Fuel Costs

In article <[email protected]>,
David Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> I reckon a flat rate of income tax (42% perhaps) and no other tax at all.

Far to easy to fiddle. You can't stop cash payments for 'casual' workers,
and 'legitimate' expenses for the higher paid.

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"David Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

Yes, but then you'd have ignored the energy used (and CO2 consequently
generated) to prepare & fertilize the ground, plant, weed, harvest, pack,
distribute, sell and cook the potatoes. Its a lot more complicated than you
suggest - and it isn't energy or CO2 neutral.

Cheers
Andrew

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

Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the end?

> > 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.
>
> If you remember back to the early '90s, this is exactly what the Labour
> opposition proposed during the election campaign against a pretty
> unpopular Tory government - and lost the election.
> Hence sticking with - and extending - indirect taxation. It's apparently
> what the electorate want. Of course, at least it means those who fiddle
> their income tax - at both ends of the affluence scale - can't escape
> paying taxes.

The tax I think we should be moaning about is Road Fund Licence for classic
cars. IMHO 'Historic Vehicle' exemption should cover vehicles 25 years old
and over. It's really not fair that post-'72 owners lose out and many
otherwise keepable '70s and '80s cars are neglected. I am however as guilty
as most people of this opinion because I haven't got my act together and
written to my MP about it. There is a group I came across at shows in the
past, organising some action on this matter - does anyone know their web
address?

Jonathan
======
1 x '60s classic
1 x '80s classic :-(

Jonathan Halsall <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The tax I think we should be moaning about is Road Fund Licence for
classic
> cars. IMHO 'Historic Vehicle' exemption should cover vehicles 25 years old
> and over. It's really not fair that post-'72 owners lose out and many
> otherwise keepable '70s and '80s cars are neglected.
You can blame Gordon Brown for that. Originally vehicles over 25 years old
were tax exempt. When Labour came into power, their first budget redefined
the tax exempt class to a fixed date of manufacture. With a 24 1/2 year old
car at the time, I wasn't best pleased!

> I am however as guilty
> as most people of this opinion because I haven't got my act together and
> written to my MP about it.

As my MP is a Lib-Dem fiercely anti-car, I won't waste my time. Happy for
others to lobby though.

Jim

In message <[email protected]>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Sedge <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>If you remember back to the early '90s, this is exactly what the Labour
>opposition proposed during the election campaign against a pretty
>unpopular Tory government - and lost the election.
> Hence sticking with - and extending - indirect taxation. It's apparently
>what the electorate want. Of course, at least it means those who fiddle
>their income tax - at both ends of the affluence scale - can't escape
>paying taxes.
>

And I would prefer far more indirect taxation, and a flat rate of income
tax (no tax-free offset) of 20%.

Taxing ones money before you even see it is an abomination.
--
Chris Morriss

Chris Morriss wrote:

>And I would prefer far more indirect taxation, and a flat rate of income
>tax (no tax-free offset) of 20%.

That's regressive.

>Taxing ones money before you even see it is an abomination.

It's no different to taxing it after you've seen it.

--
Ben Blaney

In message <[email protected]>, Ben Blaney
<[email protected]> writes
>Chris Morriss wrote:
>
>>And I would prefer far more indirect taxation, and a flat rate of income
>>tax (no tax-free offset) of 20%.
>
>That's regressive.
>
So? (Actually, what do you left-wing types mean when you use the word
'regressive' in this context?)

>>Taxing ones money before you even see it is an abomination.
>
>It's no different to taxing it after you've seen it.
>
But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
therefore what to pay tax on.

--
Chris Morriss

In article <[email protected]>, David
Taylor says...
> > Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is that
> > they cannot pass it on.
>
> Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the end?
>
Not the consumer.

For example:

I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco
RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre
and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide
that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.

Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...

--
Conor

Dumb as a box of rocks...

"Chris Morriss" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Ben Blaney
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Chris Morriss wrote:
> >
> >>And I would prefer far more indirect taxation, and a flat rate of income
> >>tax (no tax-free offset) of 20%.
> >
> >That's regressive.
> >
> So? (Actually, what do you left-wing types mean when you use the word
> 'regressive' in this context?)
>
> >>Taxing ones money before you even see it is an abomination.
> >
> >It's no different to taxing it after you've seen it.
> >
> But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
> therefore what to pay tax on.
>

No because it takes a greater proportion of a poor persons income to feed clothe and
house themselves allowing the more affluent to be taxed lower proportional to their earnings.

Having said this a fair and equitable tax system will never exist as people are human and will
try and benifit themselves while they set up the system.

Ewan

In article <[email protected]>,
Chris Morriss <[email protected]> wrote:
> But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
> therefore what to pay tax on.

That would certainly be the case if they were only on luxuries - like
petrol. ;-)

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0100, Conor
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In article <[email protected]>, David
>Taylor says...
>> > Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is that
>> > they cannot pass it on.
>>
>> Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the end?
>>
>Not the consumer.
>
>For example:
>
>I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco
>RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre
>and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide
>that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.
>
>Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...

but the prices all go up, even if only by a little bit.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:32:27 +0100, Chris Morriss
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
>therefore what to pay tax on.

what, like fuel to go shopping, books, doubtless food before long...

right...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
In Touch: Get in touch with yourself by touching yourself.
If somebody is watching, stop touching yourself.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:32:27 +0100, Chris Morriss
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
>>therefore what to pay tax on.
>
>what, like fuel to go shopping, books, doubtless food before long...
>
>right...
>

Yes, why not?
--
Chris Morriss

In article <[email protected]>, Austin
Shackles says...
> On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0100, Conor
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, David
> >Taylor says...
> >> > Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is that
> >> > they cannot pass it on.
> >>
> >> Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the end?
> >>
> >Not the consumer.
> >
> >For example:
> >
> >I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco
> >RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre
> >and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide
> >that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.
> >
> >Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...
>
> but the prices all go up, even if only by a little bit.
>
Not due to the cost of the transport...

--
Conor

Dumb as a box of rocks...

Conor wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Austin
> Shackles says...
>> On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0100, Conor
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, David
>> >Taylor says...
>> >> > Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is
>> >> > that they cannot pass it on.
>> >>
>> >> Transport and carriage costs go up, guess who pays for that in the
>> >> end?
>> >>
>> >Not the consumer.
>> >
>> >For example:
>> >
>> >I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco
>> >RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre
>> >and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide
>> >that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.
>> >
>> >Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...
>>
>> but the prices all go up, even if only by a little bit.
>>
> Not due to the cost of the transport...
>

In which world?

If it's a supermarkets own trucks then they are directly incurring the
additional cost and you had better believe they will pass it on to the
customer.

If it's a contract trucker they will absorb the cost until they can't afford
to any more and then the cost will go up to the supermarket at the next
contract negotiation.

Don't believe for a minute that increasing fuel prices don't cause an
increase in haulage costs and an increase at the point of sale. It may take
18 months for the costs to be passed on, but they will be.

As they say "If you got it, a truck brought it" and trucks and truckers have
to operate at above cost to stay in business. This means if the costs go up
so do the charges in the long run.

P.

In article <cZmuc.49$cs4.9@newsfe4-gui>, [email protected]
says...

> Action:
> It's easy to make this happen. Just forward this email, and buy your petrol
> at Shell, Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons (75p) Jet etc. i.e. boycott BP and
> Esso."
>
> Kind regards.
>
Yeah right...

Buy your petrol from those listed above fed from the same refinieries
as those you're going to blacklist.

Give you a clue dumbass...

They all come from the same refineries.


--
Conor

I started with nothing and I still have most of it left.

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:53:51 +0100, Conor
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In article <[email protected]>, Austin
>Shackles says...
>> On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:41:04 +0100, Conor
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >
>> >I deliver 7000 frozen chickens, which is one trailer full, to a Tesco
>> >RDC which uses 200 litres of diesel. Add the recent rise of 2p/litre
>> >and you've upped the cost of the diesel for that load by £4. Now divide
>> >that £4 equally over those 7000 chickens.
>> >
>> >Now supposing it was 26 pallets of baked bean tins...
>>
>> but the prices all go up, even if only by a little bit.
>>
>Not due to the cost of the transport...

yebbut, eventually, if the fuel price continues to rise, the transport rates
will rise, and so will the prices, unless some form of subsidy keeps 'em
down. Granted in the short term, your profit drops by £4 per load, but
looking over the longer term we now have for example fuel prices about 8
times higher than they were in the early 70s, around the time of the "oil
crisis" then.

Mind, everything else goes up in parallel, roughly. I dunno how the price
of fuel equates in terms of mars bars with the price of chickens.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Blue: The sky is blue for a reason. Blue light is a source of strength
and harmony in the cosmos. Create a blue light in your life by
telephoning the police
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:21:35 +0100, Chris Morriss
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> writes
>>On or around Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:32:27 +0100, Chris Morriss
>><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>But if taxes are indirect, I can at least chose what to buy, and
>>>therefore what to pay tax on.
>>
>>what, like fuel to go shopping, books, doubtless food before long...
>>
>>right...
>>
>
>Yes, why not?

bloody unfair on those who have a low income, though, isn't it. Just as a
purely income-based tax would be unfair on those with a high income. and
if, for example, you live in a rural area where the housing costs are cheap
etc., then you don't always have the option of not using a car.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write -_
I'm with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the bit
alright, but where's the bloody horse? - Roy Campbell (1902-1957)

"Andrew Kay" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "David Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but then you'd have ignored the energy used (and CO2 consequently
> generated) to prepare & fertilize the ground, plant, weed, harvest, pack,
> distribute, sell and cook the potatoes. Its a lot more complicated than you
> suggest - and it isn't energy or CO2 neutral.

Yes I know. I perposely chose potatoes as they require less
processing (than for example wheat) and could concivably be grown
yourself. However, oil also needs to go through a lot of processing,
and is probably transported further that most staple foods. This
"added CO2 debt" I would imagine would be at least comarable, if not
significantly less for staple foods as for oil.

BTW, I would never claim it is energy neutral. If you find somthing
that is, publish it imidiatly as you have disproven the 2nd law of
thermodynamics ;-).