Fuel duty cut will cost £500,000,000

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
State workers are supported by the efforts of the private sector - in the same way that the unemployed are. State workers provide services, but don't create anything of worth for their efforts in terms of monetary value - apart from Customs and Excise who raise tax (off the people who generate the wealth).
...and so having an educated, healthy, policed, etc society has no monetary value?
 

Linford

Guest
...and so having an educated, healthy, policed, etc society has no monetary value?

Educated to do what - get gainful employment filling the state created non jobs ?
Healthy - Lol
Policed - certainly wasn't the case when I had my bike nicked

I certainly do not think that the state system is giving good value for money. It is all tax , print the money for the shortfall and spend more than is coming in.

We are just a few years behind Greece - We should be net exporters of goods produced by our workers. We should encourage more foreign investment here. We are dying slowly on our feet. It all looks grim to me as long as people think that we can continue to effectively borrow our way out of debt. The debts are huge because amongst other things, the Gov thought that it could loan student grants which never get paid off, and then borrow money to employ all the students in admin jobs once they finished their degrees in Surfing or Star Wars
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
Without wear and tear, like tyres, brake pads etc.etc.etc. My car costs me just over £800/annum to stand on the front with VED, insurance, MOT and a service. At 40mpg it costs around 15.5p/mile in fuel. I drive around 5500 miles a year so total cost/mile is around 30p/mile or 40p if I factor in the odd tyre and brake pad replacement. THEN you need to add in the cost of the car less the trade in value when I sell it. Which last time I swapped cars came to around 19p per mile driven.

So the total cost for me is around 60p/mile. If I covered a much higher annual mileage the capital cost/mile would fall by a good chunk, although wear and tear costs would rise.
I would think that the true cost of running a 15 year old Golf would be higher still - if said Golf was only doing 2500 miles a year. And that, surely, is the point. It's the standing costs that are important if you order your life in a way that reduces car mileage. All this whinging about fuel costs begs the question - why are people burning this much fuel? Sort yourselves out!
 

DRHysted

Guru
Location
New Forest
Do they use private cars to deliver beer these days?

If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.

All companies pay the fuel cost at full price on purchase, they then submit to get the VAT back which can take between 3 and 6 months (this delay can badly effect cash flow). They do not get the duty back, they have to involve that in the cost of business. This means that if the duty increase happens during the course of a contract, the haulier has to absord the extra cost, reducing his profit margin (some owner drivers profit margin is as small as 1%, so don't get thinking that there is loads of money in it). If the duty increase happens out of contract then the haulier can increase his price to compansate, but he risks losing the contract to another firm.

If fuel duty goes up, then the price of everything must go up to keep the transport industry going, and believe me the transport industry is the life blood of this country, if they stop moving within 4 days this country would grind to a stop. Or be invaded by all the foriegn lorries that can fill their tanks with Belgium diesel and run for a week over here, paying no tax to support our country but taking the profits out.
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.

All companies pay the fuel cost at full price on purchase, they then submit to get the VAT back which can take between 3 and 6 months (this delay can badly effect cash flow). They do not get the duty back, they have to involve that in the cost of business. This means that if the duty increase happens during the course of a contract, the haulier has to absord the extra cost, reducing his profit margin (some owner drivers profit margin is as small as 1%, so don't get thinking that there is loads of money in it). If the duty increase happens out of contract then the haulier can increase his price to compansate, but he risks losing the contract to another firm.

If fuel duty goes up, then the price of everything must go up to keep the transport industry going, and believe me the transport industry is the life blood of this country, if they stop moving within 4 days this country would grind to a stop. Or be invaded by all the foriegn lorries that can fill their tanks with Belgium diesel and run for a week over here, paying no tax to support our country but taking the profits out.
sorry, but, other than the last sentence (which is an argument for some compensating duty to be exacted on trucks bringing diesel in to the country) this makes absolutely no sense. It is the duty of government to collect taxes. It is the duty of government to influence the way we do things via taxation - that's why a pack of fags costs seven quid. The simple, nay, crude, fact is that too much diesel is burnt delivering too much stuff. Taxation on diesel is an incentive to sourcing goods locally and discriminating between goods, including foodstuffs, moved small distances and large distances. The existence of ten thousand garden centres, breakfast cereals trucked two hundred miles, paint, frocks, beer and newspapers being moved across the country on the back of lorries is evidence that haulage is far too cheap. I'm not suggesting that haulage is a curse of the same order as the private car, and I'd happily see half or more of the junctions on to motorways and segregated trunk roads like the A14 shut to shift their use from personal to strategic, but, when it comes down to it, government has a duty to reduce haulage rather than increase it.
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
here's the skinny. Assets (as in assets with meaning and utility transcending the immediate) held by capitalism - new(ish). Assets held by rulers not so new.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Yes it did. Must have by definition.

End of.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2
Illogical. The private sector cannot logically exist without a universally accepted means of value transfer. Which means money. Which means a state.

Barter doesn't make a private sector.
 

GrumpyGregry

Here for rides.
If you think fuel duty effects only private cars, you are incorrectly informed.
As it happens I'm incredibly well informed.

Private cars are a curse on society. Hauliers a necessary evil, until such time as we reorganise our society.

The question(s) remain...

If you work on the fact that delivery vehicle fleets can achieve economy of scale, how much do we need to put fuel duty up by to give us an income tax cut that will be enough to pay for any increase in the price of goods caused by the duty rise?

Or in other words how do we price cars off the road without affecting our general standard of living?
 

Linford

Guest
No. It wasn't.

1948 - a Landrover ploughing a field ;)

418279.jpg
 
Top Bottom