# Fuel Protests are back



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 10,00.html

The selfish bastards are back again to jump on the election bandwagon.

Apparently all kinds of things are planned for May 3rd and 4th including blockading the M6 on the scottish border , so be prepared. But not the 5th , election day , because if they upset the election its go to jail , go directly to jail and don`t pass go !. But the police and the army are also prepared with nice new laws to use against the HGV drivers and farmers. I am told anti-blockade teams and tactics are already in place and ready to rock , So it shouldn`t be as bad as last time. I hope so anyway. Personally I hope the selfish twats all go out of business so they don`t upset everybody else from living their lives and earning a crust. If they can`t plan for fuel costs they must be numb from the neck up , no sympathy from me. Everything is taxed to the hilt in this country , so deal with it you selfish shits. The less HGV`s on the road the better for everybody anyway. We can`t control world oil prices so its a waste of time anyway. If you can`t afford the fuel sell the truck , simple really.


----------



## hiTTchy (Jan 30, 2005)

CapTT said:


> I hope the selfish twats all go out of business so they don`t upset everybody else from living their lives and earning a crust. If they can`t plan for fuel costs they must be numb from the neck up , no sympathy from me. Everything is taxed to the hilt in this country , so deal with it you selfish shits. *The less HGV`s on the road the better for everybody anyway*. We can`t control world oil prices so its a waste of time anyway. If you can`t afford the fuel sell the truck , simple really.


Put road tax duty onto fuel prices - I'd vote for that.

I agree about having less HGV's on the road - we are over-run with HGV's for that very reason.... the road tax and fuel must be too cheap, otherwise it would all be going by train like the good old days. :wink:


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Do we have the rail infrastructure to enable the reduction in HGV traffic you're suggesting. I doubt if they just drive around for the fun of it...


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

clived said:


> Do we have the rail infrastructure to enable the reduction in HGV traffic you're suggesting. I doubt if they just drive around for the fun of it...


No we don't! but introduce some incentive to do most haulage after certain times in the evening and this will help, also allowing HGV's to tow 3-4-5 trailors would also help.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

...the Tesco Road Train?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

They have my vote. I donâ€™t see the point in not supporting them. Why should we pay the highest prices in Europe for fuel because this government wants to spend more on speed cameras and building toll roads?

Fook that, cut petrol tax and increase road spending to benefit us all.


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

CapTT said:


> ...The less HGV`s on the road the better for everybody anyway. ...


No no no! Don't get rid of the trucks! They're filling up our shops with nice things to buy and shipping my weekly fix of stuff from Play, Amazon and the TT-Shop!


----------



## Dilligaf (Mar 30, 2005)

CapTT said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1584810,00.html
> 
> Personally I hope the selfish twats all go out of business so they don`t upset everybody else from living their lives and earning a crust. If they can`t plan for fuel costs they must be numb from the neck up , no sympathy from me. Everything is taxed to the hilt in this country , so deal with it you selfish shits. The less HGV`s on the road the better for everybody anyway. We can`t control world oil prices so its a waste of time anyway. If you can`t afford the fuel sell the truck , simple really.


If there aren't any trucks to distribute the goods , whats going to be left on the shop shelf?

Who's being selfish here?


----------



## hiTTchy (Jan 30, 2005)

Good point about limiting at certain times of day - the trucks really p**s me off on the daily commute. Restrict them to 10pm to 6am when the roads are empty.

As for the road tax duty on fuel, I think it's a great idea. Stick insurance on as well.

1. Why should road tax and insurance dodgers get away with it?
2. Why should a 40k miles p.a. sales rep pay the same as someone doing 5k p.a.?
3. The extra cost will be bourne no doubt by the consumer.... so I'll pay a penny extra on my products I guess. However, I'll save on my road tax and insurance and it'll be worth it for the stress free commute every day. :wink:


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

and apparently they are being led by someone who just happens to be a Tory councillor....wonder why?


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

BP profits for first 3 months this year Â£2.8 BILLION :evil: :evil:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

stgeorgex997 said:


> BP profits for first 3 months this year Â£2.8 BILLION :evil: :evil:


Its not bp profits thats the problems 90% of the cost of fuel is tax for tony the foney - cut tax.

50p a litre is more than enough in anyones book.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Is the anti-capitalist thread?

HGVs are a necessary evil unfortunately....if you want the goods on trains then lobby the government for more investment in rail and get behind the X-rail project.

Oh, and good luck to BP.


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

I wish Blair bashers would remember that it was the Conservatives, who in 93, introduced the Fuel Price Escalator as a way of both raising revenue and discouraging car use on environmental grounds.

The escalator, which annually raised petrol prices above the rate of inflation, was set in 1993 at 3% and later increased to 5%.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

teucer2000 said:


> I wish Blair bashers would remember that it was the Conservatives, who in 93, introduced the Fuel Price Escalator as a way of both raising revenue and discouraging car use on environmental grounds.
> 
> The escalator, which annually raised petrol prices above the rate of inflation, was set in 1993 at 3% and later increased to 5%.


whats that got to do with it? does that mean it can't be cut or reduced now? petrol was about 55p/litre when he got in look at it now. (dont know why im bothed since i have a fuel card - its just the motorist is been taxed to high hell)

didnt he pinch all his ideas from the torys in the first place?


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Just wish people would stop moaning...I'm starting to agree with the Aussies who think we are a bunch of whingers :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

teucer2000 said:


> Just wish people would stop moaning...I'm starting to agree with the Aussies who think we are a bunch of whingers :?


so do you think 95p/litre for petrol is a fair price when the rest of europe pays about 70p? :roll:

ps if you simply have too much money and wish to give it away im sure i could find a use for it


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> They have my vote. I donâ€™t see the point in not supporting them. Why should we pay the highest prices in Europe for fuel because this government wants to spend more on speed cameras and building toll roads?
> 
> Fook that, cut petrol tax and increase road spending to benefit us all.


Yep, concreting over the countryside and increasing the level of pollution will be a big help to us all.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> so do you think 95p/litre for petrol is a fair price when the rest of europe pays about 70p? :roll:


I look forward to seeing the figures to back up your claim that we're paying what, 36% more in the UK for petrol than "the rest of Europe" ;-)

Look at Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, Denmark, Italy, Norway, The Nertherlands - there is nothing like the price differential you're suggesting.

Now, *Diesel* we do pay over the top for! Thank you HM Government! ;-)


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

clived said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > so do you think 95p/litre for petrol is a fair price when the rest of europe pays about 70p? :roll:
> ...


I just did a google search for petrol prices in france - found a survey dated Jan 05. I've never bought petrol in france so im going by the info i found.


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

And other rates of tax are much higher in other European countries, so it's a question of how do you want to pay. I have three cars and I pay tax through petrol...my choice...I could go by bus or I could buy a car that does more than 30 odd to the gallon 8)


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> I just did a google search for petrol prices in france - found a survey dated Jan 05. I've never bought petrol in france so im going by the info i found.


It's just that petrol in the UK wasn't 95p/l in Jan ;-)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Well I shall be keeping a full tank and my spare topped over next few days to keep a 600 mile range in scope.

BTW As a 40K miles a year 'rep' I feel I already contribute handsomely to the Exchequer......via his various lucrative and punitive schemes, so sod paying more for RFL. :x


----------



## hiTTchy (Jan 30, 2005)

garyc said:


> BTW As a 40K miles a year 'rep' I feel I already contribute handsomely to the Exchequer......via his various lucrative and punitive schemes, so sod paying more for RFL. :x


But you wouldn't be paying would you.... you'd pass it on to your customers, just like every other 40k miles a year 'rep'. :?

However, it may force your company to think a little more carefully about your mileage (possibly helping environment and road congestion?)

I do think it's a little unfair that your average private motorist pays a great deal more (pence per mile) for using the road network than a high mileage driver who is clearly causing more wear and tear on the country's roads.

And.... while they're at it, they could then free up some of the company car tax that the government hammer us with - it's not a perk when you spend 12 hours a day on the road stopping overnight at hotels - when do you get the time to drive it for personal use?

IMO the company should pay - *not* the employee.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

clived said:


> *Diesel* we do pay over the top for! Thank you HM Government! ;-)


That's because contrary to what was initially thought, they discovered oil burners pollute the atmosphere, more than petrol engines and put the price of diesel up.

Anyway what about the Yanks they're still paying Â£1 a fucking gallon.

We do pay too much for fuel and most of it is tax approx 80% IIRC


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

I can't believe people are happy to just pay all this tax on petrol. How about we tax people for being ill, or make students pay extra tax based on the level of education they have taken?

Or maybe we just go full hog and we just pay all our money/salary direct to the government and they give us vouchers to buy things.

The level of tax we pay is criminal.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> The level of tax we pay is criminal.


Agreed - I don't think people are generally 'happy' about it, from my point of view the tax we pay on fuel is just a drop in the ocean.

Death and taxes eh?


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> I can't believe people are happy to just pay all this tax on petrol. How about we tax people for being ill, or make students pay extra tax based on the level of education they have taken?
> 
> Or maybe we just go full hog and we just pay all our money/salary direct to the government and they give us vouchers to buy things.
> 
> The level of tax we pay is criminal.


Whether we pay too much tax is debatable, but if you want to pay less tax on petrol you have to pay more tax on something else or cut services somewhere. As someone has already said, we pay less tax here than is the average for western europe.

Also, you make a choice to drive so its not quite the same as being ill. The tax policy is designed to influence peoples choices on whether they drive or not because of the enviromental impact.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Anyway what about the Yanks they're still paying Â£1 a fucking gallon.


Are you sure about that?

2 things to note:

1) "gas" prices in America have been a real cause for concern over the last few months (for Americans, anyway) with news reports constantly talking about the "problem" - the average price across the country is something like $2.25, but this rises to $2.64 in some urban areas. This is some 25% - 50% above "Â£1 a fucking gallon"

2) a "gallon" in the USA is a different measure to the one we use. Their measure is 0.8327 of ours, so if they buy the same physical quantity of fuel as us, you need to adjust the price accordingly. This means they are ACTUALLY paying an average of $2.69, with highs of $3.17 - which at the current exchange rate is way more than "Â£1 a fucking gallon"

Prices have actually come down a bit since the news reports I was seeing...

[/code]


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Thanks for clarifying Tim

do i detect a hint of sarcasm about the use of the "F" word per chance :roll:


----------



## itsallaboutmark (Mar 15, 2005)

If you want cheap petrol move to Malaysia.
I just came back and mineral water is more expensive than petrol!
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

shelley said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe people are happy to just pay all this tax on petrol. How about we tax people for being ill, or make students pay extra tax based on the level of education they have taken?
> ...


Environmental impact - my arse. Science has proved that more CO2 was emitted during the time of the dinosaurs than is currently be emitted - maybe they had cars too, strange coz no fossil cars have been found as yet. :roll:

Or maybe the co2 problem is due to over population? Maybe we limited the number of children and stop aid to the third world so nature can find its own balance. Or maybe youâ€™d prefer we just have a general cull every now and then to reduce the numbers?

And for the record I donâ€™t choose to drive I have to drive. Public transport does not work, its not convenient I can't go where I want when I want. Who the fook lives next to a train or bus station and works next one too without having to swap 8 billion times - not many :twisted:

As for being ill - scrap the health service and adopt a pay as you use service via insurance as most other counties use and 10 times more efficiently than the NHS


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

hiTTchy said:


> I do think it's a little unfair that your average private motorist pays a great deal more (pence per mile) for using the road network than a high mileage driver who is clearly causing more wear and tear on the country's roads.


That's not really true is it.

Lets take two cases - pottering about to the shops person and high mileage rep:

*Potterer:*

Car tax: (Micra 1.2 3/5 door) Â£105.00
Duty on Fuel - 5000 miles p.a., combined fuel economy 47.9mpg, so 104.4 gallons of fuel used - 474.6 litres. Average UK price of unleaded in Feb 2005 80.5p/l of which 74.3% is taken as tax - 59.8p/l. So total tax on fuel = Â£283.81

Total taxation - Â£388.81
Tax pence per mile - *7.776p*

*Rep:*

Car Tax: 3 Series E46 330d Touring is Â£170.00
Duty on Fuel - 40000 miles p.a., combined fuel economy 34.9mpg, so 1146.1 gallons of fuel used - 5210.3 litres. Average UK price of diesel in Feb 2005 84.9p/l of which 70.4% is taken as tax - 59.77p/l. So total tax on fuel = Â£3114.2

Total taxation - Â£3284.2
Tax pence per mile - *8.210p*

SO.... the high mileage rep is paying more per mile than the lower mileage driver. Not sure how that is "a great deal more". And don't forget that we've not even started to factor in things like tax on insurance (which should be lower for Mr Low Mileage as a) he can limit his policy to a low mileage, b) he's driving a lower powered / cheaper car and c) he doesn't need business travel cover), car tax and VAT on the original purchase, VAT on parts and servicing etc.

(Oh, and if you object to the fact that I've put the rep in a car in a higher tax band, but him in a band C car and his ppm comes right down to 8.04 - still higher than Mr Potterer.)


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> Environmental impact - my arse. Science has proved that more CO2 was emitted during the time of the dinosaurs than is currently be emitted - maybe they had cars too, strange coz no fossil cars have been found as yet. :roll:


I wonder why the dinosaurs became extinct?



Toshiba said:


> And for the record I donâ€™t choose to drive I have to drive. Public transport does not work, its not convenient I can't go where I want when I want. Who the fook lives next to a train or bus station and works next one too without having to swap 8 billion times - not many :twisted:


You choose where you live and where you work. If you choose to find that the public transport links between the two are inconvenient then you choose to drive to work. Sounds like a lot of choice involved to me.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

shelley said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Environmental impact - my arse. Science has proved that more CO2 was emitted during the time of the dinosaurs than is currently be emitted - maybe they had cars too, strange coz no fossil cars have been found as yet. :roll:
> ...


Meteor wasn't it? They should've taxed it - that would have stopped it.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

r1 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


no they starved while waiting for public transport!


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Or Super-Volcano. Which of course might just account for all that CO2 :roll:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

shelley said:


> You choose where you live and where you work. If you choose to find that the public transport links between the two are inconvenient then you choose to drive to work. Sounds like a lot of choice involved to me.


No i dont - I'm a consultant, i drive from my home to a customer based on where they are and when they want me. I live in hotels as close to my place of work as i can, if i can walk from the hotel i walk, else i use the car. if you would like to give me a lift from heathrow to brentford in a morning and an evening i happy to share a car. ps i dont have set hours so you will have to fit round me.

pls explain to me how i'm to do my job via public transport? ps are you willing to be my baggage carrier?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

clived said:


> Or Super-Volcano. Which of course might just account for all that CO2 :roll:


but that therefore would be after not during - since it kill them!


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > You choose where you live and where you work. If you choose to find that the public transport links between the two are inconvenient then you choose to drive to work. Sounds like a lot of choice involved to me.
> ...


Sorry, my point then is that you choose to be a consultant with the travel demands that entails.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

shelley said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


ok i'll quit tomorrow and go on benifits!

On my planet - earth we have jobs to pay for things like food, mortages and clothes. (ie i trade my labour for payment in order to purchase things i need or want). [smiley=bomb.gif]

so to recap then, all people whos jobs REQUIRE that they use a car, or move about between places should change jobs?


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Nope. There is nothing wrong with choosing to drive to work, the choice, after all, is down to each individual.

You could choose to do another job/home that doesn't involve you having to use your car. If fuel duty was lower more people would choose to. If it was higher, more people would choose the inconvenience of taking public transport.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

shelley said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


You're not going to win pepole over to your yoghurt-knitting ways on a car forum Shelley.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

r1 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Sorry. I didn't realise ignorance should go un-challenged as long as it was pro-car.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

This could be a touch radical but, anyway here goes.

How about we reduce fuel duty to a more realistic level, the money thatâ€™s generated from fuel tax we (being the government) could then invest/spend this money in roads and road improvement programs so we can all have better transports links and make everyoneâ€™s life a misery.

To reduce traffic we ask all parents to not use the car to transport children too and from school and make them walk or use a school bus - maybe this would reduce the number of fat kids too.

Then to reduce congestion in over crowded areas we should stop further investment in the south/south east and make them relocate to area where population exist that could service the company with labour.

Hell why donâ€™t we go the full hog?

All immigrants could then be deported, to reduce crowding and remove the number of cars from the roads.

Also to reduce co2 build up, we could all dig up our gardens and plant and grow our own food. This works in two ways - it will reduce the number of trucks on the road, and plants convert co2 to oxygen. Damn, what am I going to eat tonight â€" I forgot to plant my lunch last night!

Clothes should be outlawed (except for fat ugly women â€" who should be shot and feed to the pigs) this again will reduce further the number of trucks and thus reducing co2 levels. Plus fat women produce a hell of a lot of co2 and take up two seats on public transport. And not forgetting they also need more fuel to power the buses once they are on board!

Remove all electric goods such as washing m/c dishwashers and computers, TVs etc from peopleâ€™s houses. This would dramatically reduce the amount of electricity used and thus the amount of carbon fuels that we need to burn in order to supply this electricity.

All males should only be allowed to breathe during the even minutes, females during the odd minutes. This would reduce the amount of co2 produced by our species.

