Tuesday 6th December 2005

Chancellor freezes fuel duty

Budget brings no tax increase at the pumps

---

Fuel duty frozen

UK Chancellor Gordon Brown promised to freeze fuel duty again yesterday in his pre-Budget speech.

Instead, he picked on the oil companies, whose shares and profits have been doing very well, thanks to the increase in oil prices, and upped the supplementary North Sea charge from 10 to 20 per cent -- effectively, a form of windfall tax. This will raise some £1.4 billion for the Treasury next year and £5.2 billion by the end of 2008, according to economists at Deloitte.

The RAC Foundation welcomed the fuel duty decision. Executive director Edmund King said: "High fuel tax impacts most strongly on the poorest families, for whom running a car can eat up 25 per cent of the household budget, and this decision is a welcome Christmas bonus for them."

Petrol prices have been falling recently from highs of £1/litre and above earlier this year to around £90p/litre today for standard 95RON.

[zumbruk]

"The RAC Foundation welcomed the fuel duty decision. Executive director Edmund King said: 'High fuel tax impacts most strongly on the poorest families, for whom running a car can eat up 25 per cent of the household budget, and this decision is a welcome Christmas bonus for them.'"

And where does this dimwit think the oil companies will recover the profits from?

[chimyellow]

Is Brown really that niaeve (sp?) and stupid to think that the big companies will not put up prices to compensate as Zumbruk has already mentioned?

[zumbruk]

I doubt he cares. He sees a big pile of money - he steals it. Pensions, savings, profits - he doesn't care whose it is or what it was for. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

[apache]

chimyellow said:

Is Brown really that niaeve (sp?) and stupid to think that the big companies will not put up prices to compensate as Zumbruk has already mentioned?

no, he's smart enough to believe the great unwashed won't make that connection

[GreenV8S]

zumbruk said:

And where does this dimwit think the oil companies will recover the profits from?

But now the petrol price will go up and the government will continue to get its cut, but there won't be the direct PR fallout from the 350% (orwhatever it is) fuel duty and direct tax.

[Graham]

Sounds like a win win for old greedy brown.

1) tax hike from the oil companies
2) oil companies put up prices to retain profits, but govt didnt do it its greedy oil companies
3) as the petrol price goes up old greed brown gets more vat...



so the fecker gets hes extra money and sun readers dont think it was his fault and give him another 5 years FFS.... I'd give him 5 years.... in the bankok Hilton !!!

[dcb]

zumbruk said:

I doubt he cares. He sees a big pile of money - he steals it. Pensions, savings, profits - he doesn't care whose it is or what it was for. Gimme, gimme, gimme.

He does seem to think he's better at spending my money than I am.
Hence all the tax hikes.

Does anyone think Governments are more efficient or effective
at spending money than the great UK public ?

[Mr Whippy]

Worst bit is the savings raiding in my opinion.

I for one have an account I haven't touched for 5 years with money in it. I leave it there and I know about it. Why should I have to pro-actively defend my money when I placed it in a safe place with a bank or building society?

That is the worst of all his ideas. There should be no doubt the money is abandoned, and the cost in doing that effectively must outweigh the value of that actual money that is un accounted for and abandoned?

From that I assume they'll just take it for now and pay it back if you come looking, but minus interest!

Tw4ts!

Dave

[wab172uk]

Mr Whippy said:

Worst bit is the savings raiding in my opinion. I for one have an account I haven't touched for 5 years with money in it. I leave it there and I know about it. Why should I have to pro-actively defend my money when I placed it in a safe place with a bank or building society? That is the worst of all his ideas. There should be no doubt the money is abandoned, and the cost in doing that effectively must outweigh the value of that actual money that is un accounted for and abandoned? From that I assume they'll just take it for now and pay it back if you come looking, but minus interest! Tw4ts! Dave

I too have money in several accounts that I've never touched for years. Put there in case said bank/building society is taken over thus getting a windfall. What is the gov't saying is the cut off point where they can then take your money?????? I for one will be taking the gov't to court for theft, which is exactly what it is

[annodomini2]

dcb said:

Does anyone think Governments are more efficient or effective at spending money than the great UK public ?

