Best Of

It’s still the case that a cut to electricity taxes is actually progressive (and far more so compared with fuel duty), because it’s the main form of energy poor households use (smaller homes etc). That is changing rapidly though, by 2030 I think you might be right.

Abolishing VAT on old ICE repairs/parts would be a justifiable policy, imo, and mitigate some of the inequity that is coming. Dura_Ace in dreamland.

Given the motor industry's systemic addiction to fraud that will just result in garages having a K-reg Micra parked out front that has every possible part and repair assigned to it.

If we're pretending to give a shit about the cost of transport for low earners, which nobody really does, then just raising the zero income tax bracket would be a far better way to do it than trying to halt or reverse the inexorable rise of the BEV.

Most OEMs have greatly curtailed spare part support for older ICE models anyway because it was costing them a fortune and keeping old cars on the road actually hurts them. So anything more than a very minor repair on a 10+ year old car will rely on aftermarket shit or scrapyard roulette.

The last few weeks have definitely moved the market and lease prices on BEVs have jumped significantly which generally indicates a lessee stampede to those models.

Low earners can use public transport so there are fewer cars on the road to bother the well off.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime

Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out

Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime

Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out

Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.

I forgot to bookmark the post I saw yesterday, that basically said that the coverage of the Iran war is massively distorted by the fact that almost the entire American Establishment and media want to see the Americans lose because they hate Trump.

The enemies here on scale of global threat are in danger order

Israel

USA

Iran

Thats a terrible indictment on the democratically elected leaders of the first two.

It is beholden on citizens of these 2 countries to remove them

Until they do they are dangerous enemies and should be treated and sanctioned like Iran, Russia and North Korea.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

See my prior remark. The fact is Dan has no idea if this is true. The only people that do are in the White House and at the top of the Iranian regime

Given that both sides have a penchant and a motivation for lying we will likely never find out

Some people are far more interested in Trump being seen to be defeated than they are the Iranian regime.

A

NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?

For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already

Yes, that's right.

But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.

So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.

However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.

Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.

Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.

Depends on just how severe the depression is.

I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.

Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.

It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.

Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.

By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.

But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user

Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.

Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.

There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.

You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.

Because they’re mostly not working.

Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…

They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.

I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.

In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive

Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.

Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.

Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.

If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.

But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.

EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.

Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.

Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.

It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.

Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.

That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.

A

NAE but is not the government gaining a big tax windfall right now on fuel taxes? Why then not cut the tax rate and reduce pump costs as has happened already in Spain for example?

For every 6 penny increase the Gov't gains 1p. So on diesel the gov't is pretty much getting the full tax hike pencilled in already

Yes, that's right.

But for anyone who doesn't know, the Govt only gains VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed number of pence per litre so no gain in Fuel duty.

So if net price up 5p, VAT up 1p (ie 20% of 5p) - so total price up 6p.

However the point is if the public is spending more on petrol they will be spending less on other things, so the VAT take on everything else will go down.

Now some things are zero rated but big picture is Govt may actually gain very little overall.

Given that so many of the basics are zero rated and that fuel is an essential for the majority of people, I think you are wrong that the Govt will gain little overall.

Depends on just how severe the depression is.

I think there is an argument for a reduced tax on fuel but the consensus is it’s one of the “best” taxes to levy - unavoidable, simple, inelastic, and on personal transport highly progressive. The only better alternative is probably income tax.

Doing it in a fuel crisis makes sense short term but in the long term it’s a disaster - this sense that the government will always come to the rescue is why we are so vulnerable to crises, and why our debt is so high. £50 billion in 2022 and wr haven’t learnt the lesson.

It is very regressive on personal transport. Always has been, but today when new vehicles are either hybrids or electric it is more so.

Someone going to a minimum wage job in a 10 year old banger is paying a far higher percentage of their income in fuel duty than someone going to work in their new Tesla.

By decile of income, the poorest pay far, far, far more as a percentage of income on fuel duty. The richest pay far less as a percentage of income. Which is how progressive or regressive taxation is measured.

But it’s the wrong measure. Fuel duty is related to consumption of fuel not the income of the user

Oh absolutely you can debate whether progressive taxation is a good idea or not, but the word has a meaning. It means that the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes up, versus regressive taxation which is the proportion of tax paid goes up as income goes down.

Fuel duty is exceptionally regressive. It is one of the most regressive taxes we have. VAT, especially since most essentials (besides fuel) are zero-rated tends to scale with income. Fuel duty does not. The poorest pay considerably more proportionately out of their income than the richer deciles do.

There are not many major taxes we have that are as regressive as fuel duty. Yet Eabhal falsely calls it progressive - that is simply wrong as a matter of fact, setting aside any debate as to whether progressive taxation is a good or bad idea.

You have a completely perverted understanding of what a low-income household looks like. 40% of the bottom quintile income households don’t have a car at all.

Because they’re mostly not working.

Look at those working minimum wage in F&B or doing shifts in hospitals or factories…

They don’t drive anywhere near as much on higher salaries, even after accounting for the fact car ownership is lower.

I think you can make an argument for cutting fuel duty but the progressive one is nonsense. It would much better to take £50 billion off NICs, or council tax for low band households.

In major cities, with widespread, *frequent* public transport, the poor(er) often don’t drive

Though many, in parts of London (for example) have to, due to poor transport links locally.

Outside the cities it is a very different story - if you don’t drive, you often can’t work.

Agree with that entirely - it’s a bit of a strawman response though. As I said, a progressive tax cut that doesn’t discriminate against those in work but don’t use a car much would be a NICs cut. Or £50 billion investment in public transport which everyone benefits from.

If you cut fuel duty, the vast majority of the saving is hoovered up by the richest households.

But that is changing as EVs grow in market share. If you drive around the Cotswolds (or West London), every other expensive house has a fast charger in the drive way. So they are fuel duty immune and paying domestic rate for their ‘leccy.

EV take up is much higher among the richer income groups.

Yes the top 10% all now have an EV that they pay almost nothing to charge, even if it’s a second or 3rd car.

Fuel duty becomes more regressive every day.

It will take some time for that to happen given that car ownership and usage is still skewed to the better off.

Fuel usage, rather than car usage, is however skewed to the lower incomes. The second and third deciles rely on old cars to get to work, and are massively affected by increases in the petrol price.

That’s not true. Car ownership is pretty high on middling incomes but mileage is much lower than those on top incomes.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Point of PB pedant order. Isn't almost all chess 3 dimensional?

Well the pieces can only move in a two-dimensional plane, apart from, arguably, the knights.
And computer chess is not 3 dimensional.

But an enjoyable bit of pedantry nonetheless. Nicely done.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
39m
Trump gave the Iranians an ultimatum. They called his bluff. He's backed down. That's it. No "3-D Chess". No masterful deployment of "The Mad Man Strategy". Trump has caved.

https://x.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Point of PB pedant order. Isn't almost all chess 3 dimensional?

Well the pieces can only move in a two-dimensional plane, apart from, arguably, the knights.
And computer chess is not 3 dimensional.

But an enjoyable bit of pedantry nonetheless. Nicely done.