Fuel prices aren't dropping

> wrote in message
...
> Actually prices apparently ARE dropping, in some areas.
> On my way to upstate New York on Friday I bought gas, in
> Pennsylvania just off Exit 145 of I-81, for $2.069 for regular.
> On my way south on Tuesday, I paid 11C a gallon
> less, $1.959

(Cough) 89p/litre here, famously 99.9p per litre in Chelsea, London. And
that's just for 95RON [standard unleaded, let's not get into that octane
battle again..]

99.9p = $1.84 per litre = $6.97 per US gallon.

Now, you were saying..

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Actually prices apparently ARE dropping, in some areas.
>>On my way to upstate New York on Friday I bought gas, in
>>Pennsylvania just off Exit 145 of I-81, for $2.069 for regular.
>>On my way south on Tuesday, I paid 11C a gallon
>>less, $1.959
>
>
> (Cough) 89p/litre here, famously 99.9p per litre in Chelsea, London. And
> that's just for 95RON [standard unleaded, let's not get into that octane
> battle again..]
>
> 99.9p = $1.84 per litre = $6.97 per US gallon.
>
> Now, you were saying..

We were saying "if you don't like it, let your MP know!" Your fuel
prices are high because your countrymen want them that way (or passively
accept it).

--
Mike Smith

Mike Smith schrieb:

>We were saying "if you don't like it, let your MP know!" Your fuel
>prices are high because your countrymen want them that way (or passively
>accept it).

Well, not that there is much one can do about it. The MP will nod and
shrug because it's money for the government. If you elect a different
government it'll do exactly nothing. Same intentions. Money for the
government.

Buying somewhere else is not feasible. Prices are roughly the same all
over the place.

Fuel prices are really a method by which a social system
controls/supports private transport methods. The USA doesn't have much
of public transport (compared to Europe or japan) yet long distance
commuting is the standard. Fuel prices in the US at the level of
Europe would be a major cause for the national economics slowing down.
Not something the government and the customer really wants.

Over here, we're used to it and we know that part of the money we
spend on fuel is moved over to ecological projects and supports our
social system (not directly, but the money the government saves
because the car owners pay directly for roads and ecological repairs
can be spent on e.g. health care).

Personally I don't mind paying more for fuel in exchange for a
lifetime ensured health care and retirement money.

For that reason I think the comparison is obsolete and not on equal
grounds.

YMMV of course

Regards

Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *

"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Actually prices apparently ARE dropping, in some areas.
> >>On my way to upstate New York on Friday I bought gas, in
> >>Pennsylvania just off Exit 145 of I-81, for $2.069 for regular.
> >>On my way south on Tuesday, I paid 11C a gallon
> >>less, $1.959
> >
> >
> > (Cough) 89p/litre here, famously 99.9p per litre in Chelsea, London. And
> > that's just for 95RON [standard unleaded, let's not get into that octane
> > battle again..]
> >
> > 99.9p = $1.84 per litre = $6.97 per US gallon.
> >
> > Now, you were saying..
>
> We were saying "if you don't like it, let your MP know!" Your fuel
> prices are high because your countrymen want them that way (or passively
> accept it).

Hmm. In 19 years of voting, can't say that I recall ever ticking a box that
says "please raise all car-related taxes".

So, what are you suggesting? Armed rebellion (!), or what is starting to
look like a possible repeat of the national fuel protests that halted the
entire country back in 2000?

Wolfgang, things are a little different over here - in the UK, we pay a wide
variety of taxes directly relating to cars, but very little gets put back
in - I've tried to find the study that analysed the difference (it was
mentioned on BBC Radio 4 a while back), but haven't been able to locate it.

Still, at least I've managed to avoid paying the Speed Camera Tax* - that's
an interesting double-whammy, as the Gov'mint also gets to tax you on the
increased cost of compulsory insurance..

H1K

* A wonderful British implementation of Dutch technology, whereby you hide
cameras in hedges and behind signposts, then take all of the police off of
the roads to process the paperwork. (That's not just my view, incidentally,
but one shared by friends in the Old Bill)

"Hairy One Kenobi" ]> wrote in message
news:jsXvc.22$Ol6.8@newsfe2-win...
> "Mike Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

<snip>

> or what is starting to
> look like a possible repeat of the national fuel protests that halted the
> entire country back in 2000?

Wadda y' know.. just got called-off
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3775727.stm

H1K

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> Hmm. In 19 years of voting, can't say that I recall ever ticking a box that
> says "please raise all car-related taxes".

Have you (collectively, the subjects of the UK) let your elected
officials know that you will not keep putting them in office if they
don't do something about fuel taxes? And/or shown favor to candidates
who *do* make an issue of fuel taxes (if there are any)?

--
Mike Smith

"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. In 19 years of voting, can't say that I recall ever ticking a box
that
> > says "please raise all car-related taxes".
>
> Have you (collectively, the subjects of the UK) let your elected
> officials know that you will not keep putting them in office if they
> don't do something about fuel taxes? And/or shown favor to candidates
> who *do* make an issue of fuel taxes (if there are any)?

There aren't. Hence the problem..

H1K

Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:
>
> Over here, we're used to it and we know that part of the money we
> spend on fuel is moved over to ecological projects and supports our
> social system (not directly, but the money the government saves
> because the car owners pay directly for roads and ecological repairs
> can be spent on e.g. health care).
>
> Personally I don't mind paying more for fuel in exchange for a
> lifetime ensured health care and retirement money.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In fact, that's what I
was obliquely implying to "Hairy One Kenobi" - if fuel taxes are high in
his country, it's because that's the way (the majority of) his
countrymen want it.

--
Mike Smith

"Mike Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:
> >
> > Over here, we're used to it and we know that part of the money we
> > spend on fuel is moved over to ecological projects and supports our
> > social system (not directly, but the money the government saves
> > because the car owners pay directly for roads and ecological repairs
> > can be spent on e.g. health care).
> >
> > Personally I don't mind paying more for fuel in exchange for a
> > lifetime ensured health care and retirement money.
>
> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In fact, that's what I
> was obliquely implying to "Hairy One Kenobi" - if fuel taxes are high in
> his country, it's because that's the way (the majority of) his
> countrymen want it.

...or that we aren't offered an alternative. Short of bringing the entire
country to a halt, as happened in 2000.

H1K