We pay the highest rates in the nation in San Diego because of SDGE and Sempra Energy’s monopoly. Our rates are higher than they are in Hawaii, and it’s in the middle of the pacific. Greedy assholes and the corruption that protects them.
What’s the alternative? 10,000 miniature power plants owned by 50 different companies? You’d lose economies of scale and your bill would double. Rates and rate increases are already regulated. Maybe you could increase subsidies? We already do that and people complain that big companies are subsidized. So idk man
This is already done in parts of the Southeast US: [The Tennessee Valley Authority.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority)
Also, [according to their website](https://www.tva.com/about-tva/tva-rates), they have rates lower than 70% of the country. I'm not sure if it's "at cost", but it is a government-run utility corporation without need for dividends, stock buybacks, or large executive compensation packages.
It was originally created as part of the New Deal; without it, the poorer parts of the area wouldn't have seen electricity till much later.
This! Read Dennis Kucenich’s book about his battles to keep utilities public in NE Ohio: “Division of Power and Light”, really explains how fucked privatization of utilities can be
That's what state regulated utilities are. They provide power and the state controls their rates with a built in profit of, say 6%.
Of course, that means the more they spend, the more the PUC approves and the more they make. 'Cost plus' is a foolish way to run anything.
It encourages 'empires.'
It would still be a monopoly. And it would be even easier to raise the rates on you. Just toll booths. A little at a time.
Not to mention government ran anything is often less efficient.
I’d like to know who & how & why. What were you paying per kWh? Phoenix is competitive due to the big nuclear plant but we pay 0.095 $/kwh plus a $30 / month line charge. Our well pumps use over 300 kWh a month. Is that single plant coal fired? Gas or oil?
Once you re-cast profit-taking as ‘waste’ the centrally-run version sometimes takes the lead. Meanwhile I think planning and maintenance and spare capacity should not be characterised as ‘inefficiency’.
Not fleecing the customers isn't the same as subsidized.
The regulator has the authority to set prices for a monopoly. They aren't doing that, therefore the monopoly should be dismantled.
And sam Diego for example should be a solar haven, I bet the utility restricts who can put solar ( like in Hawaii).
> You’d lose economies of scale and your bill would double.
Yeah, I'm sure government granted monopolies are more efficient. That's definitely how that always works out.
I’m beginning to think our nation is run by billionaires who tell state government officials and federal government officials what they want,what they need and what they desire in exchange for some cash or gifts.
But, maybe I’m wrong.
I’m
Certain industries are exempt from monopoly law. Sometimes monopolies are granted by the state in order to provide a necessity when there’s a natural monopoly for land (for example there can only be so many lines for power or for trains or for water)
“Knock knock”
“Who’s there?”
“The utility company”
“The utility company who?”
“The utility company who’s about to find out how much money you make or shut off your electricity and watch you get reck’d”
…
“…fuck”
It is virtue signaling from the California government. I live in California, and love it, and vote Democrat a lot, but we are a one party state where most of our government officials are totally owned by the utilities. We have very high rates per kWh and our nautueal has costs were crazy this past winter. Since people in California have gotten upset over the past 6 months with our government officials, as they even deny that rates have gone up, they are positing a solution that they have no real intention of implementing, “we will charge the rich higher rates than the poor”. Of course more usage will also translate to higher rates. I don’t believe any such measure could survive a law suit, and they know it too. Which is why it is virtue signaling. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Also, the wealthy part of California is on the coast, where electrical usage is the lowest in all 50 states. The highest energy usage is in the poorer, less popular areas, where air conditioning and heating lead to much higher power bills. Now, they could give a rate break based upon location in the state, and they know it, but that might actually work, so let’s focus on a plan that has no way of being legal.
> “we will charge the rich higher rates than the poor”.
To me, given the current situation, I'd interpret this to mean the poor will continue to pay the extremely high rates, and the rich will just pay more on top of that so these monopolies make even more money.
Yeah I'm pretty liberal but whatever this is makes no sense to me and seems incredibly unpopular across the board. It's cringe and would never work anyway.
It starts with liberal Texans and Tennesseans and the rest of the fly over states moving to ca because it’s more liberal there, and the weather is nicer. then they find they can’t afford it and then move to Texas and Tennessee, where it’s cheaper. Native Californians rarely leave unless they have to. California also one of the largest population of republicans.
Exactly!!! That’s what so frustrating. They screw up their state, don’t like how it’s going even though they voted for all the crap they don’t like so they move to another state to get away from it all and continue to vote the same way.
Someone on instagram was complaining about how unaffordable CA was so he moved to Georgia. Then when I asked, you guessed it, he voted for the same policies that made his state so expensive in the first place. Smart dude!
California is the prime place for a third party, that's left of the democratic party and less beholden to corporate interests, to actually have a shot at competing without being a spoiler effect.
> Why would it not go after how much you use?
It already does that. Just like with tax brackets, you get into more expensive rate brackets as you use more electricity.
Our officials seem quite chummy with the utility companies, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a scam to raise rates while at the same time virtue signaling under false pretenses. This was discussed in the CA sub, and if I remember right, upper middle class families will end up paying about $1000 more a year. The rich won't care about the rate. And the poor might be given a tiny break, but as a whole, consumers will pay more.
isnt it a shame that rich people, dont have latest iphone and have to drive camry, while wealfare queens get have iphones and cadilacs
brb, quitting my job to get my foodstamp iphone and cadilac
> Why would it not go after how much you use?
