libby Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Alister Darling has removed the 2p fuel charge for the Autumn. What a con that is, removing a ficticious cost that never was. They must think we're all stupid. LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catinou Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 "They" are so deluded they must be the only people to believe anything they say! The government has more than "had" the 2p rise with all the extra duty and VAT on recent fuel rises - no wonder Mr Benn MP said the rises are "a good thing" >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkmoy Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yes and the government have the cheek to say it will 'help' the motorist. No it won't, it just won't make things worse. They could help us by cutting the rate of fuel duty but I know that's a vain hope. They show complete contempt for our intelligence. Talk about double talking politicians, it makes you want to take a leaf from the French's book and bring in Madame Guillotine. No prizes for guessing who would go under the knife first >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbury Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Hi, It is not just about fuel that we are being ripped off it is allmost everything. Successive governments over the last decades have promised much and delivered allmost nill. They have got away with it so far, so there is no reason whatever for them to stop treating us with their obvious contempt. Simply voting one lot out to be replaced with an allready discredited bunch off self seekers has, and will, acomplish absolutly nothing. I am forced to the realisation that the only way forward for us now is to take to the streets as they do in other countries. Wilbury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 libby - 2008-07-16 12:06 PM Alister Darling has removed the 2p fuel charge for the Autumn. What a con that is, removing a ficticious cost that never was. They must think we're all stupid. LB Well, if you don't like the abandonment of the scheduled increase, why not ask him to reinstate it. There's no pleasing some folk. Which do you want, higher cost, or lower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkmoy Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Well, if you don't like the abandonment of the scheduled increase, why not ask him to reinstate it. There's no pleasing some folk. Which do you want, higher cost, or lower? You usually talk sense Brian but I think you've thrown a wobbly here. Are you really saying you cannot see the utter cynicism in this? Announce a cost increase then don't implement it and say 'Look how I'm helping you'. What would you think if your local supermarket announced price increases, then didn't implement them and claimed they were saving you money? Would you prefer that to the supermarket which actually took money off items in the first place? I'm surprised you seem to have fallen for the con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyH Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Hear Hear Parkmoy. Whose side is Brian on? As Catinou says they've more than had the amount they have "graciously" decided not to impose as evey time the price goes up they get 17.5% more in VAT. They must think we are right idiots if they think we will fall for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred grant Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 use yer vans less, drive fewer miles, and go 20mph less speed everywhere my biddies. that way we all save money ourselves and in so doin pay less to the treasuery. its simple if you knows how me ansums. its a win win situation for us motorvanners. fiscalfred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinfrier Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Yes it's more for Greedy Gordon VAT,Excise Duty,Nth Sea Oil Tax etc and he has the cheek to say he is concerned about rising prices so will scrap the planned 2p increase this shows the contempt he and his gang have for the British Public. One report says the rise in oil costs in 84 days netted the Govt 1.4 billion pounds, O did gordon forget to mention that!!!!!. I fail to see how any sane person can defend him. Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 Brian, I'm surprised that you consider the word scheduled a reality, its as fictitious as hot air in the desert. How can they cancell something that's fictitious or INVENTED. Nothing is being removed because their was nothing TO REMOVE? I assume you are a government believer Brian, now that does surprise me. LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 parkmoy - 2008-07-16 7:00 PM Well, if you don't like the abandonment of the scheduled increase, why not ask him to reinstate it. There's no pleasing some folk. Which do you want, higher cost, or lower? You usually talk sense Brian but I think you've thrown a wobbly here. Are you really saying you cannot see the utter cynicism in this? Announce a cost increase then don't implement it and say 'Look how I'm helping you'. What would you think if your local supermarket announced price increases, then didn't implement them and claimed they were saving you money? Would you prefer that to the supermarket which actually took money off items in the first place? I'm surprised you seem to have fallen for the con. Thanks for the compliment, but! A scheduled tax increase is shelved at a time of sharply rising costs. That will save people money, will it not, because if the increase had not been shelved the tax would have been levied, so further increasing the cost of fuel? The real argument underlying this objection is just that the proposed tax increase was unpopular in the first place. But aren't they all? Having proposed something that is overtaken by events, isn't rescinding it better than carrying on regardless? Fuel will progressively increase in price at a rate exceeding general inflation. Like it or not, that is what the government has said it will ensure happens, as a means to encourage reduced consumption. I'd sooner they restricted the sale of inefficient cars, but they prefer to use prices. I don't think that will be enough, or work fast enough. It also results in the stupidity of taking off a tax for political reasons, that the government says should be imposed for "green" reasons. However, these are different matters. The original issue was cost and, as a result of shelving the tax fuel will be less expensive for the rest of this year than would otherwise have been the case. So, I go back to my question. What do you want, a government that isn't cynical (or as some might argue, listening to its electorate) and keeps the tax in place, or one that is, and takes it off? Your call! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob b Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Brian's tongue was firmly in his cheek methinks ! B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Just a little reminder, these increases where 'planned' by last tory government and have been carried forward by labour, lib dems would proboly like to see higher increase if they could get away with it, so it matters little who is in power they all want to relieve us of as much as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkmoy Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 So, I go back to my question. What do you want, a government that isn't cynical (or as some might argue, listening to its electorate) and keeps the tax in place, or one that is, and takes it off? Your call! Perhaps a government which doesn't use 'green issues' as an excuse to raise taxes in an underhand manner and therefore doesn't impose the tax in the first place :'( Perhaps a government that sees food prices rising rapidly, haulage firms in trouble, old folk struggling to pay heating and energy bills and actually does something about it instead of quietly being grateful for the extra revenue that allows it to continue to take part in foreign adventures with our 'special relationship' partner :'( Perhaps a government that is honest and open with the electorate about revenue raising although I have a feeling I'm entering La La land here (lol) Who was it that said you can't moan if you don't vote but whoever you vote for the government always gets in *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 parkmoy - 2008-07-16 9:38 PM So, I go back to my question. What do you want, a government that isn't cynical (or as some might argue, listening to its electorate) and keeps the tax in place, or one that is, and takes it off? Your call! Perhaps a government which doesn't use 'green issues' as an excuse to raise taxes in an underhand manner and therefore doesn't impose the tax in the first place :'( Perhaps a government that sees food prices rising rapidly, haulage firms in trouble, old folk struggling to pay heating and energy bills and actually does something about it instead of quietly being grateful for the extra revenue that allows it to continue to take part in foreign adventures with our 'special relationship' partner :'( Perhaps a government that is honest and open with the electorate about revenue raising although I have a feeling I'm entering La La land here (lol) Who was it that said you can't moan if you don't vote but whoever you vote for the government always gets in *-) So where are we going to find this wonderful Government of yours? D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 Brian, methinks you've missed the plot, there never was an increase! Its no excuse saying 'someone said so'. This is a 'top draw' marketing ploy to the extreme, designed to fool the believers that they have gained a victory. There never was any victory at stake for there never was an increase intended, however well it was advertised. One never gets 'something for nothing', but here we have 'nothing for nothing'. LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 PS. I'm away for a week on the river at Henley to the Taditional Boat Rally, perhaps I'll come across the missing fuel increase details floating down the river, more likely not! LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkmoy Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 So where are we going to find this wonderful Government of yours? Ah! There's the rub. But if we don't aim high things don't get better :-S Perhaps we get the politicians we deserve because we have such low expectations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Come on people, thinking heads on. Brian is absolutely right. The government intended adding 2p (2.35p when the VAT is added) to the fuel tax in October and now is not going to do so. If they had not made that decision the cost of a litre would have risen by 2.35p in October - whether the general (supplier imposed) price is falling or rising by then or not. Now it will not rise by that 2.35p. Goodness knows I don't think much of this government but let's please be logical. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Brian Kirby - 2008-07-16 6:32 PMlibby - 2008-07-16 12:06 PM Alister Darling has removed the 2p fuel charge for the Autumn. What a con that is, removing a ficticious cost that never was. They must think we're all stupid. LB Well, if you don't like the abandonment of the scheduled increase, why not ask him to reinstate it. There's no pleasing some folk. Which do you want, higher cost, or lower?Go back to sleep please Brian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 bob b - 2008-07-16 8:54 PM Brian's tongue was firmly in his cheek methinks ! B-)Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libby Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Gordon Bennet!!!!! Now even Graham believes the Government. How anyone believes in fictitious gifts for that's all they are is mind blowing. Damn it all they've given you nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING. Just waffle. By jingo some of you have a lot to learn about life. Its no better than saying I guarantee snow at Christmas then nearer the day saying sorry no snow. I really am gone this time (with a smile) LB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 libby - 2008-07-17 12:01 AM Gordon Bennet!!!!! Now even Graham believes the Government. How anyone believes in fictitious gifts for that's all they are is mind blowing. Damn it all they've given you nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING. Just waffle. By jingo some of you have a lot to learn about life. Its no better than saying I guarantee snow at Christmas then nearer the day saying sorry no snow. I really am gone this time (with a smile) LB But nobody ever claimed the government was giving anyone anything. What they were going to do was take more away. Now they are not going to take more away. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itexuk Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Spin, spin and more spin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 I return to a point I've made on an earlier thread. If the environment is the "big issue," then it would be better if as much as possible of the cost of motoring was mileage-related rather than time/ownership-related. At present, the annual/monthy "fixed costs" of keeping a roadworthy car on the street provide real incentive to use it as much as possible. So if I ruled the world, I'd: 1) scrap road tax and the various "purchase" taxes completely, and take ALL motoring tax through the fuel duty. 2) encourage (forcefully!) insurers to offer "per mile" policies instead of "per annum" ones (with premium corrections in arrears so you don't have to guess how much driving you're GOING to do - otherwise people would over-estimate, then "use up" the balance unnecessarily!). 3) encourgage garages to come up with mileage-based contracts for servicing (for a monthly payment based on mileage, they'd cover routine servicing and MoT, plus predictable replacements (eg tyres, brakes, clutch). The photocopier industry has done something like this for decades. 4) Even depreciation could become more mile-related if dealers routinely offered guaranteed buy-back deals, with the buy-back price based on mileage. Of course the govt and the various businesses would have to publish their calculations, so we could be reassured these changes wouldn't be just another rip-off. In the end this whole shift would mean that the cost of HAVING a vehicle would be much reduced (which would benefit all those who have to have one but don't need it very often), but the cost of each JOURNEY taken would be higher, which would provide incentive to use other means where these are available (which would help the whole oil situation, as well as the environmental issue). Should I stand for election? Would you vote for me? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.