FUEL PRICES-IS THERE A STITCH UP GOING ON?

[Clive]

Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe?

 

I say enough is enough.

 

C.

[michele]

yep but we will swollow it again dont worry there will always be an England.

[KD]

we havnt got alot of choice clive fill up or stay at home, but you are quite right

[mco]

Agree wholeheartedly Clive. Been saying this for weeks.Even asked our farming friends why they aren't striking but they say it wouldn't work twice.

 

 

[RoyH]

Same thing is happening with gas/electricity, the more the supplier puts the price up the more Brown and his lot get in VAT. But I feel absolutley helpless.

I saw a forum somewhere the other day and almost every other post was from someone saying that they had either had to change jobs or were considering it because they couldn'd afford to drive to work.

Public transport is useless. I saw a bus in our village this morning and a large notice in the windscreen said "Correct fares only no change given" what use is that if you only have a tenner.

I see the commuter trains operated by First Great Western are so lacking in size that a seven year old girl was crushed to a state of unconciousness.

They are going to price us to a standstill.

[malc d]

I don't see this as party political.

If " Brown and his lot" (to quote RoyH) are replaced by "Cameron and his lot" does anyone think it will make any difference to fuel prices ?

 

:-( :-(

[peakepilote]

Clive - 2008-01-26 6:31 PM

 

Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe?

 

I say enough is enough.

 

C.

 

Fuel prices are like the weather. We all moan about it , but we can't influence it >:-( Frustrating , but that's life Clive. :-|

[Thai Bry]

Clive - 2008-01-26 6:31 PM Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe? I say enough is enough. C.

Clive

Interesting point of view.

 
Just recently heard an interview with a head of an oil company who stated that the price of fuel will come down eventually.

His argument was that the current prices where based upon what companies had paid for crude oil when it was at roughly $98 -$99 dollars. It would take time for pump prices to come down when the current lower prices filtered through the system.

What the interviewer failed miserably at  - was to point out - that when there was an increase in the crude oil prices, companies immediately put up their prices.On top of this the government could of stabalised pump prices as tehy were getting more money from the exporting of north sea oil. They even had the cheek to impose a 2p fuel duty per litre from the nov budget.

How can we - transport people - make a living when we're getting shafted from both ends.??

One case to point out is our own forum member -  "Donna Miller" who is trying to make an honest living in the transport business.

I know of one comapny in North Yorks- refridgerated trucks- who are now only employing eastern block drivers . This is their way of turning a profit.

How can we as owners compete when the playing fileds are obviously slanted against us.??

Thai

[BGD]

Clive - 2008-01-26 6:31 PM

 

Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe?

 

I say enough is enough.

 

C.

 

 

You ask: "Is there a stitch-up?"

 

The actual answer is "no".

 

We rehearsed all the same aguements in a similar thread only a week or two ago.

You (we/everyone) want a lot of Public Sector workers (with all their associated ineficiencies, employment and massive pension costs), and you want a lot of services (NHS treatments, social security etc etc etc); but you don't want to pay any more in direct income tax, so you'll simply have to pay more in indirect taxes.

 

And the most effective forms of indirect taxes (ie taxes on spending) are those on goods/services with lower than unit-price elasticity.

The three Usual Suspects in this category in the UK are: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Refined Road Fuel (petrol and diesel).

Reason is because if the price of that good is increased by "X", consumption falls by much less than "X", so net tax revenue rises.

 

There's another economic theory which is I believed shortly to become very well publicsed throughout the Uk in the coming few years: The Law Of Unintended Consequences.

 

The way it works is thus:-

Nanny State says: I have now decided that it is now my job to decide what is good for you and to make lifestyle choices on your behalf, and We have decided that Smoking is a "Bad Thing".

So we will: tax cigarettes higher and higher, encourage people to give up, ban smoking in all pubs (whether the Landlord wants to or not).

Most people (including even a proportion of people who had previously been able to exercise a personal right to smoke if they wished to, baaa like good sheep and say "this is a Good Thing".

 

Fast forward (say) 5 years.

Less alcohol sold (legitimately) as in via pubs = much less tax revenue on such sales for HMG.

Pub profits markedly down = much less corporation tax revenue for HMG.

Many pubs close = more people unemployed = more social security payments required from HMG.

Fewer people buying tobacco (either they have quit, or reduced their consumption to some degree, or are swithcing to lower cost brands, or - as is increasingly the case - are only buying bootleg fags from "white van man") = HUGE reduction in tax revenue for HMG.

And this is the Big Kicker: More people living longer (ie not getting tobacco related quick-kill deseases, but instead lingering on into doddery old age) and as a result need much more expensive long term healthcare over decades more time than would have previously been the case, before they die = MASSIVELY more cost to the NHS, and to HMG also in MASSIVELY MORE pension and social security payments to those very-old-but-still-alive-people.

 

HMG has to plug this HUGE and still rapidly increasing gap between income and expenditure.

Increasing direct taxes is political suicide.

So only option is to increase Indirect Taxes substantially to help plug the shortfall.

Which indirect taxes yield the best increase in revenue per unit of extra tax? Oh yes, those old favourites: the taxes on goods/services with lower than unit price elasticity = but now we've only got alcohol and Refined Road Fuels left to tax still further.

 

And there's even a double-win for HMG here, because if hiking up taxes on fuel does result in somewhat lower consumption by drivers - then the UK is reducing it's CO2 emissions in line with it's International promises.

 

And all of this before you even START to consider how reducing supply and massively expanding demand worldwide will drive up light crude oil prces massively in the years to come: the prices on top of which UK taxes are added as percentages.

 

The days of "cheap" road fuel are absolutely and irrevocably gone.

No arguement.

No doubt.

The end of the 20th Century saw the end of the century of cheap oil-based fuels, either for tranpsort of for heating or for manufacturing.

We enjoyed burning them.

Our grandparents, parents and we squandered them with totally greedy and self-centred irresponsibility.

And now we and our children and our children's children are going to pay the price in the decades to come.

 

 

 

[Syd]

Sorry to disagree mate,

 

The price of motor fuel is not high because we want better services from our government as you are implying, it is high because the OPEC oil producers want more for their oil and they hold the whip hand. We have never shown them any mercy in the past and they are showing us none now.

If the oil currency, the dollar, falls in value then the price of oil will rise to compensate and it has done so.

Two dollars to the pound now instead of say $1.30, devide the price of our fuel by that dollar equation and hey presto we are back to a sensible price again

 

That fuel tax percentage level was not arrived at by government because of the level of services that WE would like to see from our government, but because gordon is a greedy son of a bitch and taxes what ever he can to the maximum that he thinks we will stand for, without too much protesting.

If there are no protests at his increases then he will keep slowly increaseing his percentage take until there are some protests, then he will stop at that level

 

People not smoking or drinking while living to an old age will save the NHS one heck of a lot of money which will counter your argument against the cost of old age.

 

I just think that taxation is not determined by need it is determined by the governments constant wish to buy votes by being able to say that they have provided more funding for this and that service than their opposition.

Wether that money is well spent and improves the said service or not matters not one jot just so long as they can brag about beating their opposition and "Saving" that particular service.

 

Of course I could be wrong

 

 

[BGD]

Hi Syd -

 

Your views are of course just as valid - debate is what we are here to enjoy.

 

But I must pick you up on your suggestion that stopping people smoking and drinking will save the NHS loads of money.

In fact that is totally untrue.

The curve of NHS care-cost per "average" person ramps up sharply from age 50 onwards, and keeps getting steeper and steeper as age moves through 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's.

Do to the fact that those who fall ill and die in their 50's and below. tend to die "Relatively" very quickly, from illness or desease which doesn't allow the person to hang around being ill for years and years. Cancers are a prime example of this.

Sure, treatment costs are expensive, but nowhere near as as expensive (in total cost terms) as having someone without early-cancer-death who lives on through their 60's, 70's, 80's even 90's, needing a whole succesion of hugely expensive operations/intervention/medical care costs/social care costs increasingly throughout those additional (say 20 or 30 years).

And remember that they live throughout that entire additional period whilst not paying in, but taking out of, HMG's NHS and Social security "pot".

Hip replacements, knee replacemnts, diabetes, osteoperosis, heart and blood circulation problems, kidney and liver problems, Alzheimers and other brain related problems; long term in-patient care; long term espensive drug prescriptions; often long-term "home" care - the total of which are, when taken over that additional 20/30/40 years HUGELY more expensive to the State than a person who contracts lung cancer, has a year or two of treatment and then shuffles off this mortal coil relatively promptly.

 

I'm not arguing the morality of this at all, but the economic facts are perfectly clear.

 

In short, people are going to be living a lot longer than nature intended them to - because we have discovered ways to patch up and repair a huge number of things that would have killed people MUCH younger in generations gone by; and to avoid things which would have killed people much sooner in previous generations.

But the costs of "artificially" prolonging average human lives long beyond that which genetics designed our bodies to operate for before key bits begin to fail is HUGE.

HUGE.

MASSIVE.

And always has to be funded by those people who pay taxes.

 

 

 

[Bazza454]

The oil price is purely down to Market Dynamics, ie, supply and demand.

