Fuel prices rise Essence and Diesel VS DGCCRF

[Remundo]

payback time: TRI

[Remundo]

by the way, on the subject of fuel prices, here is a good link to the 2006 figures.

The TIPP and its related VAT represent the 4th fiscal year for the French State

The tax share is worth about 2/3 of the price at the pump.

In other words, taxes represent 200% of the price excluding tax.

So when Nicolas wants to take care of the price rather than Big Mustache, he will know what to do.

[Christophe]

payback time: TRI

Rah Rémundo, it's time for the internet, we have to talk about "ROI" there I would have understood! The TRI is hihihihi selective sorting!

For your last remark, read, re-read, re-read this page: https://www.econologie.com/taxation-fisc ... -3471.html

a) As the 2ieme diagram shows, it is quite easy to simplify the cost of a liter of fuel in the following way:
- 6 / 10 of taxes so benefits for the state
- 2 / 10's turnover for oil companies
- 2 / 10 fee therefore benefits for the producer countries

The distinction between profits and turnover is important: the oil companies ultimately earn much less on a liter sold than the other 2 parties.

The ratio is therefore from 1 to 3 but on the one hand we speak of profits, on the other of CA. So taking into account industrial costs, depreciation, taxation (etc etc) we can therefore reasonably think that the French State (and the others) earn roughly more than 10 times more than the oil tankers on each liter sold...

In 24 hours the State could vote a significant decrease in ICT ... but they will not do it: far too indebted by the swindle of public debt ...

On the other hand, the TIC represents, in total revenues for the State, little more than 20% of the VAT receipts ... therefore it is far from being the most important State income.

In other words: if the TIC no longer existed, it would "suffice" to increase the VAT by 20% to compensate for the tax losses, increasing the VAT by 20% is to pass it from 19.6% to 19.6 * 1.2 = 23.52% ... it's a lot but not "impossible either" ...

[Remundo]

payback time: TRI

Rah Rémundo, it's time for the internet, we have to talk about "ROI" there I would have understood! The TRI is hihihihi selective sorting!

For your last remark, read, re-read, re-read this page: https://www.econologie.com/taxation-fisc ... -3471.html

Excellent ROI (return on intelligence) link

[Did67]

Yes, I used this acronym (wrongly) for "payback time": in my mind, the length of time after which I got my stake back.

Ex: I buy a pellet boiler; investments after deduction of aid = € 10.

I consumed 2 l of fuel oil = 500 euros if the liter is 1; but = 875 euros if it is 0,75 euro

I consume 4,5 tonnes of pellets = 900 euros (200 euros per tonne).

So I recover the setting in a little more than 10 years if the liter of fuel oil is at 0,75, but in a little more than 6 years if it is at 1 euro ...

This is why I say that the "payback time" lengthens if the price of fuel drops ...

Ditto for insulation ... or double glazing ...

[sen-no-sen]

The big problem with the taxation of petroleum products is that despite the increases, there is no compensation for citizens.
The "inflows" of money only serve to fuel the bottomless chasm represented by the public debt ...

For example paying € 2 or € 2,50 per liter of fuel did not bother me provided that public transport is free or very much reduced (SNCF fares have been rising steadily for several years while the ecological imperative should bring us to a drastic drop ... one more scandal!).

[pb2488]

The big problem with the taxation of petroleum products is that despite the increases, there is no compensation for citizens.
The "inflows" of money only serve to fuel the bottomless chasm represented by the public debt ...

The cash receipts do not vary much, in order of magnitude: The TIPP is not proportional to the sale price of fuel, it is fixed. Only VAT influences.

[Did67]

The "inflows" of money only serve to fuel the bottomless chasm represented by the public debt ...

Not even ! It is much more serious than that, alas !!!

Today the deficit continues to widen. Taxes (all, including those on craburants) are not even sufficient to cover current expenses. And from far away. We continue to dig the abyss every day, despite the attempts to reduce and the "cries" of each other ...

The deficit is even colossal, the objective of 3% of the GDP being particularly misleading: when the budget of France shows a deficit of approximately 3% of the GDP, that means that it misses 15 or 20% of receipts compared spending in the state budget (not 3%, as many people believe) ...

And currently, we are far above.

This explains why when banks and investment funds refuse to lend (as in Greece or Portugal), there is panic!

Conclusion, there will be no reduction in TIPP. And if there was one, it would "knock" elsewhere.

Finally, note that the TIPP is a fixed amount per liter, its share in the final price decreases when it goes up.

Its share in the budget decreases because our fuel consumption (which supports the most) decreases very slightly ...

Sorry, but being "eco-friendly" means not lowering the TIPP.

The debate you are asking is that of taxation in general. And therefore that of state expenditure. No matter where the money comes from ...

To want the train to be cheaper, or to set up free public transport, is to find other resources. Or delete, at constant budget, current expenses. Which ones? And there, we will surely not agree!

[Did67]

On the other hand, the TIC represents, in total revenues for the State, little more than 20% of the VAT receipts ... therefore it is far from being the most important State income.

In other words: if the TIC no longer existed, it would "suffice" to increase the VAT by 20% to compensate for the tax losses, increasing the VAT by 20% is to pass it from 19.6% to 19.6 * 1.2 = 23.52% ... it's a lot but not "impossible either" ...

OKAY. But what would that rhyme with, from an "econological" point of view ???

Increase everything for everyone (food, shows, equipment, constructions, insulation, etc.) so that the biggest consumers of fuel suffer less from the increases, which they will suffer sooner or later anyway ... in the meantime, by the mechanism described above, above all, they do not change anything in their "energy-consuming" behavior.

In short, the Titanic sinks, but the orchestra continued to play ... And go hop, everyone is dancing ...

For me, lowering the TIPP and compensating for it with VAT would be monumental bullshit from a macro-economic point of view! After the abandonment of the carbon tax ...

[sen-no-sen]

pb2488 wrote:

The cash receipts do not vary much, in order of magnitude: The TIPP is not proportional to the sale price of fuel, it is fixed. Only VAT influences.

Yes, indeed, what I wanted to say is that the consumer is currently undergoing the full force of the rise in the price of fuel, with the only consolation being able to pay.
There is no doubt that at least 70% of motorists (those living in urban or peri-urban areas) could do without a car and generate significant savings, yet measures aimed at reducing car hegemony are not to taste of the market.

Did67wrote:

Sorry, but being "eco-friendly" means not lowering the TIPP.

We agree on this point, logic would on the contrary want a sharp increase in petroleum taxes ... with compensation.

To want the train to be cheaper, or to set up free public transport, is to find other resources. Or delete, at constant budget, current expenses. Which ones? And there, we will surely not agree!

Finding other resources would have been an easy thing with econological taxation.
If for 15 years we had been paying the real price of fuels, taking into account the environmental impact they generate by establishing:
1) increase in fuel X2.
2) urban tolls.
3) auto sticker.
4) equalization of fuel prices.

The revenues generated would have enabled the financing of the modernization of transport, the reduction in their price, and above all a change of mentality vis-à-vis our relationship with the automobile, without counting the positive effects on public health.

The lack of responsiveness of the citizen and political class will hurt very soon.