|
|
|
___________________________________________________________________________________________________ EQUALISATION OF FUEL TAXES PLANNED BY THE EU FOR 2014. The governments of all the EU countries within the EU all charge different rates for the excise duty on their fuels. A good example is diesel fuel where large trucks operating in the UK are handicapped by paying much more tax than their counterparts on the Continent. Even us living here in Spain know that the cost of both diesel and petrol is much cheaper in Spain due to the very high taxes in the UK, reported to be overall about 60% of the selling prices at the pumps. This has caused the situation there where most big trucks that visit the Continent avoid filling up in the UK as much as possible thus saving many companies hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs each year, but also denying those tax payments to the UK government. The table below shows the different taxes levied in several of the EU countries in this case for 2006,the last available information via the EU web-site, and as an example, the UK charges €693 per 1.000 litres of diesel, where as Spain charges only €294, a difference of an additional 136,7% more in Britain compared with Spain. Another problem is that trucks also waste fuel by diverting to fill up on the way back to the UK and this is recognised as one of the problems by the EU thus increasing fuel usage and pollution amounts. How does taxation of commercial diesel work? Do all Member States have different levels of taxation for commercial diesel and for non commercial diesel? Member States have the option to "decouple" their excise duty rates on diesel. This means they can differentiate the rates applied on commercial diesel and non-commercial rates, by taxing diesel used for commercial purposes (HGVs and buses etc) at a lower rate than diesel used by private cars. This fiscal option may be chosen by Member States that decide to support the haulage industry. For the time being (2006/7/8), only 4 Member States (France, Spain, Belgium and Italy) differentiate the excise duties rates applied on respectively commercial and non-commercial diesel. In other Member States, the level of taxation of commercial diesel is the same as for non-commercial diesel. In those four Member States, there is only one diesel price at fuel outlets. Qualifying organisations such as entrepreneurs or companies are reimbursed of the difference between commercial and non-commercial rates once they have proven that they are professional users. This is the so-called refund mechanism. The table below gives the levels of taxation in Euros per 1.000 litres.
What would be the consequences of a "no change" policy? In case differences in taxation rates cannot be reduced:
For countries such as Britain, the lost taxation amount due to having to reduce the excise duty to a common EU level will have to be made up elsewhere, and perhaps this is one of the major reasons that the infamous "pay as you go" system is being mooted now to prepare the British motoring public for this system in the near future. After all, most of the motoring taxes collected in Britain are not spent on motoring related costs, but it would be a major political problem to raise taxes elsewhere as the British are now convinced (with good cause) that they are over-taxed already. ____________________________________________________________________________________ SPANISH JUSTICE SYSTEM TOUGH ON OFFENDERS. On the late evening of Friday the 19th April, a coach was carrying a group of Finnish tourists to Malaga airport on the autovia (motorway) near Benalmadena, Malaga Province. It was very windy and pouring with rain. A 4x4 vehicle was being driven at, as it was established later, about 155 kph (96 mph) when the driver lost control on a curve while overtaking the coach, hit the central barrier and then collided with the coach. In the resulting accident when the coach left the road, nine of the passengers were killed and others injured, some seriously. The driver of the Jeep was slightly injured and when tested was found to be twice the limit allowed for alcohol. The driver was taken into custody, and at the first Court hearing was refused bail as he is a professional driver (long-distance goods) and has to now remain in jail until the court trial date. Why is it after all the publicity drivers still drive drunk? It must be classed as a premeditated crime for no one goes out to drink taking the car unless they intend to drive it back home. Let us hope that he spends a long time in jail for this terrible crime that has ruined the lives of several families who have lost loved ones, including young children, and also the lives of those injured. Also his own life must be ruined as in my opinion he should never be allowed to drive again. From May 1st, the new heavy penalties for certain driving crimes as listed in the book on pages 66 to 73 are now in effect, and it means jail for some offences that some drivers seem to think not worth bothering about. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Woman fined €57 (£46) for allegedly "adjusting or stroking her hair "while driving. (19 May 2008) A Catalonian (northern Spain) woman driver who was fined €57 this month (May) for using a mobile phone while driving by holding it to her ear has a problem. Or has she? The woman is reported to have insisted that she was only putting her hair straight (which for many women can take forever?), but the reports state that the Mossas d’Esquadra (Catalonian version of the Guardia Civil) refused to believe her. She is reported to be appealing (the charge that is). The thought that springs to mind is that if she had a mobile phone with her, it would have been very easy to get it out and refer to the list of received and dialled calls to show that none were made or received at the times on the charge form. If not (unlikely nowadays), she could have insisted on being searched, but the problem is that if the fine was delayed by being sent through the post (the Press report does not say), the calls would have most likely been deleted from the phone by then, but it is worth contesting except for one point. The costs of going to Court are much more than the fine especially with using the services of a lawyer, etc. There is no mention made in the report of the usual 3-penalty points being lost for this offence and that would then make the Court appearance more financially worth-while. Also she could approach her phone service-provider for a print-out of the calls made and received at that time but that also costs money and time/stress. However, the charge could be worded that she was using a mobile and/or carrying out an action that placed the safe control of the vehicle in jeopardy (or similar in Spanish), for the reason we are not allowed to use a mobile phone while driving (along with several other listed actions) is that it is because it distracts the driver from the task at hand which is safe driving. Then it would NOT be worth contesting it as even attending to her hair is covered by this offence. The moral of this tale? Never get caught doing anything that can give the police the opportunity to say that you were not driving well. The Spanish Government/Trafico is under pressure within the EU to greatly reduce the road accident rates which are still quite bad although better than three years ago. Any action such as lighting a cigarette, eating food, taking a drink from a bottle (hopefully water or similar), telling naughty children off, arguing with the boss (the wife?), checking the SatNav, changing the CD in the dash-player, etc. are all good reasons to be caught and fined, so please be aware and careful out there. Please remember that these are all reasons that have been given as causing actual accidents in Spain. Hence the legal specifics. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|