fuel protests

[Ken Davison South Wales]

"The high earners, especially those who run there own businesses are the ones we should be looking after in the short / medium term.

 

I guess from the above you mean people like me, but I do not require any looking after that is why I am in the position I am in.

 

I need no help, but there are thousands out there who are not as well blessed in the upper department and haven't a hope in hell of doing what I do. So if I have to cough out a bit in tax so be it.

 

I take it you are a high earner, self-employed taken all the risk to get where you are, running a good business.

 

If so lets hope you don't fall on hard times and come up against the attitude you are preaching.

 

[ 14. September 2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Ken Davison South Wales ]

[Sharkbyte]

I was told to never discuss Politics, Religion or Money.

 

Well, 2 out of 3 aint bad, so your assumptions will have to remain a mystery.

 

High taxes, red tape, human rights gone mad etc etc don't enrich the poor. Under Labour when Dennis Healy was Chancellor a top rate of 98% was imposed - it proved a disaster, it sparked a massive brain drain, and Labour was kicked out at the next election. With all the Governments stealth tactics on top it reaches a point where the best in many fields will simply leave for sunnier and less taxed countries.

 

quote:

---

If so lets hope you don't fall on hard times and come up against the attitude you are preaching.

---

If I fell on hard times I certainly would not become a permanent part of the sub society that has made an industry out of the benefits system.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Not really on topic but (quite some time ago) I've fell on hard times due to genuine illness and even with a wife, house etc to support was given sweet FA (actually I was told I had to wait 26weeks before I could claim incapacity benefit!!). I am fighting fit again now, and hope (in the next 40 years I have to work), to never be in the situation where I might have to depend on the state again.

 

There are more jobs available than there are people unemployed - the problem is people are too choosy about their occupations (which the unemployed shouldn't be), so the workers in the country have to support these people. I am all in favour of reintroducing labour exchanges and the like as I feel if you are on benefits you should damn well earn them (if you are capable).

 

I have no issue with coughing up some tax for people who genuinely need it (proper sick, registered disabled etc) - however - we have **** poor border control letting hundreds of illegals through a day that we have to support. Frankly, the problem needs fixing, as does the high amount of teenage single mothers, layabout alcoholics and drug addicts, etc etc. I don't see why we should support people who make stupid choices at all, BUT furthermore don't see why we should continue to support them if they refuse the help of the state (some people are unemployed for years).

 

I think someone mentioned something about Thatcher ridding jobs, introducing poll tax etc. You hear this crap all the time, and whilst I am 25 (and again will likely be shot down just for being young), these were choices that needed to be made (i.e. Those of you who support labour must appreciate that THIS Labour inherited a pretty good economy in general) - meanwhile the Conservatives inherited a bloody useless one. I've been to many mining villages throughout Yorkshire (one example), and yes, you can see how it must have affected (and may still do) some areas very badly. However, do not be fooled into thinking a modern labour wouldn't have made EXACTLY the same decision if it was needed today. As it stands manufacturing jobs are dropping in favour of the service industry as we shift the production type jobs to foreign countries where it is cheaper - that's just reality (I'm afraid), and is happening all over the world.

 

It still doesn't get away from the simple fact that our tax burden is higher than ten years ago (and a percentage of this is from fuel), and that is directly as a result of overspending on useless initiatives, poor man management and failiure to introduce necessary legislation to combat illegals. Another point, look at the CSA figures published last week - FOR EVERY £1 the CSA claim off a father who owes maintenance it actually costs the government 55p - that is inefficient to the extreme, and I am sure if more stats were made available throughout more departments very similar patterns would be noticeable.

[jeepster]

i agree with a lot of that post ian, maybe not about the bits about 'illegals', but certainly that the UK has a dole culture that people like you and i are expected to subsidise.

 

one thing i have ask though is why you feel it necessary to 'support' a wife at such a young age? you're 25 now, and you say this happened 'quite some time ago' so you can't have been much over 20, i know you live in the land that time disowned but why couldn't your wife get out there and support you for a while?

[Steve Walker]

Ken Davison South Wales:

No, cut polution and save on fuel.

 

Road tax has never been used for roads.

