Marketplace
All Public Transport Half Price from April 1st for 3 Months, 25¢ Per Litre Tax Reduction for 3 Months at The Government
Fuel price reductions start at midnight 15/03/22 nationwide for all fuel grades.
All Public Transport Half Price from April 1st for 3 Months, 25¢ Per Litre Tax Reduction for 3 Months @ The Government
730
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
I filled up yesterday ($50 but has more than enough to last, indeed it's almost full now) since I thought from what Gull said it might rise sometime during the current week. Whoops oh well.
Are the admins of CCheapies getting 4 million membership requests due to this crisis?😅
Gaspy users must have jumped a lot…haha
There's no guarantee that 25¢ tax reduction will be passed on to us. :(
https://twitter.com/MutchJessica/status/1503211311563677696And things don't look good already.
https://twitter.com/marcdaalder/status/1503156780662095875I personally do not favour changing these taxes, the differences will most probably be swallowed up by the supply chain (petrol stations, middlemen, etc).
Just like GST off foods, will also be pocketed by the supply chain (supermarkets, farmers, suppliers, etc), food prices will just increase by 15% (most people won't feel it) and the government still have to think of other taxes to fill the holes…haha
GST off foods: yes if the primary aim is to help tax accountants and lawyers.
Given the recent polls, I would bet good money the aim here is to win votes…
A sad state of affairs.
Alternative proposal: 15% food discount subsidy for those with low incomes e.g. Community Services Card/WINZ card holders. A bit like some SuperGold card discounts.
@Avantime: No.
What is "food"? Another job for tax lawyers.
Leakage: what prevents subsidy holders from buying food and reselling it to others?
The benefits from this policy might not outweigh the costs.
Income tax cuts are better. It's the people's money in the first place, they know how to spend it much better than any government. Tax cuts also decrease distortion, increasing the incentives to work and invest which is essentially what drives an economy.
Benefit increases tend to be counter-productive because they decrease the incentives to work. Benefit increases also mean tax increases ultimately, creating further distortion and hurting productivity.
@sunshinenz: What is "food"?
It's at the full discretion of MSD/WINZ, not tax lawyers. This is not a GST or tax question as it's a direct government subsidy, as such the government can do whatever they like. WINZ cards already have a system where purchases can only be made for very limited categories (explicitly excluding alcohol etc.) at specific WINZ approved stores, which includes the big 3 supermarket chains. The system already exists, so expanding it shouldn't cost too much money.
Leakage:
I propose a low limit for the discount, anything extra and the people can pay full price. Say $200 max spend per week for a family of 4, or $50 per person. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who are all too happy to go eat oatmeal and instant noodles all week, just so they can trade the extras for a profit. A low limit allows frugal households to in effect stop paying GST, while those who go over it will still enjoy a substantial discount.
"It's the people's money in the first place, they know how to spend it much better than any government. "
You'd be shocked how badly the poorest and most vulnerable people spend their money. KFC, alcohol, drugs, pokie machines, BNPL, and previously payday loans and truck shops. AFAIK one thing NZ schools don't teach is personal finance and budgeting.
"Benefit increases tend to be counter-productive because they decrease the incentives to work. Benefit increases also mean tax increases ultimately, creating further distortion and hurting productivity."
If an economy can maintain near-full employment in perpetuity, then yeah I'd agree with lower income taxes. However what we're about to experience is a major impending recession due to an external supply shock with energy, food (Ukraine & Russia are major breadbaskets) and mineral resources, plus the very real possibility of acute shortages of manufactured goods & spare parts as Omicron sweeps through China (Shenzhen just went into lockdown today) with global shipping going haywire again. This will drive inflation as well as the OCR skyward, sending the housing market to a crash with many getting into negative equity and mortgagee sales, and sending many businesses to the wall. Then we'll see mass unemployment, and the unemployed can't benefit from income tax cuts.
Lowering income taxes now wouldn't have made much of a dent to a tsunami of overseas crises heading towards NZ, but at least some targeted relief with lower food prices will help the poorest. The government is doing exactly that with a direct intervention in petrol prices.
@Avantime: Just to note that NZ produces far more food than we consume (I think we export about 90% of what we produce, but we also import some - don't quote me on that though, check for yourself if you want accurate figures), so rising food prices will be a significant benefit to the NZ economy (and will, in and of itself, lead to a strengthening of the NZD).
