RBS brace for a “cataclysmic year”

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is that 550m barrels household use though?

A lot is used by business.

£655 saving is around 32 full tanks of fuel a year (at a saving of £20 per tank).

I realise there are savings to be had elsewhere (like my tyre example) but I don't think the average family uses 2.6 full tanks of fuel each month.

its oil for all the economy, some will be on plane tickets some on cheaper products in the supermarket as its HGVs are using less etc

I think a typical household with 1.2 cars will use ~1,200 litres a year and if prices fell 25p its £300 direct saving (however some of that is the savings of the tax rather than the oil)

Graham_Devon

Interesting sums.

I think it's being over analysed a bit though in terms of concentrating on the savings alone and translating that into huge sums of disposable cash to be spent in the economy.

So a personal example which will hit most others too. I've saved on fuel in the last year and I've saved on my lovely new tyres (around £15 a tyre compared to when I last bought the same ones).

However, my insurance has increased quite dramatically in the last year. I'm sure many of you will also get a shock when you renew. The insurers are blaming extra taxes, however, my insurance has gone up over £120 for the year. Same car, same details.

So in some areas I have saved, in others the cost of financing the car have increased. Overall it's a saving, I'd guess of around £150 a year. No where close to the figure being banded around and we drive around 18,000 miles a year.

That sort of saving over a week (£2.88) doesn't have me planning extra meals out. That sort of saving is lost by being nagged for a comic by the kids or finding you have to buy another tatt birthday present for another kids birthday party.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Interesting sums.

I think it's being over analysed a bit though.

So a personal example which will hit most others too. I've saved on fuel in the last year and I've saved on my lovely new tyres (around £15 a tyre compared to when I last bought the same ones).

However, my insurance has increased quite dramatically in the last year. I'm sure many of you will also get a shock when you renew. The insurers are blaming extra taxes, however, my insurance has gone up over £120 for the year. Same car, same details.

So in some areas I have saved, in others the cost of financing the car have increased. Overall it's a saving, I'd guess of around £150 a year.

That sort of saving over a week (£2.88) doesn't have me planning extra meals out. That sort of saving is lost by being nagged for a comic by the kids or finding you have to buy another tatt birthday present for another kids birthday party.

How do you think the price of oil impacted on your insurance costs?

Altogether now...

You've got to,
Accentuate the negative
Eliminate the positive
Latch on to the pain and hurt
Say hello to Mr Muddle

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

How do you think the price of oil impacted on your insurance costs?

Altogether now...

You've got to,
Accentuate the negative
Eliminate the positive
Latch on to the pain and hurt
Say hello to Mr Muddle

Hello.

I didn't imply or say it does. (Second time on this thread I've pointed that out!!)

I stated my travel costs are not fuel alone. No point ignoring increasing costs (which hit us all - though no doubt will not hit the optimists on here) and bleating on about the huge sums of extra cash in the economy.

The overarching view always prevails. If the cost of running a car was fuel alone, the sums and the suggestion that it's X amount of cash to be ploughed into the economy would likely be near correct.

But the cost is more than just fuel, and if another cost is increasing (plenty of articles pointing this rise out to motorists) than the overall saving isn't as much as you are all suggesting.

My apologies if this offends.

If you like I can just say "Yay", ignore reality and we can all carry on living happily ever after in cloud 9.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hello.

I didn't imply or say it does. (Second time on this thread I've pointed that out!!)

I stated my travel costs are not fuel alone. No point ignoring increasing costs (which hit us all - though no doubt will not hit the optimists on here) and bleating on about the huge sums of extra cash in the economy.

The overarching view always prevails. If the cost of running a car was fuel alone, the sums and the suggestion that it's X amount of cash to be ploughed into the economy would likely be near correct.

But the cost is more than just fuel, and if another cost is increasing (plenty of articles pointing this rise out to motorists) than the overall saving isn't as much as you are all suggesting.

My apologies if this offends.

If you like I can just say "Yay", ignore reality and we can all carry on living happily ever after in cloud 9.

so if oil prices had not fallen, your cost of insurance would not have increased?

looking for straws to grasp at?

tincans6

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I
However, my insurance has increased quite dramatically in the last year. I'm sure many of you will also get a shock when you renew. The insurers are blaming extra taxes, however, my insurance has gone up over £120 for the year. Same car, same details.

IPT went up from 6.5% to 9% so that shouldn't add move than £15 to most policies.

Car insurance has gone up in the last year - but this followed 3 years of falling prices - and comprehensive cover on average is still cheaper than 2011

http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/bipi/car-home-insurance-news-2015-q3-bipi.pdf

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

so if oil prices had not fallen, your cost of insurance would not have increased?

looking for straws to grasp at?

???

Nothing like what I was suggesting.

I was simply looking at this assumption that a saving (of say £300) a year on fuel does not necessarily translate to having £300 more to spend in the economy. Not if other costs associated with running a car have increased (as they have).

Simple point, but I'm beginning to wish I'd never bothered as it appears we are not really allowed to look at the job losses (and all the problems that brings to the NE for example) or look at any other costs of motoring. We're only allowed, it seems, to make up wild figures and pretend the economy is going to take off as everyone suddenly finds themselevs with wads of cash in their back pockets.

I've suggested it's good overall.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

???

Nothing like what I was suggesting.

I was simply looking at this assumption that a saving (of say £300) a year on fuel does not necessarily translate to having £300 more to spend in the economy. Not if other costs associated with running a car have increased (as they have).

Simple point, but I'm beginning to wish I'd never bothered as it appears we are not really allowed to look at the job losses (and all the problems that brings to the NE for example) or look at any other costs of motoring. We're only allowed, it seems, to make up wild figures and pretend the economy is going to take off as everyone suddenly finds themselevs with wads of cash in their back pockets.

I've suggested it's good overall.

no, the issue is whether or not a fall in oil price is to our overall advantage other things being broadly the same

the answer is yes

that means we may be better off
or it means we may be less badly off if other economic events have happened to make us worse off.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think it's being over analysed a bit though in terms of concentrating on the savings alone and translating that into huge sums of disposable cash to be spent in the economy.

Say it is £18bn - that's £18bn that last year would have been sent to the Middle-East.

Some of that is going to go direct into consumers pockets at the pumps, some will fund supermarket price wars, some will make it into increased pay, some will be paid out as dividends etc.

It's a huge sum and not one you'd play down if it was going the other way.

Sorry to hear about your car insurance. Look on the bright side - your fuel savings will more than cover it.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's a huge sum and not one you'd play down if it was going the other way.

Probably guilty there I'll admit.

However, if I remember rightly, the increases in fuel prices were also played down in the very same vein.

I honestly cannot see the savings over the past year (and the savings yet to be had going forward) are going to change the economy one bit though (and certainly not enough to outweigh the issues going on in the NE). And I believe that's the overarching suggestion in this thread.

It's not "just" 600 jobs lost in the NE. It's all those who service those 600 workers 9and the rest who ar enow fearful) that suffer too.