Lazy Commuters

[Neil]

Much of what you say is true Neil, albeit sounding a bit of a government conspiracy.

Conspiracy?

Which part?

The rationale behind so much (increased and increasing) indirect taxation is well established and understood.

The concept of the revenue generated being significant and from a budget standpoint, essential - is purely simple (well, ok, in some cases not-so-simple, and a bit obfuscated, accounting).

As to my take on the motivation behind it (not really being behaviour changing or encouraging - merely to extract money) well it's borne out by reality - government(s) can't do without the money, easily, without having to take it from elsewhere - and is largely what they say when challenged on it, and they can't do with the tax revenue being significantly reduced - say by a wholesale change in behaviour.

A lot of it is fairly obvious - politicians have realised that the public won't like increased direct taxation, so they find ways of indirectly doing so, and along the way, clearly it's in their interests to proclaim reasons that most may (however grudgingly) agree with.

It is an interesting dillema for any government, in that there are supposedly 40 years of oil reserves left, where will the massive energy revenues come from next?

Are you really telling me, that you believe the government's taxation policy on fuel is based on it's sustainability of the raw resources?

It wouldn't be popular to tax alternative fledgling (renewable etc) fuels as strongly at this stage without appearing to be anti-green, pro oil etc but they will have to at some point.

They will have to raise as much taxation by indirect means as they can, and what's clear is that whatever might be claimed as a good reason for increased taxation, will be used.

Fuel is a reasonable case point - in that taxation has risen and risen (and the VAT applied on top of the tax has risen) up to a point, where they feel the public will just about tolerate. In the instances where the base price of crude has spiked, high prices at the pumps have generally caused people to complain. So at times they've deferred tax increases, but in general the house always wins.

And why? Because it's such a great earner.

So as I say, it's not done for any sustainability reasons, nor pretensions to environmentalism - merely revenue generating, because quite simply they can't live without the money. Nor could they live with a substantial reduction in revenue from it - say if it really did cause people to notably reduced their consumption.

As with all these indirect taxations (and with more emphasis when it can raise most revenue) they're pitched at a level that the public will just about tolerate.

No conspiracy, no dig at individual party politics, no odd theory - simple economics.

 

[Neil]

The one advantage that high fuel prices have is that they can be controlled in times of price spikes.

That assumes the government won't just sit back and say the price of crude has sky rocketed, therefore is reflected in the price at the pumps.

Maybe they'll do a bit of hand-waving, and try and Stockholm-syndrome the public into feeling grateful and listened to, by deferring a tax rise - or maybe temporarily slightly reducing the duty (in general, they still tend to not lose, though, they may just not gain as much as they could do...)

When you see how the US economy got hacked off at the knees by a spike in oil prices it's an advantage. The average American also uses 4x the energy of an average European - mainly due to pathetically insulated homes and 4 litre engines.

There are more factors in play, there - plus you have to bear in mind the situation with the US public and fuel tax is that they simply wouldn't tolerate the same degree of fuel taxation as in the UK - certainly not to the same degree of stiff-upper-lip that the UK populace largely does.

And yes, you could well argue (and it would be fair point) that the US does appear so wasteful, largely because they can and can afford to. And perhaps with punitive taxation would have had to become less wasteful.

All the same, though, some of our small-island mindset does not easily carry over to a more sprawling, expansive country.

I'm still amazed at my neighbours who drive their kids to school because it's (quote) quicker, even though I set off after them and arrive earlier.

As with the original post, I'm convinced it's as much about laziness and complacency, as to why so many people use cars for such short journeys. All the same, though, and I don't buy into the argument that the price of fuel plays, or should play that much of a part in that.

Because to make it bite for such small-ish journeys, has a very much bigger impact on others with need, not simply being lazy or complacent.

This isn't analogous to the US situation - we already have very high fuel prices.

 

[gbsimpsa]

All sounds like fairly sensible conversation so far.
I thought saying petrol is too cheap would be much more divisive.

I think most people would agree society/culture has reached a point whereby wholesale laziness/complacency on the convenience of owning and travelling by car has gone too far. I don't know what it will take to change this and price rises seem only to temporarily make people consider alternatives.

I know it wont be popular and it will hurt me and my family as much as, if not more than most (missus commutes 140 miles a day), but I secretly (now, not so) want petrol prices to rise simply to make people think twice.

There was a news reporter recently on TV interviewing a customer at a filling station wrt to the price rises and the customer said "It's a disgrace, I'm going to have to think twice before I go to use my car in future". Halle-bloody-lujah I say!!

Regardless of all environmental stuff, politics, agendas, taxes and whatever else:

There are too many cars for my liking and not enough bikes!!

 

[hamster]

Personally I think that paying a bit more for petrol is a fiar price to pay for having universal healthcare.
Yep, you could live in the USA and enjoy cheap fuel so you can have a long commute to live somewhere affordable (I work for a company with HQ in Silicon Valley) - but that same country does not have universal healthcare. I paid a total of £200 for a year's life-saving cancer care on the NHS.

You pay your money somewhere, and personally I don't think it's too bad a compromise in the UK.

 

[crempendo]

LOL

 

[tintin40]

Personally I think that paying a bit more for petrol is a fiar price to pay for having universal healthcare.
Yep, you could live in the USA and enjoy cheap fuel so you can have a long commute to live somewhere affordable (I work for a company with HQ in Silicon Valley) - but that same country does not have universal healthcare. I paid a total of £200 for a year's life-saving cancer care on the NHS.

You pay your money somewhere, and personally I don't think it's too bad a compromise in the UK.

agree.

Plus look at public transport. You can travel with perverts, pick pockets, bad mannered people who push past, people who have hygiene problems, tramps & drunks. Think i've missed some? Turn up with a mtb and the train company are so happy to see you (not) The route you take will be the slowest possible. Then the delays
:roll:
The London Overground has ad saying that 97.5% of it trains are with in 5 mins of the correct times! So 97.5% are late! Great.
It's a little different in Japan no matter if you live in city or countryside.

The car is king the UK

 

[Neil]

Personally I think that paying a bit more for petrol is a fiar price to pay for having universal healthcare.

Well in fairness, we had universal healthcare, long before punitive taxation on fuel.

 

[MikeD]

3 quarters of commuters drive to work despite being within 30 minutes from home.

I've read the linked article several times and I can't find where it says that. The headline stat is that three quarters of commuters have a journey to work of less than 30 minutes. That bit doesn't say anything about how they travel or indeed how far that actually is.

It also says that 71% drive to work. But that's not necessarily all the same people (indeed, it can't be, because that's a different sized group). The actual ONS report doesn't say anything about mode of transport against journey time.

 

[Neil]

Personally I think that paying a bit more for petrol is a fiar price to pay for having universal healthcare.
Yep, you could live in the USA and enjoy cheap fuel so you can have a long commute to live somewhere affordable (I work for a company with HQ in Silicon Valley) - but that same country does not have universal healthcare. I paid a total of £200 for a year's life-saving cancer care on the NHS.

You pay your money somewhere, and personally I don't think it's too bad a compromise in the UK.

agree.

Plus look at public transport. You can travel with perverts, pick pockets, bad mannered people who push past, people who have hygiene problems, tramps & drunks. Think i've missed some? Turn up with a mtb and the train company are so happy to see you (not) The route you take will be the slowest possible. Then the delays
:roll:
The London Overground has ad saying that 97.5% of it trains are with in 5 mins of the correct times! So 97.5% are late! Great.
It's a little different in Japan no matter if you live in city or countryside.

The car is king the UK

Therein lies the a good point, and alludes to something I've been saying all along.

The rationale behind punitive taxation on fuel could have had more purpose than simple stealth revenue gathering, if it had been used to provide or enhance worthy alternatives to general car usage - but can anybody honestly say that the significant amounts of revenue via increased and increasing taxation, that successive governments have taken on fuel has gone towards or helped provide a better public transport offering as an alternative?

If it had, it would have had teeth, but it hasn't, so it's all, well, a bit gummy...

It's always been about the money, which is why as a tool to discourage behaviour, it doesn't work, because:-

Because to make it bite for such small-ish journeys, has a very much bigger impact on others with need, not simply being lazy or complacent.

 

[tintin40]

I did buy a car (for the wife) cost me £10K am i going to pay all that money to let it sit in the drive :roll: and go by train

I think you know the answer. The car is comfortable, I can open or close the window, turn the hi fi on. We can go by different routes and to places that are hard to get to by public transport.
And i'm only sharing with the driver so generally no problems

It is much better to be stuck in traffic in a car than on a train or bus.