Go into nearly ANY office environment and you can't breath. Nobody i know gives a stuff about the whole thing which i find quite disgusting...Yes I must have strange associates!!
Watch 99% of people boil a kettle and they will overfill it, usually by 100%
People in 'T' shirts indoors in the winter.........What's that all about? Not only unhealthy, but murderous to the oil/gas bill....What's that all about??
We have a saying here in Devon and it goes like this............."You can't educate Pork" I give up i'm afraid.
YI despair....................MD
|
|
No different from the hypocrisy of the EU Commissioners in their 7 Series and S Class cars debating how much (little) CO2 the plebs cars are going to be allowed to emit.
|
Other People's Money is valueless to the spender....
madf
|
I live in an old cottage in France with just a log burner (quite efficient, actually) with warm air ducts for heating. We have the continental climate, which means winters are colder than in the UK - though all the rest of the year is warmer - so we wear big jumpers with plenty underneath.
I haven't had a cold in the five winters I've been here.
The wood ash (from local trees) makes stuff grow in the garden as well.
Mind you, a 4x4 SUV would be handy in January - anybody know of a tidy 1990 Honda Shuttle for sale?
|
>>And this is why the motorist is obscenly over taxed. A barrel of oil will do no less environmental damage weather it's burnt as heating fuel for houses or used in cars, so why is 2/3s of the price of petrol tax?<<
Some would suggest that a barrell of oil costs alot more than the circa $60 per barrell.
The real price has cost the US over $400 Billion Dollars so far just for Iraqi oil and then there is the billions of UK sterling that our taxes are being used for our contribution for Iraqi oil.
That is the real reason for motorists being obscenely over taxed.
Apologies if I am getting a bit political - but Iraqi oil has to be paid for somehow and you and I are paying for it in our motoring taxes.
|
I assume you mean motorists are being hit in the pocket since public spending has risen because of higher military spending, whilst at the same time oil supply may have been higher if there were no iraqi war, thus leading to higher oil prices because of the iraqi war.
I don't however think that these issues have much to do with motorists however. The oil price will hurt all oil consumers, whilst the rise in public spending will affect the budget deficit and general taxation.
Motor taxation is likely to prove less responsive to the financial situration of the government than general taxation. Taxation of motorists is driven more by the political climate (Think of the fuel protesters and the internet petitions now) than government finance pressures. However taxation in general is driven more by government financial pressures. Using this anaysis we could conclude that if public spending rises (lets say on a war) motorists could benifit reletive to the general taxpayer.
As for the fact that motorists spend more on oil derived items (petrol mainly) than for example the retail trade it would make sense that higher oil prices hurt motorists more than other groups in society, for example retailers.
What I don't follow, is how Iraqi oil is being paid for by our motoring taxes? - I much rather my explination, but then again I maybe missing some common sense.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
No I do not think you are missing any common sense mk124, I was just using the Iraqi situation as an example of how there is much much more to the price of oil than the cost of a barrell on the open market (and picking up on the statement someone above made on obscene motoring taxes) the current conflict is being paid for from motoring taxes (as well as others). One of the 'benefits' of controlling Iraq is that the US and UK have opened up another source of oil supply that they now have greater control over. I think I am correct in saying that VED raises about £24Bn a year (or that may be all motoring taxation in th UK) of which £7Bn is used on the highways. That leaves £17Bn of motoring taxes being spent on other things of which some will be in supporting our troops etc.
The attached link suggest that the US pays an additional $50Bn a year in securing it's oil supply and that revenue can only be raised from taxation.
I appreciate I am mixing US & UK politics here but clearly we are involved in the conflict and as motorists we may through the nose for the privilege IMO.
www.iags.org/costofoil.html
|
as motorists we may through the nose for the privilege IMO.
Sorry Pay through the nose (not may) for the privilege.
|
To state the obviouse you don't support the war in iraq. I regret I cannot share those sentiments, but I hope you detest many of the other taxes we pay for the same reason as you detest motoring taxes - since they all support the war.
Does that mean you think we are all obcenely taxed, even the non motoring of us?
My point was that the tax the motorist pays for producing CO2 (linking back to the OP) is obcene compaired with what households and industry pay. Why should industry (including government) produce CO2 so cheaply, when car drivers pay through the nose for polluting activities?
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
|
Trying to educate housemates that 23C is not the typical indoor temperature is an exercise in futility itself. I ended up taking the knob off the boiler and turning it back 5 degrees before sticking it back on. So far they haven't noticed....
|
LOL sneeky. The thermostat in the uni place i stayed in was so inaccurate that when set around 14C the actual temp was about 20C. Didn't stop people turning it up over 20 though. Unforunately the knob wouldn't come off.
This sort of stuff makes me mad as well.
At the university i go to computers & monitors are left on during evenings and weekends when no one is using them. There must be 400 computers at about 200 watts each.....
Lights in the car parks switch on at 15:00, a good 3 hours before they are needed.
Lights in lecture theatres are left on all night. etc. etc. etc.....
|
I agree that as motorists we are an easy target for taxation with the excuse that it is fair because we produce so much CO2 even though the motor industry is doing more than most to reduce CO2. It is that way because it is easy for the government to do so. Just as it was to raise air ticket tax. A tax that is now being challenged by the Airlines as none of it is being used to reduce CO2.
Maybe it would be fairer if a home & industry energy tax was introduced.
Whether I support the war in Iraq is not an issue and I fail to see how you came to that conclusion. If your sentiments are that war is good that is up to you - it's not a view I wish to advertise on a motoring forum. My point was that the facts are the taxation is so high not only due to CO2 but also to secure the supply of oil we use in our cars in the first instance. There is a much bigger cost to motoring than we all sometimes realise and this has to be met somehow. These are the facts.
>>Does that mean you think we are all obcenely taxed, even the non motoring of us?<<
Even if I do not, the national audit office have stated that we are taxed more heavily as a % of income than any of our competitors on the world stage - but again I am not sure what this has to do with the OP.
|
I think thisa thread has slightly creeped off tangent as you all seem tobe debating car related taxes and the iraq war yet the real issue is the reduction of carbon based emissions is it not?
I think the goverment need tot hink beyond the war and the motorist and question where exactly is all the extra moneyt from green taxing going an why ae the emissions not reducing.
It seems all the extra money is being plowed into europe, an issue hardly discussed in comparison to other more headline worthy issues such as war and car tax. I have yet to see any real benefit to being part of the EU.
As for reducing emmisions, if a car can be run on veg oil why can diesel generators not do the same? this will have a massive impact, power station emmisions would fall dramatically, local farmers could reap the gains (they really need it as well) and also the emmisions would fall from all the transportation associated with fossil fuels to power stations.
|
If the Government were really serious:
they would concentrate on the littel steps which individually achieve small saving .. but they add up. Becasue you can do that with minimal disruption and cost and it can be made finacially attractive for evryone to do it. (Energy savings bulbs etc).
Instead they go for BIG projects like windfarms: very expensive and only work when there is a consistent wind (review suggest claimed output - on which projects were justiified - were overstated and only 30% achieved..).
As far as motoring.. just skew RFL so anything doing under 20mpg on the combined cycle pays £2k pa, anything 20-25.. £1000 etc..
Government offices: just make local managers accountable and monitor usage: any child can read a meter and enter into a spreadsheet and compare usage with last year by month.. I did that at prior jobs and do at home... It's NOT rocket science.
But it's the lov of BIG projects .. which cost £ millions, take years and don't work (sound familiar .. look at IT projects.)
Frankly it's about time a few Civil Service Managers and Gov't ministers were fired.
madf
|
I read in the past few days that government car use was up by 10% in the past year (IIRC). Surely the only way to obtain a 10% reduction in carbon emmissions is to ensure the vehicles are used 10% less - therefore guaranteeing emissions are cut without having to change vehicles. I have to question whether all these meetings were necessary in person and surely modern technology could have been used (telephone, web cams, video conferencing, etc.) to reduce distances travelled. Xerox always maintained that the net benefit of a meeting should exceed it's cost otherwise the meeting should never be called. Perhaps common sense is what is missing to obtain these results.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
mk124 you said this:
".......... And this is why the motorist is obscenely over taxed. A barrel of oil will do no less environmental damage weather it's burnt as heating fuel for houses or used in cars, so why is 2/3s of the price of petrol tax?"
BUT
I heard some gov minister last week saying that the UK motorist wasn't over taxed and that in fact the price of motoring had fallen in real terms while the cost of public transport had risen in real terms and therefore motorists are actually getting a good deal. If they truly believe that the UK motorist is getting off lightly then no wonder there is a completely blinkered view of affairs.
As for your other point - exactly - as you point out, taxing heating oil/fuel etc would be politically a lot more damaging than motorists, which brings us full circle to climate change {and no we don't want to go down that road as there is already a thread going on that} and whether it actually exists and the propaganda behind the justification of taxing motorists so high. There is hypocrisy throughout - I wish the Gov would say "we need £50bn to help run the country and motorists seem as good a target as any. We can't increase income tax as inward investment would suffer and it would encourage an even bigger brain drain and it would be a lot more obvious that we are frittering away the money that we raise".
|
I largely agree. What about those supermarkets and other shops that leave the main doors wide open it the middle of Winter? How about making that illegal. what about people who do not insulate their homes? What about those outdoor heaters?
I guess motorists are an easy target. Especially if you are a woolly tie wearing London Transport using Nu Labah apparatchnik.
|
I heard some gov minister last week saying that the UK motorist wasn't over taxed and that in fact the price of motoring had fallen in real terms while the cost of public transport had risen in real terms and therefore motorists are actually getting a good deal. If they truly believe that the UK motorist is getting off lightly then no wonder there is a completely blinkered view of affairs.
Compared with the costs faced by users of public transport, the motorist has indeed got off lightly.
Fuel taxes have indeed increased, but the special duty of new vehicles was abolished in the early 90s, and road tax has barely kept place with inflation since the 1980s. The cost of new cars has fallen, and their lifecycle costs have fallen even further through increased reliability.
Motorists complain most loudly about fuel prices, but that's probably because those costs are the most visible: we fill up our fuel tanks several times a month, but only buy a new vehicle every few years. Depreciation is the biggest cost for most motorists, but it's not the one which attracts most attention.
|
"Compared with the costs faced by users of public transport, the motorist has indeed got off lightly."
You must listen VERY carefully to what the Gov't says on this issue. They compare pigs with apples.
One of the big reasons for cost increases in public transport - buses - is the costs of diesle and wages have risen and passenger numbers fallen... so cost per passenger mile has indeed gone up.
And in rail the cost of building railways in the UK is much higher than anywhere else in Europe (souces: local councils and Dept of Transport).
Meanwhile the cost of a new car has fallen ... as they were once 20% overpriced versus Europe.
So you can prove anything with Gov't statistics...
And of course in rail travel, there is NO and I repeat NO way in the next 20 years that the rail network is going to carry more than 15% more traffic than at present cos it's already running around 90% capacity with no major increases planned..
So be aware : if the Gov't quotes statistics to prove its case, they are usaually selective and hence the comparisons are misleading.
But then that's normal.:-(
madf
|
|
Watch 'The Global Warming Swindle on C4 tonite.
|
"Compared with the costs faced by users of public transport, the motorist has indeed got off lightly." You must listen VERY carefully to what the Gov't says on this issue. They compare pigs with apples.
Madf, the government is not comparing pigs with apples. The price paid by an individual going about her business by public transport has risen a lot more than the cost of doing the same journeys by car.
You provide an explanation for why you think the changes have happened, but that doesn't alter the fact they have happened. In ten years the bus fare from my home to the centre of town has increased from 60p (off peak) / 90p (peak) to £1.50 / £2.10. Mainline rail fares have gone beserk.
One of the big reasons for cost increases in public transport - buses - is the costs of diesle and wages have risen and passenger numbers fallen... so cost per passenger mile has indeed gone up.
You are probably right about diesel, but bus drivers wages have been slashed in most of the country, to the point where London bus companies have a permamnent recruitment crisis. Another reason is that subsidies have often been withdrawn, and services that were once run on a muncipal non-profit basis are now turning in a handy profit for the likes of First Group. It's true that passenger numbers have fallen, partly because of the way that service levels have been gutted outside London, but also because of the shift in the relatrive price to passenger of cars and public transport.
And in rail the cost of building railways in the UK is much higher than anywhere else in Europe (souces: local councils and Dept of Transport).
You may be right there, but again that points to the government being correct in its description of the problem (though as usual, up the spout in terms of a solution)
Meanwhile the cost of a new car has fallen ... as they were once 20% overpriced versus Europe.
And also because the 10% duty on new cars was abolished in the early 90s, to the point where the UK has about the lowest tax in Europe on new cars (in Ireland there is a VRT of between 22.5% and 30%, and in Denmark it's even higher). The manufacturers no longer overcharge as much in the UK, but the cash price paid by buyers elsewhere in the EU is often a lot higher.
So you can prove anything with Gov't statistics...
Actually, in this case, the government figures stack up quite well.
And of course in rail travel, there is NO and I repeat NO way in the next 20 years that the rail network is going to carry more than 15% more traffic than at present cos it's already running around 90% capacity with no major increases planned.
Quite true, but that's a separate issue to pricing. The government prefers to waste public funds on missiles, aircraft carriers and wars, rather than on improving infrastructure :(
So be aware : if the Gov't quotes statistics to prove its case, they are usaually selective and hence the comparisons are misleading.
The comparison is not at all misleading. For the person facing a choice between buying a car or relying on public transport, the prices have been moving heavily in favour of the car.
Where I think we agree, though, is that this is largely a product of the govt's own incompetent policies.
|
>Now Wheels
One of the reasons for the increase in cost of rail fares is that the Train Operating companies pay money to the Government for the franchise. and it increases year by year..! (strangely enough the Government does not mention this!)
I agree about incompetent policies.. since they can't even organise to reduce their own carbon emissions/cut energy usage it's clear they are not competent to run a transport policy.. or a Home Office...
if they owned a brewery, they would be unable to organise a drinking session.. but on second thoughts, with the current DPM..:-)
madf
|
In ten years the bus fare from my home to the centre of town has increased from 60p (off peak) / 90p (peak) to £1.50 / £2.10. Mainline rail fares have gone beserk.
Pre the first gulf war I seem to recall paying about 45p (or was it less) for a litre of unleaded and I was aghast when it topped 50p a litre. So your 50% increase is probably about the same as the increase for a litre of unleaded (although I am sure that someone can be more accurate with proper figures)
|
>> In ten years the bus fare from my home to the >> centre of town has increased from 60p (off peak) / 90p >> (peak) to £1.50 / £2.10. Mainline rail fares have gone beserk. Pre the first gulf war I seem to recall paying about 45p (or was it less) for a litre of unleaded and I was aghast when it topped 50p a litre. So your 50% increase is probably about the same as the increase for a litre of unleaded (although I am sure that someone can be more accurate with proper figures)
The off-peak fare's jump from 60p to £1.50 is not a 50% increase, it's a 150% increase. The peak fare increase is 133%.
Remember, though, that the fare is the only cost element for the public transport user. The car user's biggest cost. the purchase of the car, has fallen heavily in real terms.
|
There is a lot of information of the cost of UK rail projects which are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than otherwhere in Europe...
www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2004/hsr/research/04.htm
is a useful analysis.... and suggest it is mangement that is the issue (i.e. Government incompetence)
"4.3 The cost of high-speed rail construction in Britain appears to be much greater than in other countries. Some of this difference is probably unavoidable: land costs, for example, are greater in Britain than in other countries and these in turn are affected by wider differences in the structure of the countries' property markets. However, we have found that some cost differences between Britain and other countries are rather hard to justify. Costs are likely to be lower if countries undertake major high speed rail construction programmes, in a number of stages over time, rather than construct a oneoff high speed line. In Britain, the construction of a high speed line from London to Scotland could constitute such a programme, as the line would probably be constructed in several stages. If Britain adopted such a programme, we estimate that cost savings in the region of 20-30% should be possible. The operating costs of highspeed railways are also likely to be lower than would be assumed from extrapolation of current operating costs, as these appear to have been inflated in recent years."
madf
|
|
"it does make me want to develop a car that runs on heating oil"
I think most diesels will, but you will fall foul of Customs & Excise if you try. They have to catch you first, of course...
|
|
|
|