We import nearly all the oil (based products) that we consume (good work there Labour) so rising oil prices will definitely hurt the NZ economy (and will, in and of itself, lead to a weakening of the NZD).
What I don't know is the value of oil based imports compared to the value of net food based exports - will the two combined be overall positive or negative for the NZ economy? If we export more food value than we import oil value, then the overall effect will be expansionary, not recessionary, and vice-versa.
Even if the two happened to balance (they won't, but just for the sake of argument) then there will still be winners (farmers and food exporters for example) and losers (most consumers) within NZ. As before, if that is a concern, then raise benefits or cut general taxes, but subsidising fuel use through the tax system (by cutting excise), at a time of high fuel costs is just stupid. On the other hand, encouraging more people to use public transport by subsidising it is a good idea.
What absolute garbage take on it.
It works perfectly fine in Australia without any additional involvement from tax accountants and/or lawyers.
It's a BS scare campaign and you've fallen for it.
@CheepCheepCheep: No it really doesn't - you seem to have no idea how this adds costs into every single business that is GST registered, but then most people are ignorant of how most of the world in which they live works of course.
It is the same as the UK (and probably other jurisdictions that have exceptions all over the place on their VAT / GST systems).
You don't need to consider GST specialist accountants and lawyers - consider every single business that now has to account for a different GST rate on different products. Today, genius idea of not putting it on food. Tomorrow, books (don't want to tax learning). The day after, gym memberships (don't want to tax keeping fit).
If you have any idea at all what businesses need to do for GST, just spend ten seconds thinking about it, and you will see how obvious this is.
adds costs into every single business that is GST registered
Trash. Does every single business sell fresh produce?
How would a GST exemption that does not apply to them add any cost to their business?I own a business in both Australia and New Zealand, neither sell fresh produce and there is no added cost for me in Australia because they have GST exemptions for some basic necessities.
consider every single business that now has to account for a different GST rate on different products
Why would every single business need to worry about a small number of businesses that sell GST exempt products?
Today, genius idea of not putting it on food. Tomorrow, books (don't want to tax learning). The day after, gym memberships (don't want to tax keeping fit).
Another absolutely garbage take on it.
If you have any idea at all what businesses need to do for GST, just spend ten seconds thinking about it
Ten seconds is exactly how long it takes me to take care of my GST obligations every year, in two countries.
Kiwis just love being screwed over, its weird.
@CheepCheepCheep: This has been looked at many times before - almost everything you are saying is so wrong, it is ludicrous.
You say your GST obligations take you 10 seconds across two countries - that statement alone shows just how little you understand about any of this.
This has been looked at many times before - almost everything you are saying is so wrong, it is ludicrous.
And yet it works perfectly fine in lots of other countries, including our much loved Australia.
You say your GST obligations take you 10 seconds across two countries - that statement alone shows just how little you understand about any of this.
Mainly because I don't use an abacus anymore.
Here is a list of GST exempt foods in Australia, they seem to manage just fine without having an army of lawyers and accountants to prepare their BAS and GST.
It is really not as hard you make it out to be…
- bread and bread rolls without a sweet coating (such as icing) or filling
- cooking ingredients, such as flour, sugar, pre-mixes and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- unflavoured milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices, sauces and condiments
- bottled drinking water
- fruit or vegetable juice (of at least 90% by volume of juice of fruit or vegetables)
- tea and coffee (unless ready-to-drink)
- baby food and infant formula (for children under 12 months of age)
- all meats for human consumption (except prepared meals or savoury snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup (fresh, frozen, dried, canned or packaged)
- spreads for bread (such as honey, jam and peanut butter)
- breakfast cereals.
@CheepCheepCheep: Your entire GST obligations are handled in ten seconds across two countries, so it is fairly obvious how much you care about integrity.
Your entire GST obligations are handled in ten seconds across two countries, so it is fairly obvious how much you care about integrity.
How long should it take?
It really isn't rocket science…
All the invoices are generated automatically, credit cards are charged automatically, everything is reconciled automatically, GST is accounted for… wait for it… automatically…
For the NZ entity…
Its really easy, if customer is in New Zealand, charge 15% GST otherwise 0%For the Australian entity…
Just as easy, if customer is in Australia, charge 10% GST otherwise 0%Ten seconds is probably being conservative, its probably closer to three.
@CheepCheepCheep: Either you are lying through your teeth, or you are failing in your tax obligations, or you have no idea - I think everyone can see that it is, at least, the latter, and likely one or both of the former.