The oil producing countries will simply sell their product at the highest possible price that they can achieve, if demand reduces the price will fall, if demand increases the price will rise.

The price of fuel issue in the UK is clouded by the very high level of taxation that HMG applies, and this has been covered extremely well in Brucies post.

[Syd]

Okay Bruce,

A strong aruument and I accept it but still feel that most age related illnesses are, to a large extent, alcohol and tabacco related and in say ten years time as this intake has been greatly reduced the illnesses will have greatly reduced too but unlike you I do not have any figures to go on just gut instinct.

 

If the government would only clean up our foods with the zeal in which they are tackling smoking then a significantly greater number of ailments would also greatly reduce.

 

I expect you will know that smoking is supposed to greatly reduce your chances of getting parkinsons disease

[Corky 8]

Clive - 2008-01-26 6:31 PM

 

Out today and I see diesel at 109.9. Why is nobody shouting? Why no truckers strikes? How much more abuse are we going to take? Just compare our prices to the USA for example. Why are we so gullible in Europe?

 

I say enough is enough.

 

C.

>:-( The three Service Stations in the town here are all around £1:12, Per Litre also Heating oil has risen to 49p per litre the last time I bought some 2000 litres its gone from 27p over a year ago, I have wrote and e mailed our Local MP Russell Brown, Lab. who said he had looked into the situation concerning the three garages in this town to see if they were opperating a cartel, But they were not its the price they have to charge to keep the Petrol staion opened and Manned He was also going to speak to Alasdair Darling about the situation in the rural area,s not heard anything since, so were getting it in the neck twice. on Diesel and on heating oil, being in a rural area both are Necessities , but as most other Countries pay less per Litre than we do it HAS to come down to TAX, I,m all for taxing Cigerettes and Beer also Spirits to the hilt, put it on them , the Economy will grow, less lost work days to binge drinking and we will have a healthier population for giving the Cigerettes up with less strain on our Hospitals, The Biggest Self Help this country could do is to Get Rid of all the Immigrants RAPIDO they are the biggest drain on Taxation , they have never put into the system but are Quick to find ways to take it out. I like the one Cigerettes can help you from getting Parkinsons disease BUt it Can and Does give you Lung Cancer not a choice I,d like , The Ball is in our Court over Fuel prices. (lol)

[Guest Tracker]

malc d - 2008-01-26 10:19 PM

 

I don't see this as party political.

If " Brown and his lot" (to quote RoyH) are replaced by "Cameron and his lot" does anyone think it will make any difference to fuel prices ?

 

:-( :-(

 

Maybe not but I'll bet you a shilling that both the overall tax burden and the unprecedented high level of people working either directly or indirectly for the state will come down - and that will be good enough starting point for me.

[davenewellhome]

I'll take you up on that bet Richard!

 

D.

[Guest Tracker]

davenewell@home - 2008-01-27 5:10 PM

 

I'll take you up on that bet Richard!

 

D.

 

O ye of little faith - I can't think why?

 

Do you mean to say that you are grateful that the country is being run by a politically motivated leftist control freak bunch of self interested amateurs?

 

Mind you the same probably applies to the other mob - but in my experience, genuine self sufficient folks like us tend to end up with more of their own pound in their own pockets and less in the government's pockets under the other mob of sleazy crooks than this bunch of sleazy crooks!

 

We certainly had more of our own pensions to ourselves under the Tories!

[Corky 8]

Only because the Tories never got around to it ,it was probably the next thing if we had swallowed the Poll tax, We need a Radical shake up of our Politic,s all the main Parties in this country are just a variation on the Same Theme

[Guest Tracker]

The poll tax was the fairest tax ever devised - it was just that all those who were paying sod all objected to having to pay their fair share for all the local services they enjoy - and they made more noise - as is always the way - than the moderate silent majority - who continue to overpay an unfair share of local taxation burden based on property values - NOT on their ability to pay or even the size of their incomes.

 

The noisiest turkeys succeeded in defeating Christmas!

 

Ironically it is the older members of society, who tend to have the more valuable properties - generally the culmination of a lifetime of saving and working - along with generally a lower and often fixed income - who continue to subsidise the younger members of society.

 

Even more ironically when these same older members of society do need local help via the local social services budget that they contribute so much into, there is bugger all available to help and support them in their hour of need.

 

Do I feel strongly - you're darned right I do!

 

You would hate to hear the individual horror stories of failure and incompetence of the system where the provision of care to the elderly just does not exist due to budget cut backs.

 

The elderly either are unable to, or don't like to, complain - and probably more importantly - are unlikely to vote - therefore successive governments have taken advantage of this to cut back what little help that there is.

 

End of rant!

