Discussion
If we could pass a law allowing topless models (men or women) to pump gas, they could bring back the full serve line and charge more...everybody wins. 
On a serious note, I was in Indiana a while back and filled up at a station that had a full serve area at no extra charge. Talk about a rare species. Very old fashioned, family oriented type place. I almost felt bad.
On a serious note, I was in Indiana a while back and filled up at a station that had a full serve area at no extra charge. Talk about a rare species. Very old fashioned, family oriented type place. I almost felt bad.
XJ Flyer said:
I clearly identified the fact that the tax take from road fuel is undoubtedly falling as an obvious result of road fuel tax being used as a punitive method to control car use and fuel consumption rather than a method of sustainable tax funding.
I also clearly identified the fact that in view of the above it would be better to cut the tax on fuel in order to increase sales and therefore tax raised.In addition to cutting the tax sufficiently to allow more disposable income for people to spend in the economy.More spending means more employment which means more income tax take.
I notice that you seem to have conveniently missed all that.In view of which,so far,I'm calling your argument yet more eco propaganda and unwarranted argument in support of continuing with creating obstacles to large scale road fuel tax cuts,for typically unjustifiable eco reasons not economic ones.
Which tax up please to counter fuel duty down simple question as it means nearly £600m in instant interest rate charges who pays for that? I also clearly identified the fact that in view of the above it would be better to cut the tax on fuel in order to increase sales and therefore tax raised.In addition to cutting the tax sufficiently to allow more disposable income for people to spend in the economy.More spending means more employment which means more income tax take.
I notice that you seem to have conveniently missed all that.In view of which,so far,I'm calling your argument yet more eco propaganda and unwarranted argument in support of continuing with creating obstacles to large scale road fuel tax cuts,for typically unjustifiable eco reasons not economic ones.
Welshbeef said:
XJ Flyer said:
I clearly identified the fact that the tax take from road fuel is undoubtedly falling as an obvious result of road fuel tax being used as a punitive method to control car use and fuel consumption rather than a method of sustainable tax funding.
I also clearly identified the fact that in view of the above it would be better to cut the tax on fuel in order to increase sales and therefore tax raised.In addition to cutting the tax sufficiently to allow more disposable income for people to spend in the economy.More spending means more employment which means more income tax take.
I notice that you seem to have conveniently missed all that.In view of which,so far,I'm calling your argument yet more eco propaganda and unwarranted argument in support of continuing with creating obstacles to large scale road fuel tax cuts,for typically unjustifiable eco reasons not economic ones.
Which tax up please to counter fuel duty down simple question as it means nearly £600m in instant interest rate charges who pays for that? I also clearly identified the fact that in view of the above it would be better to cut the tax on fuel in order to increase sales and therefore tax raised.In addition to cutting the tax sufficiently to allow more disposable income for people to spend in the economy.More spending means more employment which means more income tax take.
I notice that you seem to have conveniently missed all that.In view of which,so far,I'm calling your argument yet more eco propaganda and unwarranted argument in support of continuing with creating obstacles to large scale road fuel tax cuts,for typically unjustifiable eco reasons not economic ones.
Jimbeaux,
Pay at pump is very rare here. It's the only way to get people into the shop to be offered the special offers of the day.
Fuel profit is in the few pence per litre, average shop profit is 25%.
XJ,
Fuel retailers do not sell fuel at a loss. Admittedly it doesn't cover staffing costs, so that could be argued as a loss, but it sells for more than they pay for it.
Profit in petrol stations is from other goods sales in the shop.
Pay at pump is very rare here. It's the only way to get people into the shop to be offered the special offers of the day.
Fuel profit is in the few pence per litre, average shop profit is 25%.
XJ,
Fuel retailers do not sell fuel at a loss. Admittedly it doesn't cover staffing costs, so that could be argued as a loss, but it sells for more than they pay for it.
Profit in petrol stations is from other goods sales in the shop.
XJ Flyer said:
Fuel duty down big time fuel consumption/sales go up pro rata combined with more disposable incomes so increased jobs in the economy so more tax receipts.In which case exactly which tax 'needs' to 'go up' 'please'.The only 'losers' in that case being the global warmist eco nazis as I said.
What utter rubbish - corporation tax is paid what 9 months after the year end so what would have been received instantly more or less is now 21 months later... How is the Gap funded?Also UK and other countries have fines for not reducing C02 emissions clearly reducing the cost of dirty fuel will mean less encouragement to use more efficiently therefore you could have a higher net cost to the govt.
Are you a Troll? Are you the same who was banned from the Scottish Indy thread citing likely Scottish sectarianism and other such tosh.
Welshbeef said:
XJ Flyer said:
Fuel duty down big time fuel consumption/sales go up pro rata combined with more disposable incomes so increased jobs in the economy so more tax receipts.In which case exactly which tax 'needs' to 'go up' 'please'.The only 'losers' in that case being the global warmist eco nazis as I said.
Also UK and other countries have fines for not reducing C02 emissions clearly reducing the cost of dirty fuel will mean less encouragement to use more efficiently therefore you could have a higher net cost to the govt. Are you a Troll? Are you the same who was banned from the Scottish Indy thread citing likely Scottish sectarianism and other such tosh.
As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 7th November 23:26
Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 7th November 23:28
XJ Flyer said:
Just as I thought only more eco trolls here being that you've made your issues concerning the CO2 issue clear.Fines by who and who says we have to pay.
As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
Jesus wept.As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
I'd thought I'd seen it all from XJF, but here we are with a new record-breaking spasm of uber-tard.
Father X-Jack Flyer. "Nuke. Drink. Arse. Feck......Nuke!".
eharding said:
XJ Flyer said:
Just as I thought only more eco trolls here being that you've made your issues concerning the CO2 issue clear.Fines by who and who says we have to pay.
As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
Jesus wept.As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
I'd thought I'd seen it all from XJF, but here we are with a new record-breaking spasm of uber-tard.
Father X-Jack Flyer. "Nuke. Drink. Arse. Feck......Nuke!".
XJ Flyer said:
eharding said:
XJ Flyer said:
Just as I thought only more eco trolls here being that you've made your issues concerning the CO2 issue clear.Fines by who and who says we have to pay.
As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
Jesus wept.As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
I'd thought I'd seen it all from XJF, but here we are with a new record-breaking spasm of uber-tard.
Father X-Jack Flyer. "Nuke. Drink. Arse. Feck......Nuke!".
eharding said:
XJ Flyer said:
eharding said:
XJ Flyer said:
Just as I thought only more eco trolls here being that you've made your issues concerning the CO2 issue clear.Fines by who and who says we have to pay.
As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
Jesus wept.As for Scottish sectarianism no nothing to do with me being that I'm not Scottish,supportive of English independence,christened CofE,but think the Catholic church holds the better values.Not surprising considering the circumstances of the CofE's origins.
I'd thought I'd seen it all from XJF, but here we are with a new record-breaking spasm of uber-tard.
Father X-Jack Flyer. "Nuke. Drink. Arse. Feck......Nuke!".
XJ Flyer said:
Fuel duty down big time fuel consumption/sales go up pro rata combined with more disposable incomes so increased jobs in the economy so more tax receipts.In which case exactly which tax 'needs' to 'go up' 'please'.
I don't see why XJ Flyer is getting flack over this. Sad that even Big C Conservatives are now completely signed up to the tax and spend economics.It's a Catch 22 situation as far as I can see it. Keep putting duty up on fuel and hence increasing the retail cost, and most motorists will either drive less or move into more economical cars, therefore the Government receives less income.
On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
V88Dicky said:
It's a Catch 22 situation as far as I can see it. Keep putting duty up on fuel and hence increasing the retail cost, and most motorists will either drive less or move into more economical cars, therefore the Government receives less income.
On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
The original idea of the fuel tax escalator was to reduce pollution and force people into more fuel efficient cars and it worked. Surprisingly it was bought in by the low tax Tories and scrapped by high tax Labour!On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
unrepentant said:
V88Dicky said:
It's a Catch 22 situation as far as I can see it. Keep putting duty up on fuel and hence increasing the retail cost, and most motorists will either drive less or move into more economical cars, therefore the Government receives less income.
On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
The original idea of the fuel tax escalator was to reduce pollution and force people into more fuel efficient cars and it worked. Surprisingly it was bought in by the low tax Tories and scrapped by high tax Labour!On the other hand, drop fuel duty significantly and the Government's tax take would reduce, although this might be mitigated somewhat by more people buying more fuel and / or driving more.
Isn't it called the Laffa Curve or something?
As for the inconsistency between the Labour position and Cons position that can be explained by the fact that putting more tax paid at a single rate regardless of income on products like road fuel is more advantageous to the highest earners while hitting the lowest disproportionately.
As for the Laffa equation the global warmist cause would obviously want to leave out factoring in the extra employment and economic growth provided by people also having more to spend on other things.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 8th November 15:48
Sheepshanks said:
XJ Flyer said:
Fuel duty down big time fuel consumption/sales go up pro rata...
The roads are jammed with traffic as it is. The last thing we need is cheaper fuel.
king thread he goes on he hijacks and ruins for everyone else. He's a boring flatulent pain in the ass who thinks people want to listen to his dumb opinions on climate change. XJ Flyer said:
The issue of congestion is more an issue of the inbalance in the population levels throughout the country.In that much of the north is an under developed under populated wasteland while the South and the Midlands are becoming overdeveloped overpopulated hell holes.Even doubling the tax on fuel wouldn't make the slightest difference to that issue but it probably would finish off the already sinking economy even quicker.
God I hate to say this but XJ Flyer is right, at least in part. Increasing fuel duty even by that level might reduce discretionary journeys but would do nothing in the medium term for mandatory journeys (freight, commutes) unless we build alternative infrastructures - which would take 5-10-20 years. In the short term it would be inflationary, destabilising and impact other areas of the economy (which is doing OK if not brilliantly right now)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff