Balpin Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Fuel taxes should be on a two teir scale. Fuel used for commuting to and from work should be charged at a lower rate. Fuel for leisure purposes should be charged at a higher rate. It could be done by fuel card, and charged via income tax. People not in the system would pay at the pump, and pay the higher rate regardless. This would be a twofold benefit. Workers would be rewarded. Tax dodgers would be penalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 The reckless people will drive regardless. The sensible ones make financially rational decision not to drive. This statement appears to be unrelated to the earlier one where you were commenting on the relationship between age and the cost of insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Fuel taxes should be on a two teir scale. Fuel used for commuting to and from work should be charged at a lower rate. Fuel for leisure purposes should be charged at a higher rate. It could be done by fuel card, and charged via income tax. People not in the system would pay at the pump, and pay the higher rate regardless. This would be a twofold benefit. Workers would be rewarded. Tax dodgers would be penalised. How do you determine how much fuel is used to commute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 It isn`t an assumption at all. It`s obvious. If they cut fuel tax they`ve only got two options : 1 Cut services, which is a perfectly reasonable debate to have, one way or the other, but it`s a completely different one. 2 Increase taxes elsewhere. Income tax is the biggest source of tax, particularly if you exclude VAT. I`m obviously excluding VAT because if they cut fuel tax, then put fuel back up again by increasing VAT, it`s pointless. There are many other options, the most obvious of which is to alter corporation tax. That's a larger source of income for the government than PAYE and less likely to upset voters. They could of course cut fuel duty by more and increase VAT on everything, so VAT is a possible way of recouping it, and as you say cuts to services would be an option as well. So many possibilities that it's not clear at all that an increase in income tax would be the chosen way of maintaining governmental income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 How do you determine how much fuel is used to commute? I determine mine by my trip computer. By driving properly, I can do a twenty mile journey on 15 miles worth of fuel on a good day. Other days it swings the opposite. It would obviously not be perfect, and a swings and roundabouts situation. It should not take any great leap to work out mileage v car type. But anything that helps to keep our bills down is attractive to me. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to go to work anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuy Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Fuel taxes should be on a two teir scale. Fuel used for commuting to and from work should be charged at a lower rate. Fuel for leisure purposes should be charged at a higher rate. It could be done by fuel card, and charged via income tax. People not in the system would pay at the pump, and pay the higher rate regardless. This would be a twofold benefit. Workers would be rewarded. Tax dodgers would be penalised. I like your thinking. How do you determine how much fuel is used to commute? I determine mine by my trip computer. By driving properly, I can do a twenty mile journey on 15 miles worth of fuel on a good day. Other days it swings the opposite. It would obviously not be perfect, and a swings and roundabouts situation. It should not take any great leap to work out mileage v car type. But anything that helps to keep our bills down is attractive to me. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to go to work anyway. Perhaps pre-determining is not the way, perhaps a percentage of the pump price for your work-commute fuel being reimbursed to you at a later date is a better way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You still didn't answer how the amount of fuel used it to be worked out. It could be based on distance but that won't be accurate, some cars will do 90mpg, some only 20mpg, and those figures depend on how the car is driven, not just what model it is. It seems like a mileage based system is being suggested though, so I guess you could be given tax relieve on your tax code based on your known distance to work and days worked in a year. You don't have to pay to go to work of course, you're free to get a job close to home and walk to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 To put things in context, total HMRC tax revenues in 2010/11 was something like £440billion, so a "loss" of £1.5billion is less than 0.5% of total revenues - not a big difference to the Government, but a big difference to the benefit claimants - and this is not just job seekers, dole scroungers, whatever terminology your ideology prefers, this is disability allowances, carer allowances etc who will lose in the region of £50-£100 a year just so petrol doesn't have to go up by about 2% I'd hate to see how much more the less well off would suffer if we weren't all in it together You can't lose what you've never had. We really need to send a wake up call to those who have a sense of entitlement. Whilst it's less than ideal that those who can't work should lose out, why should those who won't work get such an increase; especially when those of us paying into the system have had pay cuts / freezes for a number of years? Scrapping the duty increase on fuel will have knock on benefits in the economy, helping EVERY family in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You still didn't answer how the amount of fuel used it to be worked out. It could be based on distance but that won't be accurate, some cars will do 90mpg, some only 20mpg, and those figures depend on how the car is driven, not just what model it is. It seems like a mileage based system is being suggested though, so I guess you could be given tax relieve on your tax code based on your known distance to work and days worked in a year. You don't have to pay to go to work of course, you're free to get a job close to home and walk to work. It was just an idea. I do not have fully worked out plan how to make it work. Its not important anyway. Do you think that the government is waiting with bated breath to see what an old duffer on a provincial internet forum is babbling about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You can't lose what you've never had. Scrapping the duty increase on fuel will have knock on benefits in the economy, helping EVERY family in the country. Using the same logic in your argument, if you can't lose what you've never had, can you benefit from the removal of an increase that didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.