boofont Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Sign up here if you agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Signed! Wow, there is a list showing the last 500 peeps who have signed. My name lasted on there for only a few minutes ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Hey Atom wouldn't it be a good idea to get this on the front page if there is room? Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 This is a bit daft as fuel duty has been 57p a litre and has ben for a while. Yes its due to go up 2p so that would be worth complaining about, although 2p makes little difference when it seems to be going up this amount every week, another story. More significant is the BP/esso protest which is the one I think has alot more credence and if we all did that it moght work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizza5 Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 More significant is the BP/esso protest which is the one I think has alot more credence and if we all did that it might work. Doubt it as I have a BP fuel card and we get a slight discount on the fuel we buy, so given the present circumstances to save the company money in the rising fuel costs................I will continue to use BP along with millions of others! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy m Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think the argument is that it would be possible for the government to cut duty to ease the pressure etc. If it keeps going up then that would be an option until it comes back down, if that ever happens. If you get my drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Bearing in mind the duty on fuel has absolutely nothing do with with road transport in general. It's just another way the government raises its taxes of course. Reducing the duty (even if its just temporary) would help the country significantly as high fuel costs distort the rate of inflation due to it having such a large influence. Reducing the duty on fuel is a viable option in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel dabster Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think a reality check is needed if you ever think oil prices will come down. There may be fluctuations but its high and its going to stay that way till it runs out. I'm all for a reduction in the overall cost, just not sure which services we should take the money from, schools hospitals or social services etc etc. tell me what you think is best? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perce Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think a reality check is needed if you ever think oil prices will come down.There may be fluctuations but its high and its going to stay that way till it runs out. I'm all for a reduction in the overall cost, just not sure which services we should take the money from, schools hospitals or social services etc etc. tell me what you think is best? you really should have stuck to teaching, you socialist *******. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Oil prices have already fallen Link . They will no doubt fluctuate still but the price rise is making the Americans ( who drive proper gas gazzlers ) review how they get commute. It would take just a small overall percentage to have a large effect on prices. In the the link, you can see that this is already happening. If we want to take money from the economy, reduce the number of civil servants. Whilst employing people in these jobs keeps the employment numbers down, it does nothing to improve our country's wealth, which is ultimately what we need Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickymicky Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 A reduction in fuel duty, although very welcome would be made up from increased taxes elsewhere, and if there was increased administration involved in collecting it, we could be even worse off. The fact is,as we all know, Britain is seen worldwide as a haven for easy handouts and we have too many people taking out of the system and not enough paying in. Added to this we have outrageous saleries for the chosen few, such as your local GP- on up to 250K per annum, despite opting out of out of hours work and resisting any changes which could benefit the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldilocks Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Oil prices have already fallen Link . They will no doubt fluctuate still but the price rise is making the Americans ( who drive proper gas gazzlers ) review how they get commute. It would take just a small overall percentage to have a large effect on prices. In the the link, you can see that this is already happening. If we want to take money from the economy, reduce the number of civil servants. Whilst employing people in these jobs keeps the employment numbers down, it does nothing to improve our country's wealth, which is ultimately what we need Atom Ant I work for the public sector and I love your stance on this. Shell and company make billions of pounds and its my fault fuel prices are high as i dont contribute to the countrys wealth. Should you ever have the misfortune to break a leg and need hospital treatment I hope you come to the hospital I work for and we'll tell you to naff off ! Dabster is right, cutting fuel duty makes petrol cheaper but you can either reduce services or increase some other form of tax to compensate. Fuel is expensive because of the private sector profit made by Shell, BP et al not because of the public sector. Its simple supply and demand and the oil companies can demand what they like to supply us because we are totally dependent on their product. rant over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyl Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Does fuel have VAT?? 17.5 % Of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomant Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 Atom Ant I work for the public sector and I love your stance on this.Shell and company make billions of pounds and its my fault fuel prices are high as i dont contribute to the countrys wealth. Should you ever have the misfortune to break a leg and need hospital treatment I hope you come to the hospital I work for and we'll tell you to naff off ! Dabster is right, cutting fuel duty makes petrol cheaper but you can either reduce services or increase some other form of tax to compensate. Fuel is expensive because of the private sector profit made by Shell, BP et al not because of the public sector. Its simple supply and demand and the oil companies can demand what they like to supply us because we are totally dependent on their product. rant over. I expected this to rattle a few cages . No offence Seriously for a moment, if we are talking about hospitals, then the government invested many hundreds of millions in employing unnecessary positions in bureaucracy, particularly in management staff. These people ensure that the hospitals meet the government targets and report on them. They come up with devious and cunning plans to ensure they meet these targets even though it doesn't improve the service to you and I. Get rid of these jobs and jobs like them in other areas. We don't need them, we don't want to pay taxes for them, and ultimately, give us the money back in a reduction in taxes . By the way, the government can have little direct impact on the price of oil in the open market. What it can do however, is ensure it is using our taxes prudently. Something that I , and many others would argue it's not ! Rant over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofasttim Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Seriously for a moment, if we are talking about hospitals, then the government invested many hundreds of millions in employing unnecessary positions in bureaucracy, particularly in management staff. Sadly that's a characteristic of liberal govts the world over. Institute laws and regulations and then establish a bureaucracy to police those laws and regulations. Never forget that the purpose of a bureaucracy is to propogate it's own existance. Look at teaching, I can't speak for the UK but in NZ you have bureaucrats who police the teachers. I watched the same occur in SA (probably a bad example) where it got to the point that there were more bureaucrats than teachers. In one case the education department was told to cut back on it's spending, so the bureaucrats made the teachers redundant! There is a cartoon series in Private Eye about these bureaucrats in hospitals. In one there were redundancies in a hospital, the building was in poor shape but the "management" wing was being redecorated. (For Eiger) I see that the Sussex constabulary have told the home office to 'k off with their targets and statistics. Good on 'em. Back to the basics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.