Oil Prices (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Originally Posted by johnp10
If this were so, pet foods, accessories, etc. would attract VAT at the current 20% rate.

It already does!

Perhaps a licence fee then. Seeing as it tends to be the hairs on dogs that cause most allergy problems maybe the fee could be related to the hairiness rather than pure size?

 

[Road Runner]

It already does!

Some people are so misinformed sometimes.

Bruno's arthritis medication is £75 a month plus 20% VAToh:

 

[Road Runner]

Perhaps a licence fee then. Seeing as it tends to be the hairs on dogs that cause most allergy problems maybe the fee could be related to the hairiness rather than pure size?

Good idea and would stop so many unwanted pets.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jonandshell]

Not sure if we are 'bovvered' by crude oil prices, the pump prices rarely have any correlation!
We'll get shafted either way!

 

[johnp10]

Not sure if we are 'bovvered' by crude oil prices, the pump prices rarely have any correlation!
We'll get shafted either way!

Reality!

 

[GJH]

How about extra tax on roll your own tobacco and papers? By doing the job themselves smokers or roll-ups are reducing the demand for ready-mades. That means there are less jobs for people making the cigarettes and less jobs means more unemployment. Seems logical, then, that smokers of roll-ups should pay extra to help the cost of the unemployment they cause.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jaws]

Not just recompense for dog crap all over the place.

I thought they had put a stop to MPs fiddling ? Or is that not what you meant about the dogs crapping on us ?

Seriously though, due to circumstances I have to live in the UK.
If the ferry prices rise so much I cannot escape every now and then I would close the firm, lay off those working for me and move abroad permanently.

 

[johnp10]

How about extra tax on roll your own tobacco and papers? By doing the job themselves smokers or roll-ups are reducing the demand for ready-mades. That means there are less jobs for people making the cigarettes and less jobs means more unemployment. Seems logical, then, that smokers of roll-ups should pay extra to help the cost of the unemployment they cause.

Good idea.
Tax revenue from papers couls then help fund the dole.

 

[runrig]

Hi Folks,

Maybe there is light on the horizon, have just read an article in the Daily Express about Cella Energy inventing a revolutionary fuel which is hyrogen based and costs only 90 pence a gallon and can be used in current engines so no adaptions would be necessary. They claim it could be available in as little as 3 years.
It is set to be tested with vehicle manufacturere in 2012.

Lets hope it comes off and that the greedy government dont levy a tax on it

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Carol]

The thing that always annoys me about the pricing is that the price is given in litre's at the pumps but the mileage in gallons. If it stated that we get 6 miles to the litre instead of 30 miles to the gallon I think a lot more would stop and think before jumping in the car for any short journey.

 

[Welsh girl]

Hi Folks,

Maybe there is light on the horizon, have just read an article in the Daily Express about Cella Energy inventing a revolutionary fuel which is hyrogen based and costs only 90 pence a gallon and can be used in current engines so no adaptions would be necessary. They claim it could be available in as little as 3 years.
It is set to be tested with vehicle manufacturere in 2012.

Lets hope it comes off and that the greedy government dont levy a tax on it

the government are sure to get a hand on that I reckon:Angry:

 

[buttons]

The thing that always annoys me about the pricing is that the price is given in litre's at the pumps but the mileage in gallons. If it stated that we get 6 miles to the litre instead of 30 miles to the gallon I think a lot more would stop and think before jumping in the car for any short journey.

Or litre's per mile in the case of some RVs.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Wildman]

I have been reading this thread for a while now and it is obvious to me you are all brainwashed. The answer to the problem is not one of raising taxes but reducing costs. Excessive numbers of members of Parliament, all getting paid too much and most claiming every expense under the sun. Everytime I see a broadcast from parliament the house is damn near empty. Why not just reduce the number to those who attend. Excessive numbers of useless white collar workers and civil servants, huge numbers of people claiming benefits they are not entitled to, armaments scrapped and billions wasted. Involvement is wars that are really no concern of ours. Supporting vast numbers of immigrants and providing them with housing etc far above the normal standards of where they have come from. Vets charging the earth because of insurance far beyond the viable cost of a farm animal. Everybody expecting to own a house all these thing and more are the reasons for high taxation and all could be dealt with to reduce taxation and get this country moving again.

