Good old rip off Britain

Aiadi

If the British consumer was just a bit less complacent. We have the power but we don't put it too good use and teach these companies the lesson they deserve. Things like MSE.com are at least starting to lead the way but we still have a very long way to go to earn our customer right to a decent service.

bbb_uk

Aiadi wrote:

If the British consumer was just a bit less complacent. We have the power but we don't put it too good use and teach these companies the lesson they deserve. Things like MSE.com are at least starting to lead the way but we still have a very long way to go to earn our customer right to a decent service.

I agree but just how many of the ordinary public are aware that 0870/1 numbers are rip-off numbers where the company concerned can earn revenue like a premium rate number? And just how many would think that a company like BA would charge people in their own country upto 7ppm (and earn revenue from the call) to call them but yet use a freephone number in the States (and possibly other countries too). In fact, it is probably cheaper to call BA via their freephone america number via Call18866/1899, etc than calling them from the UK.

I think possibly very few are aware these facts. It's not just about complacent its about educating the public.

If the public were aware of the cost implications involved and the revenue sharing that operates on 087x, then I suspect OfCOM would have already done something by now instead of postponing their investigation/results.

An example: OfCOM conducted a survey/investigation on the use of 08x numbers, the revenue sharing, etc and this investigation ended in January this year. Eight months later, OfCOM still haven't released the findings and what they propose to do about the whole 087x thing (if anything).

In my opinion, as most gov depts use 087x, OfCOM know that if they decide to remove the revenue sharing (and therefore eventually the cost of an 087x would be the same as a normal geographical call) then the gov depts would not be at all happy and therefore OfCOM are possibly trying to think of other alternatives so that the gov depts wouldn't lose their revenue and if no alternatives can be found then OfCOM may just go ahead with removal of revenue sharing.

I could go further but it would be classed as a 'rant' and a mod would probably tell me off. lol. :rotfl:

gizmoleeds

Probably not, because in the US nearly all companies seem to have 800 freephone numbers. Which is yet another reason why BA have to do so over there.

There are no non-geographical numbers in the US except toll-free numbers, and as customers pay a lot more than we do for long distance calls they can't give out a normal geographical number.

Rip-off Britain is a state of mind, high prices in the UK for some goods are offset by the low prices we pay for others. My cousin emigrated to the US and says living costs average out about the same (they are higher for many food produces and household bills), although house prices are much cheaper (but that's not because we're being "ripped" off, just due to demand/supply issues).

bbb_uk

gizmoleeds wrote:

...My cousin emigrated to the US and says living costs average out about the same...

How much is their petrol (or gas as they call it) and how much tax do they pay?

I remember seeing on Sky News (I think) a couple of years ago now that had a table of countries and the average cost of living expenses, etc. Britain wasn't number one (ie most expensive) but was about 3rd or 4th I believe. I know the states wasn't mentioned in that table (well not near the top like us). Unfortunately, though I can't remember which country was top.

That's when I first became aware of the phrase rip-off britain.

Also, I've had a relative go abroad (she drinks a lot of wine) and noticed that wine that is made by us and exported over there was actually still cheaper over there even though they had imported it.

gizmoleeds

bbb_uk wrote:

How much is their petrol (or gas as they call it) and how much tax do they pay?

I remember seeing on Sky News (I think) a couple of years ago now that had a table of countries and the average cost of living expenses, etc. Britain wasn't number one (ie most expensive) but was about 3rd or 4th I believe. I know the states wasn't mentioned in that table (well not near the top like us). Unfortunately, though I can't remember which country was top.

That's when I first became aware of the phrase rip-off britain.

Also, I've had a relative go abroad (she drinks a lot of wine) and noticed that wine that is made by us and exported over there was actually still cheaper over there even though they had imported it.

That's because we have a lot of tax on alcohol and petrol. The US government doesn't need to discourage people using cars like ours does becasue they have bigger roads (ours cannot be expanded as there are buildings in the way). Other countries don't tax alcohol like ours but have higher VAT or income taxes. We have some of the lowest taxes (taking everything into account, incl. VAT, fuel etc.) in Europe, much lower than France, Germany, Italy. The US is probably cheaper to live in than the UK, but they do have more expensive food and household bills, like I said. And they have health insurance bills on top of their taxes.

bbb_uk

Actually, I do believe France was more expensive than us to live in from what I remember of this table of the most expensive countries live in. It has come back to me and I kind of remember noticing it was more expensive than us (I was surprised that's how I remembered) but still can't place if it was THE most expensive country or second or something. All I remember is that we were very near the top and like I said I never noticed US at all.

I agree we have the NHS and that is probably taking most of our money but I would have thought that with health insurance (as used in the US) then for those that don't make a claim then does they (US citizens) not get a "no claim discount", etc. Basically, similar to what we have with car and household insurance!

If so, therefore for possibly most US citizens (the ones that don't make that many hospital claims) then their health insurance bills would be lot lower.

Obviously, the cheaper method (health insurance as in US or our NHS) would depend on that persons general health condition.

Steve_xx

gizmoleeds wrote:

That's because we have a lot of tax on alcohol and petrol. The US government doesn't need to discourage people using cars like ours does becasue they have bigger roads (ours cannot be expanded as there are buildings in the way). Other countries don't tax alcohol like ours but have higher VAT or income taxes. We have some of the lowest taxes (taking everything into account, incl. VAT, fuel etc.) in Europe, much lower than France, Germany, Italy. The US is probably cheaper to live in than the UK, but they do have more expensive food and household bills, like I said. And they have health insurance bills on top of their taxes.

The UK government doesn't actually want to discourage people from using their cars, despite the fact that it may say it does. This government bases part of its fiscal policy on revenue due from fuel duty. Anything that might reduce the amount of revenue derived from the sale of fuel would be disastrous for it. If the goverment started to note a reduction in the revenues derived from fuel duty, due to people using their cars less, then it would look elsewhere in order to load the burden. Over the past couple of years the government has been able to defer it's budgetry proposal to raise fuel duties due to the fact that that fuel prices at the pumps have risen disproportionately. This means that the government is actually deriving far more revenue from petrol sales than it anticipated it would, due to the fact that the government levies a percentage, as opposed to a fixed price levy per litre. When the price of petrol rises, so does the governments take.

Gordon Brown must be laughing! Car owners invariably blame petrol companies for the rises, and this is reasonable and partly true. But in reality, the government ought to be in a position to reduce the duty because it is receiving far more in revenues than it planned for and expected.

One could argue that fuel is far too cheap, by comparison, in the USA. The US are well-known for their petrol guzzler cars. This certainly is not so to the same extent in the UK, due to the price of petrol. I think that if petrol prices in the US were higher, then this in turn would cause drivers over there to consider using fuel effecient vehicles. The onward effect of that would be that there would be less fuel demanded from oil producers and that in turn would have immediate downward pressure on the price per barrel of oil.

You could argue that we here in the UK and other countries, are sustaining the USA's lavish driving styles.

bbb_uk

I agree with you Steve_xx 100%.

It's just basically an excuse to increase our tax.

Though I thought the current price of petrol, this time around anyhow, is not really related to gov and/or oil companies in the UK, but the cost of oil from this cartel of oil producing countries have increased the price along with (I think) because of a explosion of somekind in the US where they refine/produce oil as well. I think I read that the US authorities are investigating this as suspicious because the result increased the cost of petrol in the US and probably had a knock-on effect around the world.

Steve_xx

bbb_uk wrote:

I agree with you Steve_xx 100%.

It's just basically an excuse to increase our tax.

Though I thought the current price of petrol, this time around anyhow, is not really related to gov and/or oil companies in the UK, but the cost of oil from this cartel of oil producing countries have increased the price along with (I think) because of a explosion of somekind in the US where they refine/produce oil as well. I think I read that the US authorities are investigating this as suspicious because the result increased the cost of petrol in the US and probably had a knock-on effect around the world.

What you say is in part, correct, of course. But in simple terms, if the Americans drive smaller cars and pay more than they are now for fuel, or indeed a combination of the two, then demand would drop. The resultant effect would be that demand on oil producers would fall and so that in itself would have downward pressure on the price per barrel.

Wig

Steve_xx wrote:

This means that the government is actually deriving far more revenue from petrol sales than it anticipated it would, due to the fact that the government levies a percentage, as opposed to a fixed price levy per litre. When the price of petrol rises, so does the governments take.

I'm afraid not Steve, the duty on a litre of fuel is fixed @ about 55p. I used to wonder why the chancelor always put up fuel duty because I thought like you do, that it would go up with inflation anyway.

Then I looked into it and saw the duty is fixed, that's why it gets increased by 2p per litre, and not raised by a percentage.

So the government is taking a revenue loss by not increasing the fuel duty.


Here are the rates, the only one I question is the biodiesel rate because elsewhere on the page I got these from it says it is 20p litre.

Light oils:

Ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP)
47.10

Unleaded petrol which is not ULSP
50.19

Light oil (except ULSP, unleaded petrol, aviation gasoline and light oils delivered to approved persons for use as furnace fuel)
56.20

Aviation gasoline (AVGAS)
28.10

Light oil delivered to an approved person for use as furnace fuel
3.82


Heavy (gas) oils:

Ultra-low sulphur diesel (ULSD)
47.10

Heavy oil which is not ULSD (ie conventional diesel)
53.27

Marked gas oil and ULSD oil not for road fuel use
4.22

Fuel oil
3.82

Other heavy oils delivered otherwise than for use as road fuel eg

marked kerosene for heating aviation turbine fuel lubricating oil but excluding oils within the gas oil or fuel oil definition. NIL


Fuel substitutes

Biodiesel for use as a road fuel
27.10

Biodiesel used otherwise than as road fuel
3.13

Other fuel substitutes

Road fuel gases, Gas for use as road fuel

9.00 (per two litres)