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 18:13 Conor wrote: > 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. Do people on the National Minimum Wage usually run cars? Is it calculated so as to allow - let alone encourage - the running of a car? I ask because this is the first mention of such a notion that I have ever come across. And I realise that one can learn something every day. If, OTOH, it is not usual for NMW-earners to have a car, then merely observing that their incomes have risen relative to petrol tax is a truism. One could say the same of social security benefits (without a doubt). The correct test is how it affects the average worker. And when diesel was 53p a litre in 1997, and 121p a litre now, that takes some increase in wages to make the difference.
From: Brimstone on 4 May 2010 02:26 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:UsedncYJSIkp3ULWnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d(a)pipex.net... > 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. We HAD road tax but it was abolished long ago, before most of the people contributing to this news group were born. Quite why some people cling to redundant terminology is not yet understood.
From: Brimstone on 4 May 2010 02:29 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:9oedndR50NgG10LWnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > Conor wrote: >> 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. > > Do people on the National Minimum Wage usually run cars? > > Is it calculated so as to allow - let alone encourage - the running of a > car? > > I ask because this is the first mention of such a notion that I have ever > come across. And I realise that one can learn something every day. If only ... > If, OTOH, it is not usual for NMW-earners to have a car, then merely > observing that their incomes have risen relative to petrol tax is a > truism. One could say the same of social security benefits (without a > doubt). The correct test is how it affects the average worker. And when > diesel was 53p a litre in 1997, and 121p a litre now, that takes some > increase in wages to make the difference. Why not find the relevant data and impress us with your ability to conduct a rational evidence based argument?
From: Dr Zoidberg on 4 May 2010 02:55 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:UNmdnXobEfCLI0LWnZ2dnUVZ8mGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:UsedncYJSIkp3ULWnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d(a)pipex.net... >> 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. > > We HAD road tax but it was abolished long ago, before most of the people > contributing to this news group were born. Quite why some people cling to > redundant terminology is not yet understood. > And here we have a fine example of willy-waving and hair splitting that this group is famous for. Yes , it may not have been officially called Road Tax for a very long time , but everyone knows exactly what is meant by the term. It's the money you hand over to get the coloured disk to stick in your windscreen -- Alex
From: Brimstone on 4 May 2010 03:19
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message news:hrogd0$dvu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:UNmdnXobEfCLI0LWnZ2dnUVZ8mGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message >> news:UsedncYJSIkp3ULWnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d(a)pipex.net... >>> 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. >> >> We HAD road tax but it was abolished long ago, before most of the people >> contributing to this news group were born. Quite why some people cling to >> redundant terminology is not yet understood. >> > And here we have a fine example of willy-waving and hair splitting that > this group is famous for. > > Yes , it may not have been officially called Road Tax for a very long time > , but everyone knows exactly what is meant by the term. It's the money you > hand over to get the coloured disk to stick in your windscreen > As usual, you overlook the wider implications. Because of the continuing use of incorrect names and terminology some small minded people make assumptions about others, hence correct names should be used. In this instance those assumptions would include (but are not limited to) the notion that only motorists pay to use the roads and that everyone else is getting something for nothing. |