[Hotcoupe]

needforspeed Quote:
I don't personally feel that fuel should be more affordable. We already have an increasing number of vehicles on the road and most people can obviously afford to put fuel in them.

needforspeed Quote:
2. I honestly don't understand why people think that oil should be cheap. It's a scarce resource which will run out in our lifetime. Even at £1 per litre their are no shortage of cars on the road - in fact our roads are at bursting point. You mention the cost of delivery, but retail prices for food and other consumer goods (especially electronics) have been dropping year on year. The economy can and will sustain increases in fuel prices.

There are thousands of people that rely on their cars just for day to day living,if public transport served the population in an efficient manner,then yes you could assume people could live ordinary lives without cars.I'm sure there are lots of people that would willingly give up on road tax,insurance,fuel bills etc,but they can't, and I'm sure there lots that would string you up for your viewpoint,which in my opinion sucks!

[Evil Diesel]

Not only has the Government increased taxation to around 39% they are also borrowing at 3% GDP. And this is in the good times when the public account should be in credit. Even worse, they have splashed my cash around the public services without linking it to any performance gains. Even worse still, having spent the money they are now trying to seek the efficiency gain without anything further to offer.

If you think that the public services offer any kind of value then you do live in a different world from me. Why do you think that everyone who can has private health cover and private education for their kids.

The system (if you can call it that) is total shite and waste is everywhere.

I do not see how anyone could possibly manage something like the NHS without a complete dismemberment - after all it employs something like 1.2M people and probably requires around 500,000! Where do you start?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

There are thousands of people that rely on their cars just for day to day living,if public transport served the population in an efficient manner,then yes you could assume people could live ordinary lives without cars.I'm sure there are lots of people that would willingly give up on road tax,insurance,fuel bills etc,but they can't, and I'm sure there lots that would string you up for your viewpoint,which in my opinion sucks!

I just think there is a flaw in this argument.

Most people are better off now than they have ever been. When I was a kid most families had one car or less. Now the majority of households have two.

In the past many many cars were 10 years old or more. Now the majority are 2-3 years old and 7 year old cars are worthless.

This isn't because public transport is worse. It's because motoring has become more affordable, people can afford to drive and they can also afford to own nice new cars.

If you make fuel cheaper people will drive more.

In the long term thats not a good plan.

I'd be interested to see an analysis of fuel prices to median household income. When I first started driving (17 years ago) unleaded was 49.7p a litre. It's doubled in cost, but I reckon the average income has doubled as well.

edit: found it for myself. In 1990 the average income per household was £17K in 2006 it was around £28K - so it's not quite doubled, but importantly because of lower interest rates and hencing reduced housing costs disposable income has MORE than doubled.

[Oli]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

If you make fuel cheaper people will drive more.

No it wont, it will save people money - driving isnt enjoyable like it was, even 10 years ago - road are totally gridlocked these days, the less time I spend drving the better - However the time I do spend driving has to be in a nice car. I do approx 20,000 miles per year or so in various vehicles, which is what I need to do for my job, I wouldnt suddenly do more if they reduced fuel prices.

They just need to sort out how to tax cars effectively - at present, there is fuel tax, road tax, 4x4 tax, going into London tax etc etc - They are taxing us too much, and as has already been pointed out, make public transport more effeicient.

My 4 pennyworth

[Hotcoupe]

needforspeed Quote:

Harsh and unfair. I don't live in an ivory castle. I just think there is a flaw in this argument.

Most people are better off now than they have ever been. When I was a kid most families had one car or less. Now the majority of households have two.

In the past many many cars were 10 years old or more. Now the majority are 2-3 years old and 7 year old cars are worthless.

This isn't because public transport is worse. It's because motoring has become more affordable, people can afford to drive and they can also afford to own nice new cars.

If you make fuel cheaper people will drive more.

In the long term thats not a good plan.

NFS,it's clear you live in quite an affluent area and possibly never venture into areas where people rely on their cars
There are some people who simply could not survive without their cars,
they need to get to work (public transport in some areas is non existent)

They need to go to the supermarket (these are now all out of town,because x amount of years ago that's where the govt decided they should be)

They need to get children to school

[E92Fan]

Very emotive arguments...

Quick thought - would any of you feel differently if there was full accountability in what the fuel taxes generated are used for?