 

[Loujess]

Oh if only .....! But it won't happen.

Ivy

 

[GJH]

I might not agree 100% Roger but broadly speaking can't argue.

Trouble is there are too many vested interests to allow sorting out and your example of "Everybody expecting to own a house" shows that the vested interests aren't restricted to a small number.

We could do with a few more people learning the differences between "right" and "privilege" and between "need" and "want".

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[johnp10]

Hi Folks,

Maybe there is light on the horizon, have just read an article in the Daily Express about Cella Energy inventing a revolutionary fuel which is hyrogen based and costs only 90 pence a gallon and can be used in current engines so no adaptions would be necessary. They claim it could be available in as little as 3 years.
It is set to be tested with vehicle manufacturere in 2012.

Lets hope it comes off and that the greedy government dont levy a tax on it

Not a new concept. Hydrogen as a fuel has been mooted long ago.
The problem is the oil companies and oil producing nations. They are rich enough to buy up any patents and thereby block develpoment.
Reemember in recent history ICI developing an oil free fuel?
where is it now?
We need more taxation on things like land. (Smallholdings, for instance.)

 

[haganap]

I have been reading this thread for a while now and it is obvious to me you are all brainwashed. The answer to the problem is not one of raising taxes but reducing costs. Excessive numbers of members of Parliament, all getting paid too much and most claiming every expense under the sun. Everytime I see a broadcast from parliament the house is damn near empty. Why not just reduce the number to those who attend. Excessive numbers of useless white collar workers and civil servants, huge numbers of people claiming benefits they are not entitled to, armaments scrapped and billions wasted. Involvement is wars that are really no concern of ours. Supporting vast numbers of immigrants and providing them with housing etc far above the normal standards of where they have come from. Vets charging the earth because of insurance far beyond the viable cost of a farm animal. Everybody expecting to own a house all these thing and more are the reasons for high taxation and all could be dealt with to reduce taxation and get this country moving again.

excuse me sir, Perhaps you would like to go back and read my post and then delete the all, add, agree with haganap under it.
As for GJH not arguing with you? well that's strange, when I offer the reduction in price argument, the reply to my thread is that it will cause problems on the roads, like pot holes and that have you not been out this side of Christmas Graham:thumb:

 

[GJH]

excuse me sir, Perhaps you would like to go back and read my post and then delete the all, add, agree with haganap under it.
As for GJH not arguing with you? well that's strange, when I offer the reduction in price argument, the reply to my thread is that it will cause problems on the roads, like pot holes and that have you not been out this side of Christmas Graham:thumb:

The difference Paul (as far as I read it anyway) is that Roger is arguing for across the board reductions in expenditure, which could be followed by a reduction in overall taxation, whereas you were arguing that a reduction in tax on a single commodity (fuel) would lead to increased purchase which would, in turn, bring the income to the Treasury up to the same level as before the reduction. If it were that simple then governments would have been taking that course for many years.

That argument ignores the fact that the majority of people (unlike you and I) will not alter the amount of fuel they purchase because they are still have to service the same lifestyle whatever the price - daily commute/school run/whatever and they don't have the time/inclination to dramatically increase their usage. To an extent you and I are exceptions which prove the rule because we have both altered our fuel consumption rates as a result of lifestyle changes unrelated to the fuel price.

The argument I was putting forward (which you responded to) is that the Treasury has to maintain whatever level of income the government of the day has decided on. Therefore, because most people will not change their (e.g.) fuel usage, any reduction in duty will have to be offset by raising the same amount in another way.

As I said in that post, in the main the same people (the 70% of the population between the extremes of low and high income) are going to end up paying the amount which the Treasury decides upon anyway. So, if fuel duty is reduced such that it saves Joe Bloggs £10 a month but income tax (say) is increased so that it costs Joe Bloggs an extra £10 a month then Joe Bloggs is in the same position, which is another reason he cannot afford to increase his fuel usage.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}