Fuel Costs

On or around Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:09:46 +0100, "maxwell" enlightened us thusly:

mind, I'm not in favour of cutting income tax to silly low levels at the expense of taxing food, books, etc. higher, which is the way "they" seem to be going.

high purchase taxes etc. but an unfair burden on those who do the crappiest, low-paid jobs. Obviously, you have to have a balance, but the very high tax rates for high-income brackets have long since disappeared.

because we have such a low level of direct taxes in the\UK is the reason we have more disposable income which inturn means that large companies think its OK to charge us more for goods that are cheaper in mainland europe (rip off UK)

In other words the cash goes to the Government (on the minland) or big companies mqke progit from us poor sods in the UK- slagging off tony/taxes/ petrol prices etc etc is nt that simple is it?

On or around Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:12:52 +0100, "maxwell" enlightened us thusly:

not convinced that the overall tax burden is that much different though. and ultra-high fuel tax isn't all that fair, really, nor does it serve in any meaningful way to reduce road congestion.

Stewart Hargrave wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

But the oil companies are hardly innocent bystanders. Almost all of them have questionable human right records, and the two in question here, BP and Exxon/Esso, are amongst the worlds biggest polluters. Exxon leverage their relationaship with the US government to lobby for reductions in climate change controls and emission controls, and the right to plunder Alaskan national parks.

The "free market" controls the cost of oil. But while America continues to use oil profligately, they will continue to drive demand that increases prices. Conversely, the British government could act to put in place more sustainable energy projects, and reduce our own demand for oil, and we could also leverage our special relationship with the USA (the one that requires us to do whatever the hell Dubya tells Tony to) to drive policy change in the US.

But part of the reason that there is more tax on fuel (and on other things) is that successive governments have rolled over to the demands of international business in a way that places the brunt of the tax burden on working stiff, and reducess the total contribution made by corporate entities. SO basically the big shareholders are getting richer while the working and middle classes face a greater tax burden.

But don't let that stop you. After you succeed in bringing about the downfall of our government, please feel free to direct your attention to the man who claims to be the President of the United States of America next.

Agreed!

Thats a nice sweeping statement - some European countries also have much lower taxes too.

Sure. I for one would prefer to pay all my taxes up front in PAYE. That way I could see exactly what tax I'm paying. The problem is that governments like to introduce more and more stealth taxes - they need to tax to improve services, but they don't have the spine to come clean and be honest.

It would be nice, if the road tax and petrol tax were actually spent on transport (note I didn't just say roads - even if they do provide the best return on investment).

I agree, we should tax the poor from using OUR roads..... (puts tongue back in cheek).

You may disagree with the level of tax in the UK - thats fine - you may want US level of taxes - but we are talking of a civilised society / may your god help you If you or your family have serious health issues/unemplyment

You really cannot disagree with the statement re: total tax take - it is fact - OK it may have gone up to around 42% - the\rest of western europe is between 47% and 53% - so if we are sticking to percentages (approx) 50 vs 40 (total tax take) from your 100squid is still 25% more than we pay in this country

i always thought Tony Blair was following maggie in wanting us to be the swetshop of europe - low taxws/low level of sevices - the rich get richer and the poor die young nd stupid

I'm sure my tax bill is greater than 42%! If you include Nat Ins as tax (which I most certainly do), then I pay ~35% direct from salary, then ~50% from my higher rated earnings. This does not include all the other post PAYE taxes that I pay whenever I fill my car with petrol, buy things from shops, drink beer etc. I paid enough PAYE tax last year to pay a policemans salary (including the tax that *HE* would pay)!

My complaint is that I cannot calculate exactly how much tax I pay each year. Just tax me 50% (or whatever) from my earnings and remove all the stealth taxes. I have no complaint about paying for adequate services throught tax - I just object to the lack of transparency.

I'm sure my tax bill is greater than 42%! If you include Nat Ins as tax (which I most certainly do), then I pay ~35% direct from salary, then ~50% from my higher rated earnings. This does not include all the other post PAYE taxes that I pay whenever I fill my car with petrol, buy things from shops, drink beer etc. I paid enough PAYE tax last year to pay a policemans salary (including the tax that *HE* would pay)!

My complaint is that I cannot calculate exactly how much tax I pay each year. Just tax me 50% (or whatever) from my earnings and remove all the stealth taxes. I have no complaint about paying for adequate services throught tax - I just object to the lack of transparency.

I'm sure my tax bill is greater than 42%! If you include Nat Ins as tax (which I most certainly do), then I pay ~35% direct from salary, then ~50% from my higher rated earnings. This does not include all the other post PAYE taxes that I pay whenever I fill my car with petrol, buy things from shops, drink beer etc. I paid enough PAYE tax last year to pay a policemans salary (including the tax that *HE* would pay)!

My complaint is that I cannot calculate exactly how much tax I pay each year. Just tax me 50% (or whatever) from my earnings and remove all the stealth taxes. I have no complaint about paying for adequate services throught tax - I just object to the lack of transparency.

There is no doubt that fuel tax levels are too high.......yes , there is a need for revenue to finance the NHS and schools , but please justify motorists paying vastly more than their fair share. The anti-motoring lobby has repeated the same nonsense so often that it is taken for gospel - anyone would think that the planet is doomed unless we walk everywhere ! Remember that only about 3% of the carbon dioxide produced comes from human endeavour.This includes everything , of which motoring is only a fraction. I think my central heating produces more than my cars over a year , but guess what.....the politicians only tax gas at 5% or so !

Motorists are an easy target - simple as that.

Cheers Andrew Kay

True - fuel , tobacco , alcohol are all easy to tax and collect . But high fuel tax is really only borne by the private motorist - business users pass it on .

In message , myself writes

Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is that they cannot pass it on.

In message , myself writes

As a subscriber to uk.rec.cars.lpg to whom you have crossposted this ranting drivel, I don't think 30p per litre is too bad for my fuel, however much of it is made up by tax.

On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:37:56 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@home.net (myself) enlightened us thusly:

However, there's a real risk that we'll use up all the oil. Just been reading a bit in the Notional Geographic about oil supplies, and how in general oil supplies are getting more difficult to extract, as all the easy fields are running lower. More expensive extraction will lead to higher prices.

it also makes the point that the good ol' USofA has about 5% of the world population yet consumes about 30% of the current oil production (IIRC). And while the rest of the "first" world (e.g. europe) is busy developing more efficient and economical cars, America seems to be returning to gas guzzlers, in the form now of giant SUVs and "mini-vans" in place or ordinary-sized cars.

such monstrosities as the Hummer and that obscene Cadillac.

On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:24:50 +0100, hugh enlightened us thusly:

yer bloody lucky to get it for 30p...

local garage is 39.9, last lot I got in bulk was about 32.5.

Morrisons supermarket in Port Talbot, however, was 29.9 last I saw, a few weeks ago.

...and the Dome, EU, Olympic bid etc etc

I have sometimes wondered how the arithmetic works out - A cyclist tends to get breathless uphill or against the wind, so produces more carbon dioxide than a car driver sitting comfortably at the wheel. But the car produces carbon dioxide from the exhaust as well as the driver's contribution. A car (generally) completes a given distance faster than a cyclist, so emits carbon dioxide from the exhaust for a shorter time. So which mode of transport produces the most carbon dioxide per mile? I bet the difference isn't as great as the anti-car lobby suggest!

Jim

produces

wheel. But

driver's

I think there are a couple of points here that make the difference. First to move the person in the car, you have to move a ton+ of metal with a much greater "footprint" for wind resistance. Compare this to the weight and wind resistance of a push bike and I think you will find something like an order of magnitude difference in work required.

Second is the source of the energy. To grow, say potatoes, eat them and then expel the CO2 is overall carbon neutral. The same amount of carbon is extracted by the plant as is expelled when you use it in the body.

I am not convinced by the need for fuel tax. While the oil economy we live in is inherently unsustainable, the alternatives are just not being made available to the people of this country, unlike so many around the world. Instead we get "punitive" fuel duty. On top of the massive duty on alcohol and tobacco (that I think are much less justifiable) these add up to a tax on the poor, as the poor spend a far greater percentage of their income on these products. I reckon a flat rate of income tax (42% perhaps) and no other tax at all.