%age Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Manx Radio News Tony and his circle will be doing a bit to try and keep fuel in check on the Island to allow Government to have more influence on prices. I can't see them getting very far without making a laughing stock out of themselves. This bunch of turnips used to have control over, for example, Advocates Fees but decided to give it up to market forces and allow the sharks to do their own thing. Hence people being hit with over £300 per hour bills for which Tony, being a deep routed capitalist, feels is absolutely fine. "Market Forces" and "if you don't like it shop around". Surely he must feel that petrol and for that matter everything else should be allowed to find their own market level. Maybe he is looking for something to be remembered by before he leaves political office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Poor reporting from MR. Going on that sound clip, it sounds just as likely that he intends to clarify the rules for, and beef up the relevant powers of, the OFT to allow it to operate more effectively as regards fuel prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Poor reporting from MR. Going on that sound clip, it sounds just as likely that he intends to clarify the rules for, and beef up the relevant powers of, the OFT to allow it to operate more effectively as regards fuel prices. Yes, it would have been good to hear a bit more of what was said - for example why is he proposing this now? Is it because the monopolies he refers to are fixing prices to take too big a margin for themselves? Something must have made him go public - would be good to hear that - and the time scale he is working to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7542766.stm Ok well get a move on then. The price of oil is falling and yet I haven't seen a drop in the prices at the pump. The petrol companies are very quick to raise their prices but very very slow to reduce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 ...Surely he must feel that petrol and for that matter everything else should be allowed to find their own market level... So how the hell does petrol find it's own market level over here, it's pay the price or walk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchanguy Posted August 6, 2008 Share Posted August 6, 2008 Why would Tynwald want to lower the price of fuel? The higher the price the more revenue Treasury makes. They will not do anything about it as is does not affect Tynwald members as their travel expenses are paid by the taxpayer. Does anyone other than MHKs/Civil Servants/Prison Officers have their travel expenses paid? I know I have never worked for a company which pays travel expenses on top of your salary. It is the same with the state of public transport and the parking problems in Douglas. MHKs do not use public transport and they have reserved parking spaces outside the Wedding Cake, outside their offices and in Chester Street car park so the problems do not affect them. As they are not affected they will not do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Why would Tynwald want to lower the price of fuel? The higher the price the more revenue Treasury makes. They will not do anything about it as is does not affect Tynwald members as their travel expenses are paid by the taxpayer. Does anyone other than MHKs/Civil Servants/Prison Officers have their travel expenses paid? I know I have never worked for a company which pays travel expenses on top of your salary. It is the same with the state of public transport and the parking problems in Douglas. MHKs do not use public transport and they have reserved parking spaces outside the Wedding Cake, outside their offices and in Chester Street car park so the problems do not affect them. As they are not affected they will not do anything about it. Lots of companies pay travel expenses depending on your work, when across I used toget 40p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p after tax free which considering I did on average 30,000 miles a year was a nice bonus, first company I worked for here was a bit tight I think I only got 25p, but you will find any company where you work involves essential travel to clients/customers etc and you use your own car will pay expenses. What you also have to consider is the fuel costs of running company/govt dept fleets, this will help put pressure on to lower costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Why would Tynwald want to lower the price of fuel? The higher the price the more revenue Treasury makes. This is no longer true. Ever since the recent renegotiation of the Common Purse Agreement, the amount the Tynwald Treasury receives from its UK counterpart is no longer related to the contributions it makes, but is calculated based on the growth experienced in the respective economies. Whilst, yes, in the past, increased prices would have meant higher VAT (Hydrocarbon duty being a constant) receipts, this is no longer the case, and thus Tynwald could now theoretically close all the petrol stations and not lose any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think the point here, is not about travelling expenses (incurred during work), but *commuting* expenses. Every company I've worked for, has reimbursed for business travel, either at a fixed rate/mile, or by bringing in the receipts. However much it costs you to get to work, is your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Smith Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Is it just me being blinded by a petrol haze or has the price come down by a penny in the past couple of days??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchanguy Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Why would Tynwald want to lower the price of fuel? The higher the price the more revenue Treasury makes. This is no longer true. Ever since the recent renegotiation of the Common Purse Agreement, the amount the Tynwald Treasury receives from its UK counterpart is no longer related to the contributions it makes, but is calculated based on the growth experienced in the respective economies. Whilst, yes, in the past, increased prices would have meant higher VAT (Hydrocarbon duty being a constant) receipts, this is no longer the case, and thus Tynwald could now theoretically close all the petrol stations and not lose any money. Sorry, am I missing something here? VAT is a fixed percentage based on the purchase price of a product and, therefore, any increase in the price of a product will result in an increase in VAT. If all garages were closed no VAT would be received as no product would be sold. Fuel Duty, on the other hand, is a different matter..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Yes, put if the petrol stations closed, people would spend their money elsewhere, and so the VAT would not be lost. As for fuel duty, the recent report from the Economic Initiatives Committee clearly indicated Treasury does not need to worry about the amount of fuel being sold, as the CPA is no longer calculated on a contributions basis, but on one of growth. Going out on a limb slightly here, but I think growth would actually be boosted if we stopped spending our money on petrol and spent it on other things (though that scenario is largely hypothetical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Going out on a limb slightly here, but I think growth would actually be boosted if we stopped spending our money on petrol and spent it on other things (though that scenario is largely hypothetical) That makes sense, particularly if its an item or service that's local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchanguy Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 I think the point here, is not about travelling expenses (incurred during work), but *commuting* expenses. Every company I've worked for, has reimbursed for business travel, either at a fixed rate/mile, or by bringing in the receipts. However much it costs you to get to work, is your problem. Absolutely my point BBB. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly. I have no problem with people having company cars or being reimbursed for work expenses but public servants being paid to travel to and from work is not on. I and all my colleagues have to pay bus fares or petrol/parking to get to/from work so why should we pay for MHKs/MLCs/Prison Officers to get to/from work. My contract states I can be asked to work at any location my company has and I would have to make my own way there and would have to pay for it. Why is this not in Prison Officers' contracts? Why are we even discussing paying for them to get to Jurby? Off topic I know but sort of fitted with the above paragraph. One guy I used to work with is going to be quids in if the travel expenses are paid. He lives in Ballaugh so will have far less petrol costs to go to Jurby than Victoria Road and also get travel allowance. I am pleased for him on a personal level as he is a great guy and it will benefit him and his family but this situation should not be allowed to occur. Anyway, back to the thread. Yes, if the garages closed the VAT would still be obtained from other products. I totally agree with that. My point was simply to clear up the apparent confusion between the VAT paid on the purchase price of the petrol and Fuel Duty being an agreement with the Government across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 What confusion? You asserted that Government wouldn't want a lower price, because a higher price gets them more money. I explained that that isn't true, and then went on to suggest that a higher pump price, as a growth retardant, actually results in them receiving reduced revenue. The Manx Treasury doesn't receive (directly at least) any fuel duty monies and so a decline in fuel purchasing would not effect their income under the new terms of the Common Purse Agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.