[Tomo3090]

Another factor in the "where's the money gone" question, must surely be answered by the wars we as a nation have been involved in since the 1990's. The government must have spent billions on munitions and equipment in the last 18 years and that has to be got from somewhere.

 

I'm not saying it's the whole answer but it must figure in the maffs somewhere.

 

Oh! and while were on the subject of money... £9 billion for the bloody Olympics Games, is someone having a laugh? £9 billion for P.E. The worlds gone mad. >:-(

[Clive]

Don,t start me off on that one!

Take the Arts Council for example. They spend millions of our money on very small minority interests. If the minority want to put on a play then the minority can pay for it. Why should the rest of us? If they cannot run a theatre to make a profit then they are not putting on what the public want.

Just because they want to live in cloud cookoo luvvie land doesn,t mean the rest of us have to.

 

Then there is the railway network. It must be at least 20 years since I last went on a train, so why should I subsidise those who want cheap transport at my expense? Lets face it, if the amount of freight on the railway network was doubled it would only reduce that on the roads by 5%. They need to get real. Improve the roads and grow more bio-diesel.

 

What else - National Health Service. Ok it is unique to Britain but surely it should stop at mending those hurt and curing ills. How can they justify spending millions on things like IVF. Its not exactly an illness, no one is sick or under any threat. We all have to work with whatever our maker provided us with.

 

Oh, the Milenium Dome. How come when the Government ran it it was a total drain on the countries finances. Now Orange have it its one of the most sort after and profitable venues in the country. What does that tell you about things government run?.

 

Northern Rock - If as they say it does have solid assets worth more than its liabilities then why the hec don,t we just let it fold as any other business and allow the country to move on. Lets face it any other business would have to do this. Why should the rest of us pay for Northern Rock?

 

Rant over (for the moment)

 

 

 

 

[peakepilote]

Too much time on your hands Clive.

It would take me 2 hours to write that!

(!)

 

You must feel really strong about this subject? :-S

[BGD]

Clive - 2008-01-27 11:28 PM

 

Don,t start me off on that one!

Take the Arts Council for example. They spend millions of our money on very small minority interests. If the minority want to put on a play then the minority can pay for it. Why should the rest of us? If they cannot run a theatre to make a profit then they are not putting on what the public want.

Just because they want to live in cloud cookoo luvvie land doesn,t mean the rest of us have to.

 

Then there is the railway network. It must be at least 20 years since I last went on a train, so why should I subsidise those who want cheap transport at my expense? Lets face it, if the amount of freight on the railway network was doubled it would only reduce that on the roads by 5%. They need to get real. Improve the roads and grow more bio-diesel.

 

What else - National Health Service. Ok it is unique to Britain but surely it should stop at mending those hurt and curing ills. How can they justify spending millions on things like IVF. Its not exactly an illness, no one is sick or under any threat. We all have to work with whatever our maker provided us with.

 

Oh, the Milenium Dome. How come when the Government ran it it was a total drain on the countries finances. Now Orange have it its one of the most sort after and profitable venues in the country. What does that tell you about things government run?.

 

Northern Rock - If as they say it does have solid assets worth more than its liabilities then why the hec don,t we just let it fold as any other business and allow the country to move on. Lets face it any other business would have to do this. Why should the rest of us pay for Northern Rock?

 

Rant over (for the moment)

 

 

 

 

 

Clive -

 

 

Agree.

 

 

Agree.

 

Agree.

 

 

 

Clive for prime Minister.!!!!

 

 

 

 

Kathy has just advised me that I am pissed as a newt after 2 X 2.5 hour gigs today, and as a result my vote is null and void (sorry Clive).

 

 

 

 

 

:-(

 

 

 

[David Dwight]

Just back from a week in Lanzarote deisel at the equivilant of, wait for it 60p a litre.

all their fuel has to be shipped in refined, that must add to the cost.

 

also met a couple of Brits out there with there Motorhome staying for five weeks, returning via Portugal, Northern Spain and France end of March.

No Camp site in Lazarote you use Beaches and Car Parks no problems at all.

David

[J9withdogs]

Clive - 2008-01-27 11:28 PM

 

Then there is the railway network. It must be at least 20 years since I last went on a train, so why should I subsidise those who want cheap transport at my expense? Lets face it, if the amount of freight on the railway network was doubled it would only reduce that on the roads by 5%. They need to get real. Improve the roads and grow more bio-diesel.

 

 

Whilst I agree with most of what you've said, Clive, the railways are certainly not cheap.

 

It cost me over £60 for a return ticket to London last year (off-peak, mid-week) plus parking at the station.

 

I took the car the next time to save money. Hardly an incentive to use public transport!