Fuel costs

Pinner

Wow you poor brits really get raped with taxes in your petrol costs, your Petrol cost 80% more than it does in New Zealand! Hence why I drive a Subaru Outback 3.0R that does 19MPG on a good day, and displays 1.8MPG when the pedal meets the firewall, small diesels don't seem to have much place outside of the UK.

Anonymous

I think small diesels are becomeing really common throughout Europe, really. But you're right, our fuel tax is insane.

Pinner

In NZ our fuel tax system is a bit messed up really, it is actually far cheaper to drive my car than a diesel that gets twice the economy, Basically diesel owners have to pay a tax on mileage driven, not actual fuel usage, this is an old tax rule that was developed when the only diesel vehicles were great big trucks, so with this rule we get cheap diesel, but pay the same tax regardless of if you drive a tiny VW or a 50 ton truck, so it is lots cheaper to have a petrol, where you only pay for the amount of fuel you use.

The only benefit of the diesel tax system is it is great for farmers who get really cheap diesel, and don't have to pay tax if they don't drive their tractor on the road.

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

IBut you're right, our fuel tax is insane.

Again, looking at this from the AA we've got the 12th most expensive petrol out of 27 European countries and the US.

Is it insane? Are we paying more tax, but producing/distributing fuel more cheaply? Or the price of fuel slightly on the higher side, but pretty reasonable when compared to similar countries.

Diesel is more expensive though, the third highest in Europe.

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

IBut you're right, our fuel tax is insane.

Again, looking at this from the AA we've got the 12th most expensive petrol out of 27 European countries and the US.

Is it insane? Are we paying more tax, but producing/distributing fuel more cheaply? Or the price of fuel slightly on the higher side, but pretty reasonable when compared to similar countries.

Diesel is more expensive though, the third highest in Europe.

Yes, it IS effing crazy. Give me a list of the top 12 countries, and I'll show you that we're ALL being charged insane amounts for a litre of fuel.
Just because other countries are taxing the arris off their people for fuel doesn't make it RIGHT that the UK do the same.

Thewaylander

bails87 wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

my commute to work ....only 7 miles

And why aren't you on your bike every day? Tsk tsk

Cos i'm a mtber not a roady. Don't own a road based bike and i'm not riding my draker on the road it's way to dangerous with arse haed commuters and monkey faced drivers with no clue what htere doing

Also bails that reveiw of how much we cost has nothing to do with cost of living either. Take the DK for expample there average salary for my job is double so if the cost of fuel is only a slight bit more there in a better position.

Kiwi Kranker

Its the beginning of the end for fuel prices as we know it. Its only going to trend up, even if they sort a sensible replacement, they know what they can charge and get away with now!

I agree with yeehaamcgee just because others charge loads for it doesnt mean the UK should, each country has its own set of circumstnaces, no point being a sheep.

I have just bought a V8 as I reckon they are not long for the block in terms of running costs and emissions,plus I got in while I could enjoy it before fuel drives them the way of the Dodo.

alfablue

High fuel prices are having an effect on changing behaviour to some extent, whether by accident or design, it is a good thing if people are more careful about the number of journeys they complete by car. Whilst I feel sorry for some people who's circumstances make alternative transport choices difficult, for many the car is a convenience for the lazy.

bails87

alfablue wrote:

High fuel prices are having an effect on changing behaviour to some extent, whether by accident or design, it is a good thing if people are more careful about the number of journeys they complete by car. Whilst I feel sorry for some people who's circumstances make alternative transport choices difficult, for many the car is a convenience for the lazy.

I completely agree.

Fuel tax doesn't cover the costs to society of fuel use. I think that's a very big factor in arguing that the cost of fuel is not too high..

As for the 11 countries that pay more than us, they are:
Belgium
Denmark - $36,450
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Netherlands - $40,765
Italy
Norway - $52,013
Portugal
Sweden - $38,031

Waylander: You don't have to 'be' anything to commute by bike. It;s a bit silly to say "I'm not a roadie so I have to drive to work".

Good point about GDP/living costs. I've added some numbers to the list above, the ones in bold have (according to the IMF in 2010) a higher GDP per head than us, it's shown in dollars. For reference, the UK GDP/head is $34,920. So 7 out of the 11 original countries have a lower GDP/head and pay more for petrol.


Yeehaa: I agree, you can't necessarily say "but they're doing it so it must be ok". But we're not talking about removing some fundamental right. It's putting a tax on something that, a lot of the time, is actually a luxury. And if we don;t look at similar economies then how do we decide what is a right or fair amount to charge? There will be people who live somewhere remote, and fair enough, they might need petrol more, but an awful lot of journeys are short and could be walked/cycled or done on public transport. Even car sharing would help. But people have got used to cheap fuel and now they're not happy that they're being asked to pay for a greater share of the damage they (and me!) are doing.

Stevo_666

Bails, have a look at this table which shows how much of the cost of a litre of petrol is the tax:
http://www.abd.org.uk/taxtable.htm
I don't know of anything else in everyday usage that is taxed as heavily apart from fags, and they aren't really necessary for anyone. Not even booze gets taxed as heavily. Petrol is an everyday necessity for some people, or at least would be seriously inconvenient to go without it.

So yes, we are getting reamed on petrol price big time. It's not much use to bleating about the 'cost to society' if there isn't a widely available alternative that people can afford.

Anonymous

Bails, you have to be completely out of your frigging tree to say...

It's putting a tax on something that, a lot of the time, is actually a luxury

An 80+% tax on fuel is reasonable? REALLY? On something that for a ton of people is NOT a luxury?
Where the frigging fugg is the tax on designer clothes, posh foods, Hell, even tax on food imports, when the same food can be sourced right here in our country?

And as for this attitude of "everyone should commute by bike", it's just not practical for the vast majority of people. Folks have to carry things to work, folks aren't confident on a bike to be vying for survival against traffic.
Plus, on top of all this, you're talking about commuting. There are people who use vehicles for their work. Plumbers, sparkies, builders, bus drivers, Haulage, taxis - what the hell are they meant to be doing? The same "luxury" fuel tax you reckon should get people to use public transport is actually bringing public transport to it's knees.

bails87, I will never, ever agree with you on this one. To the extent that there is just absolutely no point even trying to discuss it.
So for that reason, i will not bother.

Kiwi Kranker

bails87 wrote:

[ But people have got used to cheap fuel and now they're not happy that they're being asked to pay for a greater share of the damage they (and me!) are doing.

I am sorry and I dont mean to be rude but that comment is laughable.

I think if people actually believed that the tax was going towards research, environmental investment or in some way to balancing the effects of oil there would be a lot less complaining. Frankly sweet FA ends up on cutting edge transport projects or energy research and that has people p!ssed. All the average Joe can see is that they are getting hit in the pocket again and they feel like they are seeing nothing from it other than an increase in financial pain.

I dont need another tax for me to pay more for the potential damage I cause, that already happens through the amount of fuel I use, in my case I have a thirsty car but I pay accordingly and I accept that through the choice I made. ( I ride my bike every day to work though.. )

As I said, if we could see a tangible result of the tax/fuel price increase I for one would probably be happy to go along with it.

Maybe the answer is to force fat people to ride bikes....we could have a BMI index versus distance from work/shops ratio to see if youre allowed to take the car. Reduces obesity. fuel use, demand on the NHS and unsightly muffin tops in the summer. WIn win!

Not sure about how to apply it to skinny people though.......lazy skinny people would fall through the cracks :roll:

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Bails, you have to be completely out of your frigging tree to say...

It's putting a tax on something that, a lot of the time, is actually a luxury

An 80+% tax on fuel is reasonable? REALLY? On something that for a ton of people is NOT a luxury?
Where the frigging fugg is the tax on designer clothes, posh foods, Hell, even tax on food imports, when the same food can be sourced right here in our country?

Something like a quarter of all journeys are less than 2 miles. I don't know how many individual car journeys are made each year in the UK, but I'd say 25% of that figure is 'a lot'.

I agree, those things should be taxed, but if they were then the people buying Luis Vuitton handbags, or whatever, would spend their money on something else with less tax, because those things are fairly elastic in demand, fuel isn't. Because a lot of people are lazy, unfortunately, by deterring the lazy people from driving everywhere you also hit the people who genuinely need to drive to places.

And as for this attitude of "everyone should commute by bike", it's just not practical for the vast majority of people. Folks have to carry things to work, folks aren't confident on a bike to be vying for survival against traffic.

Nowhere have I said everyone should commute by bike, it was a tongue in cheek suggestion that a keen cyclist might want to do a relatively short commute (30 mins by bike, probably) on a bike.

Plus, on top of all this, you're talking about commuting. There are people who use vehicles for their work. Plumbers, sparkies, builders, bus drivers, Haulage, taxis - what the hell are they meant to be doing?

Keep using fuel, I didn't say no-one should use any, just that it would be easy for plenty of people to use less. If you keep turning my arguments into distorted strawman statements then it's hard to have a sensible discussion

bails87, I will never, ever agree with you on this one. To the extent that there is just absolutely no point even trying to discuss it.
So for that reason, i will not bother.[/quote]
Fair enough. I have no problem with someone having a different opinion, as long as it's a good, clean fight

Stevo 666 wrote:

Bails, have a look at this table which shows how much of the cost of a litre of petrol is the tax:
http://www.abd.org.uk/taxtable.htm
I don't know of anything else in everyday usage that is taxed as heavily apart from fags, and they aren't really necessary for anyone. Not even booze gets taxed as heavily. Petrol is an everyday necessity for some people, or at least would be seriously inconvenient to go without it.

I don't know how much damage alcohol does, or if the duty covers the cost of the damage.

But.....nowhere have I said people should go completely without petrol. Just reduce how much they use!

So yes, we are getting reamed on petrol price big time. It's not much use to bleating about the 'cost to society' if there isn't a widely available alternative that people can afford.

"Bleating". Nice. Anyway, the point is, when I go and fill up my car with diesel (well, the tank, not the car itself), the damage to the air/roads/health etc is being subsidised by other taxpayers, who don't necessarily drive. I don't see how you can just dismiss it by calling it bleating.

Again, I'm not saying "use no petrol", I'm saying people can very easily use less. Just the other night, I was out on the MTB, riding on the road to link up some trails. A driver came out of her drive, followed me for a bit, then overtook, and pulled into some shops. Total distance driven; at most 750 yards.

I did the bit of trail and was heading back up the other way when I saw her walking out of the shop and get in her car, Again, she caught up with me, then she sat behind me until she then pulled back into her drive. That's the kind of thing people should stop, no need for hydrogen fuel cells or solar powered cars, just walk it instead.

bails87

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

bails87 wrote:

[ But people have got used to cheap fuel and now they're not happy that they're being asked to pay for a greater share of the damage they (and me!) are doing.

I am sorry and I dont mean to be rude but that comment is laughable.

I think if people actually believed that the tax was going towards research, environmental investment or in some way to balancing the effects of oil there would be a lot less complaining. Frankly sweet FA ends up on cutting edge transport projects or energy research and that has people p!ssed. All the average Joe can see is that they are getting hit in the pocket again and they feel like they are seeing nothing from it other than an increase in financial pain.

But you could argue that it's not the goverments job to develop new fuels.

It is the goverment's job to provide healthcare to people, through the NHS, if they're ill/been injured as a result of fuel/car use. The cost of cutting people out of crashed cars and then treating those injuries and diseases is greater than the revenue from fuel tax. If they put the tax up then they could do research into new fuels or build more roads.

By all means argue that roads should be funded from general taxation even more than they are already, in order to provide good infrastructure to help business, that's a viewpoint that I can understand.

I dont need another tax for me to pay more for the potential damage I cause, that already happens through the amount of fuel I use,

I genuinely don't understand this. It sounds like you understand the premise of fuel duty (internalising the externalities), So I'm not sure what the disagreement is.

bearfraser

public transport is all very well but its so expensive in this part of the world that you seriously have to wonder who is taking the p### , i fully appreciate that they have to make it pay , but if we want to get poeple out out of their cars it should be worth our while to hop on the bus/train . Can commute by bike but havnt been well for a few months ,hopefully soon .


Remenber to take your bikerack/bars off the car to save a fortune in fuel.

1.6 Diesel £30 VED 65mpg

Thewaylander

The cost of alcahol to society is much much higher.

The amount of police force out in most cities on friday night is there to deal with drunks, people with bad dliver disease from drinking very very expensive, there is an enviromental cost to fuel but it's not hugely financialy booze is expensive to the country and so is smoking to the NHS. Tax t hard as you like If i want to smoke i will pay it, that is a pure luxury.

Fuel i need there is no public transport to work, no cycle lanes and i have to pass over 50 and 70 MPH duel carriage ways sorry no i'm not commuting on those they aren't safe for a 25-30 mph bike rider to be on.

The tax on fuel is silly. 7 years ago when i started driving after uni i was paying 70p a litre htats doubled in that time.. my damnwell income hasn't lol and it's easily the biggest expense most people have.

Stevo_666

Bails,

You're missing the point here. Using less gas is a good idea where you can and a lot of us with the choice do that - me included. But a lot of people don't have the choice and they are getting shafted.

