Petrol Prices On The Iom

[Slim]

Slim IMO it is naive to say that increases in excise duties will not harm a weak economy.

 

Right, I accept that, but if you have to increase taxes, better to do it at those that will provide social benefits such as fuel, fags, booze, rather than just restrict growth.

 

The first issue is that it does not get rid of the high running costs of the country. A sensible first step that will strengthen a weak economy is to cut out as much unecessary government/public service expenditure as is possible. This not only gets rid of burdensome costs but reduces red tape and frees up enterprise to grow with less stealth costs.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. You'll be taking cash out of the economy if you do that.

 

Secondly if you keep on increasing excise duties there is a point at which buyer resistance cuts in and government revenue actually drops (as happened when fuel prices increased significantly in the lead in to the current financial fiasco). Governments then have to decide whether they are taxing to stop these 'anti-social' activities or in reality taxing them to raise revenue. IMO governments see 'anti social' activities as a way of raising money - not killing them off. If they kill them off most tax raising has to come from income tax...

 

The same is true of other tax rises though, everything your taxing raises tax revenue up to the point you kill it. Better to kill alchoholics and petrol junkies than growing businesses, don't you think?

 

Thirdly fuel costs in particular are a core element in not only private transport but in almost every commercial activity. We have already seen in the last couple of years what economic damage is caused by a spike in fuel prices - in fact it was the thing that kick-started the economic crisis. Fuel prices shoot up suddenly, inflation shoots up, interest rates rise and suddenly individuals and businesses are in trouble. One of the few redeeming features of the present high level of government debt is that interest rates are so low. Imagine what will happen to government revenue if they go up by say 4%.

 

You'd think so, but we saw some very interesting patterns from the large fuel rises over the last few years, where spending stayed pretty much consistent, but people just used less fuel.

[gazza]

so slim when all the alchoholics have gone where u taxes come from there.

and petrol junkies than growing businesses and most businesses need fuel so u limiting them.

 

what it boils down to is because u dont use much fuel or do any use any of the bad things u say. u think thay should be taxed because that way it doesent cost u anymore

[Slim]

so slim when all the alchoholics have gone where u taxes come from there.

and petrol junkies than growing businesses and most businesses need fuel so u limiting them.

what it boils down to is because u dont use much fuel or do any use any of the bad things u say. u think thay should be taxed because that way it doesent cost u anymore

 

I think you missed my point. If you *have* to raise taxes, then raise them on things that society can definitely do with less of.

 

I drink and I own two cars, I'm prepared to pay more tax on both of those things, because I believe that both activities are currently too cheap and we're paying for that, as a society.

[gazza]

so slim when all the alchoholics have gone where u taxes come from there.

and petrol junkies than growing businesses and most businesses need fuel so u limiting them.

what it boils down to is because u dont use much fuel or do any use any of the bad things u say. u think thay should be taxed because that way it doesent cost u anymore

 

I think you missed my point. If you *have* to raise taxes, then raise them on things that society can definitely do with less of.

 

I drink and I own two cars, I'm prepared to pay more tax on both of those things, because I believe that both activities are currently too cheap and we're paying for that, as a society.

 

fair point slim.

 

but when you useing fuel as an everyday expensive that 2ppl is a hell of a lot. i can burn on a bad day £60. so no there not 2 cheap there 2 dear.

[Slim]

fair point slim.

 

but when you useing fuel as an everyday expensive that 2ppl is a hell of a lot. i can burn on a bad day £60. so no there not 2 cheap there 2 dear.

 

Use less of it. It is too cheap. It takes millions of years to create, and you're burning it in seconds. It's way too cheap.

[gazza]

fair point slim.

 

but when you useing fuel as an everyday expensive that 2ppl is a hell of a lot. i can burn on a bad day £60. so no there not 2 cheap there 2 dear.

 

Use less of it. It is too cheap. It takes millions of years to create, and you're burning it in seconds. It's way too cheap.

 

and how am i ment to do that

trust me if i could use less of it i would. but there is no chance of that happining.

i cant work without fuel so it has to be used.

[manshimajin]

Slim, I understand what you are getting at but in the present economic mess in the UK I don't think your response is going to work. What is needed is a tax system that encourages the private sector as that is the part of the economy that creates wealth through production and internal and export sales - particularly the latter. That is why I feel that first of all the unproductive costs of the public sector need to be paired back. I am not suggesting destroying the PS but getting it back to a size where it is role is helpful rather than interfering and over-bureaucratic. This will cause unemployment in the short term but will ultimately stimulate the private sector which is economically much more beneficial. Countries simply cannot survive on an ever growing public setor and an ever shrinking private one.

 

There is no doubt that the spike in oil prices and its flow on effect to the world economies was the inflationary spark that ultimately brought the house of cards down. Governments have to be very careful with how much they push up the costs of essential (you may disagree) products that effect all walks of life and industry. If the response is to reduce consumption, which happened last time, it is environmentally good but revenue wise does not achieve the purpose of upping the excise duty which is to increase government income. A fine balance and a politically courageous move.

 

If all tax and excise measures don't increase government revenue the ONLY other option is to reduce government spending. Luckily IMO the UK does have plenty of options in this area.

[Slim]

manshimajin: I think we're discussing different things. The UK govt seems committed to the 'five rises' tax plan, and your suggesting an alternative to tax rises where I'm saying if those rises are inevitable then they're targeted at the wrong parts of the economy.

 

and how am i ment to do that

trust me if i could use less of it i would. but there is no chance of that happining.

i cant work without fuel so it has to be used.

 

Of course you can use less, and if prices rise significantly you will use less. You're doing what you're doing because of the current price. You can work without fuel, it's just your current methods are based on cheap hydrocarbons.

[gazza]

and how am i ment to do that

trust me if i could use less of it i would. but there is no chance of that happining.

i cant work without fuel so it has to be used.

 

Of course you can use less, and if prices rise significantly you will use less. You're doing what you're doing because of the current price. You can work without fuel, it's just your current methods are based on cheap hydrocarbons.

 

no slim i cant, what would do u think engines run on water.

the only way i can use less is to turn them off. which is not an option. the £60 a day is only in white.

take in to effect the amount of red that can be used in a day as well and its big cash anywhere in the region of £100-£200 a day. so all in all u can say £250 a day, if i could use less i would because i would make more profit

if u think i can use less id love to see how u think that could happin

[Slim]

no slim i cant, what would do u think engines run on water.

 

Yes gazza, you can. You either charge more and do less, or change the way you do it, using alternative methods to what you're doing now. You'll have to, price rises are inevitable. If petrol was cheaper, you'd do more. It's the same thing.

 

You're operating as you are now because of the cost of fuel. If the cost of fuel changes significantly, you will have to. It's really as simple as that, and the changes in price in the past have shown that this is exactly what happens.

[gazza]

no slim i cant, what would do u think engines run on water.

 

Yes gazza, you can. You either charge more and do less, or change the way you do it, using alternative methods to what you're doing now. You'll have to, price rises are inevitable. If petrol was cheaper, you'd do more. It's the same thing.

 

You're operating as you are now because of the cost of fuel. If the cost of fuel changes significantly, you will have to. It's really as simple as that, and the changes in price in the past have shown that this is exactly what happens.

 

well no i woulden do more if it was cheaper because the machines are busy to the max, so if fuel was cheaper i woulden do more.

slim the price does go up when fuel gos up but u dont do any less work it just costs the public more.

lternative

so slim what would be the alternative methods of say moveing a digger from what site to a new one. do i push it there

and say unloading a full artic of goods.

maybe next time i need to dig house footings i just employ a load of ppl to dig them by hand that work woulden it

tell me how i do that while saveing fuel.

[Millman]

Fuel prices effect everything you buy in the shops. Fuel increases the cost of manufacture and of delivery carriage. Shops pass this on to customers. So by increasing fuel duty continuously you do little more than increase inflation and stifle spending. Thinking that fuel duty will hit Scooby and Chelsea tractor drivers in isolation is missing the big picture.

 

Also I agree with the those advocating the risks of over taxing the likes of alcohol. The industry is already under immense pressure with reduced consumption and increased costs. Much more and you risk killing the golden goose. Sure there is a pay off in reduced health care costs but if it were enough to offset the loss of revenue don't you think it would have already happened.

 

The fact is the UK government is pretty screwed as the excellent post from manshimajin explained. There will be massive cutbacks in government spending and raised taxes in the next few years as that debt has to be reduced.

[Slim]

well no i woulden do more if it was cheaper because the machines are busy to the max, so if fuel was cheaper i woulden do more.

slim the price does go up when fuel gos up but u dont do any less work it just costs the public more.

lternative

so slim what would be the alternative methods of say moveing a digger from what site to a new one. do i push it there

and say unloading a full artic of goods.

maybe next time i need to dig house footings i just employ a load of ppl to dig them by hand that work woulden it

tell me how i do that while saveing fuel.

 

Your missing the point entirely. The way your business is operating now is because of the current price of fuel. If fuel was significantly cheaper, you'd have bigger, more powerful machines that would work quicker, or more of them. If fuel was significantly more expensive you'd do less, charge more, or have more efficient machines.

 

You're looking at it from your perspective, which is understandable, your operating a business. But your business is where it's at today because of the current fuel price. If the fuel price changes significantly, so will your business.

 

You ask what is the alternative to move a digger between sites? If the price of fuel goes up, either your range decreases or your price goes up, or you use a more efficient method of transport.

 

My point is, you have to change. You rely on fuel, fuel is finite, you have to change sooner or later.

[Cambon]

Your missing the point entirely. The way your business is operating now is because of the current price of fuel. If fuel was significantly cheaper, you'd have bigger, more powerful machines that would work quicker, or more of them. If fuel was significantly more expensive you'd do less, charge more, or have more efficient machines.

 

You're looking at it from your perspective, which is understandable, your operating a business. But your business is where it's at today because of the current fuel price. If the fuel price changes significantly, so will your business.

 

You ask what is the alternative to move a digger between sites? If the price of fuel goes up, either your range decreases or your price goes up, or you use a more efficient method of transport.

 

My point is, you have to change. You rely on fuel, fuel is finite, you have to change sooner or later.

 

I see all is well in Slim world. Gazza's points are the tip of the iceberg. The problem is the pathetic UK government have now totally screwed the UK economy (well, Gordon Brown has). Now he is increasing taxes on fuel using the "green" excuse. Slim FUEL IS NOT CHEAP IN THE UK! In fact, it is amongst the most expensive in the world. This raises the cost to UK consumers and basically kills exports. And yet they want to raise it further!!!!! EEJITS! It is a spent government who are grasping at straws. They need to go.

[jimbms]

no slim i cant, what would do u think engines run on water.

 

Well actualy if you used solar power to convert warter to HHO and pressurised it you could run them on water.

On another note if people use less cars they could make up the shortfall by putting a road fund tax on pedal cycles.