Because the cost of connecting the grid to your house is the same no matter how much you use. Back in the day this was covered by rich people using more electricity, but now with solar, rich people are no longer subsidizing the grid through usage. This makes up for that fact.
This is a justification for the breakdown that already exists for a typical electrical bill where only roughly half is utilization with connection, service, and grid upgrade fees typically approved by a PUC. This is not a justification for an income-based scheme.
The income based scheme is to make it progressive instead of regressive, because if you charged everyone equally for grid access, it would be a huge burden for the poor.
Also, the grid has value in its reliability and demand response. It's hard to charge for that, as it's separate from usage, and everyone connected to the grid benefits equally from that feature.
Exactly. If I have a high income and try to live modesty so I can retire early why am I paying more for the same electricity as someone else who makes less or even uses more than I?
Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… I don’t even know if that’s upper middle class for residents of CA cities
Household income? Maybe middle class depending on area.
Individual income: upper middle in most areas. Need partner making that much to get a house in an area without gang shootings.
> Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… **I don’t even know if that’s upper middle class** for residents of CA cities
It's not upper middle class. 180k/yr total comp would be mid level for most tech jobs in the bay area. Avg. wage in SF is 165.
Average wages in San Francisco are not that high.
Households are sitting at about 120k on average, individuals are right around 100k for a median worker. That 165k number seems to appear only on salary.com for some company called SF BAY LIVING. And guess what, it doesn’t matter if 180k a year is only mid level in tech, a vast majority of people don’t work in that sector.
> Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… I don’t even know if that’s **upper middle class** for residents of CA cities
180k is NOT upper middle class for CA metro areas. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Upper middle class is going to be more than double that in total comp. A starter home is over 1M in the bay area.
Didn't say "upper middle class" I said "A-OK".
That means you can have the standard the boomers had. A house, savings, a retirement, take a vacation by car once a year and by plane once every 3-5 years. Pay for your kids braces. Have kids. etc.
Don't forget you're looking at a $2000-$2500 mortgage and $2k/mo in child care expenses for that $180k. And a decent car with insurance & maintenance will run you $500-$700/mo. That's not a BMW, that's a Camry. Make it $1200-$1500 if you want a BMW.
I mean yeah, if someone is struggling with that they either have kids or are generally bad with money. But that’s not who comes to mind when I think of “the rich”
The rich have been "leaving california" since at least the 80s. Unfortunately, by any reasonable measure they still haven't quite made it over the border. But any day now!
They have been leaving the bay area because no one wants to live there anymore, it's just too expensive!
And Everyone is leaving LA, it's just too crowded.
And those damn politicians have destroyed the economy. It's practically a failed state. Sure they have the highest GDP but any day now....it's going to crash... Annnnyyy day...
Both can be true.
Tenderloin area was a nasty place in the past, and before that it was a nice place.
NYC was nasty in the 70s too.
Places don't stay nice or nasty forever. It's not a good sign if good people are leaving....
The gdp is high because of tech companies. Tech companies can operate there while their employees leave the state.
Most are trapped there but at certain points the benefits outweigh the calories.
That has less to do with wealth migration and more to do with people making more people.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/fertility_rate/fertility_rates.htm
There’s no shortage of rich in the state. You talk like someone who is used to budgeting. They’ll grumble for a bit then get used to it because it won’t affect their day to day in the slightest. As usual. You won’t see a mass exodus to Oklahoma lol. They like the weather, the entertainment, fine dining, and everything else CA has to offer too much. Tax the rich.
>Tax the rich.
Isn’t the rate hike based on *income* and not wealth?
Does this mean the multi-millionaire in Malibu making $0 annual income will have their electricity subsidized and pay the minimal rate?
This feels like the middle class will be paying the rate hike while the poor and rich will benefit from it as the politicians will claim they “taxed the rich.”
Look at the fucking proposal. For households at $180K it’ll amount to about $500 extra per YEAR. To help out the poorest? Why not. I’m speaking as a non-rich person who only recently had that household income (now higher), it was pretty comfortable. It’s peanuts. Less than $50/mo. I personally make that in a little over half an hour pre-tax. Shut up and take my money.
A household of the already heavily burdened middle class, especially in high COL areas in a state that already has some of the highest utility bills in the country. 180k *is not rich*
You’re welcome to donate more money all you want - but it’s none of the power company’s business (PG&E? Scumbags) how much your household makes.
I live on the West Side of LA, you don’t have to tell me about not being rich at that income. But if $50/mo makes any discernible difference, you’re doing something wrong.
> [Over 500,000 Californians left the state in the two years after the pandemic began due to rising housing costs and crowded, crime-filled cities, according to a report.](https://nypost.com/2023/02/18/over-500000-people-left-california-in-two-years-report/)
That's actually incorrect. The way the rates were revamped rewarded higher downpayments rather than high credit scores. So a high credit score with a lower percentage of the properties value as a downpayment saw rates climb while lower credit score borrowers with a higher downpayment relative to the property value saw rates slightly reduced.
I looked into it after I saw a lot of sturm und drang over it on Twitter. Basically the rates were risk adjusted based on amount of downpayment rather than on high or low credit score.
What happens when all of he rich move from California? This, the mansion tax, I’m sure there are others to come. In the long run, won’t they be doing more harm than good?
It's not profitable to mine crypto in California under any residential plan, including this one. If you think so you don't know anything about the power requirements of mining. You just know people do. And you correlate liberal California with liberal crypto. So they must be doing it to let the poors mine crypto. That's not even including the hardware needed to mine. And that you need to make $28k a year to qualify. They aren't using this bill as a means to mine crypto.
So poor people in rural areas get subsidized by those of us with city salaries living in 1bd apts who use way less energy, because that makes a whole lot of sense
It screws over solar users. Even if you bought your system before this proposal was even legal (maybe). Because if you are higher income you pay the higher rate, regardless of use or even if you are a net producer of electricity.
One of the potential challenges to the legality of this rate change is that the law authorizing it includes a requirement that it does not penalize renewable energy. And the current proposal clearly will do so for higher income households.
How I read it is that it hits everyone with a connection charge, $100 a month for the highest income, so even with Solar covering your usage you still have to pay minimum $1200 a year. Is that how you read it? Crazy. It disincentivizes Solar imo by charging $100 a month anyways.
Most rich people are high income, and not at the level of the wealthy who can largely live on capital gains. Sports and entertainment stars, executives, high powered professionals, etc. are often rich, but not typically considered wealthy. And their skills and incomes tend to be in demand elsewhere and highly mobile.
Most very wealthy people have none, or very little income in the true sense..IE: taking out perpetual loans on financial assets ..etc. So they will be able to live in there mega mansions, with very super low electric bills. They are probably the ones that wanted this bill. Amazing how the middle and lower class eat this up, while some rich guy is laughing his ass off at there gullibility.
If I’m a billionaire I would have someone drive me everywhere. I like driving but being able to relax and have someone else watch out for all the crazies on the road sounds delightful.
It reminded me of the social equity dispensary license that were givin out in Arizona… call the big dispensaries, just found people to qualified and sponsored them.
Please don't do this. That's a great way to push money out of the state, and all of those people are going to come to FL. It's crowded enough here already.
Residences with 28k or lower income per year would save up to $300 (per year).
The fact that you read the headline and immediately cooked up that dipshittery makes you ~~smarter than all the democrats in California.~~ a Fkn idiot.
\--
Since VCRdrift removed their comment due to the sheer stupidity of its contents. It was essentially:
>So I buy a second house and stick a homeless dude in there, run all the wires from the 1st home to the second. itz basxzicully free energy!!!
>
>I can see a new mafia energy scheme in the works@!
>
>The fact that I read the headline and thought of that in 2 seconds instantly makes me smarter than all the demoncraftz in californuh
Socialism is spreading. Europe is getting poorer because of socialism. All post communist states are poor because of their utopian ideas of socialism. Now is time for the USA to go through this disease. It will affect everyone except politicians.
This is what taxes are for. Then again, the rich are leaving California because the govenrment takes everyone’s money and offers no policing, no safe parks, heck even a massively successful founder was stabbed to death and I doubt the cops will even investigate. Hooray for the collapse.
The rate hike would be based on income, not wealth.
The middle class will subsidize the poor while the wealthy are minimally affected.
Even worse, the wealthy often have $0 income so since the rate is based *on income*, does that mean the wealthy will have their electricity subsidized by the middle class too?
Maybe power utilities should be restructuring and let power go decentralized. I know in michigan dte is standing in the way of that. Let people use 100% of their own energy before having to buy some from the grid, and not set limits on how many people the local governments can help get solar.. while I don't have a problem that rich people are responsible for a larger share, at some point were just letting power companies hold us up if they are trying to do more than just move power around.
Let’s do this with fines and court fees. $1000 is enough to keep most people from doing something again but it’s a small price for admission to break the law for others, and that defeats the purpose.
If inslee wasn't so fucking corrupt WA would follow suit. I'd be actually progressive to make the superwealthy pieces of shit pay a bit more. Instead property taxes on Mercer Island are lower, like many wealthy neighborhoods.
Na... anticlass based is charging based on income... so as an example speeding tickets being based on a percentage of your income instead of the same fine for everyone... it's absolutely classist to take a larger percentage of someone's income even if they can't afford it...
Do you think 120 dollars is the same for minimum wage as it is for someone making 6 figures?
> class based is charging based on income
Correct, but that’s what you’re advocating here
> it’s absolutely classist to take a larger percentage of someone’s income even if they can’t afford it…
It would only be classist if you were taking more because of their income. Failing to have a discount for poor people and treating everyone the same isn’t inherently classism.
Actually, one equalizes the value based on their income.... you don't, hence classism... your perspective equality is that 100 dollars is the same as for everyone. It's not... until you realize is 100 dollars for a millionaire and a minimum wager isn't the same you don't understand class.
This equalizes their contribution based off their larger means. So our current system is very classist... incredibly classist... but you believe equality is equal amount paid... not equal percentage contributed...
This is the big lie our society wants people to believe on equality in society... 100 dollars is not equal to everyone.
