From The Financial Times
France’s socialist government has struck a deal with fuel suppliers to cut petrol and diesel prices by 6 euro cents a litre for the next three months in a new effort to shore up flagging economic activity.
Pierre Moscovici, the finance minister, said the government had agreed to split the cost with fuel producers and distributors pending further talks on more permanent measures to curb fuel prices, which have hit record levels on French forecourts in recent weeks.
|
|
24 cents a gallon not a bad saving.Most of our fuel cost is tax can't see it happening here yet.
|
|
See ours has crept up again with the usual excuses.
|
We used to have one of the cheapest fuel in Europe.Didn't it all go up under Brown?
Put fuel in the other day chap was telling me with a small bussiness he spends over 100 pounds a week on fuel cost.
|
|
Forgot to mention he drives a small van.
|
The Government does not (sadly) make a profit. So every penny collected in taxes is spent. And then some.
Its very easy to lower the tax on petrol, in fact it can be made zero if you wish. All you have to do is get the whole country to agree on what you will tax instead, achieving the same revenue.
Alternatively you can decide what you would like to manage without, equivalent to the tax you are not collecting.
So, annual hyrdocarbon taxation revenue is around £28bn. How about we get rid of 1/4 of the NHS? Any preference to which quarter? Or if not, what about the police? Well, getting rid of the entire organisation will save you £10bn, so how about we get rid of the police and only 1/6 of the NHS?
Course, since fuel tax is about 6% of what is collected, we could reduce *all* expenditure by 6%. I should think targetting a savings level of a further 6% will collect a hughe amoutn of support?
So, never mind the potential damage or further stagnation of the economy, where could we save the 6% on the Police? On the NHS, How about on road maintenance? Education?
Oh, and then there's VAT on fuel, that'll be another billion or two, oh dear..........
Now my figures are not particularly accurate, but the principle is spot on. If you need to really get the detail, try this www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total
|
Save your fingers, Mark; they don't or won't get it. "Rip-off Britain...blather...not fair...froth...the poor motorist...dribble..." it's been going on as long as I've been coming here and I don't think it'll change.
}:---O
|
well you stop giving international "aid" to countries with nuclear weapons programmes, space programmes, aircraft carriers and able to borrow money more easily than we can
you stop taxing foreign workers in this country less than brits
and so on
it wouldnt be difficult to sort out if we had anyone in charge who had some real experience of the real world
|
|
Fine, let's drop all overseas aid. Only another 5.3% to find now. Foreign workers? Tax 'em till they bleed. Might find you another 1% if you're lucky. Keep the bright ideas coming; it shouldn't be hard with all that 'experience of the real world'.
|
Foreign workers, foreign aid?
Do I detect a theme?
|
|
Don't forget NHS tourists.
|
"bright ideas coming" you stop companies which almost exclusively operate and profit from the UK from being registered in tax havens, all those companies registered in mauritius and similar should be reporting their accounts here and paying proper taxes here
want me to go on?
i have hundreds of these as i say it wouldnt be difficult to sort out
sadly PPE at Oxford and public school doesnt equip you for anything but presentional BS
|
>> sadly PPE at Oxford and public school doesnt equip you for anything but presentional BS
>>
retgwte for PM, anyone?
p.s. re high fuel prices - I don't notice many motorists trying to save fuel either by driving on M-ways at a steady 65mph and/or avoiding harsh acceleration/braking. They could easily cut their bills by 15% or so by changing their driving style.
Nothing will stop the champagne socialists coming on here bleating about oil companies profiteering, and those nasty capitalists making too much money, and the "main s tealers" named "H alfrauds" and "frauds".
Last edited by: John H on Wed 29 Aug 12 at 22:29
|
>I don't notice many motorists trying to save fuel either by driving on M-ways at a steady
>65mph and/or avoiding harsh acceleration/braking.
Because a lot of 'em are company car drivers?
|
>> Because a lot of 'em are company car drivers?
>>
I'll let you work out the proportion of company cars as a % of vehicles on the road int he UK.
|
>I'll let you work out the proportion of company cars as a % of vehicles on the road int he UK.
Funnily enough it works out at exactly the same %age as the number of drivers you haven't seen trying to save fuel by driving at 5mph below the limit.
Coincidence or what?
|
>the number of company cars on the UK's roads has declined by a massive half a million - from 1.6 million in 2000 to 1.1 million today (HR Magazine, November 2009)
>Record 34m vehicles on UK's roads (RAC, April 2011)
I realise that the dates aren't the same, nonetheless using the above figures 4.7% of cars on the road are company cars.
" it works out at exactly the same %age as the number of drivers you haven't seen trying to save fuel by driving at 5mph below the limit."
So, if I work my way through the words, that would mean;
5% of cars on the road = cars not 5mph under speed limit.
Presumably that means 95% of cars are 5mph under speed limit?
ummmmmm.....?
I think you'll find that sacrifices for saving fuel, more economic driving, making cost savings for tax reductions and changing taxation rules are all grouped under the heading of "changes OTHER people should make".
|
>>i have hundreds of these as i say it wouldnt be difficult to sort out
Well there you are then, you become a politician, the whole country, or if not all then sufficient, votes for your ideas, and you can reduce tax on anything you want as you implement your brilliant ideas.
I see no flaws.
Well, you'd have to be prepared to climb the ladder to get to PM in the first place.
Oh and you'd need sufficient majority of the electorate to not only vote for you, but also to continue to back you when the going got tough.
As for restricting companies, then it works like this; Costs + profit = price. Tax is a cost. Guess what happens if you increase the costs? Do you think the company shrugs its shoulders and just carries on? Or do you think it combines price increases, other cost reduction and occasional market abandonment. Now that isn't to say that they shouldn't pay tax, but they won't just pay whatever you think they should.
Presumably also if you ever have to work abroad you'll continue to pay your way here, as well as paying taxes in the country you're going to work in?
I have a feeling you don't really grasp the scope or complexity of the issues.
.
|
funnily enough i think i have a fairly good grasp of the complexity
the indian outsourcers (as an example) flooding the country with uncapped ICT work visa holders and using operating companies in Mauritius
1 stop the workers working here the first year national insurance free (both employer and employee NI)
2 stop them being able to earn lots tax free as supposed expenses, dont let them have any more tax perks than a Brit working far from home in the UK can get
3 if their work visa only allows part of a tax year they should only get tax allowance pro rata for that proportion of a tax year
4 no free schooling for their children (since brits working in their country get no free schooling for their children)
5 no free medical care for their family (especially spouses who are already seriously ill before they arrive as that sets up a motive for them to come in large numbers) - unless and until brits get similar in their country
6 should be as hard for them to get work visas here as it is for a brit to get work visa to their country
7 spouse coming in with work visa holder should not automatically get the right to work
8 take the right to vote here off them as brits in their country dont get it
9 make the complex company structure using offshore havens irelevant, make them pay the same tax here as decent honest companies do! and frankly if they dont want to pay thats good because nasty folk like them ruining this country i dont actually want here anyways
10 no indefinite leave to remain or british citizenship simply for working here a few years, when i work abroad i dont expect to pick up local citizenship!
and so on
its not that complex, and the real issues are quite simple
|
>>funnily enough i think i have a fairly good grasp of the complexity
So, 0 for 2 then?.
I doubt my ability to explain the issues at a level that would help you understand my point(s).
Mea culpa.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 00:38
|
The real issue is that, for whatever reason, a foreign worker can get a job in the UK because they have skills we need.
We don't train enough of our own people to have these skills.
Without foreign doctors/nurses the NHS would have ground to a halt decades ago.
Train or import - neither is the cheap option.
|
>>We don't train enough of our own people to have these skills.
Or indeed have enough people who wish to be trained.
|
Spot on.
If we're playing the allocation game, so that fuel taxes pay for the NHS, it's just as correct to say that a massive chunk of the British Government's aid budget goes to fund the Indian space programme.
|
>Alternatively you can decide what you would like to manage without, equivalent to the tax you are not collecting.
Fraud, waste, and inefficiency with taxpayers cash?
|
>> Fraud, waste, and inefficiency with taxpayers cash?
>>
How much of the national spend does that account for?
|
>How much of the national spend does that account for?
Too much.
|
|
First stop: Ministry of Defence
|
>> First stop: Ministry of Defence
>>
followed by Republic of Scotland, then NHS, Civil Service, Local Councils, Police and finally the Royals.
Contract it all out to G4S and Virgin.
Last edited by: John H on Wed 29 Aug 12 at 22:58
|
|
Get those pensions cut too - waste of money.
|
Of course there is an argument for cutting fuel prices/taxes as there would be a domino effect in numerous other areas.
As soon as fuel prices drop there should be a knock-on effect with food as the growing of, general production and distribution all drop. The work-force becomes more mobile due to the affordability of jobs that are further away from home. public transport costs are reduced thus allowing more and better services even in areas that, until fuel price reductions, were not viable.
The cost of transport for hospitals, doctors, schools etc. all reduces. As everything, at some point in the cycle, relies on fuel being used, a drop in the price would, by a process of osmosis, filter through all things. This would give a chance for the economy to grow.
All of the above should see enough extra tax income for HMG (through such as extra fuel used in the new/more extensive public transport services and tickets related to, plus more mobile work-force travelling greater distances to their jobs. And the overall "feel-good" effect that would have might make people, such as I, feel as if the disposable income available can now be spent rather than saved. Er-go an increase of tax-take on non-essential items.
Currently the reverse is happening due to the continued upwards trend of fuel.
|
All good points, but from the government point of view there are 2 major benefits to increasing fuel duty/VAT -
1. It's relatively cheap and simple to administer and collect, so is an efficient method of scooping cash.
2. It means they can avoid being pilloried for increasing Income Tax rates by using 'stealth'.
But I agree - I can't think of a better way to stifle an economy than increasing the costs of communication and transport.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 08:26
|
Lygonos...I agree totally.
