Stimulating the Economy

[Big Al]

My figures might be out but I think Durgan is paying 62 pence per gallon for regular petrol in Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Even if it's 62 pence PER LITRE he is on a winner... gawd help him if he was over here.

[Durgan]

My figures might be out but I think Durgan is paying 62 pence per gallon for regular petrol in Brantford, Ontario, Canada. Even if it's 62 pence PER LITRE he is on a winner... gawd help him if he was over here.

You are about right gas is around $1.25 per litre US.

The main thrust of my view is to benefit more people by government handouts, rather than rely on Reagan's trickle down system. A few hundred extra dollars per month in the pockets of 15 or so million people would be far more effective in jump starting the economy than a large sum say to one car company. Maybe a short term solution, but are there any others?

I choose gas, since the price directly or indirectly affects almost everyone. Russia uses booze and I suppose other countries have various commodities by controlling the price of the population's addictions. In Europe it use to be salt. Tobacco use to be a cash cow.

[Susie]

I wish the government to reduce prices on wool and those shortbread biscuits with chocolate in them from Marks and Spencer in order to stimulate the economy. I am poised to do my bit.

[Durgan]

I wish the government to reduce prices on wool and those shortbread biscuits with chocolate in them from Marks and Spencer in order to stimulate the economy. I am poised to do my bit.

Let me guess. You are attempting to be facetious, know nothing about the issue.

[Big Al]

The thing is Durgan, and it is difficult for me to type things because I am a facetous, sarcastic, cantankerous, politically incorrect person at the best of times but when you are paying the likes of $1.25 US a litre for petrol and we are paying the equivilent of $2.63 US or $2.70 canadian a litre then you are using the wrong item to kick start the economy.

You want a discount on your fuel bill, we would all like that but I think you are being selfish because at 75 yr old you want / need a car more than younger folk ( in a generalised world) but your selfishness will only serve to help the oil run out faster so it then becomes prohibitivly expensive for the rest of us by which time you are either dead or in a home without the need of personal transport.
we have a purchase tax and call it VAT or value added tax and it is at 20% although I doubt anyone would say it added value to anything.
I'm sure you have a similar purchase tax to us and to stimulate the economy over here the government could reduce the VAT by 5% and that would stimulate the economy assuming people would go out and spend that vat reduction. I fear that on both sides of the water we are all in a depression and no matter what the respective governments do people will not spend money as they are too fearful of a 1930's type full blown depression.

To call susie as you have is out of order and you should be a gentleman and appologise to her.

[Susie]

I wish the government to reduce prices on wool and those shortbread biscuits with chocolate in them from Marks and Spencer in order to stimulate the economy. I am poised to do my bit.

Let me guess. You are attempting to be facetious, know nothing about the issue, or are stupid.

Well, as I'm sure was generally understood, I was making the point, through an attempt at humour, that cutting fuel prices would be of no great direct benefit to me and many people like me who spend next to nothing on fuel (and this is no great moral position or particular credit to me - I live in a city, it's easier and much nicer to walk everywhere and we have decent public transport). So sorry that wasn't clear (that's sarcasm). Exiting thread while hugging Big Al (that was not sarcasm, thanks Big Al!).

(I actually might spend more on biscuits than I do on petrol. God).

[Durgan]

I wish the government to reduce prices on wool and those shortbread biscuits with chocolate in them from Marks and Spencer in order to stimulate the economy. I am poised to do my bit.

Let me guess. You are attempting to be facetious, know nothing about the issue, or are stupid.

Well, as I'm sure was generally understood, I was making the point, through an attempt at humour, that cutting fuel prices would be of no great direct benefit to me and many people like me who spend next to nothing on fuel (and this is no great moral position or particular credit to me - I live in a city, it's easier and much nicer to walk everywhere and we have decent public transport). So sorry that wasn't clear (that's sarcasm). Exiting thread while hugging Big Al (that was not sarcasm, thanks Big Al!).

(I actually might spend more on biscuits than I do on petrol. God).

A very narrow view. Almost every product has some cost attributable to it via transportation costs. Certainly almost every product is moved by a four wheeled vehicles somewhere from place of origin to final consumption. Anyway, I have made my point more than clear, concise and justifiable, and if it is obtuse to some so be it,and hence shall cease commenting.

[contadina]

Rather than stick your head in the sand by demanding cheaper fuel it's better to be proactive. Insulate your home to the highest standards you can (lot's of government incentives for this) and reduce your dependency on the car. If this means moving house to be nearer work or working from home than so be it. Nobody says it's going to be easy, but best to make changes now rather than expect things to suddenly get better.

Whenever governments lower tax on fuel it's merely a cynical attempt to advance their election platforms and does nothing to deal with the crux of the problem. Continued growth is what's got us into our current problems and it is not sustainable, but we're heading into an economic scenario few of us have ever experienced so it's rather difficult to pronounce solutions. Energy is at the heart of growth so any increase in prices leads to low or negative growth and as oil prices have remained above $100 for most of 2011 so there really is not much possibility for growth.

Interestingly, BP has just claimed that countries with low fuel taxes will be the worst effected by rising oil costs as their is less scope to soften the blow of rising prices at the pumps. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... BW20111206

[gregorach]

Anyway, I have made my point more than clear, concise and justifiable, and if it is obtuse to some so be it,and hence shall cease commenting.

It's not that your point is in anyway obtuse, it's just that some people don't agree. For one thing, you're assuming that any reduction in transport costs would be passed on in full to the consumer, and I don't think that's a valid assumption. I have already presented my argument as to why I believe a reduction in fuel duty is unlikely to result in an equal reduction in fuel prices and you have completely ignored it.

we have a purchase tax and call it VAT or value added tax and it is at 20% although I doubt anyone would say it added value to anything.
I'm sure you have a similar purchase tax to us and to stimulate the economy over here the government could reduce the VAT by 5% and that would stimulate the economy assuming people would go out and spend that vat reduction.

Yeah, I would think a VAT reduction would have much wider and more beneficial effects than a reduction in fuel duty. Eliminate VAT on heating fuel and we'd have fewer pensioners freezing to death in their own homes, for one thing.

[Milims]

I wish the government to reduce prices on wool and those shortbread biscuits with chocolate in them from Marks and Spencer in order to stimulate the economy. I am poised to do my bit.

Let me guess. You are attempting to be facetious, know nothing about the issue, or are stupid.[/quote]

Well, as I'm sure was generally understood, I was making the point, through an attempt at humour, that cutting fuel prices would be of no great direct benefit to me and many people like me who spend next to nothing on fuel (and this is no great moral position or particular credit to me - I live in a city, it's easier and much nicer to walk everywhere and we have decent public transport). So sorry that wasn't clear (that's sarcasm). Exiting thread while hugging Big Al (that was not sarcasm, thanks Big Al!).

(I actually might spend more on biscuits than I do on petrol. God).[/quote]

A very narrow view. Almost every product has some cost attributable to it via transportation costs. Certainly almost every product is moved by a four wheeled vehicles somewhere from place of origin to final consumption. Anyway, I have made my point more than clear, concise and justifiable, and if it is obtuse to some so be it,and hence shall cease commenting.[/quote]

May I draw your attention to this: http://www.selfsufficientish.com/forum/ ... 17&t=11583. Especially he part about Being Nice. Enough said I hope!

[boboff]

Is there anything in there about "quoting" M?

[Big Al]

[

we have a purchase tax and call it VAT or value added tax and it is at 20% although I doubt anyone would say it added value to anything.
I'm sure you have a similar purchase tax to us and to stimulate the economy over here the government could reduce the VAT by 5% and that would stimulate the economy assuming people would go out and spend that vat reduction.

Yeah, I would think a VAT reduction would have much wider and more beneficial effects than a reduction in fuel duty. Eliminate VAT on heating fuel and we'd have fewer pensioners freezing to death in their own homes, for one thing.

Sadly Gregorach that will never ever happen as there is a minimum VAT tarrif set by the EEC and that is 5%. Actually to be totally honest it is the lowest rate on any given product charged by a country in the EEC. which is why the uk government put 17.5% vat on fuel then after an uproar it was reduced to 5%. Also once VAT has been set on a specific item or range of items it can never be taken off as it sets the minimum price for that catagory for example we pay VAT on take aways but not fresh food.

As Durgan isn't going to respond to this post, it's a pity that when you are wrong you won't admit it.......

[boboff]

Have you seen Rainman Al?

[GrowingVeg]

1. VAT only applied to non staples (just luxury items)
2. Government backed loans for ALL business's at 1% interest fixed.
3. Flat corporation tax rate of 5%.

[grahamhobbs]

We can all debate how to stimulate the economy, they can basically be broken to a number of basic ways

1. The Governement investing in infra-structure ie. spending capital
2. Reduce taxation so things cost less
3. Transfer money to ordinary people to spend

Surprise, surprise the government is not doing any of this (the high speed rail link is not happening for another 6 years). It is actually doing the opposite plus it has had an unspoken policy of devaluing the pound. Despite what Harold Wilson said, this does devalue the pound in your pocket. Every way you look, ordinary people are being forced to reduce their living standards, whilst the bankers get back to normal on the backs of our money and the rich have been getting even richer.

We can no longer compete with India and China because our technology or manufacturing processes are no longer better than their theirs, for several decades we put off the day of reckoning by borrowing huge amounts of money from China, but the bubble has burst and now we will have to compete with them directly. Our living standards will have to be reduced down to theirs.

The government despite it's fine words is out to protect the interests of the system, it will not significantly stimulate the economy, it won't admit it but it wants the pain, it wants a large army of under employed, it wants to reduce living standards, not just for the traditional underclass but right throughout the middle class. We have a long way to go to be competitive with the likes of India and China.