That would be YOUR money, Justin. So, there's some political move being made to tie a fee on your household utility bill relative to your household income. Repeat: your California utility company(that booked billions in profits this year) wants you and yours to pay a "fee" per month based on your household income amount. Does that sound like a fee? Or does it sound like a TAX?
The boobs at the California PUC probably don't know the difference; and those at PG&E certainly don't know the difference. Whether the California State legislature knows the difference is doubtful. So, in a manner to promote equity(as some say), poor people would have their monthly utility paid by those at the higher income levels, to ensure that they can stay in their homes in California without sacrificing to pay PG&E's exorbitant(read out of this world) rates for gas and electricity.
The boobs in Sacramento profess equity, but whose equity to which they speak? Yours? Mine? His? Hers? If PG&E already has the highest rates anywhere, why do they need more? Frackers are producing gas in abundance; costs of natural gas have plummeted. But wait? We in California still pay more than----everybody? Hmmmm. Oh, well, monopoly does have its merits.
A household making $180,000/annum would pay an extra $92./month. Does Diane Feinstein have to pay that, too? And Ms. Nancy Pelosi also? What about Mayor London Breed? Or Gov. Newsom? Or US Senator Allex Padilla? (he maintains a residence somewhere in CAlifornia).
Well, come on. It's not that much, and most of those folks plan to move elsewhere anyhow. Let's get 'em going out the door. Nobody will miss Richie Rich and family. Yea, more fees; more money to spend. Wheeeeeeeee.
How will PG&E know how much you bring home? They'll ask. But we know what happens then: verification. Then the knock on the door: Hello, we're from PG&E. How much do you bring home and can you prove it? Or else?
Sunny, funny California. Bye.
No comments:
Post a Comment