Penalties for excessive electricity use

LancelotSA said:
Ha ha thank you very much for that!! I particularly liked this part...



Nice one!
Click to expand...

With no facts to back it up. :rolleyes: Speak to anyone that knows anything about Eskom and they all seem to say that the way it was run before is very different to the way its run now, i.e. they were actually competent before.
 
redarrow said:
No, fortunately not.. :)

Maybe I should try it though, yea penalise them for making me work.. :D
Then I can write a book: "How to crash your business in one month"..

Hey it might become a bestseller .. :D

Hmm.. this could work.. :D

:eek:
Click to expand...

Why fortunately? Eskom and Telkom management don't seem to be doing too badly. :D

A month? Amateur. :p
 
Syndyre said:
Why fortunately? Eskom and Telkom management don't seem to be doing too badly. :D
Click to expand...
Good point.. well "fortunately" from the clients perspective at least..

Anyway I'd rather be rowing my small but seaworthy "jolly boat" than sailing the Eskom/Telkom Titanic... ;)

Syndyre said:
A month? Amateur. :p
Click to expand...
Hey, it'd be my first time trying.. :o
 
LancelotSA said:
Ha ha ha ignorance is bliss!! All I can do is shake my head when someone makes an ignorant comment such as this!
Click to expand...

Yep everyday its going better and better.

Ignorance is Strength.

Ask the ANC, they understand this concept with their mindless followers.
 
Whatever the reason, we do need to save electricity. I've been raised that way, so I hate seeing electricity being wasted. Switch your lights off when you leave the room, get energy saving bulbs, braai more often - but if you insist on lighting up your whole home for no legitmate reason, then you should pay through your ass.

I'm all for a tiered rate, the more electricity, water or petrol you use, the more you pay.

Edit: With petrol, I meant some tax on the huge gas-guzzling car you drive.
 
Last edited:
VJB 449 said:
Yep everyday its going better and better.

Ignorance is Strength.

Ask the ANC, they understand this concept with their mindless followers.
Click to expand...

Don't forget War is Peace & Freedom is Slavery, Mbeki seems to apply the former to Zim.
 
Syndyre said:
With no facts to back it up. :rolleyes: Speak to anyone that knows anything about Eskom and they all seem to say that the way it was run before is very different to the way its run now, i.e. they were actually competent before.
Click to expand...

At risk of being called racist (but as a white man I can surely ask) but are all those who "know" usually white?

VJB 449 said:
Yep everyday its going better and better. Ignorance is Strength. Ask the ANC, they understand this concept with their mindless followers.
Click to expand...

Never heard your saying before and not sure it'll ever catch on as it makes no sense....

Perhaps you need to go and touch up on South African history before you start claiming that the ANC got us into this mess...
 
LancelotSA said:
At risk of being called racist (but as a white man I can surely ask) but are all those who "know" usually white?
Click to expand...

Yes but there's no denying SA experienced economic growth pre-94 without "load shedding".

LancelotSA said:
Never heard your saying before and not sure it'll ever catch on as it makes no sense....
Click to expand...

Read Orwell's 1984. ;)
 
Personally I think that taxing/penalising people who use more electricity / petrol / some other scarce commodity is a poorly thought out tactic, or one where the real motive is actually profit..

If you really want to be proactive a much better solution would be to offer tax rebates to people who make use of power saving bulbs and so on..
For example someone (like me :p) who chooses to use a motorcycle for transport could receive a certain rebate on their income tax or something like that..

This way you would actually be encouraging people to make use of energy saving bulbs or more economical vehicles and stuff like that..

Penalising people who's monthly electricity usage exceeds certain amounts will not have the same effect, for example a single guy staying in a small "bachelor flat" all on his lonesome might be leaving his lights burning all the time but because his general usage is so low he will not appear as a "waster", whereas a large household that never leaves lights burning unnecessarily and so on, might still be labeled as "wasters"..


Note: I'm actually against this sort of thing as well as it would be open to plenty of misuse, but I think that nonetheless it would be a better solution than the penalising one..
 
Syndyre said:
Yes but there's no denying SA experienced economic growth pre-94 without "load shedding"
Click to expand...

Just a little idea of what effect apartheid had on the economy of South Africa and an idea of what the current government inherited. I am by no means an ANC member but equally so I am aware of economic principles and have an understanding of the job taken on by them in 1994!

How did segregation and apartheid affect economic growth?

Segregation, like all systems of discrimination, imposed static efficiency costs on the economy. These costs varied with government policies. The Botha and first Smuts administration imposed lighter costs than the PACT government of 1924-1929 or the Nationalist government of 1929-1933. The PACT government saw the introduction of the civilised labour policy and higher rates of protection. It and the two successive governments increased aid to agriculture. But none of this seriously undermined a respectable rate of growth from 1922 to 1928 or the more rapid rate from 1933 to 1945.

The efficiency costs imposed after 1948 were heavier and they stored up trouble for later growth. The central elements of apartheid – complete urban segregation, tightly controlled and poorly funded education for Africans, much more rigorous influx control, rural resettlement to homelands, controls on African ownership outside the homelands – amounted to a massive attempt at social engineering. Political resistance to the programme was contained between 1948 and 1960 and then repressed more strongly during the 1960s. The determinants of growth most strongly affected by these developments were human capital, property rights and an increasing international isolation of South Africa, leading ultimately to adverse impacts on capital inflows. Political instability in South Africa became overt in the period 1976- 1994, the period over which real per capital income dropped substantially.