Either you are lying through your teeth, or you are failing in your tax obligations, or you have no idea - I think everyone can see that it is, at least, the latter, and likely one or both of the former.
Where am I failing in my tax obligations?
If someone deals with my NZ entity, and they are in NZ, they are charged 15% GST… If they are not in NZ, they get charged 0% GST…
https://www.ird.govt.nz/gst/charging-gst/zero-rated-supplies
Online Sales sectionIt is really not difficult.
GST isn't rocket science.
@CheepCheepCheep: I have no idea where you might be failing, but then you are only spending ten (or was it three) seconds on your GST obligations across two countries, so even if that is true, which is doubtful, you would not know where you are failing to meet your obligations either.
@Alan6984: Have been audited by both IRD and ATO in the past three years…
Neither found any shortcomings, primarily because it is all automated and I don't use an abacus to work out the GST obligations.
I get that automation might be a difficult thing to grasp for someone that lives in a country that makes you fill out a paper form in 2022 to renew a drivers license instead of doing it online like literally every other developed country on the face of the planet.
@CheepCheepCheep: I've already said it, and set out the maths that even a primary schooler could understand.
It seems obvious from your posts that you probably do get it now, but you have dug yourself in so deep that you can't back out.
@Alan6984: You really need to go back to intermediate school and retake the economics they teach 11 year old children.
Although I doubt that you will ever be able to have any understanding of the difference between a regressive and a progressive tax. Hint: Income tax is progressive, while GST is regressive.
@CheepCheepCheep: Still obsessed with those terms? Just try to follow the simple example I already worked through for you, and you'll quickly see how the two different incomes lead to the same overall tax paid percentages.
you'll quickly see how the two different incomes lead to the same overall tax paid percentages.
And this is where your oversimplified understanding of taxes falls apart.
@CheepCheepCheep: The total GST paid on both the incomes in your example ($200 / $1000) is the same.
I have tried to simplify it enough for you to understand, but if you still don't get it, work it out for yourself. If you can't get it, just ask.
@Alan6984: Its okay, you've dug yourself into a hole and have no idea about economics or accounting or equitability or how various tax systems work and are unwilling to learn.
I'll just leave you with this…
Regressive taxes = Bad
Progressive taxes = GoodAlthough I doubt you'll manage to get your head around that.
Enjoy your stay.
@CheepCheepCheep: Nice analogy about digging a hole - that appears to show a little intelligence to think that up for yourself.
Still the obsession with progressive and regressive taxes - did someone tell you that a long time ago, and it stuck and you can't think think past it?
If two incomes (using your example - $200 and $1000) both attract the same percentage of GST paid, how is that regressive? You don't seem to even understand the meanings of the terms you are so obsessed with.
My offer to help you work through the numbers still stands - or just follow one of my posts here, it is all very easy to see how the same GST is paid on both earnings in your example.
If two incomes (using your example - $200 and $1000) both attract the same percentage of GST paid, how is that regressive?
Because that is the literal definition of a regressive tax.
You don't understand the difference between regressive and progressive tax, and that is fine.
@CheepCheepCheep: A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners.
In your examples, the person who earned $1,000 and spent $200 paid 15% GST on that $200 at that point.
If they never spent the other $800 it went to someone else, who either spent it, and paid GST on it, or passed it onto someone else, who either spent it, and paid GST on it, or passed it onto someone else….
If they spent the $800 later, they paid GST on it.
The $200 of income attracted the same percentage of GST as the $1000 of income.
In both your example incomes ($200 and $1000) the exact same percentage of GST is paid.
That is neither a regressive tax nor a progressive tax.
In both your example incomes ($200 and $1000) the exact same percentage of GST is paid.
That is neither a regressive tax nor a progressive tax.That is some next level mental gymnastics.
Go read the definition of regressive tax that you posted again… It clearly explains that GST is regressive as it is applied uniformly.
@CheepCheepCheep: Well, it is perhaps top end of primary, lower end of intermediate level maths, but if its too hard for you, let me know which bit stumped you and I'm very happy to try to help you.
@Alan6984: Explain to me, by using the link and definition you posted of regressive tax, how GST is not regressive?
Because the article you posted that explains what regressive tax is, clearly defies GST as regressive.
Hint: Read the "Key Takeaways" from the very top of the link that you posted ;)
@CheepCheepCheep: I did explain above - did you actually read through the explanation, or was it too difficult?
