in real poverty or for them to have to live with the indignity of an American style Food Stamps system.
> My issue with statistics around poverty, and this discussion about Fuel Poverty in particular, is that it only looks at gross income and excludes wealth. If we want real comparisons then we should be looking at after tax income less the cost of housing provision.
> As I detailed in this post a working couple with two children and a mortgage with a household income of €130k can be significantly worse off than a retired couple who own their house with an income of €40k.



I agree. We don't qualify for any means tested assistance because our gross salaries are too high. My parents who are considerably wealthier that us would qualify for more.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Jun 2022)

TRS30 said:


> If you are on disability benefit then I don't believe you have to prove you are actively looking for work. I could be wrong however would make sense for the 'don't want to work (officially)' cohort to be on disability so as not to interfere with their 'work'.


Of course you don't have to be actively looking for work if on disability or illness assistance/benefit but fraudulent claims would require the collusion of independent professional medical experts.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> All of that is interesting but when it comes to fuel poverty, or poverty in general, I'd like to see a shift from looking at gross income to income per person net of taxes and housing costs. As I showed earlier a high income household can have a far lower net income than a lower gross income household when these factors are taken into account.


I understand where you are coming from. But there would be definition problems.

On the one hand, I might buy my dream house than I can just about afford. Most of my income goes to service the mortgage, LPT, maintenance, etc. so that I can scarcely afford utility costs.

On the other hand, with the same income, I buy a house more suited to that income, then I have no problems in meeting fuel or other bills.

In other cases, my income might have reduced or I lost my job, or I became seriously ill since I bought the house.

 How does one legislate?


----------



## tomdublin (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> The massive increase in the number of people on disability benefit is, I think, also worth looking at.


Almost half the people applying for disability benefit are turned down but the number getting it is still massively higher than in other European countries.   I wonder if this might be because it's easier to administer for social welfare offices (they don't have to pretend that they are encouraging recipients to look for work and recipients don't have to pretend either).


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> I understand where you are coming from. But there would be definition problems.
> 
> On the one hand, I might buy my dream house than I can just about afford. Most of my income goes to service the mortgage, LPT, maintenance, etc. so that I can scarcely afford utility costs.
> 
> ...


I agree, it's not easy. That's why we should stop with the nonsense definitions thrown around by left wing propaganda outfits like Social Justice Ireland or the Trade Union body The Nevin Institute. Looking at income and ignoring wealth is a nonsensical way of trying to measure need in the context of social transfers.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

tomdublin said:


> Almost half the people applying for disability benefit are turned down but the number getting it is still massively higher than in other European countries.   I wonder if this might be because it's easier to administer for social welfare offices (they don't have to pretend that they are encouraging recipients to look for work and recipients don't have to pretend either).


I've no idea but in general terms our Civil Service is under staffed so it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

tomdublin said:


> Almost half the people applying for disability benefit are turned down but the number getting it is still massively higher than in other European countries.


Might that be because disabled people experience greater difficulty in obtaining employment in Ireland than in other European countries?


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> That's why we should stop with the nonsense definitions thrown around by left wing propaganda outfits like Social Justice Ireland or the Trade Union body The Nevin Institute. Looking at income and ignoring wealth is a nonsensical way of trying to measure need in the context of social transfers.


I don't know what you mean in the context of my post #119.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> I don't know what you mean in the context of my post #119.


I agree with you that there are personal choice factors in whether someone is in net income poverty or not but ignoring net income and wealth and only looking at gross income is an even more flawed way of quantifying poverty. The politically and ideologically motivated groups like Social Justice Ireland know this but chooser to ignore it in order to further their ideological agenda. In other words they are not really interested in helping poor people, rather they are there to further their ideological agenda.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

Ok.

I was thinking more of how looking at net income would work.

Having a very low gross income leaves one with little discretionary choice.

However, when the income scales are ascended it becomes more difficult to define who needs help.

There would have to be a set of criteria in order to apply the fuel allowance.


----------



## tomdublin (21 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Might that be because disabled people experience greater difficulty in obtaining employment in Ireland than in other European countries?


Not sure about that.  In my experience people are quite keen to include those with disabilities and there is a lot of public goodwill.  Also, at the moment a lot of businesses are so desperate for staff that they will hire pretty much anyone.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Having a very low gross income leaves one with little discretionary choice.


Housing is a need, not a choice. The cost of putting a roof over your head is not a descressionary income.
When you own your own home (have wealth) then a much high proportion of your income is descressionary. 


