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: ChelseaTractorMan on 4 May 2010 07:47 On Sun, 2 May 2010 17:23:11 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: >And had the conservatives been in power , motoring would have been just as >costly if not more so. of course, the idea that anybody is going to provide cheap motoring and as a result jam up the roads even more and encourage US style large engined vehicles is in la la land. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Conor on 4 May 2010 09:11 On 03/05/2010 23:13, JNugent wrote: > Do people on the National Minimum Wage usually run cars? > Why wouldn't they? Just because you may need to earn �40k just to meet the bills doesn't mean everyone does. I can run my household, including running two cars, for �12.5k > Is it calculated so as to allow - let alone encourage - the running of a > car? > No. Its calculated to give them a reasonable standard of living and make it worth coming off the dole. > 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. As an average worker in my area, in 1997 the wages were �3/hr for the last job I did and there was no such thing as tax credits. Now the average wage in my area for my last job I did are �8/hr and pretty much everyone who is working and eligble for tax credits is on far more than double that of 1997. Income for the average worker have increased over 100% in the last 14 years. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 4 May 2010 09:12 On 04/05/2010 09:35, Silk wrote: > On 03/05/2010 18:02, Conor wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 16:40, Silk 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. >>> >>> Typical Northern Labour voter: clueless when it comes to the bigger >>> picture. >> >> Typical Tory Southerner...selfish to the core. >> > > My politics are a matter of choice, not misguided duty. Your posts have spoken volumes about your character. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 4 May 2010 09:12 On 04/05/2010 09:37, Silk wrote: > On 03/05/2010 23:13, JNugent wrote: > >> Do people on the National Minimum Wage usually run cars? > > People in the lower orders have to go on "disability" in order to be > able to afford a car. Rubbish. Just because you live in an overpriced shithole which requires two peoples income just to keep the bailiffs at bay doesn't mean everyone does. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: tim.... on 4 May 2010 11:30
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:duadnVZCy5wSV0LWnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > > "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. It's not clear to me how, when I am not in a vehicle, my being able to use a road without paying to do so is useful to me? (Apart from not getting my feet covered in grass and mud as I walk across a field, which seems to me to be a pretty minor benefit) tim |