However, HMG could also become immediately more popular by cutting fuel duty (by a notable %). So it would be a good populist move. I still think, overall, the Tax-Take for HMG would soon even out even if they lopped 10-15ppl off the price. As soon as people were sure it would stay so, therefore could, with some secure knowledge, look further afield for work, the economy would pick-up due to increased activity and reduced costs.
Rgds
Zuave
|
Maybe some balance - make new cars more expensive to buy and cheaper to run?
Again easy and relatively efficient way to raise money.
No reason 'working drivers' such as company reps can't keep running a car to 5+ years if it's looked after.
Would encourage manufacturers to look beyond the first 3 years of ownership when it comes to reliability.
Must be plenty of working cars scrapped as 'uneconomical to repair' for the want of a £500 repair.
As Cliff touches on below - if you increase tax levels too much you actually start to lose intake as more people avoid paying it due to its expense - even fuel duty will suffer this effect as people use the car less (and in some cases that's not a bad thing).
Raising fuel duty must have some effect on congestion, of course, without the need for expensive infrastructure projects.
So many crossed paths that goverments can make any argument they want for increasing/decreasing taxes, and likewise media and opposition can berate government using whichever argument they wish.
/sigh
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 09:00
|
>>
. All you have to do is get the whole country to
>> agree on what you will tax instead, achieving the same revenue.
>>
You don't have achieve the same revenue by increasing other taxation. The whole point about lowering tax to stimulate the economy is that the tax reduction encourages more economic activity, which comes through as increased company and personal incomes, which will in turn generate more tax revenue.
But that's not an increase in the rate of tax, it's the same rate of tax applied to a bigger economy.
But the theory only works if the tax you cut really does stimulate growth. There is no economic point in cutting tax if people just use the extra money to pay down debt, for example. An economy-boosting tax cut needs to be large enough and well-targeted so that it stimulates businesses and individuals into daring new investment in real industry.
I have been arguing since the crisis began that we need a massive cut in company tax, business rates, and the higher tax rates. Tinkering with marginal rates of fuel duty, VAT, interest rates, etc is pointless.
|
As France will find out, cutting the duty paid on petrol has no effect on economic activity. (Any small stimulus that could have been gained has been lost because they missed the annual Vacances Français). All they will get is a hole in the finances.
Scrapping the duty on Diesel (they can already reclaim the VAT) for industry, haulage and transport on the other hand, is a whole new ball game.
Last edited by: knowitall on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 08:59
|
|
Maybe not a effect economic activity but it will make people feel better paying less at the pumps.Politicians like to be populair that feeling never last long with the public.
|
I don't think it's a good idea to try to identify any rationality in the new French government's decision to dig an even bigger hole in the public finances.
Personally, I can't see much less pain in paying 1.60 a litre instead of 1.65. Prices have fluctuated that much in a week in recent months. Not that prices have yet gone down where I live anyway.
French public finance is a parallel universe to ours which does not involve any vision of what might happen the day after tomorrow.
|
cull the number of mps, in commons and house of lords, cut mp subsidies in food and wine, stop 2nd house hold expenses, cut the number of civil servants, invest in manufacturing, lower tax rates for business start up, reduce rents for market traders, cut down on management in council.
|
Sajid is a market trader I wonder?
There are no MPs in the House of Lords. The P in MP is Parliament. So your lack of knowledge on the basics makes me question your reasoning.
An MP should be allowed costs for genuinely living in London for Parliament. Or we'll only get rich people serving as MPs.
|
know what mps are, meant lords in house fo lords, the system needs changing, one to reflect the geniune needs of the british public
And am not a market trader, but as britain in recession one has to adopt other pollicies that will attract investment and jobs
Last edited by: sajid on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 18:44
|
>> There are no MPs in the House of Lords. The P in MP is Parliament.
>> So your lack of knowledge on the basics makes me question your reasoning.
Errr maybe your own lack of knowledge on the basics does not allow you to be quite so patronising!
Members of the Lords are members of Parliament. The Lords is the Upper House of the UK Parliament; the Commons the Lower House.
|
|
"Cut down on Management in Council" What council?
|
Our nearest supermarket filling station has now cut prices (from an extortionate level) by no less than seven cents a litre.
Even better, I was there as a passenger in my friend's diesel C3 and it didn't cost me a thing.
Whoop-ee-doo.
|
Our local Sainsbury are offering 10p a litre discount on fuel if you spend £60 or more.. I reckon they are 10% more expensive* so I need to buy 60 litres to break even. The car tank is 42litres capacity.
* on general shopping. Their Gin offer on 1 litres of Bombay Sapphire is tempting...
|
France Cuts Fuel Prices - Dutchie
