Young Carers of The Mix, we need you! Tell us about your experiences of our services and give yourself a chance to win £50 of Amazon vouchers.

It cost £50 to....

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sikorah wrote: »
    because its a 2litre toyota mr2.

    i also dont drive in the most economical way and travelling to work everyday involves stopping/starting at numerous sets of lights and roundabouts and also sitting in a queue.

    Cor... I saw that economy on my Scooby. You should be seeing 30mpg+ on a little MR2 - my neighbour has a 1990 model, and never gets less than 35mpg, with a good amount of town use.

    22mpg on that would indicate either a driver who has no concept of moderating the throttle usage, or a vehicle in a dire state of tune.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    petrol tax is necessary to expand and maintain the transport infrastructure
    ShyBoy, would you mind telling me whether you drive? Because if you do, I'd love to know how on earth you came to this frankly mad conclusion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    ShyBoy, would you mind telling me whether you drive? Because if you do, I'd love to know how on earth you came to this frankly mad conclusion.

    How is it mad?

    No money, no roads.

    I won't debate where and when this government spends the tax revenues, they've only got themselves to blame for pouring money down the drain on two wars etc.

    But fundamentally if you want a good transport infrastructure you need taxation. The first option is to just tax everyone on their income tax. But that means that those who use it more get a 'free ride' as opposed to those who don't use it all. Nobody likes to work 9-5 and have their money go to pay for someone elses stuff.

    The second option is just add tax onto the price of fuel. The more people drive, the more they pay. This is a rough measure but it's much fairer, though still not perfect.

    I discussed in another thread the proposals put forward to the government about making a much better system of taxation based on congestion a lot, as that is where 'money' is lost in the system (i.e. the economic cost of a journey that was heavily congested is much higher in time + pollution than one without congestion).

    But really SG, are you proposing we stop paying for the roads? Should we use dirt tracks?

    Also agreed with JsT that money shouldn't be cut but again, blame the government for that, it's nothing to do with the concept of taxation and fuel tax hasn't increased significantly since the last conservative government (as a %age). It's the cost of crude oil which is sending petrol prices silly, they've doubled in the past few years. In fact, I believe tax has been cut on petrol in order to try and keep prices at the same level, because otherwise people moan about tax, etc. etc.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    ACtually the cost of Crude Oil has dropped alot since the Iraq War prices, BUT... Petrol Companies have kept the price up - remember, they are posting record profits now. I wonder why... sigh.

    Also yes, we need taxes on such things for Roads etc, and we are paying for a war, but Germany keeps it roads better than ours on less money. So meh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    22mpg on that would indicate either a driver who has no concept of moderating the throttle usage, or a vehicle in a dire state of tune.

    hmm mines a 1992 mk2 model.

    if it does need tuning, its certainly not in a dire state.
    maybe its justs my own fault, the novelty hasnt worn off yet and i love hearing the engine behind me.
    Although, before this, my 1.6 16v escort only did about 280/290 off a tank of fuel. And theres only one way to drive that-steadily!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well ShyBoy, I noticed you dodged the question of whether you're a driver yourself. (and if you're wondering about me, I do indeed drive) My cynical side does wonder why you're being so evasive on that, but nonetheless...
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    No money, no roads. I won't debate where and when this government spends the tax revenues, they've only got themselves to blame for pouring money down the drain on two wars etc.
    Have you seen the state of British roads? They're forever being dug up for some reason or other. You've either got constant roadworks and traffic lights to deal with, councils which are forever putting up more and more unnecessary distractions, (pointless signs, new roundabouts when people have coped just fine without them for many years, etc) congested roads... who'd seriously envy the British motorist?
    The second option is just add tax onto the price of fuel. The more people drive, the more they pay. This is a rough measure but it's much fairer, though still not perfect.
    The classic politics of envy is coming into play here, I can sense it. You're probably thinking about people who drive inefficient cars that go through petrol like no tomorrow, or about mums picking up kids from school in huge "Chelsea tractors", aren't you? Yet under this system, the poorest in society are harder hit. They are the ones who are having to spend more and more money each week running their car - and they're not ones for driving huge cars. Are you seriously saying that, after the Government kicked the poor in the teeth by abolishing the 10p tax band, that they should have to fork out even more for fuel? This is why I believe that the extortionately high level of fuel duty in this country is wrong, and also why the fuel duty escalator is completely immoral.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lol stargalaxy, I made exactly that point in the other thread. Stealing my arguments, now? ;)