Overt political instability within South Africa has been dramatically reduced since 1994. But South Africa suffers as a destination for investment from its situation in a rough neighbourhood and from intractable social problems: high unemployment and HIV/AIDS being just two of the most salient of them. And since, as Samuel Huntington points out, democracies are not consolidated until there have been two alternations in power, internal stability is not yet permanently guaranteed. Property rights are guaranteed in the 1996 Constitution, but they can be trumped by expropriation carried out in the public interest, which can include land reform.

Proposals for using the financial system to achieve pre-determined ownership goals may not always be compatible with financial market efficiency. The South African educational system – particularly its schools – has to demonstrate that, in addition to producing commitment to democratic values (desirable in themselves), it can turn out hard skills indispensable to growth. It is around these themes that the growth performance of the South African economy in the coming decades will be discussed.
Click to expand...

The entire paper can be found here... http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/Economics/staff/jfedderke/Documents/2006/ross30.pdf
 
Last edited:
LancelotSA said:
\

How did segregation and apartheid affect economic growth?

Segregation, like all systems of discrimination, imposed static efficiency costs on the economy. These costs varied with government policies. The Botha and first Smuts administration imposed lighter costs than the PACT government of 1924-1929 or the Nationalist government of 1929-1933. The PACT government saw the introduction of the civilised labour policy and higher rates of protection. It and the two successive governments increased aid to agriculture. But none of this seriously undermined a respectable rate of growth from 1922 to 1928 or the more rapid rate from 1933 to 1945.

The efficiency costs imposed after 1948 were heavier and they stored up trouble for later growth. The central elements of apartheid – complete urban segregation, tightly controlled and poorly funded education for Africans, much more rigorous influx control, rural resettlement to homelands, controls on African ownership outside the homelands – amounted to a massive attempt at social engineering. Political resistance to the programme was contained between 1948 and 1960 and then repressed more strongly during the 1960s. The determinants of growth most strongly affected by these developments were human capital, property rights and an increasing international isolation of South Africa, leading ultimately to adverse impacts on capital inflows. Political instability in South Africa became overt in the period 1976- 1994, the period over which real per capital income dropped substantially.

Overt political instability within South Africa has been dramatically reduced since 1994. But South Africa suffers as a destination for investment from its situation in a rough neighbourhood and from intractable social problems: high unemployment and HIV/AIDS being just two of the most salient of them. And since, as Samuel Huntington points out, democracies are not consolidated until there have been two alternations in power, internal stability is not yet permanently guaranteed. Property rights are guaranteed in the 1996 Constitution, but they can be trumped by expropriation carried out in the public interest, which can include land reform.

Proposals for using the financial system to achieve pre-determined ownership goals may not always be compatible with financial market efficiency. The South African educational system – particularly its schools – has to demonstrate that, in addition to producing commitment to democratic values (desirable in themselves), it can turn out hard skills indispensable to growth. It is around these themes that the growth performance of the South African economy in the coming decades will be discussed.
Click to expand...

I never said I supported Apartheid or that it was a good economic or social policy but my original point regarding Eskom still stands.
 
redarrow said:
Personally I think that taxing/penalising people who use more electricity / petrol / some other scarce commodity is a poorly thought out tactic, or one where the real motive is actually profit..

If you really want to be proactive a much better solution would be to offer tax rebates to people who make use of power saving bulbs and so on..
For example someone (like me :p) who chooses to use a motorcycle for transport could receive a certain rebate on their income tax or something like that..

This way you would actually be encouraging people to make use of energy saving bulbs or more economical vehicles and stuff like that..

Penalising people who's monthly electricity usage exceeds certain amounts will not have the same effect, for example a single guy staying in a small "bachelor flat" all on his lonesome might be leaving his lights burning all the time but because his general usage is so low he will not appear as a "waster", whereas a large household that never leaves lights burning unnecessarily and so on, might still be labeled as "wasters"..


Note: I'm actually against this sort of thing as well as it would be open to plenty of misuse, but I think that nonetheless it would be a better solution than the penalising one..
Click to expand...

Recent discussions have revolved around a 53% increase in the cost of electricity... in light of this it should be obvious that they are needing to increase revenue (someone has to pay for the ageing infrastructure). They were denied the requested increase so what is the next best option? The one chosen. Most reasonable people will realise that it is the bigger users ( and yes I mean domestic users) who are going to get targeted. They are not trying to reward those who use a little... this is expected. they are rather wanting to punish those using too much. And as has been proven by this thread, what is the best way to punish someone? By making it hit their pockets.

You have suggested that they encourage people to use less electricity. Surely that is what this will do? Use all you want but "*** and betaal" if this is your attitude!
 
Syndyre said:
I never said I supported Apartheid or that it was a good economic or social policy but my original point regarding Eskom still stands.
Click to expand...

This was aimed as much as you with your comment about pre-1994 growth as it was to others in this thread who made comments about the ANC causing all this current grief...
 
LancelotSA said:
This was aimed as much as you with your comment about pre-1994 growth as it was to others in this thread who made comments about the ANC causing all this current grief...
Click to expand...

Ok, my comment was specifically regarding Eskom management and planning etc, nothing beyond that. From an economic perspective Apartheid was some sort of warped race-based socialism which I certainly wouldn't support, aside from the obvious social/ethical reasons not to support it. I'd advocate laissez-faire capitalism which is why I'm also opposed to this.

IMO the market should be deregulated and opened up and then let the market set the price with competition etc. Obviously it wouldn't be possible immediately due to Eskom's entrenched monopoly but this should be the ultimate goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X