Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Neural Foundry's avatar

The regressive nature of this policy is what gets me. Spreading a £13bn cost across all existing householders hits lower-income families way harder as a share of disposable income, essentially making them subsidze wealthier new homebuyers who can absorb that extra upfront cost. I worked briefly in energy policy consulting and this same tension came up repeatedly any time you try to fund infrastructure transitions through bills rather than progressive taxation. The kicker is that fuel poverty households are already rationing usage to afford current bills, so even a 20% hike could push more into choosing between heating and eating, which defeats the whole point of tackling fuel poverty.

No posts

Ready for more?