Fuel up/down again
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
Relevence.
No it is.
If someone says there is no profit, there is no profit.
Companies don't like subsidising generally, and they wouldn't float the whole infrastructure of fuel delivery if there was no profit.
It is that simple.
Going by his analysis, there would be no fuel to be had publically in the uk.
I've already said and said again what and why I said it.
Everyone knows the tax is high.
It seemed like people were trying to make out like profits at BP and Shell etc are limited because of the small profit on a small transaction, I'd like to say it was otherwise.
That's when I was told I was stupid, need to read and learn etc and my response was laughable, simplistic etc.
But apparently I kicked this off.
Balls to you all quite simply, it's not that simple.
The other thing to bear in mind is that in a system of supply and demand, we would never ever be able to reach no petrol stations at all. At some point, there would be sufficiently little supply that prices could happily raise to profitable levels.
At the moment we are in a status quo, supermarkets undercut everyone and effectively prevent them from pricing themselves too highly in comparison. In effect you end up with a smattering of stations making a loss or a profit with the vast majority breaking even on fuel or maybe scraping in the odd bit here and there.
At the moment we are in a status quo, supermarkets undercut everyone and effectively prevent them from pricing themselves too highly in comparison. In effect you end up with a smattering of stations making a loss or a profit with the vast majority breaking even on fuel or maybe scraping in the odd bit here and there.
Yes, you are right that was average turnover iirc.
I can't give you the profit because it is clearly a commercial company, and tend to keep things like that to themselves, it was also over a decade ago now
()The station was in profit though, and probably could have stood itself quite confortably. Both store and station done well. Store manager was a happy and well off chap.
I am not stupid to think that could be replicated everywhere, or even in half the places, but it is possible to have a competative profit providing station.
Ok, I disagree then.
It's not that simple and I just explained to you why some companies would in fact happily float the whole infrastructure of fuel delivery - because it helps them attract greater profit in other arms of their business.
You can't just say 'no profit from fuel = no petrol stations anywhere'.
Not that simple, you can't just say 'no profit from fuel = no petrol stations anywhere'.
I've already said and said again what and why I said it.
Everyone knows the tax is high.
It seemed like people were trying to make out like profits at BP and Shell etc are limited because of the small profit on a small transaction, I'd like to say it was otherwise.
That's when I was told I was stupid, need to read and learn etc and my response was laughable, simplistic etc.
But apparently I kicked this off.
Balls to you all quite simply, it's not that simple.
Your reasoning doesn't stack up though, the only logical path you can take it down is 'it's ok for oil companies to make sod all money from retail fuel because they make loads doing something else'.
I have no doubt the industry is thread bear at station only level.
I've been in enough of them to tell that.
But petrol doesn't magic itself into existance at petrol station level, this is a crucial point.
The big operators are still doing ok.
Well, yes I can.
If the whole industry of fuel delivery did not provide profit, business would not entertain it.
It's simple reasoning.
It's close to that, but they do make money from retail.
It's just ever diminishing apparently, so one is removing the time and effort to look for a better returning market.
Doesn't mean no profit.
Well that's what was being said initially that you posted in disagreement with that started the whole argument
Sure, the big operators are still doing ok but it certainly isn't because of selling petrol on forecourts.
Well that's what was being said initially that you posted in disagreement with that started the whole argument
Yes, and why not read the whole post as a single statement?
Exactly, and I know it isn't.
Although you aren't allowed to conflate the various operations I'm told.
Yes, he said no profit.
I asked time and time again if that is quite simply what he meant was no profit, and I didn't get a straight answer.
So it's no profit.
What have you been arguing about all this time?
Had you're fill yet?
Even wierder still to buy a completely loss making operation?
Yes, and why not read the whole post as a single statement?
Exactly, and I know it isn't.
Although you aren't allowed to conflate the various operations I'm told.
Yes, he said no profit.
I asked time and time again if that is quite simply what he meant was no profit, and I didn't get a straight answer.
So it's no profit.
What have you been arguing about all this time?
Had you're fill yet?
Jesus Christ you're tiresome to discuss with.
You made a comment in response to someone talking about the profits in fuel at a station level, that's where this all started. Now, god knows how many posts later you're basically saying exactly what you originally disagreed with.
Regardless i'm getting tired of trying to have a debate with someone who's responses are more akin to "No, i'm right" than any actual reasoned content.
So yes, I have had my fill of you, you're impossible to debate with, have a nice day.
Soldato
[TW]Fox;18131524 said:
Just noticed this...
... but Dolph seems to consistantly argue for the removal of them. What else can tax is theft and some garbled nonesense about monopoly of force be about other than a cry to remove them?
Hence, I want to know what would happen in their loss.
It's not really 'new' either to be honest.
Last edited:
Oil companies don't really excel at selling milk and bread.
Well you're the one who decided to jump on the band waggon and keep yapping?
Can't blame me for you're own self induced boredom now can you.
Erm.
No, not exlcusively fuel station level... he said I need to learn how 'petroleum companies operate'.
I know how they operate, from start to finish top to bottom.
It doesn't include only fuel stations, and it certainly includes profit.
Good, 'cause I have stuff to do.
Nor do they offer to suck you off behind the bike sheds either.
You cut wasteful spending, cut the silly pension liabilities, and cut the pointless spending
Now you don't need to tax fuel at all
You really could do to learn to quote me in context rather than pushing the same old tired and discredited crap.
The whole 'taxation is theft' argument relates to an argument I made around why taxation should be minimised to only that which is necessary, not an argument for removal of taxation. You know this, but yet you keep misquoting the same tired crap. One can only presume this is because you don't have an answer to the actual argument I put across.
So, in the context of fuel duty, at no point would I argue for the abolishment of fuel duty, instead, I argue that fuel duty should be limited strictly to addressing the harms of fuel use and road usage to society, and be set accordingly. This is in contrast to what happens now, where it is just a revenue stream that goes into general taxation and can be raised at a whim.
Likewise, I do not argue for the abolishment of general taxation, but for it to be fair, and the burden to fall as an equal percentage on all, just as I argue that the welfare state should be reformed so that it offers the same benefit to all in a roundabout way (either direct payment or tax offset).
There is also a consideration to be made that sales taxes are a lot less like theft than direct taxation, because they relate to choice based activities, but being realistic, you can't run the necessary functions of the state fairly exclusively on indirect taxation due to the regressive nature of it.