Income-based electricity bills coming (San Diego: middle-class, purchase, utilities)

[JGC97]

This is great!

Just don't pay your bill and they will disconnect you!!!

Problem solved.

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

This whole thing strikes me as an example of how government can create a tax without calling it a tax. To be clear, I'm not opposed to re-distributive policies, but rather how disingenuous this is.

Normally, if the government wants to help out lower income residents it would pass higher income taxes, and then provide a subsidy to lower income households. This would be the transparent way to achieve the same result. But passing new taxes is difficult, and there's already concern than higher income residents are leaving the state. So instead, increase electricity bills for higher income households (not a "tax" LOL) to pay for lower bills for lower income households.

I sure am.

This is a BS idea.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

I believe some type of income based electric pricing had been in effect for years.

Yes, Southern California Edison's: https://www.sce.com/residential/assistance/fera-care. We should wonder what PG& E is up to with this "plan."

[Kings Gambit]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

That's going to hit seniors on a fixed income hard.

Senior on fixed incomes would more than likely NOT be living in super expensive high rent areas, and if they are living in homes valued at $3m - $4m dollars, its not going to be a very hard hit at all to them.

The entire thing is ridiculous, as people should be charge based on usage. But if they want to do something, this is a much better idea than to request and/or obtain peoples income/tax info.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Kings Gambit

Senior on fixed incomes would more than likely NOT be living in super expensive high rent areas, and if they are living in homes valued at $3m - $4m dollars, its not going to be a very hard hit at all to them.

The entire thing is ridiculous, as people should be charge based on usage. But if they want to do something, this is a much better idea than to request and/or obtain peoples income/tax info.

People that bought homes as long ago as the 50's paid X amount for their homes. Their homes have appreciated over time as have incomes. Once they retire incomes are fixed even if home value rises. Most homes in San Diego are still valued at less than 1 million.

So yes, unless they are able to leverage access to equity it is a huge hit. Maybe by design to get them out of their homes? I believe this is how prop 13 came to life.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

People that bought homes as long ago as the 50's paid X amount for their homes. Their homes have appreciated over time as have incomes. Once they retire incomes are fixed even if home value rises. Most homes in San Diego are still valued at less than 1 million.

So yes, unless they are able to leverage access to equity it is a huge hit. Maybe by design to get them out of their homes? I believe this is how prop 13 came to life.

Some seniors are on a fixed low income, not all. And some are owners of homes that have greatly appreciated, not all. Designing broad policies around narrow edge cases produces wonky outcomes. It's far better to create narrow policies to deal with the edge cases.

Case in point: Prop 13: Instead of essentially freezing everyone's property taxes at a fixed point in time (with less than inflation YoY increases), it would be better to create a carve out for seniors and others on fixed-income. Something like tax deferral that is recaptured at the point of transfer.

Similarly, utility bills should simply reflect the cost to deliver the service plus usage. Nothing more. People should pay for what they use. This discourages folks from over consumption. And it increases public scrutiny because voters pay attention when bills start increasing, which I suspect is one of the reasons the state is trying to obscure things. I have no problem with the state getting involved to help those on low/fixed income. But make this a state run and funded program. Again, this increases transparency and accountability to voters.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

. . . utility bills should simply reflect the cost to deliver the service plus usage. Nothing more. People should pay for what they use.

That's pretty much it. Doesn't matter how much income you have, your age, the length of time you've been in your home or anything else.

There are already discounts in place for people at lower income levels. This idea is simply another way for PG&E to recapture some of the money they lost by neglecting to maintain and replace failing lines, poles and transformers, thus costing them millions of dollars in loss from the lawsuits related to the multiple wildfires in this state.

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

People that bought homes as long ago as the 50's paid X amount for their homes. Their homes have appreciated over time as have incomes. Once they retire incomes are fixed even if home value rises. Most homes in San Diego are still valued at less than 1 million.

So yes, unless they are able to leverage access to equity it is a huge hit. Maybe by design to get them out of their homes? I believe this is how prop 13 came to life.

My neighbor is OLD. She's been living in her house 60 years, and bought right when the community hit the market. It's worth close to a million now I'm sure, but she is by no means well off.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

That's pretty much it. Doesn't matter how much income you have, your age, the length of time you've been in your home or anything else.

There are already discounts in place for people at lower income levels. This idea is simply another way for PG&E to recapture some of the money they lost by neglecting to maintain and replace failing lines, poles and transformers, thus costing them millions of dollars in loss from the lawsuits related to the multiple wildfires in this state.

yep, we get to pay for our own law suites.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

yep, we get to pay for our own law suites.

The money has to come from someplace. My deep pockets have lint at the bottom.