Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who are the fuel protesters?

TeeJay said:
Just to provide some information:

Mid-August diesel prices (pence per litre):

UK 94.7
Austria 69.85
Belgium 78.38
Czech Republic 71.75
Denmark 80.94
Finland 69.22
France 73.87
Germany 77.54
Greece 64.85
Netherlands 77.11
Hungary 79.79
Ireland 74.01
Italy 79.44
Luxembourg 63.79
Estonia 62.05
Norway 88.83
Latvia 59.46
Lithuania 61.23
Poland 72.18
Slovakia 73.28
Slovenia 66.18
Portugal 69.22
Spain 66.47
Sweden 82.11
Switzerland 77.10

USA 38.47

http://www.theaa.com/onlinenews/allaboutcars/fuel/2005/August2005.doc

Looks like Luxembourg would be a good place to fill up if you were heading to the UK although France and Ireland wouldn't be too bad either.


It is true that fuel duty is higher in the UK than in other European countries or the USA. But what everybody overlooks is that these countries have a lot more toll roads than the UK. So motorists still end up paying out, one way or another.

Maybe we should shift to having more toll roads in the UK, and lower petrol duty. But it is inaccurate to say that the overall burden on motorists or hauliers is higher here than on the continent.

In addition, agricultural vehicles in the UK use red diesel, which is exempt from duty.
 
gunneradt said:
Our income taxes are lower? I think you'll find that with all the so called invisible taxes that have been added on since 1997, they're stacking up nicely.

What you call 'invisible' taxes, i.e. indirect taxation, is by definition not income tax. It was the Conservative government who began the move away from income tax towards indirect taxation. For example, they inherited a VAT rate of 8% and left it at 17.5%.

However, overall the tax burden in the UK is still lower than on the continent.
 
yes but for 99% of people fuel is a necessity. The tax rate I think is at 61p in every £1. That is verging on the obscene.
 
gunneradt said:
does that mean wanting to drive as fast as you like?


I take the phrase "ever lower and ever more inappropriate speed limits" to mean that they certainly want to drive faster than is now legal.
 
gunneradt said:
yes but for 99% of people fuel is a necessity. The tax rate I think is at 61p in every £1. That is verging on the obscene.

Obscene? Depends on your definitition. I'd say it's foolish of those who demand a lower fuel duty to do so without saying how they would raise the revenue that was lost, or which public services they would cut. Personally I'd say it is obscene for the delivery of drinking water to be in the hands of the money grabbing private sector rather than the public sector - and water is something that 100% of us all need.

As to whether the BDA are bunch of selfish speed crazy nutters here is a quote from their website:

"In order to make safe progress the good driver assesses the accident risk for the driving environment he/she encounters and adjusts his/her driving behaviour accordingly. In a high risk traffic environment it makes sense to slow down. However, higher speed in a safe traffic environment is safe and responsible: travelling faster here buys the driver time to slow down for high risk situations." (my italics)

So they seem to argue that driving really fast in low risk situations gives the driver the patience to slow down in high risk siutations which does seem to imply that the driver needs to "buy time" as thisis the only way they can be persuaded to slow down.

Read their website and what it has to say about speed. It is self serving bollocks for irresponsible people who think they have a right to decide for themselves how fast they should drive.
 
gunneradt said:
yes but for 99% of people fuel is a necessity. The tax rate I think is at 61p in every £1. That is verging on the obscene.


The consumpton of oil products for road transport, the way it is now done in Britain is NOT a necessity.

Go into a London Sainsbury's, where does the bottled water come from? Perthshire in Scotland!

We're had people on these boards recently claiming they needed a car as the bus stop was several hundred yards away! :D

And as has been pointed out several times above, the UK has higher tax maybe on fuel but lower taxes elsewhere eg tolls, road charging, general vehicle taxation.

The cost of owning a car is constant falling in real terms while the cost of public trasnport is constant rising.
 
I can't see that the real cost of owning a car is falling. In recent times we've had insurance premium tax as yet another stealth tax plus increases in vehicle excise duties. The ONLY reason tax on fuel has been frozen in recent years is because of the fuel protesters.

Why should motorists pay to travel on roads when they pay car tax?

What on earth has the origin of bottled water got to do with ownership of car.
 
gunneradt said:
I can't see that the real cost of owning a car is falling..

I haven't the time to go and searxch sorry. But someone posted up some stats a few months ago that showed that thecost of owning and running a car has been sinking, the use of public trasnport been rising, comparable to income over the last X years.


gunneradt said:
Why should motorists pay to travel on roads when they pay car tax?

I've no children but pay for schools. Bet you a pint that if the total costs of private car transport ere ringfenced and passed onto private motorists alone the tax would ROCKET!

You are UNDERPAYING in reality!


gunneradt said:
What on earth has the origin of bottled water got to do with ownership of car.

It is not just personal motorists who are moaning, it is the road transport lobby who make profits from STUPID activity like trucking bottled water from Perthshire to London.
 
Isambard said:
I haven't the time to go and searxch sorry. But someone posted up some stats a few months ago that showed that thecost of owning and running a car has been sinking, the use of public trasnport been rising, comparable to income over the last X years.




I've no children but pay for schools. Bet you a pint that if the total costs of private car transport ere ringfenced and passed onto private motorists alone the tax would ROCKET!

You are UNDERPAYING in reality!




It is not just personal motorists who are moaning, it is the road transport lobby who make profits from STUPID activity like trucking bottled water from Perthshire to London.

fair point about children

have a look at this bbc chart. image 3 is the shocking one.

_http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/business_petrol_pricing/html/1.stm
 
From the BBC: Public transport fares rising higher than cost of motoring shocker! :eek:

5.jpg



And the level of tax on fuel is 1% higher than France and 2% higher than Germany but the UK has lower taxes on other road use! :eek:


<--- Arse Elbow --->
 
In the light of the news bulletins all day I think the thread title needs editing to:- Where are the fuel protesters?
 
Isambard said:
And the level of tax on fuel is 1% higher than France and 2% higher than Germany but the UK has lower taxes on other road use!
If fuel taxes are only 1% and 2% lower in France and Germany, how come diesel costs 94.7p in the UK, but only 73.87p in France and 77.54p in Germany (see my previous link)?
 
A leading fuel protester has been killed and another two men have been stabbed at their place of work.

The dead mans name is Hoyland.
 
Bad Tax

I havent read the whole thred so apols if I just repeat what others have said.
I try to take a balenced view of feul protests. Yeah, the big haulage companies are behind oil protests, they only have their profits in mind at the end of the day. But ordinary truck drivers are in favor of them because they want to protect their means of earning a living.
We aint living through a period of mass class consiousness :confused: (learn to spell,lass) I cant see the drivers turning their anger against their bosses today or tomorow, who afterall are the ones who will lay them off if the fuel prices bite their profits either directly or through taking the competitive edge off british hulage companies.
I suport the drivers but view their bosses with contempt.
As for fuel tax, it's flat tax isnt it. you pay same per pound regardless of wheather your a millionare with several run arounds or a ordinary person who needs to run a car for work. On that basis it's a bad tax.
 
Patty said:
Yeah, the big haulage companies are behind oil protests, they only have their profits in mind at the end of the day.


The hard fact is high fuel costs for road transport costs us all in more costs for more or less everything we buy. It impacts far more on poor and disadvantaged people than it does the rich.
In France for instance food is around 40% cheaper than it is here in Britain.
(That is based on my experience of holidaying in France, my wife has a mobile home on a site in Brittany).
If we stay for at least a fortnight the holiday in effect costs us nothing due to the far cheaper cost of living paying for the ferry ticket.
 
TeeJay said:
If fuel taxes are only 1% and 2% lower in France and Germany, how come diesel costs 94.7p in the UK, but only 73.87p in France and 77.54p in Germany (see my previous link)?

Partly because the funny money with the German woman's head on it is overvalued.
 
I have been Googling for a list of current European petrol/diesel tax rates, but haven't found one yet. However I did find this interesting document on the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.eu.int/facts/4_19_4_en.htm

The taxation of diesel

On 24 July 2002 the European Commission presented new proposals on the taxation of diesel, linked to that on unleaded petrol (COM (2002) 410). This has two aims:

* to harmonise, gradually, Member States' excise duty on fuel used in international commercial haulage;
* to align the minimum excise rates on diesel used non - commercially - i.e. mostly in cars - with the rates on unleaded petrol.

In order to meet these twin aims, the proposal would create two levels of taxation on diesel:

* a harmonised rate for international commercial use: by 2010, the minimum rate of excise duty on commercially-used diesel would be raised from the current €245 per 1 000 litres to a higher common "central" rate; this would initially be set at €350 in 2003 and would be adjusted for inflation on the basis of the consumer price index from 2003 onwards;
* the minimum rate applied to unleaded petrol on the rest.

The principal justification for the proposals on commercially-used diesel is to end the distortion of competition in the internal market for road haulage. Widely-differing rates of tax (see Table below), the Commission argues, give hauliers based in low-tax countries, but operating across national borders, an unfair competitive advantage. Linked to the distortion of competition is the issue of revenue loss by higher-taxed countries. The proposal is also justified by two further considerations: protection of the environment ; and fuel efficiency . It is argued that trucks make unnecessary detours on commercial journeys in order to refuel in low-tax countries, so increasing journey-lengths and fuel consumption.

National excise duties on fuel, August 2002 (€ per 1 000 litres)

....... Unleaded Petrol.. Diesel*
B.......... 494.......... 290
DK......... 539.......... 405
D.......... 624.......... 455
EL......... 296.......... 245
E.......... 396.......... 294
F.......... 586.......... 370
IE......... 401.......... 354
I.......... 542.......... 403
L.......... 372.......... 253
NL......... 608.......... 340
A.......... 407.......... 282
P.......... 479.......... 272
FIN........ 567.......... 329
S.......... 475.......... 345
UK......... 790.......... 742†
*Diesel fuel with a sulphur content of less than 50 ppm.
† Rate on ultra-low sulphur. Normal rate €839.

Council reached an outline agreement in early February 2003 under which a minimum rate of €302 per 1000 litres would apply from the date the Directive came into effect, rising to €330 in 2010. However, countries needing to make tax increases would have up to seven years to reach the €302 rate, and until 2012 to reach the €330 rate.
This document suggests that UK tax rates are far greater than anywhere else in Europe. Have things changed recently?
 
The situation appears to be that the government does not want to "discourage" investment in the North Sea, so they have been progressively reducing the royalties on lifting the oil from a nominal 70%, to 50%, to zero.

The argument for this is that as the North Sea becomes depleted, it gets more expensive to extract the oil, especially with the low oil prices we've had for the last few years. Most of the majors were pulling out and Brown dropped the royalty (they still pay corporation tax, but get a whole bunch of other benefits and exceptions that may for all I know amount to a net gain)

Meanwhile, we have the same debates as usual. The government won't tax corporations (in this case oil corporations) properly, because it wants to maintain an "attractive climate for investment" - ie it wants to prevent the jobs and investment going to some government that's even more generous.

So the debate becomes one about how to screw the money out of taxpayers instead. Because the government bases its policies almost entirely on getting re-elected, they prefer flat and stealth taxes to progressive taxation that might offend the few thousand middle-class voters who actually decide the general election.

This rather effectively sets up a conflict between the Greens and the working classes, perhaps because the former are proportionately less affected by flat taxes and some of those Greens seem to instinctively see taxing the shit out of fuel as environmentally positive - "because it'll make people use less"

This causes the working classes, as has been pointed out e.g. on the Green Party thread, to see environmental issues as things that cost them money personally. It's an effect that's been exploited very effectively in the US. For example in the enormously well-funded propaganda campaign against Kyoto over there.
 
Patty said:
As for fuel tax, it's flat tax isnt it. you pay same per pound regardless of wheather your a millionare with several run arounds or a ordinary person who needs to run a car for work. On that basis it's a bad tax.

It's a voluntary tax though, based on consumption. As with booze & fags society at large seeks to discourage consumption by high taxes.

It's also true to say that cars with small engines are generally cheaper to buy than those with large engines, so yer 'ordinary person' who buys a guzzler isn't doing themselves any favours.

As for "needs to run a car for work", well anyone who has put themselves into that position in the last 30 years has behaved very foolishly, and very selfishly. It has been blatantly obvious (since 1973 at the latest) that excess consumption of oil is insane.

I have little sympathy for anyone- rich or poor- who has chosen to live far from where they work (or v-v) and made themselves so dependent on a car that they cannot cope with a slight rise in oil prices*. They shouldn't have put themselves in that position: they have chosen to inflict pollution and danger on those they drive past every day, because it suits them.

Some of us are not that foolish, not that selfish, but we have to breath in their fumes and cannnot safely cross the road to take our kids to school: we bear the costs of their selfishness. Now they expect us to bail them out.


There are, of course, a few rural people who live where they were born and have watched all the jobs around them vanish, and thus have some excuse for commuting. A few!
 
newbie said:
"I have little sympathy for anyone- rich or poor- who has chosen to live far from where they work (or v-v) and made themselves so dependent on a car that they cannot cope with a slight rise in oil prices*. They shouldn't have put themselves in that position: they have chosen to inflict pollution and danger on those they drive past every day, because it suits them.

Some of us are not that foolish, not that selfish, but we have to breath in their fumes and cannnot safely cross the road to take our kids to school: we bear the costs of their selfishness. Now they expect us to bail them out."

I have to disagree. Years of underfunding and privatation of the public transport system has led to a situation where it is expensive and restrictive to have to rely on public transport. Take a trip down the job centre, do a job search and note how many of the jobs specifications state "MUST HAVE OWN TRANSPORT"
I don't belive that individuals are compleatly unable to make choises about their life styles but in a market economy it is economic factors that matter the most. e.g have kids to feed+rent+bills=MUST TAKE THAT JOB=Having a car makes sense.
I really don't belive it should be that way but I blame capitalism, not working people for this state of affairs.
Also the use of taxes as a means to discourage consumption is a very blunt instroment. It discourages consumption on the basis of abillity to pay, in the case of feul duty it allows the rich to be selfish whilst the poorer are forced to struggle even harder to get by, high petrol prices also efect the bus fares any way.
The only solution to the problem, as I see it is to take the Oil companies, huliage firms,Peterol retailers and bus and rail companies in to democratic public ownership. As part of a stratagie to developing an affordable and efficiant public transport system.
 
Fair enough. All those bods who commute from Haywards Heath past the end of my road every day are pawns of capitalism. You're right, I'm being naive in thinking that individuals have choices.
 
Back
Top Bottom