Sophrosyne said:


> However, when the income scales are ascended it becomes more difficult to define who needs help.


Not really if people just make a tax return or fill in a form. 


Sophrosyne said:


> There would have to be a set of criteria in order to apply the fuel allowance.


There would, so give it to everyone. There's plenty of people on higher incomes who need to as much or more than wealthy people on lower incomes.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

We have circa 1.9 million households. The fuel allowance for the year 2022 is €914.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> We have circa 1.9 million households. The fuel allowance for the year 2022 is €914.


We don't have to give everyone €914.

What I'd really like to see is the government telling people that there's a war on our doorstep and we are facing into a recession and things are going to be tough and we already have the highest levels of social transfer in the EU and the government won't be able to do any more. Things are going to be hard and we'll all just have to live with it.

The government isn't your Mammy.

That's what I'd really like to see but the government are afraid of the populist opposition and a sufficient proportion of the electorate are thick enough to vote for the Shinners and swallow the utter nonsense they are promising so the government are right to be afraid of them.

So we'll have more sweeties handed out and the moaning classes will get the most and those who work will get least.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Jun 2022)

@Purple, - in a way I agree with your points about the cash poor – not all of them, of course. However, with the economy and limited funds, one has to tactically pick one’s battles.

How things change in a few short years. These days, anything could happen, besides fuel poverty, we could have for instance, food and water shortages. We will have to re-think everything.

I think the pandemic lockdowns were a test of the nation’s resilience. Some coped; some definitely did not.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> @Purple, - in a way I agree with your points about the cash poor – not all of them, of course. However, with the economy and limited funds, one has to tactically pick one’s battles.


I agree but we have to change the narrative about what groups are poor and what constitutes poverty.


Sophrosyne said:


> How things change in a few short years. These days, anything could happen, besides fuel poverty, we could have for instance, food and water shortages. We will have to re-think everything.


We do.


Sophrosyne said:


> I think the pandemic lockdowns were a test of the nation’s resilience. Some coped; some definitely did not.


I think there's a deeper issue that was highlighted. The Lockdown was done mainly to protect the old as they were overwhelmingly the group that were at risk from Covid. The impact of the lockdown on younger people was mainly ignored or reacted to with indignation that such a point should even be raised. The impact of the local and international response to the 2008 crash was an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the young to the old, QE being the biggest driver of that. The inflation we are seeing now is an inevitable consequence of that. So we weren't all in it together; young people sacrificed more even though they were at a much lower risk. 
Now we need some social solidarity, we really do need to all be in this together. The social solidarity we need is  from the rich to the poor, but we need to realise that overwhelmingly the old are the rich and the young are the poor. If we keep treating income as if it was wealth and ignoring actual wealth we are going to end up with a seriously dysfunctional society and an equally dysfunctional economy. We need a larger proportion of the wealth we create to be retained by those who create it, the people who work, and if anyone thinks that the best way to do that is with pay rises they really don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## Silversurfer (22 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> In any system there will be abuse. That's the price of providing help to people who need it. I don't think we are particularly bad when it comes to welfare fraud. I'd rather tolerate that then see people living in real poverty or for them to have to live with the indignity of an American style Food Stamps system.
> My issue with statistics around poverty, and this discussion about Fuel Poverty in particular, is that it only looks at gross income and excludes wealth. If we want real comparisons then we should be looking at after tax income less the cost of housing provision.
> As I detailed in this post a working couple with two children and a mortgage with a household income of €130k can be significantly worse off than a retired couple who own their house with an income of €40k.


Who is the decider in what mortgage is allowed? A couple on €130,000 might be living in a home that is too much house (mortgage) for them. Perhaps they should move to somewhere more affordable. Likewise should you have children you can’t afford? Should they go to state or private schools?  What car should you drive and how many for your household?  How many holidays should you take? A retired couple may be housebound so require more heating. They could have contributed 40 years tax. They might have sacrificed a lot to buy their home and have not gone on holidays. Also held back on buying expensive cars.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> Who is the decider in what mortgage is allowed? A couple on €130,000 might be living in a home that is too much house (mortgage) for them. Perhaps they should move to somewhere more affordable. Likewise should you have children you can’t afford? Should they go to state or private schools?  What car should you drive and how many for your household?  How many holidays should you take?


I agree, it's complex. That's why I said that after tax incomes net of the cost of housing provision should be the benchmark. 


Silversurfer said:


> A retired couple may be housebound so require more heating. They could have contributed 40 years tax. They might have sacrificed a lot to buy their home and have not gone on holidays. Also held back on buying expensive cars.


Absolutely, but the opposite may also be true. They might have had lots of kids and been net recipients from the State, they might have too much house for their needs (more likely than in the case of a young family) and they should move somewhere more affordable and appropriate to their needs, they are almost certainly drawing a State pension that is way beyond the contributions they made would fund and they almost certainly didn't sacrifice as much to buy their house as people do now. 
I'm closer to the finishing line than the starting line but it takes a special kind of self delusion to think that it was harder "back in my day".


----------



## Silversurfer (22 Jun 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree, it's complex. That's why I said that after tax incomes net of the cost of housing provision should be the benchmark.
> 
> Absolutely, but the opposite may also be true. They might have had lots of kids and been net recipients from the State, they might have too much house for their needs (more likely than in the case of a young family) and they should move somewhere more affordable and appropriate to their needs, they are almost certainly drawing a State pension that is way beyond the contributions they made would fund and they almost certainly didn't sacrifice as much to buy their house as people do now.
> I'm closer to the finishing line than the starting line but it takes a special kind of self delusion to think that it was harder "back in my day".


The ‘ Marriage Bar’ was only lifted in 1977 so any woman who is retired and has a child 45+ certainly had it harder ‘back in the day’. The whole family would have had one income. Childrens allowance


Purple said:


> I agree, it's complex. That's why I said that after tax incomes net of the cost of housing provision should be the benchmark.
> 
> Absolutely, but the opposite may also be true. They might have had lots of kids and been net recipients from the State, they might have too much house for their needs (more likely than in the case of a young family) and they should move somewhere more affordable and appropriate to their needs, they are almost certainly drawing a State pension that is way beyond the contributions they made would fund and they almost certainly didn't sacrifice as much to buy their house as people do now.
> I'm closer to the finishing line than the starting line but it takes a special kind of self delusion to think that it was harder "back


was only increased within the past 25 years to be of any real help to families. Interest rates were so high lenders added them on to the principle borrowed. Social housing was available but in areas nobody wanted to live in. Kids left school at 14 to get apprenticeships in trades. People from the country lived in bedsit land usually in one room and got a bus in Dominick Street home every Friday. Half the houses in the countryside had no indoor plumbing. There was no employment in the ‘80s and mass immigration. I do not suffer from any kind of  ‘special self delusion’ nor ‘revisionism.


----------



## Purple (22 Jun 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> The ‘ Marriage Bar’ was only lifted in 1977 so any woman who is retired and has a child 45+ certainly had it harder ‘back in the day’. The whole family would have had one income.


Yes, a family could buy a house and have a stay and home parent. Something that is only the stuff of dreams for most young families now.


Silversurfer said:


> Childrens allowance was only increased within the past 25 years to be of any real help to families.


So people who are in their 60's now got it when their children were at school. They didn't have childcare costs either so they didn't really need the children's allowance anyway.


Silversurfer said:


> Interest rates were so high lenders added them on to the principle borrowed.


Yes, buyers back then were very lucky, not only did inflation eat the real cost of their mortgage but high interest rates kept capital prices low. The best time to buy a capital item is when the cost of borrowing is high.  


Silversurfer said:


> Social housing was available but in areas nobody wanted to live in.


But there was enough of it.


Silversurfer said:


> Kids left school at 14 to get apprenticeships in trades.


I left at 17 to get a trade. I was very lucky and could buy an apartment when I was 23. 


Silversurfer said:


> People from the country lived in bedsit land usually in one room and got a bus in Dominick Street home every Friday.


Now they house share, or even room share and can only dream of a bed-sit. The going rate for bed-sits in the "Pre-63" buildings in Dublin is +€1250 a month.


Silversurfer said:


> Half the houses in the countryside had no indoor plumbing.


In the 80's? Nonsense. 


Silversurfer said:


> There was no employment in the ‘80s and mass immigration.


Yes, that was terrible but if you had a job and could buy a house you were much better off than young people with equivalent jobs now who will probably never be able to buy a house.


Silversurfer said:


> I do not suffer from any kind of  ‘special self delusion’ nor ‘revisionism.


Great, you agree with me so. 

I remember the 80's. I don't remember people cycling around with Deliveroo bags on their back who could only aspire to their own room in a bed-sit.


----------