    a) yes I am a road user (motorcycle mainly!)
    b) I didn't comment on how the councils or government invest the money, just noted that if you want a good transport system you're going to have to spend money on it, and that has to come from somewhere
    c) it's not about envy, it's about dividing the cost of road upkeep between those that use it more or less. If you use the roads more, then you should pay more for their upkeep. If you go out for a meal, and have a starter, main and pudding and your mate just has a main, you should pay more shouldn't you?

    The crude system is that of petrol taxation, where it doesn't take into account a whole torrent of factors, but on the whole it's fairer than just taxing everyone on their income tax. Road pricing is fairer still, but nobody wants toll roads so there we are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think i'd die if i had to pay that amount of money to fill my car up once! I probably spend that much in the whole month!

    I drive a car with a 3.5litre engine and it only costs me £10 to fill up my baby :heart:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    ACtually the cost of Crude Oil has dropped alot since the Iraq War prices, BUT... Petrol Companies have kept the price up - remember, they are posting record profits now. I wonder why... sigh.

    actually sweet crude hit $120/barrel today and it's not just the falling dollar.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To all those who complain about fuel duty and road tax: how on earth do you think the Government pays for road maintenance? Magic money?

    The cost of road upkeep isn't met solely by road tax and fuel duty and people should remember that. Those who don't drive are subsidising drivers through their income tax. It is completely right that drivers pay for the cost of their roads.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,992 Part of the furniture
    Kermit wrote: »
    To all those who complain about fuel duty and road tax: how on earth do you think the Government pays for road maintenance? Magic money?

    Fuel duty is a is a fair and propotionate way of taxing drivers. Road Tax is not.
    There's no doubt about it our goverment is one of the worst at levelling harsh taxes and charges against drivers.

    I don't care now anyway. I've got a company fuel card that I used for all my milliage in my van. :D
    And I plan to get a bike again later on this year.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    To all those who complain about fuel duty and road tax: how on earth do you think the Government pays for road maintenance? Magic money?

    The cost of road upkeep isn't met solely by road tax and fuel duty and people should remember that. Those who don't drive are subsidising drivers through their income tax. It is completely right that drivers pay for the cost of their roads.

    I don't know the actual figures but it would be interesting to find out! I'd argue in some areas tax is designed as a behaviour modifier as congested journeys are in effect an economic cost (could be classed as a demerit good?) for example London / the M6 with it's tolls.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Fuel duty is a is a fair and propotionate way of taxing drivers.

    It's proportionate but the 'fair' bit is slightly debatable, simply because if you take it as a proportion of your income, someone on a low income may end up spending (guess here) 10% of their income on travel costs whereas someone on a high income (again, guess) 1% of their income on travel costs. This is discriminatory to people on lower incomes as it effectively limits how much they travel. I know obviously a poorer person can't afford a BMW M5 and that's just life, but if two people want to make a journey to work say from Leicester to Birmingham (about an hours drive give or take), why should it be easier for rich people to make this journey and hence be more occupationally mobile, so poor people are stuck looking for employment only in their local area (consequently in you look at the 'big picture' they get stuck in an area with high unemployment and low incomes).
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,992 Part of the furniture
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    It's proportionate but the 'fair' bit is slightly debatable, simply because if you take it as a proportion of your income, someone on a low income may end up spending (guess here) 10% of their income on travel costs whereas someone on a high income (again, guess) 1% of their income on travel costs. This is discriminatory to people on lower incomes as it effectively limits how much they travel. I know obviously a poorer person can't afford a BMW M5 and that's just life, but if two people want to make a journey to work say from Leicester to Birmingham (about an hours drive give or take), why should it be easier for rich people to make this journey and hence be more occupationally mobile, so poor people are stuck looking for employment only in their local area (consequently in you look at the 'big picture' they get stuck in an area with high unemployment and low incomes).

    It's easier for the rich to do anything anyway. They're already more mobile.
    Road tax isn't any fairer because those that do hundreds of miles a week end up paying similar amounts the the old doris driving her Fiesta down to the village shop a few times a week.

    At least fuel duty's proportionate to road wear, enviromental damage and other highway services.
    There's no fairer way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Fuel duty is a is a fair and propotionate way of taxing drivers. Road Tax is not.

    I agree. Furthermore, taxation based on usage is a far more effective way of ensuring that people make a choice to use public transport rather than the car. If you've already forked out a fortune to put a car on the road, then you might as well use it. If your car goes on the road for free, but that trip down the M6 has an additional tax charge, then that might be a good excuse to take the train instead.

    And when people refer to the "transport network," they don't mean that all car tax goes towards roads. It goes towards public transport too, which is part of the solution to better transport all round.

    And as for the link to the dollar, things such as oil and precious metals always go up in real value when the value of the dollar goes down.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    It's easier for the rich to do anything anyway. They're already more mobile.
    Road tax isn't any fairer because those that do hundreds of miles a week end up paying similar amounts the the old doris driving her Fiesta down to the village shop a few times a week.

    At least fuel duty's proportionate to road wear, enviromental damage and other highway services.
    There's no fairer way.

    I would say road pricing is a fairer way, by this I mean toll roads and/or some system of tax-per-mile. If you drive into London your journey is using a much more demanded resource (road space in London) and hence is a greater cost to the economy and the price you pay should reflect that. Driving on a small village road a few times a week is not really creating a huge economic cost so consequently the charge to the Fiesta driver should be smaller. It makes sense to me at least, but the government have scrapped the idea despite it being the suggestion of one of the (now many) think tanks they set to work on the problem.

    The beauty is on toll roads you can charge more for HGVs and/or 4x4s and charge less for small cars with small engines, so it doubles up as having some capacity to modify behaviours to protect the environment too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And as for the link to the dollar, things such as oil and precious metals always go up in real value when the value of the dollar goes down.

    Don't you mean they go up in perceived value? :chin: Real value would be regardless of the price of the dollar.

    But I do think oil in real terms has become more expensive because of two main factors:
    a) increase in demand from developing industrialising economy. China roughly takes half it's GDP from manufacturing these days, that's a lot of energy needed, hence a lot of oil
    b) scarcity in oil because of conflicts and/or unscrupulous practices by OPEC (it's certainly not unheard of them to price fix when there is some conflict so they can shun the blame onto that - it certainly didn't take long for US oil engineers to set up in Iraq)

    This increase in real value for oil has led to the massive increase in biofuels being planted, especially in developing nations where land is cheap and plentiful and the climates not bad either.. which leads to potential food shortages (it's all connected!!!111)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sikorah wrote: »
    hmm mines a 1992 mk2 model.

    if it does need tuning, its certainly not in a dire state.
    maybe its justs my own fault, the novelty hasnt worn off yet and i love hearing the engine behind me.
    Although, before this, my 1.6 16v escort only did about 280/290 off a tank of fuel. And theres only one way to drive that-steadily!

    Hmm.. tire pressure check, oil change, tune up and you could be well on your way to getting an extra 5% to 10% more MPG's
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    Hmm.. tire pressure check, oil change, tune up and you could be well on your way to getting an extra 5% to 10% more MPG's

    Good idea especially if it hasn't been done in a while. I don't know much about car mechanics but I'm sure there's all the usual checks you should do which most people don't, it will be detailed in the Haynes manual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    Hmm.. tire pressure check, oil change, tune up and you could be well on your way to getting an extra 5% to 10% more MPG's

    Economy is a bit poor for those suggestions to make a meaningful difference. You're talking 5-10% difference, I'm talking about the car being down +/-10mpg.

    Best advice would be to get an exhaust gas analyser onto it and see how things are burning. If the emissions are perfect, then IMO it'd be worthwhile looking for a leak.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Fuel duty is a is a fair and propotionate way of taxing drivers. Road Tax is not.

    Hmm, not sure I agree with that. With fuel duty the poor sod who lives in the country pays a fortune whilst the lazy bastard who uses his car to go to the shop half a mile away pays nowt. And its not like rural drivers can use public transport as there isn't any.

    I think road pricing would be the fairest and most proportionate way. Go down busy motorways, or drive into towns with excellent buses, and pay a fortune. Drive to your house in the country because there's one bus a week and don't pay much.

    The road tax scheme is unfair to motorcycle and car users though. Per tonne, a mini pays about 10 times more than a HGV, which is great when its HGVs that do all the damage. HGVs should have their tax increased at least fourfold, with rail freight providers getting tax breaks, if the Government are serious about protecting the environment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote: »
    Why should I have to pay a fortune to use the motorway, when using them to drive to work is the only way for me to get there? Or am I supposed to use country lanes?

    The last time I checked buses don't run at 4am and it wouldn't be safe for me to be using them either.

    Because you use the motorway? Especially congested motorways. As it stands those kinds of journeys are being subsidised by those driving out in the sticks on empty roads having to pay exactly the same tax.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    plenty of people will use motorways for convenience though. there is definately a transport crisis in the UK and really the only way to fix it is to get people to stop taking so many journeys, especially on busy roads. plenty of countries I've travelled to have toll motorways and they work well at reducing congestion. We suffer quite a lot though as we have high population densities with lots of cars etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    oh.my.god.

    i only made a comment about the extortionate rate of fuel.
    I didnt ask for opinions on my choice of car or the way i drive it and i am fully aware that it costs more to run than a smaller engine car. Therefore i do not need patronising by those that think they fucking know it all.

    And
    I appreciate the thoughts about how to improve fuel consumption in my car but there is nothing wrong with it!!!
    It is not leaking petrol.
    The emissions are fine-i have the printout from its MOT in march.
    The engine is running sweet, and perforance seems appropriate.

    I said i got APPROX 250 off the last tank. so maybe i hadnt filled it to the brim. if id have know it was going to matter so much to people id have kept me gob shut, like i usually do.

    According to the converter on my phone, 43litres is 9.6gallons. on 250miles thats 26,whatever MPG.
    Now then, ive since done 140 on 1/2 a tank so i guess i will get ABOUT 280miles. thats ROUGHLY 30MPG. in traffic jams and town driving.
    (oh and there are also different versions of a mk2 mr2 so a 1992 GT T-bar isnt neccessarily going to match a 1990)

    The End
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well people may just be jelous that you have a sexy car and want to make you feel bad for emmissions etc..
    but omg what a debate this has turned to. :O:O

    i still think petrol is costing loads and its unfair on people who have to drive and public transport is crappy and stinky.. :S im bot being snobby towards the buses but some of them have right wierdos on them :S
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    maybe its because im female!!

    But yeah, just a little simple comment that turns in a bloody big debate.

    people have too much time on there hands.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sikorah wrote: »
    According to the converter on my phone, 43litres is 9.6gallons. on 250miles thats 26,whatever MPG.
    Now then, ive since done 140 on 1/2 a tank so i guess i will get ABOUT 280miles. thats ROUGHLY 30MPG. in traffic jams and town driving.
    (oh and there are also different versions of a mk2 mr2 so a 1992 GT T-bar isnt neccessarily going to match a 1990)

    Sorry, I was going by DG's figures. Should have done it myself - 250 miles on 43 litres is just under 27.5mpg, which isn't quite so shocking.

    22mpg, on the other hand, would be shocking.

    1990 - 1992 models are very similar(but noticeable revised in 1993). Both have the same 1998cc 150bhp lump.

    Good cars. Sumps rot though. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm going to sound ignorent and arrogent as fuck but nothing anybody says will ever persuade me into thinking petrol (and car costs!) are justified. :banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Think your comment is extremely rude if it's aimed at me, I was making a comment as other people were discussing petrol tax. It's a public discussion forum. Jesus christ.

    If you don't want people to reply with their thoughts go write in your diary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    kate- wrote: »
    I'm going to sound ignorent and arrogent as fuck but nothing anybody says will ever persuade me into thinking petrol (and car costs!) are justified. :banghead:

    Not justified...

    Look at it this way - we're buying and consuming something which can't be put back. Not ever(at least, a few million years). All this so you can have your own little shopping trolley and not get wet in the rain...

    Exactly how much should be charged, to make the cost of raping our planet more 'justified'?

    I hate what we pay, but fuck me... take the money out of the argument, and we're not the ones paying well and truly over the odds.
Sign In or Register to comment.