Mantashe says diesel should cost R14 per litre

Daniel Puchert

Daniel Puchert

Journalist
Staff member
Joined
Mar 6, 2024
Messages
1,692
Reaction score
1,443
Mantashe says motorists should pay up to R560 less per tank

Minister of Minerals and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe says petrol and diesel should cost around R14 per litre in South Africa, with the general fuel and Road Accident Fund (RAF) levies distorting the price to around R20 per litre.

Depending on the capacity of their car's fuel tank, South African motorists could pay between R317 and R564 less per tank of fuel if the petrol price was R14 per litre.
 
It would be less taking out 3rd party insurance than what the RAF levies on the fuel.
Passengers should also have 3rd party insurance as well.
At the moment the RAF is very skewed because the passengers CLAIM but don't pay for FUEL.

SCRAP the RAF.
 
This is by far the most distorted headline relative to the story that I have even seen..... .. Didn't anybody notice that?

MyBB journalism is really heading South as some say
 
I far prefer a RAF model in SA than compulsory insurance. It's far more "reliable" to collect the money at the pump, than to try and pull off some kind of enforcement of mandatory insurance, and where people who are hit by uninsured drivers then get absolutely nothing.

I also don't see how this will be any cheaper for drivers. If the RAF is 4x underfunded based on the amount they currently collect, then why wouldn't the insurance premium burden on motorists be at least 4x more than what they'd save from unbundling it from the fuel price?

The only thing this would help ensure is that electric/hybrid drivers can't escape paying their "fair" share.
 
km2 said:
I far prefer a RAF model in SA than compulsory insurance. It's far more "reliable" to collect the money at the pump, than to try and pull off some kind of enforcement of mandatory insurance, and where people who are hit by uninsured drivers then get absolutely nothing.

I also don't see how this will be any cheaper for drivers. If the RAF is 4x underfunded based on the amount they currently collect, then why wouldn't the insurance premium burden on motorists be at least 4x more than what they'd save from unbundling it from the fuel price?

The only thing this would help ensure is that electric/hybrid drivers can't escape paying their "fair" share.
Click to expand...
Why do you prefer the government to be able to steal your money..?
 
WAslayer said:
Why do you prefer the government to be able to steal your money..?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's any better when the government puts a mandate an insurance company to "steal" the money from you? At least you can drive less or go electric to avoid having your money "stolen" by the RAF. With mandatory insurance the "theft" is compulsory.
 
km2 said:
Why do you think it's any better when the government puts a mandate an insurance company to "steal" the money from you? At least you can drive less or go electric to avoid having your money "stolen" by the RAF. With mandatory insurance the "theft" is compulsory.
Click to expand...
I never said mandatory insurance is the solution, that's your assumption...

But it's ludicrous to prefer a model that allows the government to steal from you, a model that allows those who do, to subsidise those who don't even drive at all...
 
km2 said:
Why do you think it's any better when the government puts a mandate an insurance company to "steal" the money from you? At least you can drive less or go electric to avoid having your money "stolen" by the RAF. With mandatory insurance the "theft" is compulsory.
Click to expand...
Everyone who drives should have insurance already. If you're driving without it, you're gambling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter