From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Sun, 2 May 2010 17:23:11 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
<AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!> 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
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
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
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

"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!> wrote in message
> news:hrogd0$dvu$1(a)
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>> news:UNmdnXobEfCLI0LWnZ2dnUVZ8mGdnZ2d(a)
>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:UsedncYJSIkp3ULWnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d(a)
>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)> wrote
>>>>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)> 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)