I've already mentioned it is taxed more highly than anything else except fags and that's too much, It's not taxed because the proceeds go to repair the damage or whatever, it's becuase the powers that be think they can get away with it (and use the excuse that it's what everyone else is doing)

PS: the number of people on here disagreeing with you should give you a hint....

Kiwi Kranker

[quote="bails87But you could argue that it's not the goverments job to develop new fuels.

It is the goverment's job to provide healthcare to people, through the NHS, if they're ill/been injured as a result of fuel/car use. The cost of cutting people out of crashed cars and then treating those injuries and diseases is greater than the revenue from fuel tax. If they put the tax up then they could do research into new fuels or build more roads.

By all means argue that roads should be funded from general taxation even more than they are already, in order to provide good infrastructure to help business, that's a viewpoint that I can understand.

I dont need another tax for me to pay more for the potential damage I cause, that already happens through the amount of fuel I use,

I genuinely don't understand this. It sounds like you understand the premise of fuel duty (internalising the externalities), So I'm not sure what the disagreement is.[/quote]

Firstly I would dearly love to see the figures that show that the revenue from fuel tax is less than the cost of attending accidents and directly attributal diseases. I would also like to see what my car tax goes on (bend over and pay £460 a year).

Secondly what I need to clarify with my earlier comment about how much fuel I have to buy is that we forget about the above road tax,why should we be taken to the cleaners with a tax on fuel and then be taxed again when I am already paying a higher price for what I drive? This is getting off the original topic so that argument is for another day ...my fault for that one.... :oops: I was on a general 'tax on tax' rant there.....


Thirdly I am not saying that roads should be funded, I am saying transport projects should be funded, this needs to be multi modal, roads, public transport and so on, a personal powered vehicle will never go away even if it is a horse and cart....incidentally when would that become a luxury?

I actually dont think the Government should develop new fuels but they need to encourage the institutions/individuals which could lead to a new fuel, not business but Universities etc. We cannot rely on energy companies as we do not live in such an idealistic world that they will ride in and save the day.

Thewaylander

They do.

They subsidise alot of schemes for lower emissions int he power industry.

alfablue

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

[ is less than the cost of attending accidents and directly attributal diseases. I would also like to see what my car tax goes on (bend over and pay £460 a year).

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions. You can get a car that is zero rated for VED if you choose. VED is not hypothecated, it is not for the roads, and whilst I don't suppose you believe this, it does not mean those that pay it "own" the roads (seems to be a common misconception).

The UK government is committed to reduce our carbon footprint, they say "Around 20 per cent of the yearly emissions cuts between now and 2020 will be achieved by cleaning up the way people in the UK travel", one way of doing this is to increase the costs of "dirty" transport - fuel tax and VED do this. If its hurting, it may well be working (or more likely, if it didn't hurt it wouldn't work - even on this enlightened forum you can see a strong attachment to the internal combustion engine, people will not sever this deep rooted bond willingly).

Thewaylander

alfablue wrote:

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

[ is less than the cost of attending accidents and directly attributal diseases. I would also like to see what my car tax goes on (bend over and pay £460 a year).

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions. You can get a car that is zero rated for VED if you choose. VED is not hypothecated, it is not for the roads, and whilst I don't suppose you believe this, it does not mean those that pay it "own" the roads (seems to be a common misconception).

The UK government is committed to reduce our carbon footprint, they say "Around 20 per cent of the yearly emissions cuts between now and 2020 will be achieved by cleaning up the way people in the UK travel", one way of doing this is to increase the costs of "dirty" transport - fuel tax and VED do this. If its hurting, it may well be working (or more likely, if it didn't hurt it wouldn't work - even on this enlightened forum you can see a strong attachment to the internal combustion engine, people will not sever this deep rooted bond willingly).

This is a joke transport doesn't even add up to 20% of our CO2 output lol

Kiwi Kranker

Thewaylander wrote:

They do.

They subsidise alot of schemes for lower emissions int he power industry.

I really am crap at developing my argument...I know they already invest but what they dont do is publicise their success very well. Let the people know what their fuel tax has got them and I am sure some of the complaints will die away.

I am however a firm believer that fuel tax should not go in the general slush fund. It should be a defined fund which has allowable uses regarding construction projects and energy use for the movement of people and goods . It should not end up paying for a lard sculpting kit for the local arts development society or for funding the local Ancient Egyptian underwater pot making society.

