coolangatta

Don't forget that the same guy declared war just a short while later He thought through the options while not being bullied by the big mouthed.

PeteBrant

So presumably you were making the same posts last year when the fuel duty was exactly the same price and VAT was 17.5%.


No? Thought not.

Fuel duty is 50p, VAT is around 17p and petrol cost is around 50p

The total rise in tax take over last year is 3pence approx (VAT)

The total rise in fuel per litre over last year is 17 pence. approx

Where is the majority of the rise going to?


If the answer is the Government , then you can blame them. If it isn't then you can blame the high price of oil.

We are talking about the recent rises in the cost of petrol. Not the fact that fuel is taxed, which it has been since the year dot.

Paul3446

But the more that petrol goes up, the more the government rake in in tax.

So why do they need the extra they are raking in, when they didn't a year ago.

And yes, I was moaning about the price of petrol before the recent rises.

It's simple really:

Cost = 112p
Petrol = 41p
Tax = 71p

It doesn't take a genius to work out why petrol is so expensive.

PeteBrant

You are completely avoiding the point I made.

Where is the majority of the rise in petrol prices going to? The Government or to fuel companies?

And your maths is wrong.
41(petrol)+50(fuel duty)=91
*17.5%(VAT)=15.9
Total=106.9

Not 112.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

The answer is very simple: the motorist is a cash cow!

You need only look at the amount taken in by the government each year in motoring related taxes compared to the amount re-invested in the transport infrastructre.

There is shortfall of billions!

Where is it going if not on transport? (rhetorical question)

PeteBrant

All sorts - Fuel duty has never been ringfenced for transport. Its part of the tax revenue.

Tax on Alcohol is not ringfenced for recovering alcoholics

Paul3446

This table, given that fuel duty is constant, gives the breakdown of how much the oil companies get, compared to the government.

Cost per litreFuel TaxVATPetrol70501288050141690501624100501833110501941120502149130502357

Paul3446

Hmmm, that didn't paste in too well!

Paul3446

Cost per litre Fuel TaxVAT Petrol
70 50 12 8
80 50 14 16
90 50 16 24
100 50 18 33
110 50 19 41
120 50 21 49
130 50 23 57

Paul3446

Quote:
"You are completely avoiding the point I made.

Where is the majority of the rise in petrol prices going to? The Government or to fuel companies?"


That's because the point you make is irrelevant.

What is wrong, is for the government to claim that the reason that petrol costs 120p a litre is because of the oil companies.

The reason that petrol costs about 40-50p a litre is down to the oil companies, the reason that petrol costs 120 - 130p a litre is entirely down to the government.

If you could stop trolling just for a moment, you would acknowledge this.

PeteBrant

This is about fuel price rises, Paul.

You are being deliberatly obtuse.

And since you have pulled old trolling remark out I shall simply assume I have kicked your **** in a debate once again.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

sorry to jump on your back pete, but that is a ridiculous comparison.

motorists pay tax and expect the roads etc to be kept in a good state of repair, where as some alcoholic who cant say no when theyve had enough then gets sorted out via the nhs or the local funeral service

point im making is its a little bit stupid to compare the two and imho it hasnt re-itterated/proved/rubber stamped your point one bit.

maybe we should start taxing illegal drugs via the dealers so when the tax return rolls round they can cough up 17.5% vat to the government to get them clean

see what i mean, irrevivent. for one so educated and someone that uses long words and correct grammer.... rant over

PeteBrant

The point I was trying to make, choc, was that just because a tax comes from a certain section of society, does not mean that it automatically is fed back into the people that funded it.

Of course some of the fuel tax will go to transport. Lots won't. Some will go to defence, some to education, some to healthcare etc.

Fuel duty revenue is just part of the national tax revenue.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

a totally fair point in my view, just your example really "ground my gears".

would you agree though that the amount put back into the transport secotr is far lower than nationally required? if your answer was to be "well if we put the money in from other parts of the budget", ie nhs, my answer would then simply be "well what about all the money they have wasted on usless projects?"

sorry getting ahead of myself there a little.

PeteBrant

Its a tricky one.

If you want more spent on roads, you first have to get it passed the green lobby.

By that, I mean that if you want to increase spending on Roads, by , say 10%. Then you are going to have to placate the green lobby by increase spending on public transport by 20%.

So in other words, a modest increase in spending will actually cost you quite a bit.

You then have to decide where the money is going to come from. You are of course right to point out the wasted money on various projects that have ended up as either white elephants or being binned altogether, or simply dreadfully overspent.

But, these are "one offs". Your yearly budget per department will not include an update to the NHS computer system every year.

One of the ways forward could be a toll system. Just look at motoring in France. The motorways are utterly fantastic. They are clean, fast, services every 10 miles - That money is put straight back into roads.

One of the problems with tolls comes when you have things like the humber bridge etc, where initially the toll is used to pay off contruction costs. But once that cost is paid, where does the money go then?


If we just got rid of VED altogether, there could be a much more flexible approach to how we charge for raod usage, and where the money is spent.

While VED exists, it is far to easy to divert the money, and tolls become extremely unpopular (why should I pay a toll when I pay tax etc)

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

some interesting points, one thing id like to pick up on if i may.

just regards the example 10% on roads, 20% on public transport. id like to argue the point that say the extra 10% from motorists revenue was spent back on the roads etc, wouldnt this indeed help the public transport system too.

also the public transport system also pay vat etc on well everything, ie bus tickets (example), so it seems fair to suggest that my point above serves its purpose, ie motorists and p.t. would benefit from said 10% without silly 20% going back into something that well simply wont be as popular as a car for example.

Paul3446

Quote:
"And since you have pulled old trolling remark out I shall simply assume I have kicked your **** in a debate once again. "

No it's because you are trolling again. But you can assume what you like.

Paul3446

And what part of the following staement are you having so much trouble with?

The reason that petrol costs about 40-50p a litre is down to the oil companies, the reason that petrol costs 120 - 130p a litre is entirely down to the government.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I think Choco is covering some of the points I'd make in response well.

As for placating the Green lobby??

Eh, last time I checked, the Green Party is no-where in the polls

The only green lobbys with any influence were SET UP by the Labour government to justify increases in transport taxes and to put a good spin on public transport, rather than invest in genuine improvements. Get rid of them, money saved, no extra spent!

Typical Nu Labia: create a problem/gross ineffeciency, then make the public pay for it whilst spinning it as a necessary evil!
Charities like Greenpeace are more than capable of flying the flag for environmental concerns!

As for the general public Purrlease: the environment may be an issue, but petrol prices and taxes generally are far higher up on the agenda!

Ns04