Rationing within a decade?

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 20 Mar 2012, 09:29

The UK, and Europes, diesel "shortage" has nothing to do with peak oil.

When was the last time a diesel refinery was built in the UK?
And how many more diesel vehicles are on the roads now than there were then?

We've seen several petrol refineries close because of an over supply of petrol.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Mar 2012, 16:22

The latest tax rise on fuel (3p a litre) which is being introduced in August (in line with inflation) is not applied to road hauliers. The vast majority of road hauliers use diesel.

We already have red diesel for agricultural use, so we are beginning to see effective rationing by taxation of diesel for 'non-essential' users.

Post by **adam2** » 23 Mar 2012, 11:03

RalphW wrote:The latest tax rise on fuel (3p a litre) which is being introduced in August (in line with inflation) is not applied to road hauliers. The vast majority of road hauliers use diesel.

We already have red diesel for agricultural use, so we are beginning to see effective rationing by taxation of diesel for 'non-essential' users.

Are you certain about this ?
I thought that it was extra road tax not being applied to hauliers, rather than fuel duty.
I cant forsee two different prices for diesel fuel at filling stations according to the type of vehicle or type of business in which it is used.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 23 Mar 2012, 11:41

Adam2
Its possible, its not simple, but its possible.

Most Hauliers would, I assume, either have their own fuel pumps at site, or, they would use a "fuel card" to buy fuel at a petrol station.

You could reclaim the 3p fuel duty in the same way you reclaim VAT now if nothing else.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 23 Mar 2012, 12:31

Adam2

You are right. the media as usual gave confusing and contradictory reports.

However, it is still rationing by price, but by a less direct method.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Mar 2012, 12:39

RalphW wrote:Adam2

You are right. the media as usual gave confusing and contradictory reports.

However, it is still rationing by price, but by a less direct method.

I've posted this on another thread relating to the upcoming tax-break subsidies on deep-water oil extraction. However, it bears some relevance to this thread aswell:

Oil prices are rising and are now set to continue to rise for ever. However, in order to keep the price at the pump low, part of the rising cost will have to be buried into the taxation system and some of the economic players in that system will be differentially (as in preferentially) subjected to the burden of taxation as compared to others. In other words, if oil can be extracted at a "cost" that is nearer to "normal" costs of extraction (due to tax-break subsidies), then the price at point of consumption will nearer to "normal" also. The fact that the majority of people will have less to spend on consumption (due to an increased taxation burden funding the above subsidy) is frankly immaterial if you are sufficiently wealthy. Of course, in the long-run, the tide of rising prices will come in no matter what games are played with the taxation system. However, in the short-to-medium-run, games such as this put off that day a little longer for those futher up the food chain.

One way or another, the poor are going to be forced into lower consumption levels while the rich maintain their levels of consumption. This will be achieved by static (at best) or rising (at worst) prices in an environment of lowering incomes of the poor (due in part to an ever greater tax burden on them as a proprtion of their income).

Or, to put it another way, the Titanic is beginning to sink and two lists are being drawn up. One for who gets to carry the lifeboats to the edge of the ship and a second one for who gets a place on those lifeboats.

The bad news is the majority of us aren't on the second list.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 23 Mar 2012, 13:29

Steve
I'm not sure what kind of lunatic world you inhabit.

But lowering super taxes is not a subsidy...

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Mar 2012, 14:45

DominicJ wrote:Steve
I'm not sure what kind of lunatic world you inhabit.

But lowering super taxes is not a subsidy...

I live in the real world, Dominic, as opposed to one that is filtered through the prism of of a "free market" fantasy. Don't misunderstand me, a truly free market would be wonderful. It just doesn't exist.

At all.

Though, I am bound to say, if events of the last 3 years have not opened the eyes of those who would persist in clinging to the above fantasy, I'm not sure what will. I guess harder times are required. Not long to wait then.

All raw resources of life; land sea, minerals, etc, given that they exist independent of the work of man, should properly be the property of no-one or, at the very least, be the property of everyone. However, long ago, anything that wasn’t nailed down was appropriated by men with swords and later men with guns. Once they appropriated them, then they set about building up social structures (judiciary, penal systems, laws, moral codes etc. In other words, "civilisation") whose primary purpose was to legitimate and consolidate that control of the primary means of production. Ever since then, the vast majority of humanity has been slaves to this ruthless minority with their very existence depending upon the largess of that minority to provide them with work that they were then paid for with, you guessed it, a symbolic representation of wealth in the form of money that just happened to be under the control of those same men with guns. Having been paid, they then were forced to buy back the things they had produced since they had no means of producing them for themselves.

Given all of the above, the very least that the vast proportion of dispossessed humanity should expect is that those organisations and individual humans who do have direct control/ownership of the means of production should pay compensation to them for their lack of access. Indeed, this happens already to some extent via the benefits system if there is not enough work to go round. However, this should be an baseline expectation at the very least. Though, it is being slowly reigned back now that there is less of the means of production to go round.

The thing is, those people in charge Dominic, you have to realise that they are complete psychopaths and have absolutely no intention of seeing their own level of consumption go down in proportion to the steadily diminishing resources. Instead, as well as having no control over those resources, the rest of us are also going to be disproportionately shouldering the burden of their diminishing supply

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 23 Mar 2012, 15:03

stevecook172001 wrote:...absolutely no intention of seeing their own level of wealth go down in proportion to the steadily diminishing resources. Instead, as well as having no control over those resources, the rest of us are also going to be disproportionately shouldering the burden of their diminishing supply

As is happening.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 23 Mar 2012, 19:20

emordnilap wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:...absolutely no intention of seeing their own level of wealth go down in proportion to the steadily diminishing resources. Instead, as well as having no control over those resources, the rest of us are also going to be disproportionately shouldering the burden of their diminishing supply
As is happening.

Yes, the events of the last three years and, more importantly, how they have been dealt with are just the beginning.

ujoni08 · Post by **ujoni08** » 24 Mar 2012, 22:01

Wot Steve said.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 Mar 2012, 16:58

I used to be really puzzled about why poor people voted tory. Now I'm also puzzled about why moderately-well-off people do, given that what used to be the working-class have been clobbered, and the said tories are now coming for the next lot up (that's thee and me)!

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 26 Mar 2012, 00:05

RenewableCandy wrote:I used to be really puzzled about why poor people voted tory. Now I'm also puzzled about why moderately-well-off people do, given that what used to be the working-class have been clobbered, and the said tories are now coming for the next lot up (that's thee and me)!

Speak for yourself I'm unemployed you know

I'm still thinking automatic weapons

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 26 Mar 2012, 11:08

RenewableCandy wrote:I used to be really puzzled about why poor people voted tory.

"Used to be?" So you were puzzled up to, say, the age of nine maybe, at which point you realised all politicians are liars. And even more so prior to an election.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 26 Mar 2012, 11:12

RenewableCandy wrote:I used to be really puzzled about why poor people voted tory.

Two words: The Sun.

Now I'm also puzzled about why moderately-well-off people do

Three words: The Daily Mail.

More broadly, the general Tory mantra of "look after number one" appeals to everyone who wants to "make it".

The IMPLICATION is that the Tories are going to take less money off YOU to redistribute to the unworthy. Most people don't actually do the maths to see which side of the worthy/unworthy line they are on. After all, they might not like what they find. Most people would rather lose out financially than think of themselves as losers.

PowerSwitch

Rationing within a decade?

opinion