|
land_of_bo
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:12:45 » |
|
I thought the tax on fuel was 67%? could be wrong of course Thats still 50% too much in my book! :piemonte: We get shafted |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Titch
 Offline
Posts: 1224
|
|
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:14:04 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
y wings are like a shield of steel!
|
|
|
|
Spud
|
|
« Reply #17 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:16:25 » |
|
But thats on the Blair Broadcast Channel website!, im surprised they didnt say we have 2% Tax on Fuel in this country. :roll: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kinky Tom
Snow Master Sandwich King.
Offline
Posts: 9074
|
|
« Reply #18 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:19:26 » |
|
I thought the tax on fuel was 67%? could be wrong of course Thats still 50% too much in my book! :piemonte: We get shafted As in it should be 17% (67-50), or it should be about 45% (((50/100 * 45) + 45) = 67.5)? Just curious - on the balance of things I'd take either, but naturally I'd rather it were 17%. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
land_of_bo
|
|
« Reply #19 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:27:20 » |
|
As in 17.5% - about the same as VAT. Yeah sorry, smart arse! As in 50% less than 67% ! I'll try and be clearer next time  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BrightonRed
Offline
Posts: 1126
|
|
« Reply #20 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 14:27:22 » |
|
The way I see it road tax should be scrapped and tax on fuel should be increased significantly. This way those people who use the roads the most will be paying more in tax than those who use the roads very little, also people would think very carefully before purchasing a petrol-drinking urban 4x4 and fuel economy would become one of the most important decisions before buying a new vehicle - forcing the manufacturers to invest more in fuel efficient vehicles and alternative fuels.
The Government could introduce concessions for those that use a vehicle as a key factor in their employment.
It would probably require a little bit of fine-tuning until the Government was receiving an equivalent amount of revenue.
It would certainly be a lot cheaper to implement than the ‘pay-by-the-mile’ scheme the Government has been piloting.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nicotine, valium, vicodin, marijuana, ecstasy and alcohol...
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 33911
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #21 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 15:40:48 » |
|
the problem is, no matter how expensive the fuel is....we have to buy it, we cant go without and we cant go and get it cheaper else where... :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kinky Tom
Snow Master Sandwich King.
Offline
Posts: 9074
|
|
« Reply #22 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 15:42:58 » |
|
That's the bitch about phantom benefits I'm affraid. Something needs to be done though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #23 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 15:50:04 » |
|
I drove up to Blackpool and back on £43 worth of fuel with 3 others in the car. The equivalent in rail fairs would have cost £200.
As far as Im concerned the cost of fuel could double and it would still be cheaper than public transport.
Moving around is getting more expensive. If you cant afford it, you cant go. DEAL WITH IT!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sippo
Living in the 80s
Offline
Posts: 15616
I ain't gettin on no plane fool
|
|
« Reply #24 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 16:07:00 » |
|
Its unbeleivable price. Way to omuch and they charge it to get people of the roads. Why is it that in Europe unleaded works out at about 40p a litre, while in the states its less 40p a gallon!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit...
|
|
|
Ralphy
Offline
Posts: 14190
|
|
« Reply #25 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 17:07:16 » |
|
I drove up to Blackpool and back on £43 worth of fuel with 3 others in the car. The equivalent in rail fairs would have cost £200.
As far as Im concerned the cost of fuel could double and it would still be cheaper than public transport.
Moving around is getting more expensive. If you cant afford it, you cant go. DEAL WITH IT! I thought you had a transit van ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
walrus
Offline
Posts: 4228
|
|
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday, September 7, 2005, 17:27:21 » |
|
I drove up to Blackpool and back on £43 worth of fuel with 3 others in the car. The equivalent in rail fairs would have cost £200.
As far as Im concerned the cost of fuel could double and it would still be cheaper than public transport.
Moving around is getting more expensive. If you cant afford it, you cant go. DEAL WITH IT! £43 is a lot of dough when you're on £5 per hour. BR - it's a fair point, but the ones with the big 4x4's are already loaded and are most equipped to deal with a massive fuel-tax hike. Why the fuck should we pay so much when other people in our so-called European State pay so much less? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #27 on: Thursday, September 8, 2005, 01:07:31 » |
|
Why do you think Im on more than £5 an hour?
I work 48.5 hours a week basic.
And no I dont have a tranny van (I wish I did). TheKingCY has one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nomoreheroes
The Moral Majority
Offline
Posts: 15762
|
|
« Reply #28 on: Thursday, September 8, 2005, 01:16:27 » |
|
the problem is, no matter how expensive the fuel is....we have to buy it, we cant go without and we cant go and get it cheaper else where... :evil: Yes you can ! Buy yourself a diesel and then use chip pan oil instead. Half of Wales runs on it. NMH |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You're my incurable malady. I miss the pleasure of your company.
|
|
|
walrus
Offline
Posts: 4228
|
|
« Reply #29 on: Thursday, September 8, 2005, 12:43:23 » |
|
Why do you think Im on more than £5 an hour?
I work 48.5 hours a week basic.
And no I dont have a tranny van (I wish I did). TheKingCY has one. I was referring to myself!  So for someone, such as myself, on that wage, I have to work 4 hours to pay for the petrol for a 200 mile round trip to Swindon and back. :| |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