Oh and before someone pipes up here is my disclaimer: I am not knocking the arts or I do appreciate them it was simply an example of what not to spend fuel tax on.

Thewaylander

hehe

They subsidise priate companies to do the work, so they can't really advertise it hugely. as they don't produce results. which is crap. i get what you mean though.

alfablue

Thewaylander wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

[ is less than the cost of attending accidents and directly attributal diseases. I would also like to see what my car tax goes on (bend over and pay £460 a year).

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions. You can get a car that is zero rated for VED if you choose. VED is not hypothecated, it is not for the roads, and whilst I don't suppose you believe this, it does not mean those that pay it "own" the roads (seems to be a common misconception).

The UK government is committed to reduce our carbon footprint, they say "Around 20 per cent of the yearly emissions cuts between now and 2020 will be achieved by cleaning up the way people in the UK travel", one way of doing this is to increase the costs of "dirty" transport - fuel tax and VED do this. If its hurting, it may well be working (or more likely, if it didn't hurt it wouldn't work - even on this enlightened forum you can see a strong attachment to the internal combustion engine, people will not sever this deep rooted bond willingly).

This is a joke transport doesn't even add up to 20% of our CO2 output lol

er, that was extracted from the section on Transport, so 20% of emissions from Transport. Not a joke, maybe should have included the whole document. The aim is to reduce total emissions by 34% of 1990 levels by 2020.

Thewaylander

That is a scary thing.

Actuall car emmisions aren't responsible for the largets proportion of CO2 alot of it is power generation and so on. Always new they were a clueless buch.

And when i said it was a joke a meant the actaully goverment statement was mate just make sure ya know not having a go at you.

Kiwi Kranker

alfablue wrote:

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

[ is less than the cost of attending accidents and directly attributal diseases. I would also like to see what my car tax goes on (bend over and pay £460 a year).

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions. You can get a car that is zero rated for VED if you choose. VED is not hypothecated, it is not for the roads, and whilst I don't suppose you believe this, it does not mean those that pay it "own" the roads (seems to be a common misconception).

The UK government is committed to reduce our carbon footprint, they say "Around 20 per cent of the yearly emissions cuts between now and 2020 will be achieved by cleaning up the way people in the UK travel", one way of doing this is to increase the costs of "dirty" transport - fuel tax and VED do this. If its hurting, it may well be working (or more likely, if it didn't hurt it wouldn't work - even on this enlightened forum you can see a strong attachment to the internal combustion engine, people will not sever this deep rooted bond willingly).

I certainly dont believe I own the roads.

VED, road tax, car tax whatever you want to call it, why can this duty not come from fuel cost before we even see the fuel and have tax added? Not only will you have a constant VED revenue stream you can sing its high praises when we actually see something from it (and I hope we do). Certainly we would have a flatter and simpler taxation/duty structure with regard to fuel costs and vehicle duty.

Yes I absolutely love my car and I want it to burn the fuel for as long as I can afford to keep all 400 plus horsepower running. Ideally it would run on on something clean but until that day I will happily ride during the week and in the weekend grin all the way to the fuel pump where I will then scowl before pressing the start button and grinning until my next encounter with said fuel pump.

Right I am off to drive very fast and use huge amounts of fuel around Europe.....with my road bike on the roof for when I get to the Pyrenees and balance my Karma...

alfablue

Thewaylander wrote:

That is a scary thing.

Actuall car emmisions aren't responsible for the largets proportion of CO2 alot of it is power generation and so on. Always new they were a clueless buch.

Yes, the document covers all sources of CO2 emissions, including power gen, I just qouted the bit that related to transport :?

And when i said it was a joke a meant the actaully goverment statement was mate just make sure ya know not having a go at you.

sure, no prob.

Stevo_666

alfablue wrote:

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions.

Call it what you want - in reality it's road tax. If you don't pay it, you can't drive a car on the road. Simple really.

Anonymous

Also, you don't pay it if it's a purely off road vehicle.

Briggo

Stevo 666 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions.

Call it what you want - in reality it's road tax. If you don't pay it, you can't drive a car on the road. Simple really.

Environmental tax? My backside its environmental, its the government renaming the old car tax when emmissions wasn't in the public eye to please the masses and make it look like they're doing something about saving the planet, when in reality as mentioned car emissions is a fraction of the problem.

They moved some tiny cars that cause no damage to the roads into a low or no tax paying threshold to make themselves look awesome.

As Stevo said its car tax and that generally pays for the wasted beaucracy in this country, plain and simple.