If you knew that X-amount of tax from fuel was used for this project, or that maintenance, and you could therefore see a substantive account that the tax money wasn't being wasted, would this make people happier or more tolerant of the high rate of duty on fuel?


I use my car for work, and like most others am a bit disconcerted at having to pay 110p a litre for fuel. I also pay the £8 congestion charge everytime I go into Central London (three or four times a week in the car). I do have a problem with it, the CCharge especially, because I don't see where the money raised from the Charge has gone. Ken Livingstone has said it has gone on public transport, to improve bus services and tube services. Well, the Northern Line tube is still the biggest piece of unreliable shite I've ever seen as an excuse for a public service transportation system - it is permanently delayed or out of order due to signal failure. And the buses, well.. half of them are empty. The rest are huge long bendy buses too bloody big for the roads in London. Ever seen them around Trafalgar Square? They stop at one set of lights, but are so long that the people merging onto the Square can't get on because the bus is blocking their green lights! Plus, I wonder how much money they are losing from people not paying to get on a bendy bus - the bus driver can't actually see people getting on and off from the rearmost door, because the thing is too long!!

Now, if I could actually see that money raised from fuel tax, congestion charge, road tax etc is being used constructively and efficiently, then I will have LESS problem in paying exhorbitant charges and levies. In the meantime, like everyone else, I have to put up with the current situation and adjust other finances accordingly.

[Evil Diesel]

NFS - its amazing what you can achieve in the short term as a government if you allow money supply to increase at 14% per annum.

Sure, everyone has 2 cars. Of course, we all have to have the latest 50" plasma telly. No-one eats at home anymore - that's so 1970's ....

On the other hand personal debt stands at £1.4 trillion ..... I remember when it topped £1T a couple of years ago. Even if you forget the interest the capital has to be repaid sooner or later. Now that the refinancing ATM has been removed from everyone's house and debt rates are standing closer to their long term average with the spreads standing as they are the real pain is only just beginning.

[Hotcoupe]

E92Fan Very emotive arguments...


Now, if I could actually see that money raised from fuel tax, congestion charge, road tax etc is being used constructively and efficiently, then I will have LESS problem in paying exhorbitant charges and levies. In the meantime, like everyone else, I have to put up with the current situation and adjust other finances accordingly.

Yep been there done that,paid the CC charge,travelled on the snail line and actually worked on it,however the big problem for me is the assumption that because you drive a car,it follows that you can afford the fuel.
OK,most people on this forum can afford the fuel,I'm not poor by any stretch,but other's are not as fortunate as myself or other members here.

People rely on their cars,if there forced off the roads because they can't afford the fuel, it's not just those poor buggers that will suffer, we all will.

How about considering the people that live hand to mouth on a monthly basis and any increase in fuel duty just adds to their financial woes.

[Z4 Beemer]

Guys, I don't think arguments tend to hold much weight when they get personal and abusive towards a particular forum member. I think Tony made a good point - transparency - if the government was clear and up front about where the money was going, I would certainly perhaps appreciate the costs and reasons for them a bit better. However, has any government ever been totally honest and up front about these sorts of things?

[Oli]

Who's got personal? Or abusive?

[Serjames]

Well it did get a LITTLE personal guys...

But good arguments all the same - both sides.

As a gesture of good will, I'm going to side with NFS and play my hand as follows...

If' I'm the LAST person on the road, because I'm the only one who can pay 1.10 a litre then so be it...

we all incur the same taxes (ish) and those who sink, sink, and those who survive drive fast cars

Bit knobish, I know, but there's my less intelligent argument.

SJ

[Oli]

Originally Posted by Serjames

Well it did get a LITTLE personal guys...

But good arguments all the same - both sides.

As a gesture of good will, I'm going to side with NFS and play my hand as follows...

If' I'm the LAST person on the road, because I'm the only one who can pay 1.10 a litre then so be it...

we all incur the same taxes (ish) and those who sink, sink, and those who survive drive fast cars

Bit knobish, I know, but there's my less intelligent argument.

SJ

You said it - Knob!

[Hotcoupe]

OK,sorry if I got personal and offensive,apologies to NFS.
I have edited my earlier posts as best as possible.

I just think it's important to take a bigger view,there are people who are less well off, and they struggle to find the extra when any taxes/prices/interest rates rise.

For those people, any form of protest against fuel rises is in their eyes legitimate, and I'm sure the majority would support the fuel protests no matter the inconvenience it put them through.

Olive branch?

[BigBanana]

QUOTE=needforspeed;1799778]It's an interesting debate and it sounds as if we are on opposite sides of it

Two things spring to mind, based on your last points:

1. Tax isn't money that is chucked away. Regardless of your thoughts about the government and the public sector, the tax revenue from fuel isn't wasted. If fuel taxation was reduced, either services would be cut or other taxes would be increased.

2. I honestly don't understand why people think that oil should be cheap. It's a scarce resource which will run out in our lifetime. Even at £1 per litre their are no shortage of cars on the road - in fact our roads are at bursting point. You mention the cost of delivery, but retail prices for food and other consumer goods (especially electronics) have been dropping year on year. The economy can and will sustain increases in fuel prices.[/QUOTE]



Bollocks.

1). We have a Labour government!

2). Fuel is 10p per litre in middle east countries.

[Serjames]

Good point when you compare our standard of living which is admitedly good, we have to work MUCH harder for it in this country I think.

have lived in Europe, Africa and US so have a fairly good understanding of this.

Money does seem the go further in these other countries. and FUEL, CARS and booze are WAY cheaper.

(apart from cars in SA which ARE priced high)



SJ


(good move Ian )

[Evil Diesel]

I hope no-one is trying to argue that the cash raised in taxes is not pissed away. I read yesterday that SEDA (South East Development Agency) spent £53k in taxi fares for it's part time Chief Exec last year. Also I am not aware on anything that this quango has acheived apart from adding another layer of red tape in an area that is (government intervention aside) is able to look after itself.

Great work chaps.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

NFS,it's clear you live in quite an affluent area and possibly never venture into areas where people rely on their cars
There are some people who simply could not survive without their cars,
they need to get to work (public transport in some areas is non existent)

They need to go to the supermarket (these are now all out of town,because x amount of years ago that's where the govt decided they should be)

They need to get children to school

I don't think that's clear at all.

I'm from a very working class and generally deprived area in the North East of England.

My point isn't about wealth or class.

When I was a kid (late 70's and early 80's) most of men in the area worked in heavy industry - mining, factories and ship building. The vast majority didn't have cars and most cycled or walked to work.

My father owned a car, but because he worked away at sea for months at a time and my mother couldn't drive as a child I went just about everywhere on the bus.

We are now more reliant on cars because travelling and commuting has become a bigger part of our lives. We take it for granted and society expects it of us.

No kids at my school were ever dropped off by car, but now the school run is a 'normal' everyday event.

My grandmother was from a very small village in the South West. She never learned to drive and the only bus service to the village called once a week.

The concept that people can't survive without their cars is flawed. Our current way of life makes us think this way, but it's a fallacy.

The problem with cars versus public transport is simple.

Cars are more pleasant and more convenient, but that's not the real issue. If you lay out the money to buy, tax and insure a car, using public transport isn't a sensible financial option. Even with diesel at £1 a litre a 100 kilometre journey would cost less than £10. For a family of 4 their is no way that they could travel cheaper by public transport.

So if people have cars, they will use them because it is still the best financial option open to them.

As to personal comments - I think I missed them which is probably for the best I don't think I would have been too offended anyway - so apology accepted.

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

NFS - its amazing what you can achieve in the short term as a government if you allow money supply to increase at 14% per annum.

Sure, everyone has 2 cars. Of course, we all have to have the latest 50" plasma telly. No-one eats at home anymore - that's so 1970's ....

On the other hand personal debt stands at £1.4 trillion ..... I remember when it topped £1T a couple of years ago. Even if you forget the interest the capital has to be repaid sooner or later. Now that the refinancing ATM has been removed from everyone's house and debt rates are standing closer to their long term average with the spreads standing as they are the real pain is only just beginning.

I actually agree with this.

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

I hope no-one is trying to argue that the cash raised in taxes is not pissed away. I read yesterday that SEDA (South East Development Agency) spent £53k in taxi fares for it's part time Chief Exec last year. Also I am not aware on anything that this quango has acheived apart from adding another layer of red tape in an area that is (government intervention aside) is able to look after itself.

Great work chaps.

It's not all pissed away though is it?

If it was then we would have no public services at all.

Anyway, for me this is not about taxation as a whole. I'd be all for better public services and lower taxes (who wouldn't?).

I just don't see fuel taxation as being the correct place to start reducing taxes given the issue of climate change.

