Cost of Petrol

shadowninty

I'll take a tax on vices/bad things over taxes on lower income groups or reduced services. Petrol is only gonna go up, medium and long term

djpbarry

anymore wrote: »

I am contrasting the fact that you are a moderator for the Environmental and Susutainability issues sector with your quite unsympathetic attitude to those who through little fault of thier own find themsleves in very difficult situations.

Yes, I can see that.

Now, care to address the points raised.

anymore wrote: »

I find your dismissive attitudes toward people difficult to reconcile with your apparent concern with the environment and sustainability. Why are you so unsympathetic towards these people.

Unsympathetic toward who exactly? People who bought property at ridiculously inflated prices that they couldn't afford? Why exactly should I be sympathetic towards these people? If I go out tomorrow and buy a private jet, even though I clearly cannot afford one, can I expect your sympathy?

anymore wrote: »

i pointed out that many of these people contributed towards your free 3rd level education...

And I pointed out that this argument is nonsense, for the simple reason that tax revenue could have been garnered from other sources (and besides, the property boom didn't take off until after I graduated). Are you suggesting that the property bubble was necessary to support third-level education in Ireland? Were there no possible alternatives?

walshb

rodento wrote: »

With Petrol going over €1.50 at the pumps, what are the parties going to do about it

Considering at least 60% of it is tax's

Me personally thinks that the cost of petrol is cheap. We are raping the planet of oil. Absolute excessive use of oil. I know well we need it, but the waste is scandalous. I don't think people realise just how much effort and energy is used to get the oil and bring it to its final place, in ones car.

BTW, no expert on petrol production and properties of petrol etc, but am I on the right track?

Oil is essential for petrol production? At least I always thought so.

carveone

walshb wrote: »

Me personally thinks that the cost of petrol is cheap. We are raping the planet of oil. Absolute excessive use of oil.

Just my 2c - I find myself on both sides of the fence here. My opinion is that oil production has flattened; I get this from $75 base price of oil* and minimal increase in production. I'm not an economist but generally when price goes up and stays up, supply increases too. Unless it can't.

But I'm more of an Export Land Model person myself (wikipedia it). In essence it means that exportable supply diminishes as exporting countries use more of their own oil in a zone of flat or minimally increasing production.

That's one side of the fence - the OMG we're toast side

But on the other side, we have significant evidence that the US economy goes bang much above $120/bbl. The resulting demand destruction causes a rapid decrease in oil price. As far as I'm concerned that places a cap on oil prices for now.

If one was to be more of an optimist, this toing and froing gives us time to move to other more sustainable models. And by that I mean models that reduce our overall energy use, not sticking windmills up all over the gaff (different argument). I'm an engineer but I don't believe in the "technology, the more expensive and complicated the better, fixes stuff" tenet of most politicians and greens.

* By base price, I mean the price when not otherwise manipulated. The Nymex is a big oil circus for crooks - price up to 100, down to 75, up to 113, down to 80... etc.

anymore

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I can see that.

Now, care to address the points raised.
Unsympathetic toward who exactly? People who bought property at ridiculously inflated prices that they couldn't afford? Why exactly should I be sympathetic towards these people? If I go out tomorrow and buy a private jet, even though I clearly cannot afford one, can I expect your sympathy?
And I pointed out that this argument is nonsense, for the simple reason that tax revenue could have been garnered from other sources (and besides, the property boom didn't take off until after I graduated). Are you suggesting that the property bubble was necessary to support third-level education in Ireland? Were there no possible alternatives?

Frnakly comparing a house which people buy to be a home and in most cases to raise a family to buying a private jet is insulting and places your posts in perspective.
As I said before thank the toxic Greens/Environmentalists were kicked out on thier asses -

djpbarry

anymore wrote: »

Frnakly comparing a house which people buy to be a home and in most cases to raise a family to buying a private jet is insulting...

So if I decide to raise a family in my jet I'll then be entitled to sympathy?

ardmacha

So if I decide to raise a family in my jet I'll then be entitled to sympathy?

You won't. But your family will.

OssianSmyth

rodento wrote: »

With Petrol going over €1.50 at the pumps, what are the parties going to do about it

Considering at least 60% of it is tax's

They're going to increase it by 6-7c/litre.

