Fuel Costs

"maxwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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'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 !

"myself" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:40d6b88f.11454605@localhost...
> 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.

Motorists are an easy target - simple as that.

Cheers
Andrew Kay

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:53:22 +0100, "Andrew Kay"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"myself" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:40d6b88f.11454605@localhost...
>> 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.
>
>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 <40d6c409.14392009@localhost>, myself <[email protected]> writes
>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:53:22 +0100, "Andrew Kay"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"myself" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:40d6b88f.11454605@localhost...
>>> 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.
>>
>>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 .
>>
Pass it on to whom? One of the arguments of the transport lobby is that
they cannot pass it on.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message <40d6b88f.11454605@localhost>, myself <[email protected]> writes
>There is no doubt that fuel tax levels are too high.......
<Snip>
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.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:37:56 GMT, [email protected] (myself) enlightened
us thusly:

>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 !

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.

--
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.

On or around Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:24:50 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]>
enlightened us thusly:

>In message <40d6b88f.11454605@localhost>, myself <[email protected]> writes
>>There is no doubt that fuel tax levels are too high.......
><Snip>
>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.

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.

--
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.

myself <[email protected]> wrote in message news:40d6b88f.11454605@localhost...
<snip>
> 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 !

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

In article <40d6b88f.11454605@localhost>, myself
<URL:mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> There is no doubt that fuel tax levels are too high.......yes , there
> is a need for revenue to finance the NHS and schools

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

--

>myself <[email protected]> wrote in message news:40d6b88f.11454605@localhost...
><snip>
>> 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
!
>
>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!

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.

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.

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

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

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