Petrol now 99.7p a litre

ging84

They can't raise duty it's an election year.

Wi88le

tkane wrote: »

If the price of oil remains at this level, and no one can really know, then we won't be seeing interest rates rise for a long time. There might be a few token rises so that they are seen to be doing something but they won't be meaningful.

Without interest rates going up or rising unemployment, house prices cannot 'crash'.

Interest rates not rising or no rising unemployment doesn't mean there can not be a crash, wether there is a crash or not is another matter.

A new tax on property or land tax, collapse of the stock market, reduction in finance for property, collapse of a bank, btl changes or regulation, eurozone problems, or one of many other things that could but may not cause a crash in the housing market.

C_Mababejive

Diesel was 88p in Calais over the new year..

tkane

Wi88le wrote: »

A new tax on property or land tax, collapse of the stock market, reduction in finance for property, collapse of a bank, btl changes or regulation, eurozone problems, or one of many other things that could but may not cause a crash in the housing market.

And what is the probability that even one of those will happen?

Mansion tax - won't crash the market.
Stock market collapse - doesn't look likely with EU QE around the corner.
BTL changes - not a chance.
Eurozone/Russia problems - again, just wishful thinking on the part of HPC.co.uk.

wymondham

Trouble is that they are a couple of hundred mile round trips so not much help over this part of the country

Graham_Devon

The official tax take on a litre of petrol has now passed the 70% mark thanks to the product price falling.

And this is calculated on the average price of 109.6p a litre, so the percentage taken in tax will be higher still soon.

The RAC along with a retailer body are now putting pressure on the chancellor to cut duty. This isn't just somehting they have pulled out of thin air, it's a result of the chancellor stating he will make sure price falls are passed on to the consumer.....giving the impression to some that prices were still "high" as retailers were not passing the price on when infact it's due to fuel duty. I take it the retailers didn't take too kindly!

Retailers will meet with Priti Patel, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasurer, on Tuesday to demand an immediate cut in fuel taxes to help boost savings to consumers.

“It is fair that drivers should cover the costs they impose on society through things like road accidents, carbon emissions and poor air quality, but we have never had any precise calculation as to how these costs relate to the level of fuel duty," said Mr Glaister. “These numbers will reinforce in many drivers’ minds the idea that the current system of fuel taxation is disproportionate and simply about raising as much cash as possible.”

I touched on this around a week ago - but it's bizzare that the focus turns back to fuel duty when the price is falling.

jjlandlord

shortchanged wrote: »

Good news for the hard up consumers, not so good for the government tax coffers.

It's not good news for anyone.

If anything it's a trap from those who actually depend on selling oil... And let's remember that some of the most important of them finance enemies of ours.

Hasn't some Saudi just declared that oil prices won't go above $100 again?
That's a clear message, IMHO: oil is cheap, use it, buy it from us don't bother with that shale oil nonsense or, worse, don't try to divert from oil.

If a drug dealer gives some free drugs to a drug addict who's trying to quit, the drug addict might be happy to get a bargain but it is in fact bad for him.

antrobus

jjlandlord wrote: »

..Hasn't some Saudi just declared that oil prices won't go above $100 again?.....

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal it seems.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/bartiromo/2015/01/11/bartiromo-saudi-prince-alwaleed-oil-100-barrel/21484911/

Nephew of the Saudi king and therefore rather well off.

jjlandlord wrote: »

...That's a clear message, IMHO: oil is cheap, use it, buy it from us don't bother with that shale oil nonsense or, worse, don't try to divert from oil.

If a drug dealer gives some free drugs to a drug addict who's trying to quit, the drug addict might be happy to get a bargain but it is in fact bad for him.

That's one rationale. The good old Prince has another;

Because had Saudi Arabia cut its production by 1 or 2 million barrels, that 1 or 2 million would have been produced by others. Which means Saudi Arabia would have had two negatives, less oil produced, and lower prices.

jjlandlord

antrobus wrote: »

That's one rationale. The good old Prince has another.

Obviously he must find some BS to tell, right?

In any case, my point remains:

It seems that for environmental reasons we would be better off drastically reducing our oil consumption.

For geo-political and security reasons the West would be much better off not buy any oil from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

Cheap oil does not help on either issue and thus is bad news.

Mallotum_X

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Diesel was 88p in Calais over the new year..

Central France and its now sub 80p...