Apparently fuel duty is lower than it was in 1999

#1
Having just looked at the on-going row about about fuel tax on sky news

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1317233,00.html

I came across the following quote
Some_knob_at_the_treasury said:
"Fuel duty is still 11% below its 1999 level, in real terms," it says.
The git fails to mentions the 17.5% vat that gets paid on fuel duty, still at least its an attempt at spin I just wonder who its supposed to fool?
 
#2
The Neu Arbeit representative on Newsnight this evening kept bleating on about how the Treasury take from fuel sales was proportionally declining, as if somehow that made rising fuel costs more acceptable to the electorate! :x Members of Parliament these days are seemingly more out of touch with the general public than in the 19th Century!
 
#3
They are having a 'Turkish.' I was driving into London on a daily basis in 1997 when the mob got in. I was paying 52p a litre for my 1989 Rangerover.

I've still got the Rover because I use it to tow horses and the odd Fordson tractor I pick up on pissed ebay.

A litre of petrol now stands at £1.15 and deisel a staggering £1.30.

And it's still on the march. Vote them out FFS.
 
#4
Any statement with the words "in real terms" is a labour lie.

I read that investors are causing rthe price jump, can anyone with more knowledge of this comment?
 
#5
It probably is lower than in 1999, but its the price of oil and the massive rise in the cost of fuel that has made it abundently clear that the Government needs to lower the taxes it takes from VAT/Vehicle Excise/Fuel Duty. I can't see it happening myself as Brown is desperate for money at the moment because he's spunked the budget on Northern Rock, quangos, the 2.7 billion tax cut, compensating those affected by 10p that IMO he'll cling to this MASSIVE revenue source for as long as possible. He'll probably bodge together some kind of sop to the truckers ("We feel your pain!" :roll: ) in the model of the 10p tax band which will mean that he can say that he's done something but will inevitably be full of holes and another nail in the coffin for this Government. Reaction to events, not planning for eventualities will never sustain.
 
#6
Hello,

the cost of fuel is only a small proportion of the price you pay at the pump.
The retailers margin is also tiny.
Most of what you pay is tax and duty.

However,fuel duty is set in pence per gallon (litres if you are a French),not as a percentage of the retail price.
As oil prices go up,the fuel component of the retail price increases while the tax and duty component stays the same.
Thus,as a proportion of the retail price,fuel duty goes down as the price of oil rises,even though you are paying the same duty on each gallon.

Hence,the government can at the same time have hugely increased fuel duty since 1999 and claim that the percentage of fuel duty has not increased in real terms.

If oil prices go down of course,fuel duty will increase in real terms.

This graph may explain it more clearly:

http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html

Most people might consider the proportion of duty they pay per gallon as of little more than academic interest,while the amount of duty is a very real term cost.

They might also wonder whether it is a sackable offence for a civil servant to attempt to mislead the people they are meant to be serving.
If not,perhaps it should be.


tangosix.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
eveyoz said:
Any statement with the words "in real terms" is a labour lie.

I read that investors are causing rthe price jump, can anyone with more knowledge of this comment?
Radio 4 tonight had an arab gentleman on stating
There is no cut back on demand you can find barrels of oil if you look
The commodities market buy them from us and set the price not Opec

What I gather from this then oil is litterally the same as gold you buy loads of it sit on it and relaease some to push up the price

Problem is Brown needs every penny he can to get out of the economic downturn and fill the gaps that he has created by chucking money about

Trouble is Brown and the rest of his gang may know the price of a barrel of oil he dosn't know how much it cost to fill a tank of petrol

Aslong as he and his ilk can claim everything ( he claims his Sky back) on expences then they will never have to worry about the price of things

Likewise by putting road tax up the only person he is hurting is the working man the very people Labour are meant to represent
If you can afford £70k for a Range Rover £500 isn't going to hurt you to tax it

Labour appear to be playing the you've never had it so good card
I saw that awful Blears thing on tv the other night and alls she could harp on about was "under the Conservatives it was like this" - someone should tell them the last two goverments have been Labour FFS

Svens awfully quiet these days
 
#8
eveyoz said:
Any statement with the words "in real terms" is a labour lie.

I read that investors are causing rthe price jump, can anyone with more knowledge of this comment?
I would agree with your statement - it just shouts "We're playing with the figures".

With regard to your question, there has been some debate over whether speculators (not investors) are driving up the price of oil. Daily Telegraph article, for example. However there is no consensus as to whether they are or not, or if they are to what extent. I am not close enough to the markets to have an informed opinion, but I know that there has been significant speculation in other commodity markets in recent years, often to the detriment of the speculators. In any event, it would be almost impossible, and probably very counter-productive for any regulator to try and do anything about it.

Sort of half an answer, maybe ;)

PB
 
#9
tangosix said:
Hello,

the cost of fuel is only a small proportion of the price you pay at the pump.
The retailers margin is also tiny.
Most of what you pay is tax and duty.

However,fuel duty is set in pence per gallon (litres if you are a French),not as a percentage of the retail price.
Yep, agree, however, don't forget VAT, currently at 17.5%, is also charged on the price of the fuel and on the duty. Tax on tax! This is the other part of the triple whammy. (Whammy = fuel cost, plus fuel duty, plus VAT on fuel cost + fuel duty).

PassingBells said:
With regard to your question, there has been some debate over whether speculators (not investors) are driving up the price of oil. Daily Telegraph article, for example. ..<snip>
That is from an interview with George Soros and his word is not to be taken lightly given his reputation. ;)
 
#10
stacker1 said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Svens awfully quiet these days
He's still chopsing off on the Islamic School Protests in Camden NSW thread.
I did a search on this and apparently the fact was recorded in Hansard on 17th July 2007 as claimed by a reader of John Redwoods blog last November. Redwood didn't deny that the figure was factual.
 
#11
Just for You I went to Hansard and got the appropriate information

I quote

Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate she has made of the percentage change in real terms of the cost of travelling by (a) private car, (b) bus and (c) train since (i) 1977, (ii) 1987 and (iii) 1997. [150423]

Jim Fitzpatrick: The following table shows the percentage change in real terms of the cost of travelling by car, bus and train since 1977, 1987 and 1997 compared to 2006.

........................ 1977-2006................1987-2006.............1997-2006
Car _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -10

Bus _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +55 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +29 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +13

Train _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _+52 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +28 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _+6

Comparisons with average household disposable incomes are as follows: between 1977 and 2006, average household disposable income increased by 125 per cent.; between 1987 and 2006, average household disposable income increased by 70 per cent.; and between 1997 and 2006, average household disposable income increased by 25 per cent.
Hansard, Written Answers 17th July 2007


You were saying?

:roll:
 
#12
Sven said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Mr fucking Original, as ever :roll:
Which part did I get wrong, you are talking rubbish? you're right its not original but then you do always talk rubbish.
Oh dear - You're making me yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwn again.

Just because You don't understand the definition You have to play the man :D
Which is exactly why I call you all the time because you do it whenever you have no argument, you hypocritical bigot.
I know several college lecturers who can help You with the definition by the way, they are used to working with the unintelligent.
Are you having a laugh Sven?
How many posts have you put in this thread without actually having anything to say other than your usual atempt to derail the thread with irrelevant crap?

As for "real terms", we all know that is simply an euphamism for bollox.
The treasury has gained about a billion quid from the latest bout of fuel price rises, a nice bonus lump if cash for them to squander.
We have ministers alernately telling us the government needs the money (to fritter away on mis-managment) and its for environmental reasons.
We can discount any claim to it being for the benefit of the planet for several reasons, first of which is that non of this money is spent on looking for alternatives. Road fuels in the UK create a microscopic proportion of the pollution problem globally. There is no real evidence that taking al the cars off the road in the Uk would have any impact whatsoever on climate change (no, really. There isn't any definitive evidence)

Fuel is massively expensive and it is strangling the economy as well as the individual motorist. A large proportion of fuel cost is tax. Whatever excuse the government uses for this tax at the end of the day it is just tax.

Perhaps you could get one of those college lecturers to explain the ramifications of all this to you Sven? You patently are incapable of understanding the basics for yourself
 
#13
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Perhaps You would do better floating that in front of the bloke who made the claim. My original post was simply to show that the claim had been made before - with figures.

Perhaps if it isn't too challenging to Your intellect You might do some research to find out those figures - I suggest the Nat Stats website.
I knew you would dodge it.

The first poster didn't make the claim, he pointed to a news story that did and then went on to say he didn't believe it.

You tried to support the story with old figures and we are asking you for evidence its true today.

But its ok you dribble on about nothing and avoid the question, but then you will anyway.
Yeeeeesss, I forgot about Yourinability to comprehend.

I did say ask the bloke who made the claim - not the fellow who began the thread.

Does that clear it up or shall I use words of one syllable
Thanks for that. But I'm not likely to meet him and be able to ask him, but you knew that anyway.

What I did ask, as have quite a few other, is for you to supply real figures, not the outdated rubbish you put up earlier? But you knew that too.

Small words are good if you feel better with them.

So hows about you asnwer the question and show us why petrol duty is at it's lowest since 1999 with some real, current and valid figures? I'm not sure how much simpler I can put it.
You are obviously het up about this - whereas I cannot be bothered routing through Nat Stats. Get the wife to help You with the search. :roll:
 
#14
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
Perhaps You would do better floating that in front of the bloke who made the claim. My original post was simply to show that the claim had been made before - with figures.
Perhaps if it isn't too challenging to Your intellect You might do some research to find out those figures - I suggest the Nat Stats website.
Actually Sven I thought that your original post was to try to see how many posts would be sent about the outdated and therefore useless data so that you could throw the odd insult at posters to try to get a reaction out of them. Or is that me misunderstading your aim?
Quite right.

You have misunderstood. If the three antagonists above had acted appropriately then I would have been happy to debate. The three of them prefer to debate on this level and so AFTER they posted in such a way then I follow their example.

If they debated like the grown ups they purport to be, then I would similarly keep it at that level.
So does that make you the protagonist?
Not at all, I have no particular viewpoint on the claim - I just wanted to point out that it had been claimed before WITH the figures.
With OLD figures
 
#15
But are you actually going to respond ot any of the points made Sven?
Do you actually believe any of the statistics and justifications spouted by Brown & Co?
High oil prices are a fact, nobody denies that, but what has a very large portion of the population hopping mad is the fact that the treaury continues to reap huge profit from it, to the extent that their slice is actually rising.
The country is dying on its financial feet whilst politicians (youself included) tell us its unavoidable, infact they go a step further and justify it.
At the same time as telling us that this financial crisis is inevitable (and nobodies fault) they are proposing to boost their own incomes to the tune of £38k at the tax payers expense.
Can you honestly not see why the majority of people in this country feel politicians are beneath contempt?
We are fed a constant barrage of lies and blatant corruption, we are supposed to accept gros mis-management that is bleeding us dry and pay the feckers more money for the privledge.
Surely you can see this?
 
#16
Sven - When trying to make a case for some position or idea, we frequently encounter questions which challenge the coherency or validity of that position. When we are able to adequately answer those questions, our position becomes stronger. When we cannot answer the questions, then our position is weaker. If, however, we avoid the question altogether, then our reasoning process itself is revealed as possibly weak.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#17
Mod note:

It is tedious having to remove all the off-topic bollocks that appears in threads like this. It would be much easier just to ban the various protagonists instead.
 
#18
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
Perhaps You would do better floating that in front of the bloke who made the claim. My original post was simply to show that the claim had been made before - with figures.
Perhaps if it isn't too challenging to Your intellect You might do some research to find out those figures - I suggest the Nat Stats website.
Actually Sven I thought that your original post was to try to see how many posts would be sent about the outdated and therefore useless data so that you could throw the odd insult at posters to try to get a reaction out of them. Or is that me misunderstading your aim?
Quite right.

You have misunderstood. If the three antagonists above had acted appropriately then I would have been happy to debate. The three of them prefer to debate on this level and so AFTER they posted in such a way then I follow their example.

If they debated like the grown ups they purport to be, then I would similarly keep it at that level.
So does that make you the protagonist?
Not at all, I have no particular viewpoint on the claim - I just wanted to point out that it had been claimed before WITH the figures.
With OLD figures
Since I referred to a claim which had been made before ie is previously, then obviously they are old figures.
 
#19
Sven, are you naturally sarcastic or is it just some sort of political childish reaction?? :?

You stated that in 'real terms' the cost of fuel was now lower, other posters asked you to quantify this with current data (this does not include spin statistics). If you can do that then please do and add some weight to your argument. If you can't and merely resort to some sort of playground mentality of 'find it out yourself' and petty insults then I suggest you withdraw your comment as it is clearly unsubstantiated.

Is this really the way MP's debate in Parliament?? Christ, there really is no hope for this country :x
 
#20
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
boelynbulldog said:
Sven said:
Perhaps You would do better floating that in front of the bloke who made the claim. My original post was simply to show that the claim had been made before - with figures.
Perhaps if it isn't too challenging to Your intellect You might do some research to find out those figures - I suggest the Nat Stats website.
Actually Sven I thought that your original post was to try to see how many posts would be sent about the outdated and therefore useless data so that you could throw the odd insult at posters to try to get a reaction out of them. Or is that me misunderstading your aim?
Quite right.

You have misunderstood. If the three antagonists above had acted appropriately then I would have been happy to debate. The three of them prefer to debate on this level and so AFTER they posted in such a way then I follow their example.

If they debated like the grown ups they purport to be, then I would similarly keep it at that level.
So does that make you the protagonist?
Not at all, I have no particular viewpoint on the claim - I just wanted to point out that it had been claimed before WITH the figures.
With OLD figures
Since I referred to a claim which had been made before ie is previously, then obviously they are old figures.
To be pedantic (like many on arrse) all claims that are quoted are old figures unless the poster has just made the claim at the point of posting, they then become old if they are reposted at a later date by another poster and should be covered by a caveat stating that they are old, or out of date and should be taken as so, and with a pinch or so of salt.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads