1. I have never denied that but it's also not to the extent claimed. The efficiency is as far as I'm concerned a red herring as people didn't use just 50kWh in 2003
People used much more, but for the same things, they now use less. It's not a red herring. Your argument is a red herring here.
and they don't use just 50kWh now.
But of the 50KWh they have, it goes further, for the same things, and that's my whole point, because the issue was that the allowance was not enough because it's from 2003 as though we now have more energy hungry appliances or our climate has become colder.
It's a straw man to take efficiency and the 50kWh stretching further into account but not the increase in electricity prices. It's a straw man to take the increase in electricity prices into account but not what you really need now.
What strawman. I'm not misreading you. I'm arguing two things.
1. That 50KWh in 2003 is still the same 50KWh in 2025. The climate hasn't changed.
2. In addition, in fact, for some of the basics, chiefly LIGHTS and ENTERTAINMENT, because don't tell me poor people don't like to be entertained, many certainly buy a lot of booze, it certainly is the case that even that 50KWh stretches further because of better efficiencies.
I would argue that LIGHTS are a key and essential reason why electricity is used. I mentioned why earlier, many times.
Other appliances are also more energy efficient eg fridges. But sure, not everyone can afford a fridge.
Apropos that, would you suggest people have a fridge allowance as well?
What I have argued is that we should look at what the average poorer household uses and can afford and come up with a new number. That is also what the article says and not about what you can do with 50kWh now vs in 2003.
We can do that. Certainly. As one may wish to make things even better for people. But that still does not negate my point. People here use poor logic. Claiming 50kWh is outdated because top ups are more expensive is a fallacy.
You should rather say, electricity should be cheaper. That's a different argument. And I would agree, it should be cheaper, but then SA should be run properly and not into the ground.
It should be based on what an indigent household uses AND the price they pay for it.
OK, suppose we say what does an indigent household use. Suppose they have no fridge, would you deny them extra free power or would you go with indigent households which cook every day, run a fridge, use a washing machine, run 10 lights, use a space heater or two, etc? And geysers? Should they have a 150l one or a 100l one? Should they bathe daily? Or maybe twice a day?
Or would you affect their human dignity and enforce on them a limit on those?
Given that poor households have less insulation and that people will often abuse what they don't pay for, how much free power would you give to people?
Stop talking to people like they are children. We are all adults here and can both listen and read. Now, nobody claimed that the 50kWh became less now than in 2003. What we are saying is that electricity is now more expensive so we should look at what an average indigent household uses and needs and what they can afford and determine an allocation based on that.
Actually that's the issue at stake. Otherwise you're arguing illogically. You have to make a case that people deserve more free electrical power, given all the problems at ESKOM, nobody to pay for it, local transformer issues and dodgy connections in informal settlements.
Basic does not mean all you need. I don't know how many time that has to be said. People didn't use just 50kWh in 2003 and they don't use that now but more like 300-350kWh without other means..
Basic implies a degree of what could be afforded by the government at the time as well. As you know, the budget is even more shoddy now.
There's no rule stopping the government to give money and services to people.
Of course there's no rule. There's also no rule for you and Mariner to give your own cash to people to top up.
It does not need to come from individuals.
I'm not the one trying to argue using ad homs here with guilt tripping about how the poor live.
You're also the one continually using personal attacks and trying to belittle people.
Nope. I'm not the one who tried to explain poverty and how bad things are for people.
Nobody denied that 50kWh is still the same amount of power now than in 2003, that's not what it's about. It's also a fallacy that people will suddenly use more when they're subsidised more. Most poorer people used 300-350kWh in 2003 and they still do. Their electricity needs didn't suddenly change with the change in price. The last part is what we have to determine.
300-350KWh is not enough. If you run a 2KW heater per room and you have two rooms, you can use 96KWh per day. That's like a third or a quarter of your free allowance. Now maybe if you ran an LG or Midea inverter heat pump for heating, that would stretch further, but those devices are expensive and need replacement every 5-10 years. The poor only have space heaters or maybe oil heaters, and those also chow electricity.
I've already explained it does not increase the price and nobody pays more because of it. As for band aid solutions, that is all we have until we can implement other measures. I never said we shouldn't look at other means of fixing SA but there's no reason a new FBE can't be one of those means. This false dichotomy of yours is nonsense.
LOL, Dude. If you want your precious treasury to increase the money they spend here, who is going to pay for that? The ANC isn't going to lay off ministers, staff and unnecessary gov employees - this will be either taken from other budgets eg health or police or the tax will increase. What nonsense? You're the one claiming 'treasury' will give this money. Also how will ESKOM provide more power? And can local infrastructure take it? You need to answer all these questions.
This is a bandaid solution as things will only get worse each year. Until there won't be any free electricity to give because I don't think Somalia has too much free electricity to give.
You also don't know what an indigent is. Under our definition it's anyone who can't get by on what they earn without help. It doesn't have to be someone living in poverty and a lot of indigents are lower middle class or just below. These people do use geysers and stoves etc.
Red herring. The definition of indigent is not relevant here. We're talking about 50Kwh being still 50KWh. You'll have to argue something else.
Look dude, I can understand poverty. By all means increase the VAT or PIT by 2-5% and build that extra power station and upgrade informal settlement power lines and transformers and give everyone free power. I'm not even saying don't do this. You can do this. If enough people vote this way, it will happen. But don't claim that 50KWh is not enough because it's from 2003 as per the original article.
Swa if you want 350kWh free for everyone maybe some people would rather prefer a food allowance or a textbook allowance or baby formula allowance instead, or maybe free healthcare?
Can SA afford 350kwh for 70% of the population, free healthcare, free food allowance, free clothing allowance, free water, free transport, a free house - because having no shelter from the elements is worse than less electricity.
Come on. How do you plan to pay for this and still ward of US tariffs and support Iran in their war against the US?