Hold on - this is all sounding pretty crap sort life. Iâ€™m well depressed, sod it Iâ€™m off out in the car to burn a bigger hole in the ozone and cheer myself up again.

hows that for ignorance!!!


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> This could be a touch radical but, anyway here goes.
> 
> How about we reduce fuel duty to a more realistic level, the money thatâ€™s generated from fuel tax we (being the government) could then invest/spend this money in roads and road improvement programs so we can all have better transports links and make everyoneâ€™s life a misery.
> 
> ...


Up to your normal standard. Well done.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

shelley said:


> r1 said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


It's hardly ignorance, you're just being hugely unrealistic. On a car based forum, suggesting people leave their jobs so they don't require a car is frankly stupid. Nice idea but I don't see many takers. :?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Consistency is my strong point.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

I'm not suggesting that at all.

What I am suggesting is that to claim a tax on people driving is unfair because people have to drive is a flawed argument.


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

shelley said:


> You could choose to do another job/home that doesn't involve you having to use your car. If fuel duty was lower more people would choose to.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

r1 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > You could choose to do another job/home that doesn't involve you having to use your car. If fuel duty was lower more people would choose to.


A statement of fact rather than a suggestion.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

shelley said:


> I'm not suggesting that at all.
> 
> What I am suggesting is that to claim a tax on people driving is unfair because people have to drive is a flawed argument.


No at all. People generally donâ€™t have a problem with tax on fuel (Which includes heating fuel). People have a problem with the level of tax thatâ€™s been applied.

Tax the ill - i donâ€™t user the NHS. I have bupa insurance which Iâ€™m tax on again so why should I pay for something I donâ€™t or wont use or indeed want?. Tax people who use education (clearly not all do) [smiley=stupid.gif] . If you take a degree course then you should pay the full value of the service you are using not part of it. If the funding for these services can't be generated directly when people use them why should i have to pay for it via a fuel tax?

Actually since i live mostly in a hotel i think i should be exempt from council tax because Iâ€™m not using those services as much as most people are. I want a discount.

The only flawed argument on here is that people can choose to use public transport, most cant and the other one is that is you cant use public transport you should change jobs. I've already explain how thing work on earth, see previous post.

What is your argument based on â€" tax on fuel is fair, or public transports works, or cars are evil â€˜cause they emit co2 â€" just so Iâ€™m clear


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Lorries MUST deliver goods. You can't avoid this. But do what they introcued in Germany. During peak hours they are not allowed to overtake each other. Also they are not allowed to travel during the weekend. Simply measures like this is all we need.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Lorries MUST deliver goods. You can't avoid this. But do what they introcued in Germany. During peak hours they are not allowed to overtake each other. Also they are not allowed to travel during the weekend. Simply measures like this is all we need.


True V. But we also need :

a) A decent road system in the first place. Ours is a joke.
b) A decent and modern rail network. Like the Bullet train city to city.
c) Modern and efficient public transport for towns and cities. Trams etc..
d) Massive investment in driver education. Simple but effective.

But with the politicians we have on all parties to put it simply we are FUCKED !!!.

So all we must insist on is a guaranteed fuel supply and carry on to fight for ourselves. Nobody else is going to. Regardless of the price a fuel supply is the only thing that cannot be threatened until a replacement fuel is found to replace the internal combustion engine. The nearest public transport to me is 15 miles away , so no fuel means no life , no job , no food NO NOTHING.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> No at all. People generally donâ€™t have a problem with tax on fuel (Which includes heating fuel). People have a problem with the level of tax thatâ€™s been applied.


On any single source of tax individuals would of course want to suffer a lower rate. But do they want fuel tax cut at the expense of something else? Some would and some wouldn't deoending on their own self interests.



Toshiba said:


> Tax the ill - i donâ€™t user the NHS. I have bupa insurance which Iâ€™m tax on again so why should I pay for something I donâ€™t or wont use or indeed want?.


You currently benefit from the NHS through the cover it provides you should you require emergency attention. That aside, government funding of the NHS reflects the general view that income redistribution from rich to poor is desirable. Not saying that is right or wrong but that is why all developed countries have a progressive tax system.



Toshiba said:


> Tax people who use education (clearly not all do) [smiley=stupid.gif] . If you take a degree course then you should pay the full value of the service you are using not part of it. If the funding for these services can't be generated directly when people use them why should i have to pay for it via a fuel tax?


The full value to who though? Of course people who go through further education generally get some benefit in terms of the impact this has on their future income.

That is the main argument as to why tuition fees were introduced to cover some, but not all of the costs of higher education. There is though also a benefit to the community as a whole from having a skilled workforce. If people had to pay the full cost of the course themselves, there would be fewer people going through education, a less skilled workforce and a poorer economy and everyone would lose.

Therefore, because of its benefit to the economy education is subsidised through the tax system you in part fund.



Toshiba said:


> The only flawed argument on here is that people can choose to use public transport, most cant and the other one is that is you cant use public transport you should change jobs. I've already explain how thing work on earth, see previous post.


Of course Public transport isn't a viable alternative to driving for everyone. People who don't have an alternative do then bear the brunt of increases in tolls/ congestion charging/ vehicle or fuel duty. Ultimately though if charges reach a certain level, other alternatives do become viable. When the congestion charge was introduced in central London lots of people were forcedto find other means of tranport or even other jobs. For others it was just a straight financial hit, just like any other increase in tax.



Toshiba said:


> What is your argument based on â€" tax on fuel is fair,


I think you argued that the level of tax on fuel wasn't fair and it may be that its level affects some more than most. Most people could highlight one area of tax that effects them adversely relative to others. To label them us unfair may be true from a personal perspective but from a wider reality (even on planet earth), it is hardly ever so clear.



Toshiba said:


> or public transports works


Sometimes, but not always.



Toshiba said:


> , or cars are evil â€˜cause they emit co2 â€" just so Iâ€™m clear


Fossil fueled cars emit co2 and that has a cost or impact on the environment. Like it or not that fact is used in establishing transport policies of which the levy on fuel tax is one element.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

shelley said:


> People who don't have an alternative do then bear the brunt of increases in tolls/ congestion charging/ vehicle or fuel duty. Ultimately though if charges reach a certain level, other alternatives do become viable.


Or in other words, necessity is the mother of invention, right?

In which case, lets remove all tax on fossil fuel, get it all used up as quickly as possible, then we'll have to find some greener ways of getting around pronto ;-)


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

clived said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > People who don't have an alternative do then bear the brunt of increases in tolls/ congestion charging/ vehicle or fuel duty. Ultimately though if charges reach a certain level, other alternatives do become viable.
> ...


The sort of radical forward thinking so conspicuous by its absence in this election campaign!


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

shelley said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...


clive have you been sniffing those petrol fumes again? 
However im all for removing the tax


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

No, I just got bored of waiting for Hitchy to say "yes, ok, I made it up", so posted something else ;-)


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Ok guys, move over and make some room down there in the South East. I'm moving out of my rural retreat as there is no public transport for miles and I'm fresh out of donkeys.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

BreTT said:


> Ok guys, move over and make some room down there in the South East. I'm moving out of my rural retreat as there is no public transport for miles and I'm fresh out of donkeys.


You will need a 4x4 and regular treks to Lakeside you know :wink: . Could you handle this 'country bumpkin'?  :-*


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

shelley said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > This could be a touch radical but, anyway here goes.
> ...


Where's the controlled breeding program to raise the gene pool standards?

And will you be gassing or shooting those that don't fit in or make the grade - in which case the landfill sites could get full once all the pigs have fed.


----------



## jonno (May 7, 2002)

Since we're almost (well sort of) on the subject of what makes a reasonable tax, I remembered one of those rare bits of my degree that comes back out of a haze of cheap (shit) beer, Stone Roses cd's, Student Union gigs and tutorials that were way too early and dull.



> The noted 18th century English economist, Adam Smith, had enunciated the cannons of taxation in his celebrated work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was popularly abbreviated to Wealth of Nations. According to Smith there are four basic cannons of taxation, which are based on the concepts of equality, certainty, convenience and economy.
> 
> The cannon of equality arises from the following idea: 'The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities that is in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.' This canon embodies the principle of equity or justice and lays down the moral foundation of the tax system. 'It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than that proportion,' Smith had written in his Wealth of Nations. Thus, tax should in proportion to the ability to pay.
> 
> ...


There, thats my bit of nostaglia for economics.
Now, compare and contrast those 4 with what we have today. :evil:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

garyc said:


> And will you be gassing or shooting those that don't fit in or make the grade - in which case the landfill sites could get full once all the pigs have fed.


.

I was working on the asumption that within a few years due to the lack of food the number of chubba's would have fallen big time. :lol:


----------

