Ian Smith wrote:
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Sat 30 Jul 2005 07:39:29a, dxAce wrote in
message :
-=jd=- wrote:
On Fri 29 Jul 2005 09:16:04p, "Ian Smith"
wrote in message
:
{Snipped}
All you guys have to do, over there in the USA, is make your
vehicles more fuel-efficient. Then you don't have to rely on
middle-eastern dictatorships/colonies to supply the oil. Over
here in
Scotland, it's not perfect by a long way, but at least we have
cars
which do decent miles-per-gallon (40+). A necessity, with
gasoline
over $5/gallon.
regards,
Ian, Clydebank, Scotland.
Out of curiosity, I wonder how much of your per-gallon price is
the
actual cost of product and how much is taxes or fees?
Most of it would be taxes or fees. The world price of crude is
pretty
much just that, the world price of crude. The UK is paying pretty
much
the same price for crude as we are.
dxAce
I heard someone half-seriously/half-humorously saying that the U.S.
would
be much worse off with more efficient or hybrid fuel vehicles.
Maintaining
the infrastructure relies heavily on all the tax revenue streaming
in from
fuel sales. He added something along the lines of, "If California
outlawed
Petro-Chem, they would be back to dirt roads within a decade!"
-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:
(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)
What dxAce says is right about the basic cost of producing
gasoline in the UK. It's just that the tax is around 80% of the pump
price, making it possibly the most expensive in the world.
As for loss of fuel tax revenue; money saved by those using
fuel-efficient vehicles will be spent in other ways, presumably
increasing revenue elsewhere, such as with sales tax etc. The problem
will be how to overcome any shortfall when this happens. Higher
taxation is not often a vote winner. :-)
Here in the USA it seems as though some are looking at a tax per mile driven
rather than the at the pump tax. This will overcome the loss in revenue for the
higher MPG vehicles.
If I recall, California was looking at such a scheme.
dxAce
Michigan
USA