No see below

Squandering Billions

>> Edited by annodomini2 on Tuesday 6th December 13:04

[ridds]

If you're interested, that Texaco PFS picture was taken on the A27 heading Eastbound about 2 miles before Lewes!

[JonRB]

chimyellow said:

niaeve (sp?)

I've got to say, that is possibly the most creative mis-spelling I've ever seen.

[Cotty]

chimyellow said:

Is Brown really that niaeve (sp?) and stupid to think that the big companies will not put up prices to compensate as Zumbruk has already mentioned?

That was my first thought

>> Edited by Cotty on Tuesday 6th December 13:38

[hayesey]

chimyellow said:

Is Brown really that niaeve (sp?) and stupid to think that the big companies will not put up prices to compensate as Zumbruk has already mentioned?

that was what sprung straight into my mind too as soon as I read that. Does Brown think we're all stupid?

[turbobungle]

wab172uk said:

Mr Whippy said: Worst bit is the savings raiding in my opinion. I for one have an account I haven't touched for 5 years with money in it. I leave it there and I know about it. Why should I have to pro-actively defend my money when I placed it in a safe place with a bank or building society? That is the worst of all his ideas. There should be no doubt the money is abandoned, and the cost in doing that effectively must outweigh the value of that actual money that is un accounted for and abandoned? From that I assume they'll just take it for now and pay it back if you come looking, but minus interest! Tw4ts! Dave I too have money in several accounts that I've never touched for years. Put there in case said bank/building society is taken over thus getting a windfall. What is the gov't saying is the cut off point where they can then take your money?????? I for one will be taking the gov't to court for theft, which is exactly what it is

Whats this about savings in accounts not being touched and the government wers taking it???

[Steve2005]

hayesey said:

Does Brown think we're all stupid?

It would appear that the average voter today is

[tom_allen]

Mr Whippy said:

Worst bit is the savings raiding in my opinion. I for one have an account I haven't touched for 5 years with money in it. I leave it there and I know about it. Why should I have to pro-actively defend my money when I placed it in a safe place with a bank or building society?

I just cannot work out where this government get their ideas from. I'm 24 years old and I am looking at retiring when I'm 70 thanks to Bliar and his merry men. we've all been warned that our pensions are going to be worth next to nothing when we eventually get to retire, if we live that long, and that we should all save up to meet the shortfall. so people who have put money away in a savings account are now going to get it taken off them to give to poorer people. i thought a percentage of taxes that we pay were used to assist people who need it. If somebody wants a new youth centre or playground in their park why not hold fund-raising events where people who want to give can willingly.

[zumbruk]

dcb said:

zumbruk said: I doubt he cares. He sees a big pile of money - he steals it. Pensions, savings, profits - he doesn't care whose it is or what it was for. Gimme, gimme, gimme. He does seem to think he's better at spending my money than I am. Hence all the tax hikes. Does anyone think Governments are more efficient or effective at spending money than the great UK public ?

Absolutely not.

Money is best spent when it is a persons own money being spent on something they personally want, e.g. you buy a Porsche.
Money is worst spent when it is someone elses money being spent on something they personally are uninterested in, e.g. the Government subsidises railway companies.

And don't forget that the product of Government is more Government. More rules, more Quangos, more bureaucrats, more stupid regulations.

[Mr E]

He doesn't need to put tax on fuel up.

The increase in the price of the raw product means he has rather more money than a few years back to start with. At the same tax rate.....

[sgt^roc]

Fundamentally the rot started during the last fuel protest, we are now in a position where the chancellor can not impose more taxes on the motorist because of a fear of kick back, of course the Labour trait of tax and send now has a hold and he is becoming desperate to raise revenue. Taxation on the Oil companies will only drive them elsewhere. Road charging is the only way to raise real revenue and how I bet they wish they could push than in now.