Signed a petition to reduce fuel duty

[V]

https://chng.it/7J5Jvx9XQW

 

Currently at 264,714

[UKTJ]

Signed.

[Mike WK2]

Signed 

[JimC]

Signed

[Volant165]

Signed

[digger]

Signed!

I must add. I have been a member of Quentin Wilson's ''Fair Fuel UK'' campaign for a number of years . They have been successful in keeping fuel duties down with successive governments and saved us all a packet!  Judging by the few car stickers I see on our Jeeps I don't understand why more  don't join this too! They are like a ''Fuel'' equivalent of ''GLASS''

[Raakhee]

Signed as well. 

[Surfer]

On 27/06/2022 at 15:19, V said:

https://chng.it/7J5Jvx9XQW

 

Currently at 264,714

Not much point signing on an American site when the petition probably will not even be looked at by MPs!  Why not use the official UK parliament site is here https://petition.parliament.uk/

At 10,000 signatures your petition on the UK Government and Parliament site gets a response from the government.  At 100,000 signatures your petition on the UK Government and Parliament site will be considered for a debate in Parliament.

Go to the bottom of the page to start a new petition. 

[V]

They have had success in the UK before, but you are right. It is better to sign a petition with a guaranteed response and debate based on threshold. If the government website can be trusted to report accurate numbers, this one has the best traction so far.

 

Remove duty on motor fuel completely

[Surfer]

23 minutes ago, V said:

They have had success in the UK before, but you are right. It is better to sign a petition with a guaranteed response and debate based on threshold. If the government website can be trusted to report accurate numbers, this one has the best traction so far.

 

Remove duty on motor fuel completely

That petition is a joke as there is no way any government could afford to remove fuel duty altogether and I think most people realise this which is why there are so few signatures although it was been running for nearly 3 months.

Something a bit more realistic like a reduction in duty or VAT would probably garner more signatures and I would be quite happy to sign such a petition, but certainly would not waste time on a foreign website which will probably go nowhere.  LOL!

[TimC]

1 hour ago, Surfer said:

That petition is a joke as there is no way any government could afford to remove fuel duty altogether and I think most people realise this which is why there are so few signatures although it was been running for nearly 3 months.

Something a bit more realistic like a reduction in duty or VAT would probably garner more signatures and I would be quite happy to sign such a petition, but certainly would not waste time on a foreign website which will probably go nowhere.  LOL!

 

I would expect to see fuel duty rise rather than fall as the government seeks to push us all into electric vehicles and uses it as both a stick to coerce people into switching and as a way to compensate for the shortfall as people switch over. When everybody has switched over they will have to introduce a new tax on electric vehicles / charging to make up for the loss.  If they do introduce a reduction it will be temporary and will be reintroduced at a higher rate than before just as they did with VAT during the last financial crisis  Unfortunately I do think that signing a petition will be a bit of a waste of time.

[V]

The government will be removing revenue from fuel duty completely by 2040 if not sooner as they will be forced to introduce nationwide road tolls when the number of electric vehicles starts depleting their fuel duty revenue and no more new petrol and diesel cars are being made for the UK after 2030. They can increase fuel duty, but it won't increase revenue. Many cannot already afford to refuel their vehicles so they buy less. Further fuel duty increases just reduce the number of customers in the the market and how much the remaining customers buy.

 

The 2030 ban has already destroyed the UK LPG refuelling industry that has become reluctant to invest in replacing 20 year old infrastructure. They would not get a return on future investment without the government enabling LPG/Electric hybrids until petrol is no longer refined. The government have already effectively reduced their fuel duty revenue on LPG to zero in England because those LPG retailers that are still operating haven't been able to refill supply tanks for at least two months so they haven't been able to sell any.

 

I suppose if you believe a tax on a tax is fair, then reducing fuel duty to zero would be a joke. I believe fuel should either have a fuel duty rate OR a VAT rate NOT both. Stepping back a bit further, we are already paying tax on fuel before it is pumped into our cars, in income tax. Why should anything we buy be taxed if we are already paying income tax? Paying even more tax on what we leave behind to our family when we are dead, well that's just plain extortion.

 

If the UK removed duty on fuel and did not hike up VAT or impose road pricing before 2030, I believe that it would benefit the UK by increasing the manufacturing of finished goods in the UK. Everything made here that stays here will be able to compete on price with imported goods. The higher UK fuel duty becomes the more likely British jobs will end up overseas. At some point the range that people are prepared to drive for work will not be largely dictated by the commute time but by the cost. That point may have already passed for many.

 

Income tax in the UK was originally introduced to finance war. It has been abolished and reintroduced a few times in our country's history. VAT was a method of moving the corporate income tax burden to their customers. As we have grown up with income tax and VAT always being there, we think it is normal. We are frogs being boiled slowly.

 

Assuming 40% income tax. For £100 earned to buy diesel for journeys to work.

 

You earn £100, government takes £40

You have left £60 to spend on fuel which is not enough to fill your tank now

20% of that £60 is VAT = £12 to the government

For simplicity of calculation, assuming the price per litre including VAT is £2 that buys 30L of fuel

Fuel duty is £0.5795 per litre = £17.38 to the government

 

So for your £100 earned you bought 30L of diesel and gave the government £69.38 almost 70%!

And that is without the road tax and insurance premium tax that you also had to pay to be legally permitted to use the fuel to get to work.

 

To fill a 70L diesel tank, you need to earn £233.33 and give the government (£93.33 income tax + £28 VAT + £40.56 fuel duty) = £161.89 of your earnings. Just £71.44 was spent on the actual diesel, £161.89 went to the government. That's beyond a joke.

 

[digger]

Personally I find the road tax duty even more objectionable.  As a low mileage driver, I'm lucky, the fuel doesn't effect me too badly but the road tax is a joke!

It is especially galling that road tax was dreamed up by a past PM who wanted to punish perceived  'gas guzzlers', 'Chelsea tractors' 'polluters' etc. He may have done what he wanted for new car buyers but he sure penalised anyone who needs a 4x4 for practical reasons, work needs or leisure, especially as these cars get older.

It is even more annoying that both my Jeeps are really good on emissions for what they are and ,indeed, outperform many cars with much smaller engines according to my MOT garage

[V]

I think road tax or the real name it should have 'Punishment-for-your-choice-of-vehicle' tax should be paid only once and by the manufacturer of the vehicle at the time of sale, not annually. It will increase the purchase price of new vehicles but it would be more effective at achieving the stated aim of the scheme in place now. Paying ten years of road tax at purchase would heavily influence the buying decisions of the 2nd owner. Only some car models will be able to pass on a portion of the punishment tax as added value, the rest will depreciate quickly creating an additional consideration for new buyers and manufacturers.

 

If road tax has to stay it should not be paid on vehicles over ten years old. It takes approximately 12 years of average mileage for a 'zero emission EV' to break even on the CO2 produced to manufacture and recharge it compared to an internal combustion engined car. Every extra year of use of any car is a year delaying the manufacturing emission of CO2 to replace it. Perhaps older cars should get a rebate every year to encourage better maintenance and longer vehicle lifetimes.

[Surfer]

2 hours ago, TimC said:

 

I would expect to see fuel duty rise rather than fall as the government seeks to push us all into electric vehicles and uses it as both a stick to coerce people into switching and as a way to compensate for the shortfall as people switch over. When everybody has switched over they will have to introduce a new tax on electric vehicles / charging to make up for the loss.  If they do introduce a reduction it will be temporary and will be reintroduced at a higher rate than before just as they did with VAT during the last financial crisis  Unfortunately I do think that signing a petition will be a bit of a waste of time.

 

See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/29/electric-cars-should-have-government-tracking-devices-tax-mile/

 

[V]

Moving road tax to the manufacturer prevents the real CO2 emissions of EV and other technologies from being conveniently hidden under the banner of 'zero emissions' when the cradle to grave emissions are more than an internal combustion vehicle if the EV is less than 12 years old when it is scrapped/recycled. If road tax was based on manufacturing CO2 + 10 years of usage CO2 + recycling CO2 and paid by the manufacturer it would encourage better management decisions concerning manufacturing costs and material selection.

[Surfer]

However it must be remembered that for the increased income in tax revenue, we can all thank that outstanding gentleman!  Not!

[BLUE STAR]

V "If road tax has to stay it should not be paid on vehicles over ten years old. It takes approximately 12 years of average mileage for a 'zero emission EV' to break even on the CO2 produced to manufacture and recharge it compared to an internal combustion engined car. Every extra year of use of any car is a year delaying the manufacturing emission of CO2 to replace it. Perhaps older cars should get a rebate every year to encourage better maintenance and longer vehicle lifetimes."

 

Well that's common sense, something which has always been in short supply in any Govt.

Anyway how many EV's will ever get to be 12years old before the battery plays out ?

Was at the local dealership last week and in 'casual conversation' about EV's, asked the staff, a hypothetical Question,  when they sold an ICE vehicle they stated to the potential buyer,  that the engine would probably require replacing in 8 years time at obviously great cost, rendering the vehicle to scrap value if they didn't) would they ever sell any ? (Smirks all round was the response)

[Surfer]

IMHO EVs are NOT the answer as they cause a lot of environmental damage before point of sale.  The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen and if we can find a cheap way to harness it, hydrogen is the way forward.  Many ICE vehicles can be converted to run on hydrogen this extending their lives.  For those on low incomes they will never be able to afford even a second hand EV due to the high prices!

[V]

A friend recently directed me towards ammonia as a possible fuel for the future. I did some historical research and developments go back to 1905, with Italian patents appearing in 1935, and an operational fleet of buses in Belgium in 1943 during WW2 petrol and diesel shortages.

 

Ammonia does not contain carbon, so no particulate matter (soot) or CO2 emission from combustion in air. However, it does produce nitric acid or nitrogen oxides when combusted in air which is less desirable politically than CO2. There are a number of companies trying to resolve the issue with catalysts after combustion and alternatives to combustion using ammonia as a liquid fuel in hydrogen fuel cell electric powered vehicles.

[Surfer]

Where did the Germans get vast quantities of hydrogen for their airships the Zeppelin?

[V]

Probably from coal through gasification. They made most of their synthetic fuels from coal during WW2.

 

Interestingly, hydrogen airships may come back, not as passenger craft, but as hydrogen tankers.

[Surfer]

5 minutes ago, V said:

Probably from coal through gasification. They made most of their synthetic fuels from coal during WW2.

 

Interestingly, hydrogen airships may come back, not as passenger craft, but as hydrogen tankers.

 

South Africa has had Sasol refinery for converting coal to fuel for several decades.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol

[BLUE STAR]

On 11/07/2022 at 09:00, Surfer said:

IMHO EVs are NOT the answer as they cause a lot of environmental damage before point of sale.  The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen and if we can find a cheap way to harness it, hydrogen is the way forward.  Many ICE vehicles can be converted to run on hydrogen this extending their lives.  For those on low incomes they will never be able to afford even a second hand EV due to the high prices!

Yeah but who in their right minds would buy a 2nd hand EV,  unless it was only a couple of year old AND at a knock down price ?

I wonder how much are 4 & 5 year old "reduced range" EV's going to be worth (even Hybrids for that matter) when the battery requires replacing in another 3 to 4 years time ?

Just read that the replacement battery for a Golf EV was $23,000  probably £20,000 + over here with the 20% sales tax !

Is there a substantial lease cost involved to take into account the vehicle devaluation, as I have no clue on this as I have always paid cash for my vehicles and run them for 15years + till the wheels drop off  ?

Apparently "Road pollution" from an EV is 4 x greater than its diesel equivalent, due to its weight, from brake & tyre particulates it generates, plus this weight could be a potential killer due to the inertia of a 2 to 3 ton vehicle slamming into you !

[Raakhee]

On 12/07/2022 at 16:15, BLUE STAR said:

 

Apparently "Road pollution" from an EV is 4 x greater than its diesel equivalent, due to its weight, from brake & tyre particulates it generates, plus this weight could be a potential killer due to the inertia of a 2 to 3 ton vehicle slamming into you !

I read the same article but nobody is talking about that. Just like how the government sold us the idea that diesel engines is the better option, they now shoving EVs down our throat without highlighting any of the negatives. Give it 2 or 3 years and we will all need to cycle or used the over priced "public" transport.