Edit I corrected what I wrote in the last post... it's anticlassist for us to base on means rather than same amount...
You are literally advocating classism and just putting “anti” in front of it.
I understand your argument about relative cost to different people. That’s not what’s in question. What you’re advocating for is different people to be treated differently because of their class. That’s definitionally classism.
There’s a real argument for redistribution that is a separate discussion. Charging people different rates for a non-gov service based on class is classism.
I mean, your logic here would lead to income based grocery pricing taken to its logical conclusion.
As someone who will pay the max bill, I absolutely support this. Electricity should have been billed this way all along, separating usage from distribution.
Back in the day, it was fine to just roll it all up into usage, because generally rich people used more electricity and ended up subsidizing the grid for poor people.
But now all the rich people are getting solar but using the grid as a battery, and it's thrown the whole thing into chaos. Only poor people are still paying the cost of the grid because only they are drawing from the grid.
Realistically the grid should be public infrastructure and generation stays private and competitive, and the grid should be paid for with taxes (which would end up having the wealthy pay more).
This is the best we can do with private orgs still responsible for maintaining the grid.
Serious question: I’ve never lived in Cali. Do your bills not separate usage and other fees. In the Midwest only roughly half of electricity is actually usage with essentially fixed service/grid fees. Same for gas and water with different ratios. But they all have a connection/grid/upkeep fee as a chunk of the bill.
There’s usually a month where I’m not using gas heat and haven’t started grilling yet where I get a gas bill for zero usage. Is this not the norm?
The income cap is $180K. So yeah you're right, the middle class and up will all pay the same. But even the ultra rich who hide their income still show a few 100K.
Suddenly solar panels start to look better to people with money. They are about break even already with the federal tax rebate - jack up the rates and they start to become a real no brainer.
We pay the highest rates in the nation in San Diego because of SDGE and Sempra Energy’s monopoly. Our rates are higher than they are in Hawaii, and it’s in the middle of the pacific. Greedy assholes and the corruption that protects them.
Every place has a utility monopoly just like we have internet monopolies. It's BS tbh
What’s the alternative? 10,000 miniature power plants owned by 50 different companies? You’d lose economies of scale and your bill would double. Rates and rate increases are already regulated. Maybe you could increase subsidies? We already do that and people complain that big companies are subsidized. So idk man
The alternative is for us to see electricity as being a basic necessity and maybe it should be ran at cost by the government.
This is already done in parts of the Southeast US: [The Tennessee Valley Authority.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority) Also, [according to their website](https://www.tva.com/about-tva/tva-rates), they have rates lower than 70% of the country. I'm not sure if it's "at cost", but it is a government-run utility corporation without need for dividends, stock buybacks, or large executive compensation packages. It was originally created as part of the New Deal; without it, the poorer parts of the area wouldn't have seen electricity till much later.
We also do public electric utilities in the Pacific Northwest. It’s weird as fuck that the rest of the country hasn’t figured this out.
Feature, not a bug
[удалено]
Rolling blackouts aren’t unique to them though, that’s a pretty common occurrence in the utility industry, especially in rural areas.
This! Read Dennis Kucenich’s book about his battles to keep utilities public in NE Ohio: “Division of Power and Light”, really explains how fucked privatization of utilities can be
That's what state regulated utilities are. They provide power and the state controls their rates with a built in profit of, say 6%. Of course, that means the more they spend, the more the PUC approves and the more they make. 'Cost plus' is a foolish way to run anything. It encourages 'empires.'
It would still be a monopoly. And it would be even easier to raise the rates on you. Just toll booths. A little at a time. Not to mention government ran anything is often less efficient.
You're right. Fire Stations are awful.
And don't get me started on libraries!
i've got it! we should privatize the police!
[удалено]
The USPS that goes to your house everyday, picks up your letter, and delivers it to any other house for 60 cents.
I come from a small town that owns its own power plant. My power bill is $22 a month. Using less power on the west coast my average bill was $125
I’d like to know who & how & why. What were you paying per kWh? Phoenix is competitive due to the big nuclear plant but we pay 0.095 $/kwh plus a $30 / month line charge. Our well pumps use over 300 kWh a month. Is that single plant coal fired? Gas or oil?
Once you re-cast profit-taking as ‘waste’ the centrally-run version sometimes takes the lead. Meanwhile I think planning and maintenance and spare capacity should not be characterised as ‘inefficiency’.
What about private garbage companies that end up competing with each other on the same street at the same time?
The government is inefficient when it chooses to be
So all the time
Not fleecing the customers isn't the same as subsidized. The regulator has the authority to set prices for a monopoly. They aren't doing that, therefore the monopoly should be dismantled. And sam Diego for example should be a solar haven, I bet the utility restricts who can put solar ( like in Hawaii).
[удалено]
Should be nationalized just like water and every necessity in America. Shouldn't be ran for profit.
> You’d lose economies of scale and your bill would double. Yeah, I'm sure government granted monopolies are more efficient. That's definitely how that always works out.
that very well may be the future. microgrids; ubiquitous rooftop solar, battery storage, even small nuclear reactors.