 

My point is reward those who drive small cars, with my idea a 1200cc engine would cost £90, my current 1600cc would cost £170, a 4000 juice machine would cost £650.

Trouble is, you then end up with small, very highly tuned turbocharged engines to get round it, which may not actually be the best engineering solution to getting power efficiently. You also have the problem that weight has at least as much to do with fuel consumption as engine size, and a tiny engine being thrashed to drag around an overweight car will not be the optimum for fuel consumption.

 

It's also unfair to people who have a large engined car but don't use it much. If we want to charge people for the amount of carbon dioxide their car emits, taxing fuel is the most direct way of doing it.

 

I don't actually think it's fair to tax carbon dioxide emissions from cars but not from any other sources; burning fossil fuels for domestic and industrial electricity consumption releases carbon dioxide too, but nothing like the level of road fuel duty is paid.

 

Moving some of the fuel duty to non-renewable electricity generation would boost the renewable sector and give people a choice in whether they spend their carbon tax money on wasting petrol in their car or wasting electricity in their house. Likewise, removing the duty payable on road fuel derived from biomass (biodiesel, etc).

[Sharkbyte]

quote:

---

removing the duty payable on road fuel derived from biomass (biodiesel, etc).

---

This is the crux of my arguement as it will never happen. If there was another pump at the filling station offering Biodiesel it would be just as heavily taxed as regular Diesel. This probably explains why there isn't one. After all if I can go to the cash and carry, buy vegetable oil play around with it and use that it's obviously not rocket science.

 

Government harps on about wanting us to use less fuel, stop smoking, stop drinking.

If this where to happen on Monday they would not be able to pay the wages at the town hall on Friday. We'd be bust within a week.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Jeeps - Perhaps support wasn't the right word (Michelle does work) BUT most couples (in their early twenties) would probably need financial help if they lost half their income overnight - because Michelle worked over 24hrs a week (regarldess of her income) I was not entitled to any benefits...we would have been *much* better off if Michelle had cut her working hours BUT we are not the sort of people to play the system - likewise we didn't have children (otherwise we'd of been rolling in it!).

 

By the way, we obviously had a mortgage, car (well 2 cars - but we did sell one at the time as it was considered unnecessary), pet rabbit (sadly deceased now) etc!

 

In the end I returned to work (very part time) whilst I was still sick (awaiting a nuerologists report on an abnormality on a brain scan MRI actually - so it was difficult to say I was fit to work in all honesty), JUST because things had become so tight...

 

It is shocking to think that I was told there is no available help when an 18 year old teenager who gets pregnant after a one night stand and decides she wants to be independent, can have a house, money in the bank, etc....

[Steve Walker]

Sharkbyte:

 

quote:

---

removing the duty payable on road fuel derived from biomass (biodiesel, etc).

---

This is the crux of my arguement as it will never happen. If there was another pump at the filling station offering Biodiesel it would be just as heavily taxed as regular Diesel. This probably explains why there isn't one. After all if I can go to the cash and carry, buy vegetable oil play around with it and use that it's obviously not rocket science.

Biodiesel is taxed at a lower rate than petro-diesel, 26p/l. The catch is that the stuff usually sold as biodiesel is usually only 5% derived from vegetable oils, the rest being fossil-fuel, and so as I understand it taxed at 95% normal duty + 5% reduced duty.

 

Even so, charging any duty at all on pure biodiesel is disgusting, and makes a mockery of the notion that the duty is there to reduce CO2 emissions. I can buy a litre of vegetable oil and pour it on a bonfire tax free, but if I instead burn it in a car's engine I owe the treasury 26p. Ludicrous.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Steve you have raised some good points apart from the bit about the duty being there to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

They have been charging duty decades before CO2 ever became an issue, like wise it has never been used for building roads.

 

If they came up with a viable engine that ran on water they would soon put a duty on that.

[Steve Walker]

Ken Davison South Wales:

Hi Steve you have raised some good points apart from the bit about the duty being there to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

They have been charging duty decades before CO2 ever became an issue, like wise it has never been used for building roads.

Oh, that's quite true, climate change is this week's excuse. It's given by environmental groups as justification, though. The real reason is "because we can".