Subj : Re: So.......
To   : alt.tv.farscape
From : Nick
Date : Tue Sep 13 2005 21:15:41

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape

Steve Brooks wrote:

> Nick wrote:
>> Steve Brooks wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>> Steve Brooks wrote:
> 
>>>>> A few years ago - when fuel tax was still rising every year
>>>>> supposedly to cut usage - a group of truckers, farmers and other
>>>>> petroleum-hungry malcontents organised a protest against the
>>>>> price of fuel.  Amongst other things they blockaded refineries
>>>>> and fuel storage depots. Many tanker drivers refused to cross
>>>>> their picket lines and there was a real shortage of fuel
>>>>> nationwide. They got significant public support, the government
>>>>> caved in and the tax was frozen (or possibly even reduced
>>>>> slightly, I don't remember.) 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>> I don't know if I would label truckers and farmers as
>>>> "petroleum-hungry malcontents".  Somebody has to do it. 
>>> 
>>> Sorry - the word 'other' should have been edited from the final
>>> version of my last post. The truckers have a point. Their point is
>>> that their competitors on the mainland can buy far cheaper fuel
>>> which makes them dangerous competitors. In the end truckers (and
>>> transport companies) don't give a damn about the price of fuel as
>>> long as they can pass that cost on to their customers without
>>> pricing themselves out of the market.
>>> 
>>> The farmers IMO have less right on their side. They already get to
>>> buy cheap diesel for agricultural purposes.  It is true that all
>>> rural people have to cover more ground to fulfil the necessities of
>>> modern life.  But they are generally using lightly used roads and
>>> IMO they should win back on the swings by being charged less for
>>> the use of the roads rather than getting cheap fuel [1]. If certain
>>> farmers are really feeling the rising cost of fuel they could trade
>>> down from their top-of-the-range Mercedes to a nice Mazda (or
>>> similar.) 
>>> 
>>> As for the 'petroleum hungry malcontents' - I'm sure you have a few
>>> of them too.
>>> 
>>> [1]  Which is why I support our government's road pricing proposals
>>> in principle even though I think their proposed technological
>>> solution is away with the fairies.
>>> 
>> 
>> I didn't know the farmers already got a cheaper rate for fuel for
>> agricultural purposes. 
> 
> I only know about our farmers. But they get to buy low-tax deisel
> laced with a fetching pink dye Every now and then someone gets caught
> using it for non-agricultural purposes and is prosecuted. ( Being a
> bit of cynic I can't help suspecting most of these people are caught
> as a result of being informed on by their neighbours rather than as a
> result of any proactive police action. )
> 
> 
>> What road pricing proposals?
> 
> Basically - rather than paying a flat rate road tax each year we will
> be charged depending on how much we drive, when, and on which roads.
> Busy roads at 8.30 am will cost a lot more per mile than quiet roads
> at 2.00 am (these will probably be free.)  In terms of social justice
> I see this as entirely reasonable. Unfortunately it is also hellishly
> complicated and difficult to implement. The government's plan is to
> use transponders in vehicles combined with GPS and software. I think
> they've got absolutely no chance of making this work. It's many times
> more complicated than IT tasks they've already completely screwed-up.
> 
> 

Yeah, that sounds kinda hard.  Personally, I like the road tax being 
incorporated in the gas tax.

.