The rising price of petrol, when will it end?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Sure - but I was taking particular issue with NSB's justification for petrol being taxed at 58% because it's a "luxury".

It's impossible to determine the actual impact of buying and using cars on "the rest of society" because it is impossible to put a price on the benefits (and in my view, bonkers to try a put a price on the "costs"). That won't stop some loon linking to all sorts of studies, but it's all rather back-of-fag-packet and by no means convincing.

Keeping a house warm is a "luxury" which uses power (and the associated "impact" on society that power generation has), yet is taxed at 5%.

I think we're getting to the phase in the debate cycle where I just have to keep correcting what W1 has assumed I've said.

Driving is a luxury in London. You don't need to drive anywhere, public transport and cycling is fine. On average, petrol duty is 2.3% of someone's disposable income. Complaining about the cost of petrol when you live in London is a true first world problem. I'd understand if DDD lived in some rural backwater with no public transport, but thats not the case.

Edit: Keeping a house warm is a luxury? What planet are you on W1 :P

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sure - but I was taking particular issue with NSB's justification for petrol being taxed at 58% because it's a "luxury".

It's impossible to determine the actual impact of buying and using cars on "the rest of society" because it is impossible to put a price on the benefits (and in my view, bonkers to try a put a price on the "costs"). That won't stop some loon linking to all sorts of studies, but it's all rather back-of-fag-packet and by no means convincing.

Keeping a house warm is a "luxury" which uses power (and the associated "impact" on society that power generation has), yet is taxed at 5%.

I think we're getting to the phase in the debate cycle where I just have to keep correcting what W1 has assumed I've said.

Driving is a luxury in London. You don't need to drive anywhere, public transport and cycling is fine. On average, petrol duty is 2.3% of someone's disposable income. Complaining about the cost of petrol when you live in London is a true first world problem. I'd understand if DDD lived in some rural backwater with no public transport, but thats not the case.

Edit: Keeping a house warm is a luxury? What planet are you on W1 :P

But fuel costs are high everywhere - not just London. So taxing it at 58% because it's a luxury is not justifiable for massive swathes of the country.

What do you suggest - London weighting for fuel prices?

Aparently you're in "fuel poverty" if you can't keep a house at 18 degrees C. Poverty my harris. If energy was taxed at 58% I bet we'd use a lot less of it....

W1

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

bails87

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

But ome of them are fixed costs. If I drive 100,000 miles a year I'll pay the same VED and MOT fees as if I drove 10 miles a year.

The average cost per mile and the marginal cost of driving an extra mile are two very different things.

gbsahne001

14 pence a litre in Qatar

MonkeyMonster

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

W1

bails87 wrote:

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

But ome of them are fixed costs. If I drive 100,000 miles a year I'll pay the same VED and MOT fees as if I drove 10 miles a year.

The average cost per mile and the marginal cost of driving an extra mile are two very different things.

Indeed. But it's not just the cost of the petrol, whichever way you look at it (unless blindfolded - not recommened for driving).

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

But fuel costs are high everywhere - not just London. So taxing it at 58% because it's a luxury is not justifiable for massive swathes of the country.

What do you suggest - London weighting for fuel prices?

I honestly don't care. I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country. And I wouldn't make that change in circumstances unless I could pay for it. Even then, I know people who aren't on vast wages who live in the country and drive every day. They aren't living in poverty.

Honestly, the only reason why DDD made this thread was because high tax is always a popular issue to talk about and people like to drive because its convenient. Next week he'll make a post about stamp duty or income tax.

W1 wrote:

Aparently you're in "fuel poverty" if you can't keep a house at 18 degrees C. Poverty my harris. If energy was taxed at 58% I bet we'd use a lot less of it....

And there would be hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn't be able to keep their houses at double figures let alone 18C for several months of the year. Have you ever lived in a house you couldn't heat before? Can you not see how that would be a pretty awful situation to be in? Hardly comparable to not being able to afford a car to drive to essex a couple times a week. I don't even know why I'm responding to this point. :roll:

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

Getting more and more expensive to get to it though.

dodgy

W1 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

This thread isn't about the un-avoidable costs associated with motoring, such as insurance, VED, depreciation etc. It's about fuel costs, one of the only aspects you have control of, you drive less - you pay less.

So again, fuel is cheap, it certainly is if I can take a carload of people to Edinburgh and back for just over a tenner each.

...which you can't if you factor in running costs of those miles, depreciation and a proportion of the "fixed costs". Unless you want to delude yourself as to the real cost.

Sigh...

But this thread is about fuel specifically. Of course there are costs attributed to using your car. But this thread is about the direct costs relating to usage of fuel.

The OP wasn't complaining about how much his servicing, VED, insurance, depreciation was costing him. No, he was complaining about the increase in costs associated with fuel. Before fuel was the price it is now, he was still servicing his car, he was still losing money on it and he was still paying VED. Only now it's significantly more expensive becuase of the rise in fuel prices.

Can't believe I had to explain that :roll:

Change 'he' for 'she' as appropriate above.

FoldingJoe

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

You reckon!!?!

I'd wager we are already past peak oil production - globally.

TheStone

FoldingJoe wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

You reckon!!?!

I'd wager we are already past peak oil production - globally.

Depends on who you believe, but it does seem every time we hit 'peak oil', they find a massive amount more. One day they won't.

As notsoblue says, it does get more expensive to get to, but the basic cost is still quite low.

The real question is demand.
- Will we find reasonable alternatives? They can't be that far away.
- Will population continue to rise? Looking at the dramatic fall in the birth rate, this is not certain.

rjsterry

Under heated houses cause a myriad of health problems, not to mention deterioration to the building fabric itself. Moisture from habitation - cooking, drying clothes, bathing - condenses on internal faces of external walls and windows, which will be several degrees colder than the room temperature. This moisture will then encourage mould growth, which harms the occupants and damages the fabric of the building. There are already plenty of people - generally in badly built social housing - that can't heat their home properly in winter. I doubt anyone here actually keeps their home at 18˚C - it's quite fresh.

MonkeyMonster

TheStone wrote:

FoldingJoe wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Pufftmw wrote:

Rising price of petrol will end when the oil runs out - simples

that won't happen for many many many years - there is a lot of the stuff down there.

You reckon!!?!

I'd wager we are already past peak oil production - globally.

Depends on who you believe, but it does seem every time we hit 'peak oil', they find a massive amount more. One day they won't.

As notsoblue says, it does get more expensive to get to, but the basic cost is still quite low.

The real question is demand.
- Will we find reasonable alternatives? They can't be that far away.
- Will population continue to rise? Looking at the dramatic fall in the birth rate, this is not certain.

Dad is a geologist and taught many of the head guys at BP, Shell etc - there is a lot out there and getting it will get more expensive but won't run out for quite a while indeed.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

Aparently you're in "fuel poverty" if you can't keep a house at 18 degrees C. Poverty my harris. If energy was taxed at 58% I bet we'd use a lot less of it....

"Fuel poverty" is about how much of your income it costs to keep your house at that temp. More than 10% and you are deemed fuel poor. Why does this seem so ridiculous to you?

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Dad is a geologist and taught many of the head guys at BP, Shell etc - there is a lot out there and getting it will get more expensive but won't run out for quite a while indeed.

Sure, it'll be quite a while, but like you say, it will get more expensive. If people are complaining about fuel prices now, imagine what it'll be like in 10-20 years.

TheStone

Paulie W wrote:

W1 wrote:

"Fuel poverty" is about how much of your income it costs to keep your house at that temp. More than 10% and you are deemed fuel poor. Why does this seem so ridiculous to you?

All these measures are a bit odd though. You could live in a massive £5m house in the country which would take some heating, but doesn't mean you're in poverty.

Our definition of child poverty is living in a house with 60% of the median income. It's a relative measure. Everyone could get poorer, but if the distribution got smaller, you'd have less people in poverty!

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think I may have to. The next big thing is nursery prices. I can really begin to see how people are priced out of working. It would be cheaper for me not to drive at all and if I earned £65,000 (rough estimate) it would make more sense for ms DDD not to work at all, even though that is less than our combined income.

You see I think there is a very good basis for people to be priced out of childcare, if all those families with 2 people working dropped to one working, we would have no unemployment AT ALL, whatever level of unemployment we have now, the level of employment is far higher than any previous boom years due to the number of familys with 2 employees.

What do we get out of both partners working, bigger mortgages and due to house prices being pushed up by the extra income, remove that income and house prices would be no more or less affordable for most families as the house prices would correct back down - of course rental prices reflect purchase price so would drop as well.

Radical, yes, painful, yes, true.... well think about it for a bit!

Simon

That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. If Ms DDD stopped working it wouldn't reduce my need and desire for a THAT house or, assuming I get paid a job covering the money she would have bought in, my ability to afford it.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

In DDD's case it *is* a luxury. A man of his means should be able to afford a drive up to Essex a couple times a week with his son. Its not like he has to use his car to get to work.

Actually, I could concieve of no other practical (both physically or practical) way I could get to some of the places I need to get to in Essex without having a car. I also technically work in Essex and there are some places that I need to get to that are only really accessible by car.

notsoblue

I think its probably a good thing that as a nation we're this sensitive to poverty.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country.

Wait until you have a young family.

You can get by without a car, but having one makes life a lot easier. ANd I'd bet that your partner will categorise it as something she needs.

graeme_s-2

rjsterry wrote:

I doubt anyone here actually keeps their home at 18˚C - it's quite fresh.

I have our thermostat set to 18˚C, and very rarely turn it up. We've just moved into a newly built house though, and it's so much warmer than our old Victorian terrace it's unbelievable, so that might be why we find 18˚C plenty warm enough.

soundninjauk

I live in a new build flat, and it just sits at 21 degrees the whole year round. I've lived there for well over 1.5 years, and I've turned the radiators on every so often to check they still work, and that's it. It's glorious.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

suzyb wrote:

I thought petrol down South was cheaper than up here. I only paid 133p on Monday.

Nope petrol in the South (especially London) is very expensive. My £1.39 was at a Tesco petrol station in Wimbledon.

Oop North the petrol is so much cheaper last time I went to Coventry I filled my tank to the brim, seemed rude not to.

Haven't seen a price anywhere near £1.33 since early last year.

And what has the price of petrol up north got to do with Coventry?

graeme_s-2

spen666 wrote:

And what has the price of petrol up north got to do with Coventry?

I like to think there are people who live in Brighton who refer to anywhere that doesn't involve getting their feet wet as "Oop North".

DonDaddyD

I need my car. Not because I live in London but because I sometimes need to drive to places that is only accessible by car. Others may choose to bless their parents with the presence of their Grandchildren once or twice a year, I don't. Not my values and not theirs. Also the distance doesn't matter, it's the accessibility of getting to places like Harlow, Epping, North Weald, Ongar and Chelmsford in a practical reasonable way from South Wimbledon with a young family. I choose not to drive to work, yes. I work in Essex and as I said we have family and friends there so there are occasions, rare, where it is more feasible to drive to said location than get public transport.

Now I freely admit that nipping from Wimbledon to Norbury (where my parents are) by car is a luxury, but I've already paid the large fees from other journeys so that is largely residual effect and benefit of having a car.

Someone said people choose to work far from home. What bollocks. There are more and more people living in and around London and there are only a finite amount of jobs. I chose nothing, if i did ever get a choice it would be a lovely big building somewhere in the centre. No, I was faced with redundancy and was offered a job I could get to that paid enough to soften the blow of the distance. I did so because I provide for my family.

DonDaddyD

Continued...

But this isn't about me, it's about fuel.

Now, yes, not owning a car is the cheapest option. It isn't always an option. Public transport is great when you are trying to get around London, certainly a better experience when not trying to carry a three month old baby, but people do it.

But irrespective of whether you have a car or do not own a car, whether you choose to take public transport inspite of the car it doesn't change the physical price of fuel, which is expensive and the topic of thread.

Some people need to buy fuel and it is expensive.

So what can reasonably be done. W1 has been touching on this without the need to get all personal. Reduce tax.

rjsterry

Graeme_S wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I doubt anyone here actually keeps their home at 18˚C - it's quite fresh.

I have our thermostat set to 18˚C, and very rarely turn it up. We've just moved into a newly built house though, and it's so much warmer than our old Victorian terrace it's unbelievable, so that might be why we find 18˚C plenty warm enough.

Indeed. Thermal comfort is governed by air temperature AND surface temperature of walls. With solid brick Victorian walls (which thermally are roughly 10 times worse than modern construction), if it's -1˚C outside and 18˚C inside, the inside face of the walls might be below 10˚C. This will feel much colder than the modern house where the internal wall temp might be 17˚C. You can also see why condensation is such a problem in old houses

DonDaddyD

Graeme_S wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I doubt anyone here actually keeps their home at 18˚C - it's quite fresh.

I have our thermostat set to 18˚C, and very rarely turn it up. We've just moved into a newly built house though, and it's so much warmer than our old Victorian terrace it's unbelievable, so that might be why we find 18˚C plenty warm enough.

When Ms DDD told me that the baby's room needs to be kept at 18˚C I was amazed at how cold that actually was. I thought the advice was wrong.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't have a car. The only reason I can think of that I would need a car is if I worked or lived somewhere in the country.

Wait until you have a young family.

You can get by without a car, but having one makes life a lot easier. ANd I'd bet that your partner will categorise it as something she needs.

+1.