"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...

The cost to put petrol or desiel on the forcourt is something
around 40 pence per litre 80 pence is tax

More like 47/73 - and it's the left hand figure which is going up in
leaps and bounds. If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt, it'll be
about 75/75.

It costs less than 2 dollars a barrel to lift it out of the ground ,its
just the way the tax escalator works .Most other countries have a fixed
tax collection figures

No, it's nothing to do with that.

Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past, ooh, ever, you'll have
noticed that people talk about the price of oil - it's the one quoted in
dollars per barrel. This has been going up rather a lot recently, and oil
companies are normal businesses - they sell their product at the market
rate. So even if it costs $2/barrel for them to get the oil (which is very
much at the cheap end), there's no way you're paying less than the $120 or
so it sells for at the moment.

If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt any time soon, it won't be to do with
tax, it'll be to do with the price of the raw product.

clive

Clive George wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...

The cost to put petrol or desiel on the forcourt is something
around 40 pence per litre 80 pence is tax

More like 47/73 - and it's the left hand figure which is going up
in leaps and bounds. If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt,
it'll be about 75/75.

It costs less than 2 dollars a barrel to lift it out of the ground
,its just the way the tax escalator works .Most other countries
have a fixed tax collection figures

No, it's nothing to do with that.

Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past, ooh, ever,
you'll have noticed that people talk about the price of oil - it's
the one quoted in dollars per barrel. This has been going up rather a
lot recently, and oil companies are normal businesses - they sell
their product at the market rate. So even if it costs $2/barrel for
them to get the oil (which is very much at the cheap end), there's no
way you're paying less than the $120 or so it sells for at the moment.

If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt any time soon, it won't be to
do with tax, it'll be to do with the price of the raw product.

clive

I was just offering a comparrision , just be greatful the dollars
dropped on the currency markets or we would be really screwed

I can see it hitting £2.00 a litre within 12 months as non opec
countries realise they can make as much money restricting supplies as
increasing them , we really do need to find an alternative supply or
alternative fuel type then we could tell them all to take a hike

--

On Mon, 05 May 2008 21:14:50 +0100, Pete M
wrote:

Ivan wrote:
Pete M wrote:
Ivan wrote:
A few short months ago the prospect of diesel fuel breaking through
the £1.00 a litre barrier appeared to be unlikely, but with it now
costing over £1.20 a liter that's nudging £5.50 a gallon, this got
me wondering just how much it would have to reach before people on
this newsgroup reached a point where they would be seriously
thinking about giving up their car? .. My own threshold would be
somewhere around £10.00 a gallon and that would be it.


Unfortunately the kicking that the government received last week still
doesn't seem to have sunk into their thick heads. They're still
considering "reviewing" the 2p fuel hike they've got planned for
Septemberish.

Unfortunately, they seem to think that the 10p tax band makes more
difference than ripping the motorist off for £30-50 a month more in tax.

However there's more to it than just "the motorist". The cost of diesel
hits everyone because it is passed on to the price of all goods, since
diesel is the fuel which is used by almost all transport (rail included
- freight locos are diesel). So *everything* goes up as a result and
inflation spirals. At the same time a lot of hauliers are going out of
business because they can no longer make a profit.
--
asahartz woz ere

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:14:03 +0100, Conor
wrote:

In article , Adrian says...
Conor gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Where I live, giving up the car would mean giving up work. I have no
alternative.

I think the Duhg-answer would be "Move house".

In most places, it still doesn't alter the fact. There's not many
places with 24/7 PT that serves industrial areas.

I suppose I could get a job leaving home at 3am on Monday morning not
to return until 6-7pm Friday night but then whats the point of having a
home and family if you don't get to see them or enjoy the fruits of
your labour?

I work in a town 25 miles away, my wife works here. One of us would
always have to travel, and the very limited PT between these towns would
take me about 2 hours.
Yes, I'm trying to get a job closer to home, but in my kind of job there
are not that many options at my level.

Conor's right, you need to have time for family life too.
--
asahartz woz ere

"asahartz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:14:03 +0100, Conor
wrote:

In article , Adrian says...
Conor gurgled happily, sounding much like
they
were saying:

Where I live, giving up the car would mean giving up work. I have no
alternative.

I think the Duhg-answer would be "Move house".

In most places, it still doesn't alter the fact. There's not many
places with 24/7 PT that serves industrial areas.

I suppose I could get a job leaving home at 3am on Monday morning not
to return until 6-7pm Friday night but then whats the point of having a
home and family if you don't get to see them or enjoy the fruits of
your labour?

I work in a town 25 miles away, my wife works here. One of us would
always have to travel, and the very limited PT between these towns would
take me about 2 hours.
Yes, I'm trying to get a job closer to home, but in my kind of job there
are not that many options at my level.

Conor's right, you need to have time for family life too.


Yes, I'm sort of in the same boat, but luckily I rent my house. That means
when I change job, I just find a house near to work and move... I haven't
lived more than 2 miles from work for 10 years now :-) Of course, that
doesn't stop me driving 15,000 miles a year for fun..

Mike P

asahartz wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:14:03 +0100, Conor
wrote:

In article , Adrian says...
Conor gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Where I live, giving up the car would mean giving up work. I have no
alternative.
I think the Duhg-answer would be "Move house".

In most places, it still doesn't alter the fact. There's not many
places with 24/7 PT that serves industrial areas.

I suppose I could get a job leaving home at 3am on Monday morning not
to return until 6-7pm Friday night but then whats the point of having a
home and family if you don't get to see them or enjoy the fruits of
your labour?

I work in a town 25 miles away, my wife works here. One of us would
always have to travel, and the very limited PT between these towns would
take me about 2 hours.
Similarish, but different. My wife and I work at the same place. 26
miles, between 35 and 60 minutes- typically 45. We could technically
move, but have friends, family, and good neighbours here. We like where
we live, and we like that we owe very little money on it.

Despte living on the edge of the West Midlands conurbation (supposedly
the 2nd largest in the UK) and our PT being advertised as a network, it
would take at least 2.5 hours each way.

Yes, I'm trying to get a job closer to home, but in my kind of job there
are not that many options at my level.

Same here, at the moment, certainly. Plus my employer has some good
terms and conditions.

Doki wrote:
I really can't see how my life
could carry on like it does now without a car and affordable fuel.
Visiting relatives would be very costly, going near enough anywhere
beyond a couple of miles is a bit of a gip (which is most places these
days - cinema? shops? any kind of facility in general?), I wouldn't be
able to pick and choose between supermarkets. IME cycling is a lot
faster than getting bus, even over relatively long distances, but that's
not saying much. I suspect we'd all be thorougly miserable.

Lets not forget buses use diesel too. Also, so many cinemas and shops
are out-of-town and away from major bus termini now.

steve robinson wrote:
Clive George wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:

"steve robinson" wrote in message
...

The cost to put petrol or desiel on the forcourt is something
around 40 pence per litre 80 pence is tax

More like 47/73 - and it's the left hand figure which is going up
in leaps and bounds. If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt,
it'll be about 75/75.

It costs less than 2 dollars a barrel to lift it out of the ground
,its just the way the tax escalator works .Most other countries
have a fixed tax collection figures

No, it's nothing to do with that.

Unless you've had your head in the sand for the past, ooh, ever,
you'll have noticed that people talk about the price of oil - flaw
the one quoted in dollars per barrel. This has been going up rather a
lot recently, and oil companies are normal businesses - they sell
their product at the market rate. So even if it costs $2/barrel for
them to get the oil (which is very much at the cheap end), there's no
way you're paying less than the $120 or so it sells for at the
moment.

If it hits 1.50/litre on the forecourt any time soon, it won't be to
do with tax, it'll be to do with the price of the raw product.

clive

I was just offering a comparrision , just be greatful the dollars
dropped on the currency markets or we would be really screwed

I can see it hitting £2.00 a litre within 12 months as non opec
countries realise they can make as much money restricting supplies as
increasing them , we really do need to find an alternative supply or
alternative fuel type then we could tell them all to take a hike the



Of course the flaw with that approach is that lets assume that there 'is' a
viable alternative to sticking a pipe in the ground and pulling out billions
of barrels of cheap energy, human nature and big business being what it is
will dictate that the producers and the providers of such an alternative
will [just like Opec] still hold the world to ransom and attempt to screw
the maximum amount of profit they can out of a hapless public, simply a
question of supply and demand.

Chris Bartram wrote:
Doki wrote:
I really can't see how my life
could carry on like it does now without a car and affordable fuel.
Visiting relatives would be very costly, going near enough anywhere
beyond a couple of miles is a bit of a gip (which is most places
these days - cinema? shops? any kind of facility in general?), I
wouldn't be able to pick and choose between supermarkets. IME
cycling is a lot faster than getting bus, even over relatively long
distances, but that's not saying much. I suspect we'd all be
thorougly miserable.

Lets not forget buses use diesel too. Also, so many cinemas and shops
are out-of-town and away from major bus termini now.

I live in Preston, Lancashire, *just less than 3 miles* from Europe's second
largest bus station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station but we
only get one bus per hour until 6.15pm and then the service stops for the
night, and no service at all on a Sunday.

Public transport is a pathetic joke in this country.

John

In article , steve
robinson says...

I was just offering a comparrision , just be greatful the dollars
dropped on the currency markets or we would be really screwed

The currency difference hasn't made a jot of difference to the price.
If we weren't in rip-off Britain where the currency conversion of GBP
to USD mysteriously hits £1=$1 by the time it gets to the shelf, we'd
be on fuel 40p/l less than it is now.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams