Pay back time for Nu Labour travel policies?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proved impossible
Next: Speeding reduced.... (or at least incidences being caught on camera) and other observations..
From: JNugent on 3 May 2010 13:26 Conor wrote: > On 03/05/2010 14:57, JNugent wrote: >> Conor wrote: >> >>> On 02/05/2010 23:42, JNugent wrote: >> >>>> So how - as the inevitable supplementary - does the amount (or the >>>> existence) of the NMW affect your buying power? >>>> It doesn't affect mine. >> >>> It doesn't affect it if you're paid above it however if you are on >>> NMW, the annual increases have been above inflation. >> >> Since you aren't on it (and presumably haven't been on it), it seems odd >> that you should cite it as a factor in your feeling of being "better >> off" in fuel price terms. > > I didn't cite it as being a factor, that's something you've decided I > did all on your own. I mentioned that NMW was one of the good things > they brought in. That's not correct. You cited the NMW as a factor in the relative price of fuel.
From: DavidR on 3 May 2010 15:03 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > DavidR wrote: >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: > >>>> Though, I wouldn't be surprised if, out of the 10 peers, motoring taxes >>>> overall, as a proportion of incomes, are well off the top rates. > >>> Whatever that means. > >> It means what it says. > > The meaning is nevertheless very well disguised. > >> (btw, motoring taxes aren't just the fuel tax.) > > Make no mistake: I'd rather see higher road tax and lower fuel tax. It > would have all sorts of benefits. Chorus ...there is no road tax. Don't agree. Just a showroom tax (*) and fuel tax. (*) that works like stamp duty.
From: JNugent on 3 May 2010 17:31 DavidR wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >> DavidR wrote: >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> Though, I wouldn't be surprised if, out of the 10 peers, motoring taxes >>>>> overall, as a proportion of incomes, are well off the top rates. >>>> Whatever that means. >>> It means what it says. >> The meaning is nevertheless very well disguised. >> >>> (btw, motoring taxes aren't just the fuel tax.) >> Make no mistake: I'd rather see higher road tax and lower fuel tax. It >> would have all sorts of benefits. > > Chorus ...there is no road tax. > > Don't agree. Just a showroom tax (*) and fuel tax. > > (*) that works like stamp duty. We have that - it's called VAT, at 17.5% (a huge sum on even a cheap new car). We do have road tax. Why some people insist on denying it is a mystery.
From: Conor on 3 May 2010 18:06 On 03/05/2010 18:25, JNugent wrote: >> And? As a percentage of income, its lower than it was 20 years ago. > > 20 years ago, we had the cheapest fuel in Europe, not the most expensive > (once one disrgards Norway). And how does that invalidate my statement? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 3 May 2010 18:07
On 03/05/2010 18:26, JNugent wrote: > Conor wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 14:57, JNugent wrote: >>> Conor wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/05/2010 23:42, JNugent wrote: >>> >>>>> So how - as the inevitable supplementary - does the amount (or the >>>>> existence) of the NMW affect your buying power? >>>>> It doesn't affect mine. >>> >>>> It doesn't affect it if you're paid above it however if you are on >>>> NMW, the annual increases have been above inflation. >>> >>> Since you aren't on it (and presumably haven't been on it), it seems odd >>> that you should cite it as a factor in your feeling of being "better >>> off" in fuel price terms. >> >> I didn't cite it as being a factor, that's something you've decided I >> did all on your own. I mentioned that NMW was one of the good things >> they brought in. > > That's not correct. You cited the NMW as a factor in the relative price > of fuel. Only in so much as to say that even someone on NMW is paying less as a percentage of their income. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |