Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
crashmonitor

Fuel Duty Cut For Remote Areas

Recommended Posts

So, basically, any petrol station just the 'wrong' side of the demarcation goes out of business or cuts the price by 5p as well? Oh, wait, silly me. Actions never have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sod off we don't want your houses but we want your economy of scale.

http://www.telegraph...te-regions.html

They want cheap broadband to live out in the sticks too. We should say you can have cheap broadband but first permit 100 new houses.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if driving is 'a choice' for many outwith remote locations. It could be described as such if planning laws meant that people could more or less choose where to live but it simply isn't the case. Longer commutes as a result of bubble prices in locations where public transport is not available at the relevant times/cost, yeah it's 'a choice' to get in the car Danny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if driving is 'a choice' for many outwith remote locations. It could be described as such if planning laws meant that people could more or less choose where to live but it simply isn't the case. Longer commutes as a result of bubble prices in locations where public transport is not available at the relevant times/cost, yeah it's 'a choice' to get in the car Danny.

How great it would be if we could all put it on expenses. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be described as such if planning laws meant that people could more or less choose where to live but it simply isn't the case. Longer commutes as a result of bubble prices in locations where public transport is not available at the relevant times/cost, yeah it's 'a choice' to get in the car Danny.

Exactly, the planning laws were introduced in the 1950's to stop urban sprawl and ribbon developments, well that's what they tell us anyway. The idea was that better and cheaper services could be provided where housing density is greater.

The problem in the UK is that they throttled supply of housing whilst pumping credit to cause a 'sustainable bubble' where people need to work in the city, but cannot afford to live there so have to commute for an hour each way every day.

building more housing where it is required around the towns and cities where work is located would solve the commuting problem, but it would also mean that the population of rural communities would reduce and prices would fall - but then you cant have your cake and eat it.

You find here that rural property 40 mins drive from the city is practically worthless, whilst property in the towns and cities is more expensive. In the UK it is the opposite way around and a sign of an unhealthy market IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, the planning laws were introduced in the 1950's to stop urban sprawl and ribbon developments, well that's what they tell us anyway. The idea was that better and cheaper services could be provided where housing density is greater.

The problem in the UK is that they throttled supply of housing whilst pumping credit to cause a 'sustainable bubble' where people need to work in the city, but cannot afford to live there so have to commute for an hour each way every day.

building more housing where it is required around the towns and cities where work is located would solve the commuting problem, but it would also mean that the population of rural communities would reduce and prices would fall - but then you cant have your cake and eat it.

You find here that rural property 40 mins drive from the city is practically worthless, whilst property in the towns and cities is more expensive. In the UK it is the opposite way around and a sign of an unhealthy market IMO.

It could be that there are the people who are moving out of the expensive towns and cities and are taking their property money with them.....the expensive housing ripple effect, affecting certain places for certain reasons. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get 5p off a litre doing shopping. There is usually a 5p difference between some stations anyway, even more on the m-way. Going out of your way for a mere £2, not an englishman's way surely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they subsidise people to live and work in London...and they subsidise people who live far away...it's the mugs in the middle who stump up?

It is the middle who have always paid....they help keep the rich rich, paying for themselves and at the same time helping to pay for those that can't pay for themselves.......same as it ever was. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In related news, it's been decided that the tax system is too simple and we need more measures like this that manage to complicate matters, create perverse incentives, but have little if any of the desired effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because the areas being discussed are London commuter territory. Once again HPC twists anything to "Let us build more crap everywhere."

I'm not for the urbanisation of the countryside, but if you want to live in a rural idyll there has got to be a quid pro quo; don't think poor urbanites should be subsidising the deliveries and small scale of petrol fuelling stations in remote areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for the urbanisation of the countryside, but if you want to live in a rural idyll there has got to be a quid pro quo; don't think poor urbanites should be subsidising the deliveries and small scale of petrol fuelling stations in remote areas.

When you live in a nice place it is hard to find a reason to want to move.......they can always come to you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another additional complication in the tax legislation, 11,000+ pages and counting.

You're quite right to highlight that, it's a long running joke really.

Edit there you go GC:

cheeznbreed ‏@cheeznbreed 2m

@dannyalexander The world's longest tax code is not sufficient for MPs. Proposed fuel duty changes create even more tax complexity. Stop it!

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if driving is 'a choice' for many outwith remote locations. It could be described as such if planning laws meant that people could more or less choose where to live but it simply isn't the case. Longer commutes as a result of bubble prices in locations where public transport is not available at the relevant times/cost, yeah it's 'a choice' to get in the car Danny.

What's another arbitrary threat to go on the pile? I mean, why not! It's not like there is much logic or consistency attached to many others.

What a mess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fuel duty cut in Northumberland, Yorkshire and Wales sounds like a sweetener for when the fracking starts in these "desolate" areas.

+1

Shouldn't there be ultra cheap fuel in areas subject to fracking - due to proximity. For example the Middle East has very cheap petrol (apparently Iraq's fuel is about 60p per litre and it's gone up massively since 2004 when it was about 3p per litre).

At any rate according to Howell not only are those places in the UK *desolate but they're also *uninhabited so it shouldn't cost the taxpayer anything at all.

* On the other hand maybe it was a prediction for the future - during and after fracking.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for the urbanisation of the countryside, but if you want to live in a rural idyll there has got to be a quid pro quo; don't think poor urbanites should be subsidising the deliveries and small scale of petrol fuelling stations in remote areas.

Isn't it fair enough in principle when Londoners and large city-dwellers get (large number) times more public money spent per capita on things like public transport and public sector job creation than those, say, in rural Northumberland or Cornwall?

A couple of grands worth of public transport subsidy per year versus no buses, a bit off your petrol and slightly-better-than-in-a-free-market-but-not-much broadband provision? If it's horses for courses, I don't think the rural-ites are the ones being handed the thoroughbreds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another additional complication in the tax legislation,

There's too much repetition in that.

How about "Yet more complexity in the tax regime"?

Or even "yet more daft law"? I guess the redundancy of the word "daft" is a debating point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the real scandal here that 60% of the cash price you pay for petrol is tax.

So put £10 of petrol in the car, that's £6.00 tax and £4 for the actual product.

And we queue to pay like good meek little citizens....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the real scandal here that 60% of the cash price you pay for petrol is tax.

So put £10 of petrol in the car, that's £6.00 tax and £4 for the actual product.

And we queue to pay like good meek little citizens....

The scandal is that we burn so much hydrocarbon with only such a piddling token payment for the damage it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it fair enough in principle when Londoners and large city-dwellers get (large number) times more public money spent per capita on things like public transport and public sector job creation than those, say, in rural Northumberland or Cornwall?

A couple of grands worth of public transport subsidy per year versus no buses, a bit off your petrol and slightly-better-than-in-a-free-market-but-not-much broadband provision? If it's horses for courses, I don't think the rural-ites are the ones being handed the thoroughbreds...

Very true, at least us urban types have a choice. There are many 'normal' people in rural areas who are currently being totally fleeced when it comes to getting around - not only is there no (or little) public transport but you are also pay what? 80p+ a litre tax on fuel just to get around. This 80p a litre pf tax is I am sure at some point subsidising cheap public transport for many urban areas.

Not everyone who lives in a rural area is a nimby boomer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   222 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.