Noonan has confirmed that VAT will increase from 21% to 23%. This will apply to petrol and diesel and will add about 3c/litre
Carbon tax will rise by 75%-100%. Labour had promised 100%, Fine Gael had said 75% in their manifestos.
This will add about 3-4c/litre

It's not a great idea to put fuel prices over the level in Northern Ireland, or the measure will be self defeating as people in the border counties switch to purchasing their fuel and other goods in the North.

Here's a table of comparison fuel prices in Europe from November this year from the AA:

Country |Unleaded |Diesel
Norway |1.83 |1.7
Netherlands |1.7 |1.42
Denmark |1.66 |1.53
Italy |1.59 |1.48
Belgium |1.59 |1.5
Greece |1.59 |1.39
Portugal |1.59 |1.37
Sweden |1.57 |1.61
Finland |1.56 |1.36
Germany |1.55 |1.46
GB |1.54 |1.59
Northern Ireland |1.54 |1.59
France |1.53 |1.44
Ireland |1.495 |1.495


(there are another 13 countries with cheaper petrol than Ireland - Poland is 1.20/litre)

The price difference from RoI to NI on diesel is now 9c so there'e more room for an excise increase on diesel. Maybe diesel will go up more than petrol?

mistermouse

There is room to increase Road Tax on the post 2008 vehicles that are taxed way too low, yet may be doing much more mileage than others paying more,

The whole green ideology doesnt sit well with me and carbon tax especially as we are paying heavily whilst the likes of China, the US and India couldn't care less and have more to answer for than Ireland.

Putting up Petrol/Diesel is unfair to rural dwellers where there is no transport links and also does nothing to help business, hauliers etc

thebman

mistermouse wrote: »

There is room to increase Road Tax on the post 2008 vehicles that are taxed way too low, yet may be doing much more mileage than others paying more,

The whole green ideology doesnt sit well with me and carbon tax especially as we are paying heavily whilst the likes of China, the US and India couldn't care less and have more to answer for than Ireland.

Putting up Petrol/Diesel is unfair to rural dwellers where there is no transport links and also does nothing to help business, hauliers etc

It makes no sense as a green initiative because it costs more to make a new car than run an old one, pollution wise.

It seems to be all a con TBH to encourage consumer spending on high expense items like cars for short term tax revenue by government though little do they realise that a person with a 5 year car loan or so, has just reduced their consumer spending power for 5 years to purchase that car to make the books look better for this year.

shadowninty

mistermouse wrote: »

There is room to increase Road Tax on the post 2008 vehicles that are taxed way too low, yet may be doing much more mileage than others paying more,

The whole green ideology doesnt sit well with me and carbon tax especially as we are paying heavily whilst the likes of China, the US and India couldn't care less and have more to answer for than Ireland.

Putting up Petrol/Diesel is unfair to rural dwellers where there is no transport links and also does nothing to help business, hauliers etc

Yet Ireland has far more greenhouse emissions then India and China per capita!! Climate change wont stop at borders

djpbarry

mistermouse wrote: »

Putting up Petrol/Diesel is unfair to rural dwellers where there is no transport links...

But that's always going to be one of the costs associated with rural life - it's impossible to provide a cheap, high quality public transport service to a highly dispersed population.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

But that's always going to be one of the costs associated with rural life - it's impossible to provide a cheap, high quality public transport service to a highly dispersed population.

Indeed, and I don't see why rural dwellers, who choose to live in the countryside, should be exempted from paying for the pollution they create.

Manach

Macha wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't see why rural dwellers, who choose to live in the countryside, should be exempted from paying for the pollution they create.

Perhaps because the lands we maintain from generation to generation, provide an ecological balance to the urban areas?

thebman

Macha wrote: »

Indeed, and I don't see why rural dwellers, who choose to live in the countryside, should be exempted from paying for the pollution they create.

Do they not already?

Sometimes people living in cities have a nasty habit of thinking they live in a different universe where food and goods just magically appears on the shelves for them to buy and that the bus they take to work, runs on dreams.

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Do they not already?

Sometimes people living in cities have a nasty habit of thinking they live in a different universe where food and goods just magically appears on the shelves for them to buy and that the bus they take to work, runs on dreams.

I'm not sure what these comments have to do with rural people paying for the pollution they emit. I could be similarly churlish and say people in the country forget that city economies subsidise them through the tax system. Does it help advance the debate? No.

As it stands, agricultural diesel is subject to a lower rate of carbon tax than standard petrol and diesel.

Painting the countryside as "nature" and cities as the "antithesis of nature" is incredibly simplistic. Sustainability does not work that way.

Bullseye1

And they really have made urban living worth while in this country. Not.

thebman

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure what these comments have to do with rural people paying for the pollution they emit. I could be similarly churlish and say people in the country forget that city economies subsidise them through the tax system. Does it help advance the debate? No.

As it stands, agricultural diesel is subject to a lower rate of carbon tax than standard petrol and diesel.

Painting the countryside as "nature" and cities as the "antithesis of nature" is incredibly simplistic. Sustainability does not work that way.

Sustainability doesn't seem to work period. Show me one country you consider 100% sustainable?

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Sustainability doesn't seem to work period. Show me one country you consider 100% sustainable?

By your logic, humanity is doomed.

Countries that reward lower environmental impact, rather than make exceptions based on special pleading, would all be more sustainable. There's nothing about agricultural diesel that makes it emit less carbon than normal diesel but it's subject to a lower rate. That's the result of lobbying by the IFA.

Liam Byrne

Macha wrote: »

thebman wrote: »

Do they not already?

Sometimes people living in cities have a nasty habit of thinking they live in a different universe where food and goods just magically appears on the shelves for them to buy and that the bus they take to work, runs on dreams.

I'm not sure what these comments have to do with rural people paying for the pollution they emit. I could be similarly churlish and say people in the country forget that city economies subsidise them through the tax system. Does it help advance the debate? No.

As it stands, agricultural diesel is subject to a lower rate of carbon tax than standard petrol and diesel.

Painting the countryside as "nature" and cities as the "antithesis of nature" is incredibly simplistic. Sustainability does not work that way.

How much extra unnecessary pollution is caused by people stuck in traffic in a city ?

Given some of the traffic jams around the country, I'd reckon that someone living in the countryside and working from home or locally is significantly less polluting in their car use than someone who sits in traffic and drives a block 10 times in order to find a parkings space.

Tax should be on the fuel ONLY, not on the ownership of the car, and THEN it might be fair.....of course, this being Ireland, we're walloped on the double as usual.

thebman

Macha wrote: »

By your logic, humanity is doomed.

It is actually your logic TBH. Your logic that we need to change the way humanity works or we are all doomed is illogical. Show me a single instance where this has worked previously because I don't believe it ever has or ever will TBH. You can't change society by taxing people more unless they also actually want to change.

Countries that reward lower environmental impact, rather than make exceptions based on special pleading, would all be more sustainable. There's nothing about agricultural diesel that makes it emit less carbon than normal diesel but it's subject to a lower rate. That's the result of lobbying by the IFA.

So none exists, nor will they ever exist TBH because it isn't actually possible for them to exist.

Does stealing money from people because of your beliefs really change their behavior or just make them dislike your cause more?

I think it works about as well as speeding fines. They don't stop speeding though they may reduce it initially. Still leaves the world doomed and people speeding where they think they won't get caught though, doesn't it?

You need a better plan if you want to create a sustainable world, stop stealing money from people to try to make them change to a way of living which is either not possible for them because of cost reasons or because they are just not happy living that way.

Essentially the whole sustainable living thing seems to ask a poor person to die now since they can't afford to live with all these taxes and charges so rich people can live for more generations.

I'm not a big fan of it TBH because nobody seems to be able to describe how this whole thing results in a sustainable society.

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How much extra unnecessary pollution is caused by people stuck in traffic in a city ?

Not that traffic jams are a good thing, but the time spent stuck in traffic is being paid for in spent fuel.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Tax should be on the fuel ONLY, not on the ownership of the car, and THEN it might be fair...

Absolutely - but I'll wager that a lot of people will oppose such a move on the grounds of "double taxation", in that they've already paid VRT on the car, so they shouldn't have to pay "extra" tax on diesel/petrol.

thebman wrote: »

Essentially the whole sustainable living thing seems to ask a poor person to die now since they can't afford to live with all these taxes and charges so rich people can live for more generations.

I'm not a big fan of it...

If that were the definition of sustainability, I wouldn't be a fan of it either. But of course, the above is just a (ridiculous) definition that you've concocted to suit your own point of view.

thebman

djpbarry wrote: »

Not that traffic jams are a good thing, but the time spent stuck in traffic is being paid for in spent fuel.
Absolutely - but I'll wager that a lot of people will oppose such a move on the grounds of "double taxation", in that they've already paid VRT on the car, so they shouldn't have to pay "extra" tax on diesel/petrol.
If that were the definition of sustainability, I wouldn't be a fan of it either. But of course, the above is just a (ridiculous) definition that you've concocted to suit your own point of view.

Really so define sustainability and what are its overall goals and how does it hope to achieve them?

Seems it requires people to buy products from companies to upgrade their house/car or change where they live spending large amounts of money that many people don't actually have to spare on such luxuries. The alternative seems to be to get taxed into the ground taking any money you have left but most likely you'll run out of that first so you'll get to starve or tax dodge.

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Really so define sustainability and what are its overall goals and how does it hope to achieve them?

Seems it requires people to buy products from companies to upgrade their house/car or change where they live spending large amounts of money that many people don't actually have to spare on such luxuries. The alternative seems to be to get taxed into the ground taking any money you have left but most likely you'll run out of that first so you'll get to starve or tax dodge.

Sustainability is not a luxury. Sustainability is about creating a society that is sustainable, ie can sustain itself, ie can meet its needs without compromising the needs of future generations. So when you tell me sustainability doesn't work, you're telling me humanity doesn't have a future.

Your comments about stealing money are very odd and overly emotive.

anymore

djpbarry wrote: »

So if I decide to raise a family in my jet I'll then be entitled to sympathy?

Well your family certainly will. Though presumably in the interest's of sustainability, you will be taking the decision not to lumber the planet with any more children.

anymore

Macha wrote: »

Meh, this is more more of a rant against taxation in general than consumption based taxation specifically.

Sustainability is about creating a society that is sustainable, ie can sustain itself, ie can meet its needs without compromising the needs of future generations. So when you tell me sustainability doesn't work, you're telling me humanity doesn't have a future.

Sustainability of the planet and the extinction of man are linked, with man's extinction being the best result for the planet - so global warming is a sustainable solution. lets go for it !

djpbarry

thebman wrote: »

Really so define sustainability and what are its overall goals and how does it hope to achieve them?

I would have thought it fairly self-explanatory? If something is sustainable, it can be sustained indefinitely. If everyone decides they’re going to drive everywhere all the time (an extreme example, I'll admit), that’s obviously not sustainable, because everyone will be stuck in perpetual gridlock.

anymore wrote: »

Well your family certainly will. Though presumably in the interest's of sustainability, you will be taking the decision not to lumber the planet with any more children.

I’m going to take your continued avoidance of the point as tacit acknowledgment that buying an over-priced house in a poorly-planned community is not a necessity if one wishes to raise a family.

thebman

djpbarry wrote: »

I would have thought it fairly self-explanatory? If something is sustainable, it can be sustained indefinitely. If everyone decides they’re going to drive everywhere all the time (an extreme example, I'll admit), that’s obviously not sustainable, because everyone will be stuck in perpetual gridlock.

Obviously and self-explanatory :rolleyes:

And one should not go against the sustainability agenda for we will be wiped out if we can't defeat the our unsustainable way of living. We should just trust you because it is obvious and stop trying to ask questions about whether it is right or not because it is self-explanatory and this is the only way apparently. Everyone go spend millions on a new house in an pre-approved sustainable area! Then things will be slightly closer to sustainable though still unsustainable until you buy our next product due next Christimas :pac:

I’m going to take your continued avoidance of the point as tacit acknowledgment that buying an over-priced house in a poorly-planned community is not a necessity if one wishes to raise a family.

Yeah I don't think people should live in a poorly-planned community though you've still failed horribly to properly define what this is instead trying to say it is obvious and go buy a house and if you have one move because it is unsustainable to live where you live, where ever that maybe. Apparently if you need to drive somewhere, it is unsustainable.

You don't have a point so I can't acknowledge it. The only point you have seems to be that your definition of sustainable is the right one and everyone should adhere to it because you say so. Sounds awfully extremist TBH.

shadowninty

Yeah trying to avoid millions of deaths and hundreds of billions of euro of economic destruction is really extremist tbh. The longer things are put off the tougher the measures will get.

djpbarry

thebman wrote: »

Yeah I don't think people should live in a poorly-planned community though you've still failed horribly to properly define what this is...

I think you know full well what I mean, but I'll use the example of Lucan in West Dublin, because I grew up there (sort of). In the space of about 15 years, it grew from what was essentially a small village on the cusp of the countryside, into a large suburb housing tens of thousands. Now, I say it grew, but it didn't really. The population grew, but virtually nothing else did. No additional secondary schools have been built in the area (as far as I'm aware) - when I did my leaving cert in 2000, the school I was attending had almost 1,100 students, but was only designed for about 700. The local sports centre is exactly as it was 20 years ago. But, the most relevant point with regard to this discussion is that public transport links are pretty much exactly what they were 20 years ago. Hence, a large chunk of the population drive to get to where they need to go and Lucan is entirely gridlocked during rush hour, which obviously results in poorer public transport (bus services).

That is (a very brief summary of) what I mean by a poorly-planned community. I really don't think anyone who has lived in Ireland over the last 10 years needed that spelled out.

thebman wrote: »

Apparently if you need to drive somewhere, it is unsustainable.

That's clearly not what I said. Answer me this - would it be feasible for absolutely everyone in Ireland to drive, in their own personal car (i.e. no passengers except children), any time they needed to get absolutely anywhere?

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

That's clearly not what I said. Answer me this - would it be feasible for absolutely everyone in Ireland to drive, in their own personal car (i.e. no passengers except children), any time they needed to get absolutely anywhere?

Not only is this not sustainable, it would be a system that excludes those who cannot drive because they are too young, too old, too poor or too sick or disabled.

Liam Byrne

djpbarry wrote: »

Absolutely - but I'll wager that a lot of people will oppose such a move on the grounds of "double taxation", in that they've already paid VRT on the car, so they shouldn't have to pay "extra" tax on diesel/petrol.

No "extra" required. Lose the ridiculous and penal road tax and - loosely based on the approximate average 15,000km / 15km per litre - add 3c per litre to give the average person the same tax outlay while penalising those who have gas-guzzlers and drive "too much".

anymore

djpbarry wrote: »

I would have thought it fairly self-explanatory? If something is sustainable, it can be sustained indefinitely. If everyone decides they’re going to drive everywhere all the time (an extreme example, I'll admit), that’s obviously not sustainable, because everyone will be stuck in perpetual gridlock.
I’m going to take your continued avoidance of the point as tacit acknowledgment that buying an over-priced house in a poorly-planned community is not a necessity if one wishes to raise a family.

I abvoided further comment because I felt we can all make off the cuff remarks without realising this implications of them and I did point out the insensitivity of yours. That you persist in looking for a reply makes me realise just how insensitive to peopl'es needs and circumstances, you are, I do understand your position on the minimum wage a lot better now though.

OssianSmyth

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No "extra" required. Lose the ridiculous and penal road tax and - loosely based on the approximate average 15,000km / 15km per litre - add 3c per litre to give the average person the same tax outlay while penalising those who have gas-guzzlers and drive "too much".

I think you missed a zero in your sums.

Motor tax raises about €1bn/year. see: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/10/04/00320.asp
There are about 2.5m vehicles of all types licensed in Ireland.
So each vehicle is charged about €400/year.

Assuming 15,000km/year avg mileage and 15km/litre fuel economy, we would need a levy of an additional 40c/litre to compensate the exchequer for removing motor tax.

Raising fuel tax 40c is not acceptable to the public and, even if it were, a huge volume of people would refuel and shop north of the border.

Liam Byrne

OssianSmyth wrote: »

I think you missed a zero in your sums.

I did indeed : 1,000 litres @ 30c extra would be the 300-or-so car tax, not @ 3c extra

Still, though - even though that sounds a lot, someone driving the average amount of miles in an average car would be no worse off.

And drive less would then = pay less.