Govt fuel duty

vector

I was just looking at this page
http://www.maxol.ie/schedule_sheets/maxol_price_schedule_155.html

it looks like the govt get over 50 percent of what you pay at the pump
is that right, I mean what do they do with it, is it ring fenced for roads or related car stuff?

(rant- what right does the govt have to a cut of a transaction between a private consumer and a private company?)

Redshift

vector wrote:

I was just looking at this page
http://www.maxol.ie/schedule_sheets/maxol_price_schedule_155.html

it looks like the govt get over 50 percent of what you pay at the pump
is that right, I mean what do they do with it, is it ring fenced for roads or related car stuff?

(rant- what right does the govt have to a cut of a transaction between a private consumer and a private company?)

Just to make you feel better, you then pay 21% vat on top of the excise duty and like that other stupid VRT you then end up paying tax on the tax you have paid. :rolleyes:

Victor

:rolleyes:

Silvera

correct. such double-taxation is actually illegal in the U.S !

rymus

yeah.. thank God we don't live over there.. pshaw! (damn government)

sceptre

vector wrote:

I mean what do they do with it, is it ring fenced for roads or related car stuff?

Good lord no. It goes into the central fund just like your income tax, VAT, VRT and road tax.

You could (if you like) say that they use the taxes on fuel to buy ministerial mercs, champagne, salmon sandwiches and advisers for Martin Cullen.

vector wrote:

(rant- what right does the govt have to a cut of a transaction between a private consumer and a private company?)

Might be better suited to the Business/Economy forum as it's like VAT with an extra cut on top. Hence it's as easy to discuss the rationale behind the 21% you pay when you buy a PC or a Mars bar and might be better off in there.

ambro25

Aww - it's only 50%, what are you crying about?

You poor hard-done-by Irish... I believe it's over 75% in the UK and France. Mind you, it's under 25% in Luxembourg.

Go Figure ... :rolleyes:

mike65

We do like to moan! As Ambro says we're actually quite lucky, most countries in Europe are hit harder than us.

Mike.

vector

mike65 wrote:

We do like to moan! As Ambro says we're actually quite lucky, most countries in Europe are hit harder than us.

Mike.

I heard on Radio 1 earlier someone from revenue.ie talking about the tanker incident where the driver fled the scene cos his load was illegal.

Why was this illegal load being carried? Well because fuel tax is a rip-off. It is wrong to tax it in the first place (IMHO) and it is definately wrong to make such a tax so high.

The interviewer suggested that maybe penlties should be increased to stop this illegel activity, but of course maybe the taxes should be reduced

sceptre

vector wrote:

It is wrong to tax it in the first place (IMHO) and it is definately wrong to make such a tax so high.

You may have forgotten the "IMHO" at the end there.

Just to hear it from the horse's mouth, any chance of letting us know why you think it's wrong to charge it in the first place and why you think it's wrong to have the duty so high? I'm interested.

vector

>You may have forgotten the "IMHO" at the end there.

Yes, a mere slip, but someone like you was bound to add it so no harm done.
(that is a compliment)

>Just to hear it from the horse's mouth, any chance of letting us know why you think it's wrong to charge it in the first place... why it's wrong to have the duty so high? I'm interested

A good/service is exchanged between two private parties for a consideration.

No third party should profit from this private exchange unless they facilitated it, in which case such profit should be proportional to their level of facilitation.

Should a third party use its muscle/self made legislation to unfairly profit it is a "free loader", and the least it could do it keep its ill gained profits to a minimum. So fuel duty should fall as should, income tax, and VAT.

Other taxes such a motor tax, TV licence, would remain, as the govt is a second party, the consumer is paying motor tax as he is using the roads that the govt owns, that is fair enough.

sceptre

vector wrote:

So fuel duty should fall as should, income tax, and VAT.

Fair cop to you for banging the lot together and being very consistent (there's little worse than an inconsistent argument).

I don't really agree with you (especially on eliminating both VAT and income tax, money for stuff like hospitals and the parts of the civil service we actually need has to come from somewhere) and when I've more time and a clear head I'll happily discuss it with you in some thread somewhere (I was really only interested in your thoughts on why, which you've provided) but I'll leave that issue for the moment as it'll drive this thread off the issue of fuel tax itself and the high rate of that, which is the discussion you're after.

ambro25

sceptre wrote:

money for stuff like hospitals and the parts of the civil service we actually need has to come from somewhere

Hohum... dangerous grounds, compadre

Particularly considering the increasing prevalence (pre-requisite?) of private healthcare options to supplement a service that is not working as best it could, or should.

And likewise considering the growing army of pen pushers not bound by any targets or obligations of results but their own, self-imposed (rather than by market dynamics, in a competitive economy).

In this context, fuel tax (like VAT and other 'indirect' taxation on not only motorists) appears a pretty elastic, discreet and convenient earner to plug gvt income holes. And its proportion (high/low) in relation to the price-per-liter to the punter or cost-basis to the retailer is thus fully debatable in this thread, in respect of these two issues (amongst many others, but then we don't want a 50+ page-long thread, do we?).

Vector made a good point, but the logic -to which I subscribe fully- is flawed because utopian : gvt is usually the biggest free loader of them all, and it decides (and changes) the rules of the load as it suits, so we just gotta live with it & learn to play the rules better as we go along.

Victor

So if we abolish VAT & excise and only have (largely) income taxes, that means income-tax evaders get away scot-free.

Oh, and income tax would probably double, creating more reason to evade.....

mike65

Fiscal policy can be discussed here.

Mike.

ambro25

mike65 wrote:

Fiscal policy can be discussed here

Ok, Ok, will not hijack...but not retract either (Victor and me have crossed swords before )

Victor wrote:

So if we abolish VAT & excise and only have (largely) income taxes, that means income-tax evaders get away scot-free.

As they already do, quite true. But then I don't think I'd ever support the abolition of VAT and excise - I'd support proportionality and compartmenting, though - but I'll discuss that in the Forum recommended by Mike, as & when I'm next sh1t-faced, which may be a while...

Victor wrote:

Oh, and income tax would probably double, creating more reason to evade.....

No need for it to double, Victor, no need at all indeed...