[Evil Diesel]

I am not passified.

I reluctantly accept the need for taxation to provide essential services but do not see the link between this and accepting huge inefficiency in how it is spent.

What is an acceptable level of waste? 5%? 20%? 40%? When the govenment has mortgaged our children's future and pissed a large chunk of it down the drain I fail to find any silver lining.

Even worse, when we need the govenment to be able to spend to drag the crappy service led economy out of a recessionary pit we find that they are over-indebted and do not have any headroom to raise tax further without deepening the hole. Japanese style 'lost decade' here we come ........

Thanks a lot Gordon.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

I am not passified.

I reluctantly accept the need for taxation to provide essential services but do not see the link between this and accepting huge inefficiency in how it is spent.

What is an acceptable level of waste? 5%? 20%? 40%? When the govenment has mortgaged our children's future and pissed a large chunk of it down the drain I fail to find any silver lining.

Even worse, when we need the govenment to be able to spend to drag the crappy service led economy out of a recessionary pit we find that they are over-indebted and do not have any headroom to raise tax further without deepening the hole. Japanese style 'lost decade' here we come ........

Thanks a lot Gordon.

Not a fan of the canny Scott then

My understanding was the Gordon Brown had actually reduced the national debt in real terms.

In my opinion his time as chancellor has led to one significant and positive impact. By handing control of the interest rate to the bank of england he removed the opportunity to use it as a political lever and I do think this has smoothed the economic cycle considerably over the last 10 years.

As you correctly point out - the downside of slow but steady economic growth and consistently low interest rates is the current high level of debt and house price inflation.

I'm not sure if that is a worthwhile price to pay for a prolonged period of stability, but I have a feeling we will find out soon.

Being a prudent northerner I have been very careful not to overstretch myself. So I'm not at risk. But all those people with interest only mortgages at 5 times salary won't be so lucky.

Time to batten down the hatches I suppose.

Anyway .. I'm no fan of taxation and if it were reduced as a whole I would have no problem at all.

[Evil Diesel]

The use of words like 'in real terms' generally implies that any previous words are shite.

I also disagree with the so called independence of the BoE - remember that the Treasury appoints the MPC and members like David Blanchflower have never voted for a rate rise. Also, when the inflation measure is so arbitary it make a mockery of the process.

Finally, I would not call the creation of the largest credit fuelled bubble in history 'stability'.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

The use of words like 'in real terms' generally implies that any previous words are shite.

I also disagree with the so called independence of the BoE - remember that the Treasury appoints the MPC and members like David Blanchflower have never voted for a rate rise. Also, when the inflation measure is so arbitary it make a mockery of the process.

Finally, I would not call the creation of the largest credit fuelled bubble in history 'stability'.

The use of the phrase 'in real terms' by me just means that the statement takes inflation into account. I accept that politicians use it to talk shite, but I'm pretty confident that the national debt has reduced. By this I mean the country's debt and not the combined total of our individual borrowings.

It would be naive to assume that the BOE was entirely independant, but having gone through a few cycles of Tory managed 'boom and bust' which themselves included some pretty major house price corrections I can see the attraction of some separation between The Bank and the Govt.

The reality is that the economy as a whole HAS been stable for longer than usual. The housing bubble is a real problem and I think this should have been obvious to the Government at least 3 or 4 years ago.

Instead of reacting to slow it, they have tried to avoid a natural correction. Unfortunately, trying to delay the economic cycle just means that when it corrects itself it is likely to do so more severely.

[Evil Diesel]

I agree - Eddie George knew (and has since stated) that the rate reductions in 2001 prevented a recession at the time but would be at the cost of a worse recession in the future. Do you remember Tony & Gordon telling everyone that it was their 'duty' to go off and spend our way out of trouble?

I am not advocating that things were any better under the previous regime - Nigel Lawson created a similar unsustainable boom in the late '80s which took years to correct. They all take a short term view expecting to get sacked by the electorate at any moment.

What gets me is the 'Prudent' Chancellor who spouted shit like 'no more boom and bust' his 'golden rules' etc etc presiding over the worst boom of the lot. We are not alone - what the US did is even worse.

What lies ahead is what worries me - the pot is empty and tough times lie ahead. Northen Rubble is a symptom of the generic instability of the whole mess - how much of the £29B do you think that the taxpayer will ever see again?