So that panic buying looks really silly now...
Discussion
AndrewW-G said:
Unfortunately the massive amount of tax it raises, is one of the few things propping up government spending.
We can slash taxes as soon as we can slash expenditure . . . . something that I doubt will happen, irrespective of the colour of the ties in power, just look at the noise generated by trying to decrease the year on year increases in government spending. When we get to the point that we HAVE to slash spending, there will be riots, they wont be justified, but we will have them.
It doesn't really raise that much if you think about it. Its only 5% of the Government's revenue. I dont expect them to get rid of fuel duty altogether any time soon but the fact is they can afford to wave the 3p rise in August. They're getting a huge VAT windfall from rising prices anyway and the tax raised from the North Sea has exceeded original expectation, they can easily afford to scrap the duty increase this year. The recent report into tax avoidance which supposedly 'shocked' Cameron and Osborne for reasons passing understanding reckons there's £13billion out there (more than half the fuel duty revenue) lost due to tax avoidance. Theres plenty of ways to raise the money other than punishing the motorist with a regressive tax increase.We can slash taxes as soon as we can slash expenditure . . . . something that I doubt will happen, irrespective of the colour of the ties in power, just look at the noise generated by trying to decrease the year on year increases in government spending. When we get to the point that we HAVE to slash spending, there will be riots, they wont be justified, but we will have them.
had ham said:
Well, I just carried on as normal, as did pretty much everyone else. The country was not anywhere near at a 'stand-still'. There was no crisis.
Unless you wanted to see one.
Good for you. Unless you wanted to see one.
Well, I'm not pretty, so I didn't.
I had to fill up because the car was on vapours. I panicked because I wouln't be able to get to work.
I especially didn't want to experience this non-crisis since I had to fill up with the devil's spunk, more commonly known as Morrison's unleaded because there was no SUL available within 30 miles of my work or my home. Ever since the car has run like a bag of plastic spanners. I seriously can't believe all the posts I've seen on here about the placebo effect of V-Power. Have any of these people actually used it?
I finally managed to get hold of some V-Power tonight @ £1.499 which to me is an absolute bargain compared to the Morriscum's s
te I've endured for the last 2 weeks. Nay-sayers should also note that the supermarket fuel has worked out more expensive for me because my mpg has dropped from 19.9 to 16.3 since using this fuel. But all fuel is the same, isn't it...doodlebug said:
Good for you.
Well, I'm not pretty, so I didn't.
I had to fill up because the car was on vapours. I panicked because I wouln't be able to get to work.
Thats perfectly fair. If my tank was almost empty I'd have joined in as well.Well, I'm not pretty, so I didn't.
I had to fill up because the car was on vapours. I panicked because I wouln't be able to get to work.
doodleburg said:
Nay-sayers should also note that the supermarket fuel has worked out more expensive for me because my mpg has dropped from 19.9 to 16.3 since using this fuel. But all fuel is the same, isn't it...
What car is it? 16.3 in a commuter mobile? Thats very PH 
deeen said:
martin, if the Government waive the fuel increase, where do you suggest they cut the £26 billion?
They can keep the £26billion, actually its nearer £28billion plus about another £5billion from the VAT. All I said was waive the 3p increase. They don't need any more. However they are going to need to begin a gradual de-escalation of fuel duty at a moderate pace.martin84 said:
deeen said:
martin, if the Government waive the fuel increase, where do you suggest they cut the £26 billion?
They can keep the £26billion, actually its nearer £28billion plus about another £5billion from the VAT. All I said was waive the 3p increase. They don't need any more. However they are going to need to begin a gradual de-escalation of fuel duty at a moderate pace.martin84 said:
deeen said:
martin, if the Government waive the fuel increase, where do you suggest they cut the £26 billion?
They can keep the £26billion, actually its nearer £28billion plus about another £5billion from the VAT. All I said was waive the 3p increase. They don't need any more. However they are going to need to begin a gradual de-escalation of fuel duty at a moderate pace.The money raised of the increases in petrol from the panic buying was basically nothing relative to the cost of the country, so it will have almost no impact on the quaterly results.
Labour spent too much and got us into debt in the good times. The Conservative/ Lib Dem coalition now need to get us out of it. How would you get us out of debt? Basically we need to reduce spending and increase taxes. The other way is getting more money coming into the country through a bigger private sector, as the public sector effectively recycles money already within the country.
And from living in Norway I can say that people complaining about taxes being too high can come and visit and check out the prices here. Then you can say if taxes are too high in the UK. Yet people are generally more happy here. It's all to do with attitudes towards life, something that I've learned from living here.
Mx5guy said:
Labour spent too much and got us into debt in the good times. The Conservative/ Lib Dem coalition now need to get us out of it. How would you get us out of debt? Basically we need to reduce spending and increase taxes. The other way is getting more money coming into the country through a bigger private sector, as the public sector effectively recycles money already within the country.
fkwit84.Just answer this persons post. How do you reduce the debt substantially (I'm thinking 60-70%) inside 5 years?
(On a related note, you remind me of a ProLabour supporter I used to work with. He was a lazy,feckless,hypocritical
too. )How about this as a short term idea to solve a current problem.
Increasing unemployment in imthe youth of the workable age category so these get into the benefits cycle for years on end and plenty can never get out of it. Would it therefore be an interesting move to decrease the state retirement age by a few years thus forcing/encouraging those near or at that age to retire. This would then create the demand in the workplace for new people to come in.
High risk maybe but it could prevent the issue that exists in Spain it wouldn't be cheap short term however saving on benefits would that equal the increased pension? No idea
Increasing unemployment in imthe youth of the workable age category so these get into the benefits cycle for years on end and plenty can never get out of it. Would it therefore be an interesting move to decrease the state retirement age by a few years thus forcing/encouraging those near or at that age to retire. This would then create the demand in the workplace for new people to come in.
High risk maybe but it could prevent the issue that exists in Spain it wouldn't be cheap short term however saving on benefits would that equal the increased pension? No idea
Welshbeef said:
How about this as a short term idea to solve a current problem.
Increasing unemployment in imthe youth of the workable age category so these get into the benefits cycle for years on end and plenty can never get out of it. Would it therefore be an interesting move to decrease the state retirement age by a few years thus forcing/encouraging those near or at that age to retire. This would then create the demand in the workplace for new people to come in.
High risk maybe but it could prevent the issue that exists in Spain it wouldn't be cheap short term however saving on benefits would that equal the increased pension? No idea
Interesting idea. From talking to Spanish friends it's potentially not as bad as it sounds, since there is a sizable population working unofficially to avoid taxes and claim benefits (apparently worse in the south?). However it is not very good anyway. The problem with your suggestion would be that it could lower the experience and learning, which could make it harder to pass on the learning to the younger people.Increasing unemployment in imthe youth of the workable age category so these get into the benefits cycle for years on end and plenty can never get out of it. Would it therefore be an interesting move to decrease the state retirement age by a few years thus forcing/encouraging those near or at that age to retire. This would then create the demand in the workplace for new people to come in.
High risk maybe but it could prevent the issue that exists in Spain it wouldn't be cheap short term however saving on benefits would that equal the increased pension? No idea
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff