kr79:
Yeah but carryfast can fill his old gas guzzler up a lot cheaper then.
It would make (a lot) more difference to truck operators and customers and the economy in general throughout the year than the cost of the amount of petrol that the ‘the old gas guzzler’ gets through when I use it.
I did a project at school all those years ago using the Motor Transport cost tables and my teacher said than they were not true figures and only an estimate, he said with my figures there was not enough profit to warrant running your own vehicle. I showed him the article & that the figures were true and he was amazed or possibly amused that anyone would put themselves through that 
Geoffrey is welcome to try running his old 6x4 yank on traction only, where his profit will go is on increased running costs, additional road tax because of the emissions and the fact that he cannot go into London, Switzerland or Italy. He will pay more on MAUT, Vignettes and tyres.
I don’t know why I’m bothering, 
but I’m at home and bored. 
muckles:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Any reduction in fuel taxation and the rates will be cut accordingly within weeks.I think you’re forgetting to factor in the increase in demand for road transport just resulting from the fuel cost reductions let alone the increase in growth in the economy as a whole which such a reduction would create.Yes rates would be cut but not by as much as demand would increase.Which would be a win win situation for all concerned.
Carryfast:
Road fuel taxation needs to be got rid of completely and put it on income tax.but you’ve just increased everybodys income tax to pay for the reduction, removal of fuel duty. So what most working people save on reduced fuel costs and lower prices of goods, they’ll lose on having less take home pay.
Carryfast:
But there’s more income tax payers than there are road fuel tax payers. There’s also higher rates of income tax for higher earners so the net effect would be that working people pay less because there’s more paying in to provide the same amount of tax and those earning least pay the least while those earning most pay most.
As it stands now road transport users are paying an unfair burden of the country’s tax requirement
I should think almost all income tax payers, also buy fuel as do many pensioners and those on other benefits and those below a tax limit and those not working for other reasons.
So to put that on income tax would burden one group income tax payers.
A quick search round the internet, showed that the goverment received about £155bn in income tax and about £25bn in Fuel duty not including VAT. To get that money back on income tax would mean needing to find another 16% in income tax.
Now I know you live in some utopia, but in the real world higher rate earners find ways of reducing thier tax bills, so they won’t make up the difference, your average working person will.
Carryfast:
and why send goods by road with road fuel tax being charged when it can go by rail without and in which case road fuel tax has to be increased even more to make up for the loss of revenues caused by those avoiding it by sending goods on road fuel tax free modes.With the result that revenues then drop even further as the economy goes under because people don’t buy as much road fuel,goods and services like road transport to save paying tax that they can’t afford anyway.
Ah! Carryfast and his look out it’s all going on the train scare story.
The percentage of goods moved by rail in the UK is about 8%, it’s been about that for years despite various attempts to change it.
It isn’t the big treat to the UK haulage industry, that comes from somewhere else.
I do realise that transport rates are based on a mileage rate or price or weight not on a per can of beans price but at the end of the day that cost has to come out of the price of those beans.
As wheelnut says the profit margin in general haulage it’s tiny and has been for years. If you went on dragons den with a business plan for an owner driver subbing work you would be on Harry hills tv burp within days.
muckles:
I don’t know why I’m bothering,muckles:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Any reduction in fuel taxation and the rates will be cut accordingly within weeks.I think you’re forgetting to factor in the increase in demand for road transport just resulting from the fuel cost reductions let alone the increase in growth in the economy as a whole which such a reduction would create.Yes rates would be cut but not by as much as demand would increase.Which would be a win win situation for all concerned.
Carryfast:
Road fuel taxation needs to be got rid of completely and put it on income tax.but you’ve just increased everybodys income tax to pay for the reduction, removal of fuel duty. So what most working people save on reduced fuel costs and lower prices of goods, they’ll lose on having less take home pay.
Carryfast:
But there’s more income tax payers than there are road fuel tax payers. There’s also higher rates of income tax for higher earners so the net effect would be that working people pay less because there’s more paying in to provide the same amount of tax and those earning least pay the least while those earning most pay most.
As it stands now road transport users are paying an unfair burden of the country’s tax requirementI should think almost all income tax payers, also buy fuel as do many pensioners and those on other benefits and those below a tax limit and those not working for other reasons.
So to put that on income tax would burden one group income tax payers.
A quick search round the internet, showed that the goverment received about £155bn in income tax and about £25bn in Fuel duty not including VAT. To get that money back on income tax would mean needing to find another 16% in income tax.
Now I know you live in some utopia, but in the real world higher rate earners find ways of reducing thier tax bills, so they won’t make up the difference, your average working person will.
Carryfast:
and why send goods by road with road fuel tax being charged when it can go by rail without and in which case road fuel tax has to be increased even more to make up for the loss of revenues caused by those avoiding it by sending goods on road fuel tax free modes.With the result that revenues then drop even further as the economy goes under because people don’t buy as much road fuel,goods and services like road transport to save paying tax that they can’t afford anyway.Ah! Carryfast and his look out it’s all going on the train scare story.
The percentage of goods moved by rail in the UK is about 8%, it’s been about that for years despite various attempts to change it.It isn’t the big treat to the UK haulage industry, that comes from somewhere else.
So you’re saying instead of taking the extra tax from those who are actually earning the money let’s take it from those who aren’t like pensioners and the low paid etc etc instead.Who no surprise don’t buy so much of the stuff and stay at home because they can’t afford it so the fuel stays in the storage tanks and the government loses out on the revenues anyway.So then it has to increase the fuel taxes even more so even less gets bought and even less tax comes in. 
In addition to all that the road transport industry gets hammered more than any other mode like rail or air freight.The 8% figure actually includes local running zb work when it’s the long distance work that (would) provide/s the bulk of the industry’s income base.If you remove the local/multi drop type zb work,which rail can’t do,and just take the long distance work figures into account,it would all look a lot different with rail enjoying massive growth levels in the shift of long distance freight from road to rail all based on political anti road transport dogma in which big business rail freight firms are being handed an anti competitive tax advantage at the expense of small business road transport operators.
Long distance freight in western Europe isn’t been shafted by Thomas the tank engine it’s by hauliers based in the old eastern block country’s. Look at the amount of big European firms who have set up in these country’s.
kr79:
I do realise that transport rates are based on a mileage rate or price or weight not on a per can of beans price but at the end of the day that cost has to come out of the price of those beans.
As wheelnut says the profit margin in general haulage it’s tiny and has been for years. If you went on dragons den with a business plan for an owner driver subbing work you would be on Harry hills tv burp within days.
But dragons den wouldn’t be able to get the idea that owner drivers doing sub contract work are at the bottom of the transport industry food chain.At that level,as I’ve said,it’s all about just earning the same wage or a bit more than you’d earn as an employed driver after all the costs have been covered and that’s also your ‘profit’.So there’s no point in using any ‘business plan’ just to do that.Which is the definition of the difference between a ‘small business’ owner driver road transport operation and a big business rail freight operation.No surprise which one gets the biggest tax break.
kr79:
Long distance freight in western Europe isn’t been shafted by Thomas the tank engine it’s by hauliers based in the old eastern block country’s. Look at the amount of big European firms who have set up in these country’s.
That’s all the issue of big business wanting the cheap labour benefits of allowing the east europeans into the eu.It’s obvious that what’s needed is to get out of the eu and to impose quota permits on all freight leaving and entering the uk in which uk trucks have to haul at least 50% of it driven by uk drivers not east european ones.
It’s obvious that the economy is being run by big business for the benefit of the big business interests.However you can bet that ‘if’ road fuel taxation was removed then it would be the rail freight industry that would complain loudest about it even in the case of 44 tonner uk operations.So why is that assuming that it’s not the rail freight industry that has anything to gain by high road fuel taxation as you say 
.
Wheel Nut:
Geoffrey is welcome to try running his old 6x4 yank on traction only, where his profit will go is on increased running costs, additional road tax because of the emissions and the fact that he cannot go into London, Switzerland or Italy. He will pay more on MAUT, Vignettes and tyres.
The only problem is it’s going to need a sleeper cab fitted to it and throw away all the tipping gear. 
trucks.autotrader.co.uk/category … 813/advert
But the zero depreciation would probably pay for the rest with some left over.But which rule is it that stops something like that being taken into Italy so long as you don’t use the tunnels through the Alps and go over the passes instead.