Income loss from lower duty could be replaced by congestion charging in town centres and tolls on the motorways.

bikebouy – Member
Nope I don’t think it should have a subsidy at all

Road transport isn’t subsidised at all. It’s “invested in”.

Public transport is subsidised.

Remember: roads = investment; railway lines = subsidy.

😀

You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.

You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.

You really have to ask why tax has to be raised?

Are you Greek?

I’m hoping he’s troll.

What car do you drive bikebouy?

You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance

Well until roads are built and maintained from charitable donations, what else do you suggest?

Taxation massively restricts economic growth

why no just suspend all taxation and borrow enough money to cover all government spending for the next five years and pay it back afterwards?

Basic Keynsian economics, innit 😉

You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.

Perhaps a more thought provoking question would be

You tell me why the need to tax it at over 100% in the first instance.

Are there any other products in the marketplace that attract such a high tax levy?

I’m not suggesting that the price / tax is right or wrong – but we do seem to have become locked in to this system with no reasonable alternative.

There was talk on the BBC website the other day about increasing taxes on electric / low emissions cars – because of the simple imperative to bolster falling tax revenues from declining fuel sales…

… Now that truly is bonkers.

I think Ocean Finance are doing some deals at the mo.

People could only take jobs in the places they work, but that would actually hurt the economy I feel. Workforce mobility is important in economic terms. It allows the right people to get the jobs they are good at, and allows people who don’t have jobs to get new ones easily. That is, without having to uproot families or force one partner to quit.

It also spreads the money out a bit – all those people who live in small towns and work in big cities bring a lot of money back to that small town, which in turn generates busineses and opportunities for the local young people to make a living and a life there.

What we really need is to really focus on remote working. I’ve got to go to London on Thursday to start a project that might take six weeks. Hopefully they’ll let me take the work off-site – but really they should, it’d save a lot of fuel being burned.

But low taxation to people who expect first-world services creates:

And not bothering to pay tax at all leads to

Is this making sense?

You tell me why the need to tax it at over 100% in the first instance.

Because the whole system has evolved over time rather than been planned. Fuel tax cannot be isolated from the rest of the road/transport system (VED, VAT, Tolls etc…), but everyone thinks it can!

Are there any other products in the marketplace that attract such a high tax levy?

No Troll, you should know me by now.

I drive a Prius, a small van and a SMART. What has that got to do with anything, really. Are you going to pick on my choice of vehicles? where I choose to drive and possibly my social life to ? I cycle to work (well no, the station actually) then catch the train in. Can’t see the problem with any of that, nor should you. I’ve also not asked such comments about your positioning, what you drive, no need to do that and sorry but I don’t really care TBH.

I see you’re getting heated and frustrated by my comments. But sorry, I’ve seen the arguments, ran companies with fleets, seen the direct and indirect impacts of this over the years. Seen local hospitals close to fund a huge mahooosive new build hospital development for it to be underused and 2/3rds of it close yet the infirm and elderly have to drive to the hospitals, in cars that they can barely afford and to see mahooosive amounts of money chucked at integration in the NHS for it all to be shelved after muchos moolah being spent on it.

No, not a troll, far from it.

I like that I don’t think like you guys.

But please, don;t attack me or belittle my opinions because thay are different to yours.

but, we’ve seen this situation developing for what? – 40 years? – it’s not as if anyone can claim to be surprised. That they’ve not had time to adapt.

What happens if you buy a house in a nice village which has everything you need and a regular bus service to the nearest town, but the village shops go out of business because Tesco built a superstore ten miles away, and the local council cuts the subsidy to the local bus company so they stop the service?

There are factors operating at scales beyond the control of individuals which mean adapting is not possible.

You’re looking at this in a very blinkered manner.

Why, in the first place, have people been able to live far away from where they work and shop? Better transport, yes?
200-300 years ago, people travelled far less becasue it was more difficult, expensive, slow and really only for the rich.
Then, as transport improved, peole we able to commute and travel more. At first bicycles and motorbikes were cheap transport for the masses. Indeed, this cheap transport was very good for the gene pool!
As cars got cheper and fuel was plentiful, people could move further away from work and shops, transport things more easily and in a shorter time. It was cheap, it was convenient, it was fast.

But now we’re seeing the price of that cheap transport starting to rise for various reasons, and it’s only ever going to get worse.

Going foreward 200 years, it may be that as a race, humans will have to travel less becasue of these rising costs. It’s no use sticking our heads in the sand and saying “I live 10/50/100 miles away from such-and-such, something has to be done” In the end we may be forced to work where we live or live where we work.
I don’t think it’ll go back to the same as 300 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that many, or even most, people will have to change their lifestyles, like it or lump it, and not live “in a nice village” anymore….

Just food for thought, like..!

It also spreads the money out a bit – all those people who live in small towns and work in big cities bring a lot of money back to that small town, which in turn generates busineses and opportunities for the local young people to make a living and a life there.

I thought we’d already established that all the shops had shut in the small town and everyone drives out of town and over to Tesco 🙂

Peyote – you’d have an argument if fuel duty was hypothedcated to the funding of the road programme, but it isn’t.

In fact, fuel duty alone is a massive income generator for the state – wait out for figures.

edit –

Don’t forget – the biggest argument against using fuel duty as a income generator for government is the fact that its so regressive.

Wunundred…miles per gallon? Is possible?

In the end we may be forced to work where we live or live where we work

This is like a Möbius Strip of a conundrum…

But please, don;t attack me or belittle my opinions because thay are different to yours.

You’ve already told us that there is nothing that will change your mind. That tells us you’re not prepared to base your opinion on evidence. Therefore, we attach very little value to your opinion.

and not live “in a nice village” anymore….

So.. you want to destroy rural economies and pack even more people in to giant conurbations?

In fact, fuel duty alone is a massive income generator for the state – wait out for figures.

Only if you exclude external costs.

Because the whole system has evolved over time rather than been planned

Exactly.

And that is why the whole system needs to be re-cast.

At some time in the next 10 years we should, must, move to a norm where independent, individual travel is still easily available, low / zero emission vehicles are the norm, and the social, environmental and economic costs are all acceptable.

The current tax system is not compatible with that future – as we need the revenue generated by fossil fuelss. Applying the same revenue take to the requried new technologies will adversely stifle their adoption.

I don’t think it’ll go back to the same as 300 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that many, or even most, people will have to change their lifestyles, like it or lump it.

It’s also surprising how many people travel to a work place, when (in theory) they could do the same thing from home.
I mean I’m sat here in front of a PC typing. But in reality I don’t even have to really get out of bed to do that.
Save’s transport costs, less infrastructure, smaller company land space requirements, and a thick duvet would mean heating costs would drop too 🙂

Peyote – you’d have an argument if fuel duty was hypothedcated to the funding of the road programme, but it isn’t.

In fact, fuel duty alone is a massive income generator for the state – wait out for figures.

You’d have a point if I was referring to purely the road programme. As it is the transport network involves far more than just the physical infrastructure, it’s about the social, environmental and (dare I say it) financial costs. The advent of private motor vehicles brought huge amounts of economic benefits, but the economic costs are onlt recently being realised. Last I heard congestion alone cost £20 billion! All these have to be paid for somewhere along the line.

It’s not just about building and maintaining roads. Simplifying the whole system doesn’t work.

bikebouy – Member

Nope I don’t think it should have a subsidy at all.

so how are you going to fund it then?

How are you going to pay for road building?

How are you going to pay for enforcement of motoring law?

How are you going to pay for all the damage that driving does to buildings and people?

you really haven’t thought this thru at all have you.

So.. you want to destroy rural economies and pack even more people in to giant conurbations?

If fuel was expensive and red diesel was taxed we could go back to human labour in the countryside. Rural economies would thrive, particularly as we’d all have to buy local produce because shipping tomatoes from Israel and melons from Zambia would be too expensive! 🙂

Only if you exclude external costs.

And in turn, your argument relies on ignoring external costs, like the effect on business of being able to transport goods efficiently by road.

The advent of private motor vehicles brought huge amounts of economic benefits, but the economic costs are onlt recently being realised

Well, exactly – you have to weigh one against the other… but if you think the UK economy would be in a better state if we were still travelling by horse and cart…

for what its worth, UK government brings in a shade under thirty billion quid a year from fuel duty, plus VAT

Total transport infrastructire public spending is about 20 billion (including national roads, local roads, rail, public transport and air)

It’s also surprising how many people travel to a work place, when (in theory) they could do the same thing from home.

Yep, though most don’t have the choice.

I could do 90% of my job from home yet my employer will not allow it. I expect a lot of people are in this situation.

Same here. Where’s the trust eh? 😀

Doesn’t the rising cost of fuel duty have a serious knock on effect in terms of the prices of goods? It’s not just about the cost of John Smith getting to work but everything we buy that needs to be transported. Cycling to work, using public transport or walking are all laudable aims but simply not possible in the society we have created for ourselves. I agree that more efficient cars and thoughtful use of them is a wise move however the government is stiffing the taxpayer and British transport businesses by making the cost of fuel punitive.

At the very least the govenment should tax commercial vechiles at a lower rate than private transport in order that our transport businesses can compete with those from less havily taxed countries and lower the cost of our weekly shopppng.

I’ve got an interesting conundrum – what has been the effect of higher fuel prices on “destination” MTB trailcentres.

Have Glentress/CYB et al seen a change in user patterns?

Will higher fuel prices end the trailcentre revolution and see a resurgence in “local” trail networks…

rural economies would improve over time with more expensive fuel. Local shops would become viable again. rural workers would be able to afford housing near their work – commuters would not be able to drive up prices as commuting became non-viable

We have a really nasty phenomenon of the two way commuter – the people who live in rural areas commute to the towns and the people who work in rural areas commute from the towns

it took us 50 years to get to this dependence on cars – it will take 25 to wean us off it.

we will have to do this sometime as the era of cheap energy is over – energy will just continue to get more and more expensive. it would be better to do it in a planned manner anticipating need rather than being forced into it withut adequate planning.

Increase fuel duty – ratchet it ahead of inflation with the aim of a £5 litre in ten years.

use the money raised to subsidise the costs of reorganising our lifestyles away from teh dependence on cars.

It will also have the effect of driving up fuel consumption. If petrol was £5 a litre how long till a 100+mpg car?

I’m not sure that’s true. Total spend is 15bn, under 8 is on roads/railways

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/4/21/1271870382278/Factfile-UK-public-spendi-003.jpg

Revenue raised from motoring is much higher than that, revenue raised from railways is much lower than its share – hence roads are funded, railways are subsidised

Its given that fuel duty goes to the governments coffers, which is then used to provide us with the services we receive. So a question for all the moaners:

So without the fuel duty increase either something else will have to be taxed to replace the revenue, or government spending will have to be cut further than is already the case if this revenue is not forthcoming, so which do you chose and why? (Realistic answers only please, you might be right about MP’s expenses etc, but even if they receive nowt its not enough to replace the loss from fuel duty)

It will also have the effect of driving up fuel consumption. If petrol was £5 a litre how long till a 100+mpg car?

And if the UK were the ones to implement this, what would be the economic benefits of exporting ultra-efficient technology?

And in turn, your argument relies on ignoring external costs, like the effect on business of being able to transport goods efficiently by road.

Businesses are already able to transport goods efficiently within the current system. So what’s your point?

Zulu-Eleven – Member

for what its worth, UK government brings in a shade under thirty billion quid a year from fuel duty, plus VAT

Total transport infrastructire public spending is about 20 billion (including national roads, local roads, rail, public transport and air)

And the rest of the cost of motoring? What about that. Its all estimates but the cost of the deaths, injury and ill health from cars dwarfs the tax raised from fuel. The cost of enforcing motoring law is huge, then there is the capital cost – that bit of land your car sits on at the roadside belongs to the country as a whole, is worth a fair bit of money and is monopolised by you. I’d like you to pay for it please – i don’t like you cars cloggin up my roads making cycling more dangerous.

If private motoring paid its way it would be between 2 and 3 times as expensive. it carries a huge subsidy from the genral taxpayer

No Sir TJ it looks like I haven’t (in your eyes) done my homework, naughty me.. Bit of an odd tone to take with me that.

Still, you are welcome to your opinion.