The fuel tax has gotten a lot of bad press lately....

Post Reply New Topic

And I was wondering why. I mean, from an environmental standpoint, this is a good thing. In my experience, most people I know make somewhat unnecessary journeys by car which could be made just as quickly (given Britains traffic) and almost as much comfort on a half decent bicycle. The Greenpeace campaigners are asking Gordon Brown not to cave on the fuel protests because the tax itself is (as far as I'm aware) supposed to change our attitudes to our driving. Sure petrol is expensive, but would you rather pay mroe to drive more andwake up one day to fnd out all the oil is gone? It might be a little harder to adjust at the time, don't you think?

Anyways.... discuss away.

The fuel tax should not be lessened in rich countries. It provides additional incentive to use efficient cars - which reduce dependence upon oil as a energy source and help fight against global warming.

how? all you do is bleed out the poorest people while the people who can afford it don't sweat it.

that's why i hate the whole idea of taxing petrol/gas...all it does is f**k over the people who don't have money.

how about you set up a tax fund to fund a billion dollar prize to the group/company to produce a car that isn't reliant on petrol/gas? have real goals set up for it; not the stupid mpg goal...that's not real improvement and it's something that was done back in the 80s.

The government can't survive on thin air, it needs to tax something, and no matter what I say it is, you will say it bleeds the poor. If we got rid of all non-income tax and only used a progressive income tax, the poor would still be paying more than they do now.

So you'd like to cut out all gas tax income and fund a billion dollar prize - that's not very practical at all, the government needs money to stay in operation as well.

keep on topic here, buddy. fuel tax, not income tax.

1) Where does the money go?

2) Why can't we just pay people to use their bikes more often? That'd be cool. More economy beneficial perhaps.

You brought up the income tax implicitly. You claimed that fuel taxes bleed the poor. Well, if this one does in your mind, then most other flat taxes do. So obviously you are in favor of progressive taxes. Well, the only taxes that can be progressive are income-taxes; what are you going to do, make someone bring a pay stub to the petrol station?

Also, don't talk to me like that. Thanks.

Not everyone can own a vehicle. In some countries that status is reserved for the middle and upper classes.


You got a bike? You see the bus? No? Can you walk? Yeah, buddy.

Blatant profiteering by a corrupt government that has badly mis-managed the economy. Simple as that. Excessive fuel taxes in the UK do NOTHING to save the environment, and will eventually cripple this nation.

I prefer Coasian contracts to Pigovian taxes, but I can see the U.K. government's goal (although, I might disagree with that goal). Since the tax is not a bad idea to reach that goal, I'd say it serves its function and isn't a bad policy necessarily.

IMO, a fuel tax is the best way to solve the problem. One thing that has been shown again and again is that the free market is the best way to develop things if it can be pointed in the right direction. By taxing gas, the companies that produce the more efficient cars are going to be the ones to make money. This will be a way faster way of dealing with the problem then just having the government handing out grants. With the force of the free market directed at the problem, we'll probably see super-efficient cars within a few years. Leave it to the government and it'll probably take decades

There's plenty of ways to make this tax not affect the poor. Reduce income tax to counter-balance the new tax so the government doesn't make any more money if needed. Use some of it to fund more public transit so people can get easily without paying the tax. Use it to subsidize the price of cars that have reached a target level of fuel efficiency.

It's not fun in the meantime, but in a few years it'll balance out.

Still isnt going to help the environment, no matter what the UK does.

Personally I am against any fuel tax, the prices are to high, even here in Alberta Canada, its at 1.29 per liter, but I only use my car to get to work and shopping, so it less then $50 per week. the problem with countries like Canada is that its not practical to be riding a bike all year, the temperatures can be extremely cold for most of the year, also peoples homes are heated by natural gas, and that is always being increased, so talk of raising prices here generate a lot of anger since we are an oil and gas rich province, but we are getting some of the highest prices for gas. I am all for conservation, I see alot of extremely rich oil executives here in Calgary, all of them driving their Hummers or Cadillac Escalades, which their companie pays for including the gas to run them.
The average person here can barely afford to drive to work because of the cost of gas, and people working in the service industry, can barely afford a roof over their head, so having this bloody tax on top of all the other taxes is putting people out of there homes, while the rich are flaunting these taxes, and still driving these gas guzzlers around. Maybe instead of taxing fuel since it is a necessity in most 1st world northern countries, governments should be outlawing inefficient vehicle's, get rid of all the gas guzzlers, and maybe improve public transport instead of having people crowd into city cores with their cars, like they do in Calgary, which is the most poorly designed city in Canada if not North America, where its not uncommon to be stuck in a 2 to 3 hour traffic jam during rush hour, which is a 3rd of the day here.
Rant over.

If the UK had public transportation like that of Switzerland, high fuel taxes would be reasonable. In London, public transportation is merely extortionate; it's dysfunctional pretty much everywhere else. Unless there are good alternatives to flying and driving, fuel taxes are merely a revenue-raising scheme.

The UK government recognizes that demand slopes downward and there is a price elasticity demand on the price of gas. By increasing the price of gas, consumers will try and use alternatives, which in the U.S. at least, we have clearly seen (less traveling, people buying cheaper cars, etc). I've been in London, and the public transportation doesn't seem to be that bad really (at least compared to other major cities like D.C. or New York). You can buy the week long tube passes for any of the zones you want for a reasonable price (which is unlimited travel on both the tubes and buses really), or just get an Oyster card if you aren't going to use them often. Although the lack of cooling during the summer is pretty annoying.

Yes, but if there are few real alternatives, then demand is going to be pretty inelastic, especially as here people are already driving fuel-efficient cars. In the US, public transportation is mostly pretty bad but there is huge room for improvement in better mileage and some room in cycling more.