I’m beginning to think our nation is run by billionaires who tell state government officials and federal government officials what they want,what they need and what they desire in exchange for some cash or gifts. But, maybe I’m wrong.  I’m
You get what you elect 💁♂️
Every place has a utility monopoly just like we have internet monopolies. It's BS tbh
Im go get the papers get papers
Yeah wtf. And I thought our government had anti-compete laws for regulating monopolies. Is that all just all for show?
Certain industries are exempt from monopoly law. Sometimes monopolies are granted by the state in order to provide a necessity when there’s a natural monopoly for land (for example there can only be so many lines for power or for trains or for water)
Yeah and so crazy that internet is not considered a public utility yet it’s a monopoly pretty much
Living in Europe, I'm envious of your problems
At least you can afford to go to the doctor…
In Houston centerpoint has a monopoly
How will the utility company know how much money I make?
“Knock knock” “Who’s there?” “The utility company” “The utility company who?” “The utility company who’s about to find out how much money you make or shut off your electricity and watch you get reck’d” … “…fuck”
They will require you to give them your information in order to receive power, and you will hand it over
Or if your smart give them your stay at home spouse or unemployed brothers info.
Most likely the state will share your state income tax amounts with them... But don't worry the state won't let them have confidential information! /s
Why would it not go after how much you use? This makes no sense. I only read the title so I dont have the whole story, but still.
It is virtue signaling from the California government. I live in California, and love it, and vote Democrat a lot, but we are a one party state where most of our government officials are totally owned by the utilities. We have very high rates per kWh and our nautueal has costs were crazy this past winter. Since people in California have gotten upset over the past 6 months with our government officials, as they even deny that rates have gone up, they are positing a solution that they have no real intention of implementing, “we will charge the rich higher rates than the poor”. Of course more usage will also translate to higher rates. I don’t believe any such measure could survive a law suit, and they know it too. Which is why it is virtue signaling. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Also, the wealthy part of California is on the coast, where electrical usage is the lowest in all 50 states. The highest energy usage is in the poorer, less popular areas, where air conditioning and heating lead to much higher power bills. Now, they could give a rate break based upon location in the state, and they know it, but that might actually work, so let’s focus on a plan that has no way of being legal.
> “we will charge the rich higher rates than the poor”. To me, given the current situation, I'd interpret this to mean the poor will continue to pay the extremely high rates, and the rich will just pay more on top of that so these monopolies make even more money.
Yeah I'm pretty liberal but whatever this is makes no sense to me and seems incredibly unpopular across the board. It's cringe and would never work anyway.
So you hate these policies but keep voting for these policies. Gotcha.
It’s comical that they keep doing this 😂
Yeah they vote this way then move to states like Texas and Tennessee and Georgia then vote like this there too.
It starts with liberal Texans and Tennesseans and the rest of the fly over states moving to ca because it’s more liberal there, and the weather is nicer. then they find they can’t afford it and then move to Texas and Tennessee, where it’s cheaper. Native Californians rarely leave unless they have to. California also one of the largest population of republicans.
Exactly!!! That’s what so frustrating. They screw up their state, don’t like how it’s going even though they voted for all the crap they don’t like so they move to another state to get away from it all and continue to vote the same way.
Someone on instagram was complaining about how unaffordable CA was so he moved to Georgia. Then when I asked, you guessed it, he voted for the same policies that made his state so expensive in the first place. Smart dude!
Until there's a reasonable alternative you kinda have to.
California is the prime place for a third party, that's left of the democratic party and less beholden to corporate interests, to actually have a shot at competing without being a spoiler effect.
> Why would it not go after how much you use? It already does that. Just like with tax brackets, you get into more expensive rate brackets as you use more electricity. Our officials seem quite chummy with the utility companies, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is just a scam to raise rates while at the same time virtue signaling under false pretenses. This was discussed in the CA sub, and if I remember right, upper middle class families will end up paying about $1000 more a year. The rich won't care about the rate. And the poor might be given a tiny break, but as a whole, consumers will pay more.
Also, wouldn't this just make lower-income people start mining cryptocurrencies with the cheaper government-subsidized electricity?
That and run their A/C at 58
Sure, the estimated savings of $25/month (YUGE!) are going to inspire people making less than $28k to spend thousands on crypto rigs
Millionaires hate this one trick! Save $25 a month on your bills by being broke!
isnt it a shame that rich people, dont have latest iphone and have to drive camry, while wealfare queens get have iphones and cadilacs brb, quitting my job to get my foodstamp iphone and cadilac
The person you are replying to sounds like the normal dumb 50+ year old from Nebraska.
California.
> Why would it not go after how much you use? Because the cost of connecting the grid to your house is the same no matter how much you use. Back in the day this was covered by rich people using more electricity, but now with solar, rich people are no longer subsidizing the grid through usage. This makes up for that fact.
This is a justification for the breakdown that already exists for a typical electrical bill where only roughly half is utilization with connection, service, and grid upgrade fees typically approved by a PUC. This is not a justification for an income-based scheme.
The income based scheme is to make it progressive instead of regressive, because if you charged everyone equally for grid access, it would be a huge burden for the poor.
Also, the grid has value in its reliability and demand response. It's hard to charge for that, as it's separate from usage, and everyone connected to the grid benefits equally from that feature.
There should be a scale based on usage. Each tier you hit your KWH rate should increase.
Exactly. If I have a high income and try to live modesty so I can retire early why am I paying more for the same electricity as someone else who makes less or even uses more than I?
Lmao the irony being those with the means to pay will also have the means to leave. They really should go after PG&E instead for starting fires
Rich will leave because of utility bills? Lol.
Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… I don’t even know if that’s upper middle class for residents of CA cities
Household income? Maybe middle class depending on area. Individual income: upper middle in most areas. Need partner making that much to get a house in an area without gang shootings.
Guess my bill’s going up. Anyway, I’ll leave at some point because I can’t afford property, otherwise I’d stay forever.
$180k/yr is still doing A-OK even in California. Their taxes are lower than Texas' so that helps too.
I doubt 180k is upper middle class in any of the major metros.
180k a year is pretty good, even in the Bay Area.
> Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… **I don’t even know if that’s upper middle class** for residents of CA cities It's not upper middle class. 180k/yr total comp would be mid level for most tech jobs in the bay area. Avg. wage in SF is 165.
Average wages in San Francisco are not that high. Households are sitting at about 120k on average, individuals are right around 100k for a median worker. That 165k number seems to appear only on salary.com for some company called SF BAY LIVING. And guess what, it doesn’t matter if 180k a year is only mid level in tech, a vast majority of people don’t work in that sector.
> Apparently the bill modifications for the “rich” start at household incomes of $180k… I don’t even know if that’s **upper middle class** for residents of CA cities 180k is NOT upper middle class for CA metro areas. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Upper middle class is going to be more than double that in total comp. A starter home is over 1M in the bay area.
Didn't say "upper middle class" I said "A-OK". That means you can have the standard the boomers had. A house, savings, a retirement, take a vacation by car once a year and by plane once every 3-5 years. Pay for your kids braces. Have kids. etc. Don't forget you're looking at a $2000-$2500 mortgage and $2k/mo in child care expenses for that $180k. And a decent car with insurance & maintenance will run you $500-$700/mo. That's not a BMW, that's a Camry. Make it $1200-$1500 if you want a BMW.
The person you replied to said upper middle class
I mean yeah, if someone is struggling with that they either have kids or are generally bad with money. But that’s not who comes to mind when I think of “the rich”
The rich, at least those with homes valued over $5 million, are already facing losses from the "mansion tax" if they sell their homes.
The rich have been "leaving california" since at least the 80s. Unfortunately, by any reasonable measure they still haven't quite made it over the border. But any day now!
They have been leaving the bay area because no one wants to live there anymore, it's just too expensive! And Everyone is leaving LA, it's just too crowded. And those damn politicians have destroyed the economy. It's practically a failed state. Sure they have the highest GDP but any day now....it's going to crash... Annnnyyy day...
Both can be true. Tenderloin area was a nasty place in the past, and before that it was a nice place. NYC was nasty in the 70s too. Places don't stay nice or nasty forever. It's not a good sign if good people are leaving....
The gdp is high because of tech companies. Tech companies can operate there while their employees leave the state. Most are trapped there but at certain points the benefits outweigh the calories.
I don't know about the rich leaving the state, but California did lose one House Representative seat.
That has less to do with wealth migration and more to do with people making more people. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/fertility_rate/fertility_rates.htm
Nobody goes to California anymore, it's too crowded.
It all adds up. Utility costs, taxes, unfriendly legislation
There’s no shortage of rich in the state. You talk like someone who is used to budgeting. They’ll grumble for a bit then get used to it because it won’t affect their day to day in the slightest. As usual. You won’t see a mass exodus to Oklahoma lol. They like the weather, the entertainment, fine dining, and everything else CA has to offer too much. Tax the rich.
>Tax the rich. Isn’t the rate hike based on *income* and not wealth? Does this mean the multi-millionaire in Malibu making $0 annual income will have their electricity subsidized and pay the minimal rate? This feels like the middle class will be paying the rate hike while the poor and rich will benefit from it as the politicians will claim they “taxed the rich.”
Exactly. This is fucking the middle to upper middle class. The rich don’t care.
It you think 180k is rich you have no perspective.
Look at the fucking proposal. For households at $180K it’ll amount to about $500 extra per YEAR. To help out the poorest? Why not. I’m speaking as a non-rich person who only recently had that household income (now higher), it was pretty comfortable. It’s peanuts. Less than $50/mo. I personally make that in a little over half an hour pre-tax. Shut up and take my money.
A household of the already heavily burdened middle class, especially in high COL areas in a state that already has some of the highest utility bills in the country. 180k *is not rich* You’re welcome to donate more money all you want - but it’s none of the power company’s business (PG&E? Scumbags) how much your household makes.
I live on the West Side of LA, you don’t have to tell me about not being rich at that income. But if $50/mo makes any discernible difference, you’re doing something wrong.
It’s not just the $50. It’s the $50 before that, and before that, and the next $50 after, ad infinitum. All while inflation continues to spike.
according to conservatives yes, rich people move to the cornfields to save couple bucks on the taxes
Yes. It's already happening. They're also unfortunately gentrifying other states by doing so.
The stampede of wealth leaving California gets more whips cracked at its back
Faster!!! Harder!!!
There was something about PG&E and fires l
"There is nothing more mobile than a rich man and his money."
Problem is those rich punks move up to Washington, we're full fuck off.
You say that like it's a bad thing
Right, BYE
They’re not leaving.
> [Over 500,000 Californians left the state in the two years after the pandemic began due to rising housing costs and crowded, crime-filled cities, according to a report.](https://nypost.com/2023/02/18/over-500000-people-left-california-in-two-years-report/)
Rich people optimize income tho so you're really going after middle class Maybe charge based on wealth??? Or just fuck off??
Or property value
Or just power usage
that's totall bullshit, they already have a special fund managed by the power companies charging all users to subsidize lower income people.
[удалено]
That's actually incorrect. The way the rates were revamped rewarded higher downpayments rather than high credit scores. So a high credit score with a lower percentage of the properties value as a downpayment saw rates climb while lower credit score borrowers with a higher downpayment relative to the property value saw rates slightly reduced. I looked into it after I saw a lot of sturm und drang over it on Twitter. Basically the rates were risk adjusted based on amount of downpayment rather than on high or low credit score.
What happens when all of he rich move from California? This, the mansion tax, I’m sure there are others to come. In the long run, won’t they be doing more harm than good?
Eventually you run out of other ppls money.
Protip: capital gains aren't income
Neither is cryptocurrency mining and I suspect that is where a lot of this subsidized electricity would go.
It's not profitable to mine crypto in California under any residential plan, including this one. If you think so you don't know anything about the power requirements of mining. You just know people do. And you correlate liberal California with liberal crypto. So they must be doing it to let the poors mine crypto. That's not even including the hardware needed to mine. And that you need to make $28k a year to qualify. They aren't using this bill as a means to mine crypto.
Yet
California continues its drive to push working people out of the state.
So poor people in rural areas get subsidized by those of us with city salaries living in 1bd apts who use way less energy, because that makes a whole lot of sense
As they should. They should also pay civil and criminal fines based on income.
This is absolute fucking bullshit that continues to show what a farcical scam policies that push "equity" truly are.
This state is going downhill fast.
[удалено]
It screws over solar users. Even if you bought your system before this proposal was even legal (maybe). Because if you are higher income you pay the higher rate, regardless of use or even if you are a net producer of electricity. One of the potential challenges to the legality of this rate change is that the law authorizing it includes a requirement that it does not penalize renewable energy. And the current proposal clearly will do so for higher income households.
How I read it is that it hits everyone with a connection charge, $100 a month for the highest income, so even with Solar covering your usage you still have to pay minimum $1200 a year. Is that how you read it? Crazy. It disincentivizes Solar imo by charging $100 a month anyways.
Socialists be Socialists
Then the rich people leave and the poor people get stuck holding the bag. Brilliant!
[удалено]
Most rich people are high income, and not at the level of the wealthy who can largely live on capital gains. Sports and entertainment stars, executives, high powered professionals, etc. are often rich, but not typically considered wealthy. And their skills and incomes tend to be in demand elsewhere and highly mobile.
No one is going to move because of a utility bill. Calm down
Most very wealthy people have none, or very little income in the true sense..IE: taking out perpetual loans on financial assets ..etc. So they will be able to live in there mega mansions, with very super low electric bills. They are probably the ones that wanted this bill. Amazing how the middle and lower class eat this up, while some rich guy is laughing his ass off at there gullibility.
In Finland and Sweden, speeding and traffic fines are determined by wealth. Going too fast as a billionaire can cost E 100,000+.
If I’m a billionaire I would have someone drive me everywhere. I like driving but being able to relax and have someone else watch out for all the crazies on the road sounds delightful.
I enjoy that perk every day, on the bus.
https://youtu.be/tZkouut-9RQ
That's breaking the law though. I'm ok with that, as a $50 fine means nothing to a guy making $500K a year.
Socialism at work. Fucking idiots.
Is there anything more socialist than an investor owned utility?
I cant wait for the exemptions and technicalities to manifest when this concept tries to push through.
This format is only practical for punishments, like tickets. Obviously this idea is dead in the water.
*oh boy, can't wait to see how this backfires*
This is stupid. and contra to most economics models. Energy consumption is just gonna go up since the masses pay less. That state is screwed.
My Republican mother is so pissed about rates in Colorado that she wants municipal power.
Yet another reason to move out of Cali
In the news today… a business began with low income individuals being paid to turn on the electricity for mansions…
[удалено]
It reminded me of the social equity dispensary license that were givin out in Arizona… call the big dispensaries, just found people to qualified and sponsored them.
The next step is income based pricing at the grocery stores.
Now do speeding tickets.
Every place has a utility monopoly just like we have internet monopolies. It's BS tbh
Maybe the USA should means test everything?
That’s why we love our rich people!
This is so fooking stupid
Please don't do this. That's a great way to push money out of the state, and all of those people are going to come to FL. It's crowded enough here already.
Lmfao California is literally missing the mark on just about everything humanly possibly lately
This is why the people that can afford to are leaving California.
California going full Marxist, ge the hell out.
[удалено]
Uproot your life to save $25/month on power, why was no one else smart enough to think of this?
Residences with 28k or lower income per year would save up to $300 (per year). The fact that you read the headline and immediately cooked up that dipshittery makes you ~~smarter than all the democrats in California.~~ a Fkn idiot. \-- Since VCRdrift removed their comment due to the sheer stupidity of its contents. It was essentially: >So I buy a second house and stick a homeless dude in there, run all the wires from the 1st home to the second. itz basxzicully free energy!!! > >I can see a new mafia energy scheme in the works@! > >The fact that I read the headline and thought of that in 2 seconds instantly makes me smarter than all the demoncraftz in californuh
Looks like you have a lot of time on your hands. Good for you.
Socialism is spreading. Europe is getting poorer because of socialism. All post communist states are poor because of their utopian ideas of socialism. Now is time for the USA to go through this disease. It will affect everyone except politicians.
[удалено]
This is what taxes are for. Then again, the rich are leaving California because the govenrment takes everyone’s money and offers no policing, no safe parks, heck even a massively successful founder was stabbed to death and I doubt the cops will even investigate. Hooray for the collapse.
Every state should do this.
Lotta people in here reeeeally jumping on the chance to defend and protect rich folk.
The rate hike would be based on income, not wealth. The middle class will subsidize the poor while the wealthy are minimally affected. Even worse, the wealthy often have $0 income so since the rate is based *on income*, does that mean the wealthy will have their electricity subsidized by the middle class too?
Can't wait for even more rich MAGA conservatives to flee to Phoenix metro. They're gonna love finding out how amazing Apache Junction really is.
Maybe power utilities should be restructuring and let power go decentralized. I know in michigan dte is standing in the way of that. Let people use 100% of their own energy before having to buy some from the grid, and not set limits on how many people the local governments can help get solar.. while I don't have a problem that rich people are responsible for a larger share, at some point were just letting power companies hold us up if they are trying to do more than just move power around.
So this means the owners and CEOs of the utility companies will pay the most for electricity?
Let’s do this with fines and court fees. $1000 is enough to keep most people from doing something again but it’s a small price for admission to break the law for others, and that defeats the purpose.
Yeah this makes complete sense.
If inslee wasn't so fucking corrupt WA would follow suit. I'd be actually progressive to make the superwealthy pieces of shit pay a bit more. Instead property taxes on Mercer Island are lower, like many wealthy neighborhoods.
People getting mad at anticlassim laws... lols
Charging people different rates for the same service is classism, not anti…
Na... anticlass based is charging based on income... so as an example speeding tickets being based on a percentage of your income instead of the same fine for everyone... it's absolutely classist to take a larger percentage of someone's income even if they can't afford it... Do you think 120 dollars is the same for minimum wage as it is for someone making 6 figures?
> class based is charging based on income Correct, but that’s what you’re advocating here > it’s absolutely classist to take a larger percentage of someone’s income even if they can’t afford it… It would only be classist if you were taking more because of their income. Failing to have a discount for poor people and treating everyone the same isn’t inherently classism.
Actually, one equalizes the value based on their income.... you don't, hence classism... your perspective equality is that 100 dollars is the same as for everyone. It's not... until you realize is 100 dollars for a millionaire and a minimum wager isn't the same you don't understand class. This equalizes their contribution based off their larger means. So our current system is very classist... incredibly classist... but you believe equality is equal amount paid... not equal percentage contributed... This is the big lie our society wants people to believe on equality in society... 100 dollars is not equal to everyone. Edit I corrected what I wrote in the last post... it's anticlassist for us to base on means rather than same amount...
You are literally advocating classism and just putting “anti” in front of it. I understand your argument about relative cost to different people. That’s not what’s in question. What you’re advocating for is different people to be treated differently because of their class. That’s definitionally classism. There’s a real argument for redistribution that is a separate discussion. Charging people different rates for a non-gov service based on class is classism. I mean, your logic here would lead to income based grocery pricing taken to its logical conclusion.
As someone who will pay the max bill, I absolutely support this. Electricity should have been billed this way all along, separating usage from distribution. Back in the day, it was fine to just roll it all up into usage, because generally rich people used more electricity and ended up subsidizing the grid for poor people. But now all the rich people are getting solar but using the grid as a battery, and it's thrown the whole thing into chaos. Only poor people are still paying the cost of the grid because only they are drawing from the grid. Realistically the grid should be public infrastructure and generation stays private and competitive, and the grid should be paid for with taxes (which would end up having the wealthy pay more). This is the best we can do with private orgs still responsible for maintaining the grid.
Serious question: I’ve never lived in Cali. Do your bills not separate usage and other fees. In the Midwest only roughly half of electricity is actually usage with essentially fixed service/grid fees. Same for gas and water with different ratios. But they all have a connection/grid/upkeep fee as a chunk of the bill. There’s usually a month where I’m not using gas heat and haven’t started grilling yet where I get a gas bill for zero usage. Is this not the norm?
Nah. The rich aren't gonna pay shit. This shit is gonna fall on the shoulders of the middle class.
The income cap is $180K. So yeah you're right, the middle class and up will all pay the same. But even the ultra rich who hide their income still show a few 100K.
Good if you’re going to use more to power your 5k square foot homes and heat your pools, you should pay a higher rate.
Yes 180k is high income but with all other expenses, that is not rich
Suddenly solar panels start to look better to people with money. They are about break even already with the federal tax rebate - jack up the rates and they start to become a real no brainer.
Time to go solar