Slashing the cost of fuel - would it help?
Discussion
fbrs said:
the wider the tax base the better. everyone pays fuel tax from your drive tarmacing, benefit claiming, caravan dwelling scrote to your non-dom tax exiles. if you really want to put tax money back into the pockets of working families just lower their income tax rate accordingly.
Don't think that counts anymore, people are driving less these days because of fuel prices. I saw days in Luxembourg this summer where petrol stations that should have been rammed full, had maybe 1/3rd of their pumps busy. Switzerland was deserted for the summer as well - so no one was doing much driving either, and the Italian Alps were certainly down on business (they had a bad year this year, and worse this year).With it being so high, no one is really driving.
Even hauliers in Europe have nearly all switched to driving in the early hours of the morning to ensure they get maximum fuel efficiency, which is why you are seeing all the lay-bys in Europe stuffed full of HGVs after lunch and into the evenings.
So high oil taxes are now totally counterproductive to a wide base as only a narrow base of people actually want to drive.
If fuel was cheaper I would;
1) Buy a bigger engined, faster car.
The Insurance companies stand to make more money from me in which some of it will trickle down to the government. The car would also be more less economical than my current car and therefore I would use more litres of fuel resulting in me paying possibly the same/similar figure of tax as I do now.
2) Drive more.
Therefore I would buy more wear and tear parts for my car, which some of which would again make its way to the government. I would be more likely to just go for a drive, feel hungry and spend money in Macckie D's, of which some will again make its way into government coffers.
3) More likely to get flashed by a gatso in my new fast car, and therefore more likely that the government will make money from me in my (when fuel prices drop) RS4 than current Octavia SDI with its mighty 64hp.
4) Be a better driver because am doing higher mileages.
I think that about sums it up for me.
1) Buy a bigger engined, faster car.
The Insurance companies stand to make more money from me in which some of it will trickle down to the government. The car would also be more less economical than my current car and therefore I would use more litres of fuel resulting in me paying possibly the same/similar figure of tax as I do now.
2) Drive more.
Therefore I would buy more wear and tear parts for my car, which some of which would again make its way to the government. I would be more likely to just go for a drive, feel hungry and spend money in Macckie D's, of which some will again make its way into government coffers.
3) More likely to get flashed by a gatso in my new fast car, and therefore more likely that the government will make money from me in my (when fuel prices drop) RS4 than current Octavia SDI with its mighty 64hp.
4) Be a better driver because am doing higher mileages.
I think that about sums it up for me.
Unfortunately, our road capacity is full. That only leaves 2 choices:
Build vastly more roads and improve the existing set.
Or remove people from the roads.
I'm out and about today and just passed 2 sets of people doing 50mph on the A1 to save money.
A full 30mph below the pace of traffic, and dangerously slow.
A 15ppl increase would both fund new roads, provided it was ring-fenced, and remove the marginal drivers, freeing up existing capacity.
Build vastly more roads and improve the existing set.
Or remove people from the roads.
I'm out and about today and just passed 2 sets of people doing 50mph on the A1 to save money.
A full 30mph below the pace of traffic, and dangerously slow.
A 15ppl increase would both fund new roads, provided it was ring-fenced, and remove the marginal drivers, freeing up existing capacity.
JDRoest said:
davepoth said:
As it stands, the high level of tax on fuel actually serves to stabilise the price at the pump, shielding families and businesses from wild price fluctuations which happen in countries with low fuel tax. If we remove that tax and put it elsewhere to balance the books, fuel consumers will be completely at the mercy of global crude oil prices which will be very bad for business.
How do you work that out? It's quite nice when fuel prices here go down and I have money to spare to spend on something nice.Obviously I'm missing the enjoyment of visiting the UK and paying £1.40 for a litre of diesel. Next time I spend £100 to fill up in the UK, I'll think "gee, this sure helps families..."
Fuel duty works very well as a tax. You only pay for what you use; you pay more if your vehicle is bigger or less economical; you don't pay at all if you don't have a car. As I mentioned it also has a stabilising effect on prices which is quite beneficial for business.
fbrs said:
the wider the tax base the better. everyone pays fuel tax from your drive tarmacing, benefit claiming, caravan dwelling scrote to your non-dom tax exiles. if you really want to put tax money back into the pockets of working families just lower their income tax rate accordingly.
This.The fairest system IMHO is low income tax and high pay-as-you-go taxes, including VAT.