In both the examples you gave, the total GST paid is the same percentage of the total income.
If your examples of $200 and $1000 are used, and the GST rate is 15% applied uniformly, then the GST paid on the $200 will be about $26.09 (just over 13% of $200) and on the $1000 will be about $130.43 (just over 13% of the $1000).
@Alan6984: Uhh… You really need to read the link that you posted yourself again. Read it really slowly and really really really carefully.
Let me break it down for you…
A $200 purchase, of say food…
Low income earner with $1,000 after income tax, pays a GST of $26.09
Meanwhile a high income earner with $10,000 after income tax, also pays a GST of $26.09Why? Because GST is applied uniformly regardless of the persons income… Thus it is a regressive tax.
What else makes GST regressive? Because it is uniformly applied, it places a higher burden on the low income person.
While both pay $26.09, it makes up for 2.609% of the low income earners money while only 0.2609% of the high income earners money.That right there, is the second test to determine if a tax is regressive and hey… guess what… GST is regressive.
How is it different to a progressive tax?
Progressive taxes increase as one earns more, i.e. income tax. The more you earn, the higher the % you pay as you move up the brackets.It's really not hard, 11 year old children are taught this.
The very link that YOU posted explains this, maybe you have comprehension or a learning impediment?
You should get that checked out by a doctor or something.@CheepCheepCheep: Where did the other $800 go? Seems like you missed it out which is why your maths is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it was spent by the same person later, or they gave it to someone else.
Let me help you out - the GST on the $800 would be about $104.34.
Now, add that to your incomplete calculation and you get:
$104.34 + $26.09 = $130.43.
$130.43 / $1000 = 13% (rounded)
Not as difficult as you seem to be finding it.
Where did the other $800 go?
Not relevant.
But, for the low income earner it most likely would eventually be spent on basic necessities for life. For the high income earner, they would probably be buying luxury items with their disposable income, savings, investments, etc.
For arguments sake, lets say that $800 is all spent on things like transport, utilities, etc. and when the high income earner spends the same $800 even on the same things too…
They both still pay the same dollar amount, and for the low income earner it is still a larger portion of their income that is paid in tax…
Thus GST is still regressive. Why? Because that is the literal text book definition of a regressive tax, as explained by the link that you posted.I get it… Difficult topic for you to grasp.
I agree with your conclusion, although not necessarily for the same reasons.
The last thing we should be doing right now, with oil prices higher than they would be if it were not for what is happening in Ukraine, is encouraging greater use of fuel by way of a tax incentive - it is a ridiculous policy decision.
GST on food is another good example of a (currently) well designed tax. GST in NZ is really simple - essentially there is GST on just about everything that is consumed, thus putting the tax burden (at least that part that is GST) on those who consume resources (take from the pot), rather then producers of resources (who fill the pot- such as workers). Fiddling with it just increases the costs of administering the tax which is a dead-weight of no benefit to society as a whole (although some might gain - GST specialist accountants and lawyers for example).
If you want to help people who are struggling to get by, help them by all means - an income tax cut, increase benefits, or whatever best targets those who are struggling, but announcing a populist move to encourage more fuel use right now is just cynical and will only lead to votes from people who don't really think things through - pretty much any genius that has been calling for petrol tax cuts this week.
PS: I see that Sunshinez posted after I started typing - nice to see that someone else thinks about the true implications of fiddling with GST!
Agree! The changes you are suggesting are sensible but will not give Jacinda kind of headlines as it gives her now and ofcourse bring her back her losing popularity. People need to understand "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"
They have to make a populist move when you're losing in the polls lol
I agree with you that this wasn't the best move, the NZ Herald even published a piece with both left and right wing economists saying as much a few days ago. But as for how bad it is, a lot depends IMO whether they've now dug themselves into a hole or will really be able to re-add the 25c excise tax over 3 months - 1 year. While the lost revenue isn't the smartest of moves compared to other areas it could have been spent, I'm fairly sure the already announced WFF etc changes are going to cost a lot more, I think even per day (although I'm not sure on this point), than this and they're the sort of things which are better targeted at the problems. And while there's a lot of debate over the benefits of cutting costs vs improving services IMO the cost of public transport is simply too high in NZ at the moment and they have signalled they're looking into what to do in the next budget. And so far they seem rightfully adverse to fiddling with GST, thankfully National too don't seem to be trying to push them in that direction.
GST & other issues aside, economic understanding in NZ (as with most places) is terrible. For example, you just have to look at such commentary around this cut to see how many people seem to think the government is raking it in with the higher fuel prices even though GST is the only component which is a percentage of the price. Heck, the stories these people are sometimes replying to new articles which have sort of made this clear yet they still don't get it. With such poor understanding, they don't think it through further e.g. even with the increase in price, the extra revenue from GST is complicated since people are probably buying less fuel (and the resulting effect on government revenue especially from excise taxes) and spending less elsewhere.
You see similar stuff in other areas e.g. people talking about the cancelled Auckland Harbour cycling & walking bridge as if the cost could be used to give nurses a decent pay rise.
Cutting taxes is a good move. The problem is Labour is addicted to spending; without corresponding cuts to wasteful spending, they will need to raise taxes elsewhere, so potentially a hurried, ill thought out and hugely distortionary policy coming our way soon.
GST is a regressive tax, and perfectly fine for more luxurious products and services.
However those that struggle the most, pay the most GST as a portion of their income on just the absolute necessities of life.
@sunshinenz: Yes, and GST is a regressive tax because it is applied uniformly.
Maybe you're the one that doesn't know what a regressive tax is?
@sunshinenz: Yes, GST is a "flat" tax… Which is exactly what makes it a regressive tax.
So yeah, seems like you have no idea what a regressive tax is.
@CheepCheepCheep: You'd prefer those that use up (consume) less resources pay more tax than those that use up more resources?
Silly point of view, but if you truly think that, then…. okay.
By your analogy, zero is a negative number.
Its okay, you don't know what a regressive tax.
Its fine to admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
You could open up your dictionary and look it up, but I'm not sure that you know how to use one.
@CheepCheepCheep: Those that consume and use up the most resources, pay the most - that seems like the very fairest tax you can get.
@Alan6984: It certainly does indeed seem like the very fairest tax you can get.
Regressive taxes, like GST, have a much higher impact on low income earners than they do high income earners.
So take for example, someone that earns $1,000 and spends $200 on food versus someone that earns $10,000 and spends the same $200 on food.
The low income earner has paid a larger portion of their income in taxes than the high income earner. The tax is taking away a higher portion of the lower income earners money than the high income earners, i.e. taking away a larger portion of money from someone that needs it more.
It is a difficult thing to get your head around, as you need to have empathy for other people.
It is a disproportional tax.
@CheepCheepCheep: Both of your examples, the people consume the same resources, and pay the same tax on the $200 that they have used up / consumed.
The person that produces / earns $1,000 allows the other $800 to be used by someone else (who then pay the tax on the $800), or if they use it themselves in the future, then they pay tax on that $800 too.
This is really simple - are you really finding it that hard to understand, or are you just having us on?
Both of your examples, the people consume the same resources, and pay the same tax on the $200 that they have used up / consumed.
What you're missing (because you don't understand what a regressive tax is), is the impact the tax has on the people it is applied to.
Please go back to intermediate school and re-take the economics class.
@CheepCheepCheep: Have I mentioned regressive tax? Please link back to my comment.
The example you gave above, and that I filled in your gaps below it, shows you the simple maths.
In both examples, the total GST paid is the same percentage of production / income.
In both examples, the total GST paid is the same percentage of production / income.
No. The $200 food purchase for the low income earner the 15% GST is a larger portion of their income than it is for the high income earner.
You really need to look up regressive tax one day.
@CheepCheepCheep: The person who earned $1,000 and spent $200 paid 15% GST on that $200 at that point.
If they never spent the other $800 it went to someone else, who either spent it, and paid GST on it, or passed it onto someone else, who either spent it, and paid GST on it, or passed it onto someone else….
If they spent the $800 later, they paid GST on it.
The $200 of income attracted the same percentage of GST as the $1000 of income.
Why are you so obsessed with the term 'regressive tax'?
The person who earned $1,000 and spent $200 paid 15% GST on that $200 at that point.
Go and read up what regressive taxes are.
What you are still failing to grasp, and it is really not hard to understand… Is that the 15% GST on the $200 purchase of food is a higher portion of their $1,000 income than it is for someone that earns $10,000.
That is what a regressive tax is, you seem to have difficulty in grasping the absolute basics of economics and accounting.
@CheepCheepCheep: I see you haven't disagreed with the simple maths I set out above showing you how the same percentage tax is paid on both incomes.
@Alan6984: Since you're incapable of grasping a very simple concept that is literally taught to 11 year old children, I think there really is no point continuing this.
@CheepCheepCheep: I agree, and I think we actually now agree on the tax question too.
I know it can be hard to retract when you go so far down a rabbit hole, but maybe sit yourself down with a pencil and paper tomorrow, and follow your own example of $200 earned and spent, and $1000 earned and spent (or passed on), and see how the same tax gets paid.
You won't be able to post back here and agree, I understand that, but it might help for the future.
the same tax gets paid.
Literally not the point.
You don't even understand the difference between regressive and progressive taxation. May god help you.
@CheepCheepCheep: Why the continuing obsession with those terms? You are the only one using them - I have not mentioned either have I?
The total tax paid is the entire point.
fark
Heh.. downvotes. :)
Down vote capitalism. 😂
Fuel price reductions from Tomorrow.
Public transport reductions from April 1st (LOL).
I wonder if the oil companies will do a price match today. LOL
I'm wondering if it's cheaper than a buss pass from April 1
Have just got home after filling up at the petrol station, was completely empty and I was a bit suspicious of why, I now know why 😅
60L (say) @ $0.25 = $15 one off saving.
You will probably hardly notice it.
Quiet because everyone filled up on Friday already due to panic reporting in the news lol
Can confirm… 85 litres myself… Fuark.
Well I filled up and bought 120L on Z Sharetank..
Take a screenshot of your Gaspy prices now and compare it to tomorrow to see how much of that 25c reduction actually gets passed on to us.
App is looking like Mobil already has
On the bright side, when the price hits $4 it won't be $4.25
Waiheke is about to get a bunch more Covid shipped over
Why? The ferry service from Akl to Waiheke is not included in half-price scheme.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/128054473/anger-as-waiheke-…
Just topped up the tank yesterday for $130 at Gull ($3.05/l 95). Partner was like in a week it will be $4 so why not! But anyways the upcoming easter trip will be a bit easier on the wallet.
Mobil on K road is $2.66 for 98 now (gaspy)? that's almost $1/L cheaper than some petrol stations.
I feel for those who recently filled up.
Is that a legit price though?
There have been a metric tonne of false reports on Gaspy recently, the antivaxxers have been getting bored sitting at home.
Can anyone find information on how the 25c affects rucs? The price of diesel won't go down because there is no excise.
They're going to reduce RUCs by a similar amount but because it's complicated they haven't yet worked out the details instead it'll be announced over the coming few days. See e.g. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-cuts-25c-litr… or https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300540764/governme…
If your need RUC urgently, I'd say wait if possible, or if you can't buy only a tiny amount. If you recently bought roughly a year in advanced you're probably screwed. (Well I mean as mentioned by another commentator, you could still buy more, but you have to balance that against the cost to you of having done so etc.)
I've recently bought a diesel car, does it make sense to just buy LOTS of RUC once the price drops?
Or will they somehow limit the reduction to only 3 months worth of driving?
RUC don't seem to expire but they stay with the vehicle and you can't get a refund if you sell, so that would be the only disadvantage.
Hi SrsSarcasM,
I've recently bought a diesel car, does it make sense to just buy LOTS of RUC once the price drops?
Yes - that would seem to make sense. The opportunity cost of the cash you would have 'invested' in future use RUCs will almost certainly be less than the saving you will make, within some kind of reason of course.
Or will they somehow limit the reduction to only 3 months worth of driving?
If they do, then doesn't your question becomes irrelevant? Am I missing something?
RUC don't seem to expire but they stay with the vehicle and you can't get a refund if you sell, so that would be the only disadvantage.
In theory, if they stay with the vehicle and are therefore transferable along with the vehicle to a new owner, then they will represent a greater value for the vehicle when you come to sell it. Whether, and to what degree, you are able to realise / capture that value, will come down to your negotiating skills compared to the prospective purchaser.
Alan.
Can't wait till the fuel companies just raise the prices back to what they were previously.
If you were a fuel company, and you wanted to sell loads of fuel at what would still be a profit, is that what you would do?
If so, how would you then respond to the IdiotAl's Petrol down the road, that decided to only add back 24c, and took a good whack of your custom?
You see it all the time, two petrol stations where one was a solid 10 cents cheaper right across the road from one another and the more expensive one is still half full.
- 1
- 2
nearly filled up my tank today.. will risk running out of fuel on the way back home today for that sweet sweet 25c off per L biscuit