Good old rip off Britain

Steve_xx

I agree with you in that the Fuel Duty element is fixed. However, taxes on fuel contain two elements; the elements are Fuel Duty and VAT. Whilst the Fuel Duty element remains fixed, as you state, the VAT element does not remain fixed and it rises proportionately to the price paid at the pump. Therefore the governments take does rise as the price of petrol rises at the pump.

If Fuel Duty is increased, and fuel prices rise due to demand, then it is so that the VAT element further forces up the cost. This would be a tripple whammy!

Wig

The extra VAT in a price rise from 82p / litre to 92p/litre is about 1.5p per litre, I think the chancelor would have raised fuel duties by more than this had the pump prices not risen.

I think he actually announced the amount by which it was to be raised, it will be in his budget speeches if anyone knows where to look for them. So the treasury nevertheless is losing money because of the oil cost rise and the fact that Gordon has had to delay his own increases as a result.

IvanOpinion

I continually hear the phrase 'rip-off Britain' (generally used in connection with the prioces of fuel (probably a necessary commodity) and alchohol (an unnecessary commodity)). However if you do a quick look on google you weill find 'rip-off' sites for many countries ... I found Austria, Canada, France, Ireland, USA and Australia without too much trouble. Each one was complaining about its own issues. Each country has its pros and its cons ... for example we get free(ish) health care whereas in America if you look at a doctor it is probably going to cost you several hundred dollars.

From the fuel point of view .. have you not noticed that the government is looking for plans to move this source of revenue away from fuel and car tax to distance travelled ... have you not noticed how the many 'brain-dead sheep' are all jumping up and down with joy ... probably because they haven't worked out the net effect. Many people will pay significantly more, but that is the lesser of the problem. OIl is not going to be about forever therefore the government will lose that revenue stream, however people moving around the place will be about forever ... therefore they will still maintain revenue.

Back to OP. I have always been a firm believer in paying for what you use. If you use CS desks then why should you not pay for them? It costs the company money to man them therefore surely it is fairer for those that want/need the service to pay for it rather than everybody paying a bit in the price. It is the nature of the market we are now in ... we are demanding lower and lower prices therefore to be competitive advertisers will show the minimum price they can but EVERYTHING else then becomes an optional extra ... personally I like it that way. Why should I have £5 added to the cost of my DVD player to cover CS support because someone else can't be bothered to read the instructions?

There are of course times when it is very very wrong to use 0870.

Ivan

Steve_xx

Wig wrote:

The extra VAT in a price rise from 82p / litre to 92p/litre is about 1.5p per litre, I think the chancelor would have raised fuel duties by more than this had the pump prices not risen.

I think he actually announced the amount by which it was to be raised, it will be in his budget speeches if anyone knows where to look for them. So the treasury nevertheless is losing money because of the oil cost rise and the fact that Gordon has had to delay his own increases as a result.

The amount proposed was 1.22p per litre, therefore the current price of petrol inclusive of the VAT element is the equivalent of what was proposed, except to say that he has been enjoying the additional revenue stream for longer than he anticipated. The proposed hike was due to start on Sep 1 2005. That means he has more money in his coffers than he anticipated he would have.

Wig

IvanOpinion wrote:

There are of course times when it is very very wrong to use 0870.

Like when an 0845 would do the job just as easily at half the price.

But you probably mean, like when something like the Tsunami advice line or the London Bombing advice line are 0870.

Wig

Steve_xx wrote:

The amount proposed was 1.22p per litre, therefore the current price of petrol inclusive of the VAT element is the equivalent of what was proposed, except to say that he has been enjoying the additional revenue stream for longer than he anticipated. The proposed hike was due to start on Sep 1 2005. That means he has more money in his coffers than he anticipated he would have.

Of course we don't know what he forecast as an expected price rise, he might have forecast the price to be about 87p litre by now (giving him 0.75p extra in VAT)

So if he was expecting to add 1.22p on (=1.43p inc VAT) then he is still losing revenue (against his forecasts) at the rate of 1.43p - 0.75p = 0.68p per litre.

Steve_xx

Wig wrote:

Of course we don't know what he forecast as an expected price rise, he might have forecast the price to be about 87p litre by now (giving him 0.75p extra in VAT)

So if he was expecting to add 1.22p on (=1.43p inc VAT) then he is still losing revenue (against his forecasts) at the rate of 1.43p - 0.75p = 0.68p per litre.

No, I don't agree. Because he has been receiving the money earlier than he forecast, then the extra amount earned would make up what you admit to be a hypothetical difference.

Wig

Yes I thought you'd say that, so lets just say he's breaking even. :rotfl: (by the time he does get round to increasing the duty)