I think it should be lowered and then have VED added to it instead of using tax discs. This would balance out the same for an average driver (12k a year, 30 ish mpg) but cost more for heavier road users. People with miserable eco-wagons would save money which is what the government wants. It would have to be based on average mpg and mileage which would be regulated by an independent body so as not to allow government to use it to force people into Priuses.
davepoth said:
Without slashing spending, the revenue from fuel tax would to come from somewhere else. You could double council tax, for example. Or put 3p on income tax. I doubt that would go down especially well.
Or scrap Child Benefit entirely which would save about £11billion a year according to The Guardian - so it's probably more.davepoth said:
Fuel duty works very well as a tax. You only pay for what you use; you pay more if your vehicle is bigger or less economical; you don't pay at all if you don't have a car.
You could say the same about Income Tax; You only pay for what you earn, you pay more if you earn more and you don't pay at all if you don't have a job. davepoth said:
As I mentioned it also has a stabilising effect on prices which is quite beneficial for business.
A stabilising effect would be achieved by cutting tax when oil prices rise but Government doesn't do that so the only thing business can be sure of is fuel will cost more. Great. Wonderful. Sure they really appreciate that 
I agreed with your basic point in principle earlier, but the problem now is the price has gone too high and the benefit of 'stable prices' is offset by the fact that 'stable price' is simply too expensive. All business knows for sure is it's too expensive and they might as well shut their business down because it'll never get cheaper - until we're all out of work with just one guy driving round a desolate wasteland paying £25k a litre, then the Government might catch on.
I was talking to somebody recently who runs a haulage business who told me tax takes up more than half of their turnover and every time diesel goes up by 1p, it costs them an extra £40,000 pa. Plenty of hauliers have gone to the wall over the last decade as the Government sought to destroy the transport industry by taxing it to death.
Slashing it? No not in that respect. Add a reduction for general public of say 5-10% for all fuels difference will be minimal in overall revenue as people will use their cars more and even if they dont will have more money to spend at the till revenue to the taxman.
2nd introduce a 20% reduction for hgv's. not entirely sure how maybe in a reduction to all haulage firms in their monthly fuel bill as most hgv companies pay their bills monthly i expect. The largest hauliers will benefit in lower operating costs which can then be passed on to the customer in the form of cheaper goods.
At the end of the day the gov will get all the money back it simply may take a little longer possibly to get it back or conversely it may get more money quicker. If goods are cheaper to buy then trade will pick up.
2nd introduce a 20% reduction for hgv's. not entirely sure how maybe in a reduction to all haulage firms in their monthly fuel bill as most hgv companies pay their bills monthly i expect. The largest hauliers will benefit in lower operating costs which can then be passed on to the customer in the form of cheaper goods.
At the end of the day the gov will get all the money back it simply may take a little longer possibly to get it back or conversely it may get more money quicker. If goods are cheaper to buy then trade will pick up.
martin84 said:
We've looked into reductions for HGV's before and it'd be illegal under EU rules regarding State Aid. The only way we could do it would be to cut it for everybody.
Hence my dislike for the whole EU system. A state should be permitted to do what it needs to serve the interests of its people.The UK should not need Brussels permission.
davepoth said:
Without slashing spending, the revenue from fuel tax would to come from somewhere else. You could double council tax, for example. Or put 3p on income tax. I doubt that would go down especially well.
Fuel duty works very well as a tax. You only pay for what you use; you pay more if your vehicle is bigger or less economical; you don't pay at all if you don't have a car. As I mentioned it also has a stabilising effect on prices which is quite beneficial for business.
Heaven forbid we consider - slashing Government spending as a solution!! Fuel duty works very well as a tax. You only pay for what you use; you pay more if your vehicle is bigger or less economical; you don't pay at all if you don't have a car. As I mentioned it also has a stabilising effect on prices which is quite beneficial for business.
As someone mentioned earlier, high fuel prices put people off driving, which affects businesses as varied as guest houses - who wants to spend £300 on fuel for a weekend break in the country at a guest house? The guest houses pays less tax, the town the guest house is in gets less revenue, etc.
So regardless of how efficient a tax it is, what we really need is lower Government spending.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Hence my dislike for the whole EU system. A state should be permitted to do what it needs to serve the interests of its people.
The UK should not need Brussels permission.
We shouldn't but until everybody votes for UKIP we do. Personally I wouldn't support a cut in fuel tax for one specific road user because if that road user needs cheaper fuel than the rest of us then the obvious conclusion is fuel is too expensive in the first place.The UK should not need Brussels permission.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff