I bet that is so true, some of the "regenerated" areas in my area are unbelievable, lots of unnecessary traffic ligths and one way systems that make you drive over a mile to go 300 metres. Part of the master plan, if you pay per mile then of course it makes sense (to them) to make you drive further, nothing to do with the environment, its to do with their pockets. HOW are people meant to earn a living if they cant drive to jobs?
Congestion - ?
- Thread starter empip
- Start date
I bet that is so true, some of the "regenerated" areas in my area are unbelievable, lots of unnecessary traffic ligths and one way systems that make you drive over a mile to go 300 metres. Part of the master plan, if you pay per mile then of course it makes sense (to them) to make you drive further, nothing to do with the environment, its to do with their pockets. HOW are people meant to earn a living if they cant drive to jobs?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
Why can't you people grasp the simple principle that tax doesn't go into Gordon Brown's personal pocket but is used to offset the cost of education, health, welfare and asylum seekers?
Putting VAT up to 20% would raise far more money and cost nothing extra to collect.
The only way to stop people using their cars when they don't need to is to make it cost more.
The best way to do that is to raise the tax on fuel. If petrol were to double in price then those that drive gas guzzlers will be the first to suffer. Those that choose to commute silly distances rather than working where they live will also be penalised.
Tripling road tax would get the army of 'school taxis' off the road so the fat little blighters will have to walk to school as I did.
If these measures raise enough revenue then income tax could be reduced. Either way, there is a target amount that Gordon Brown must raise - so let those that are extravagant pay the biggest share. Sounds OK to me.
Putting VAT up to 20% would raise far more money and cost nothing extra to collect.
The only way to stop people using their cars when they don't need to is to make it cost more.
The best way to do that is to raise the tax on fuel. If petrol were to double in price then those that drive gas guzzlers will be the first to suffer. Those that choose to commute silly distances rather than working where they live will also be penalised.
Tripling road tax would get the army of 'school taxis' off the road so the fat little blighters will have to walk to school as I did.
If these measures raise enough revenue then income tax could be reduced. Either way, there is a target amount that Gordon Brown must raise - so let those that are extravagant pay the biggest share. Sounds OK to me.
[quote="Thermo
still brighton council has managed to screw up what was a very easy to move around city 10-15 years ago and turned it into a giant gridlocked car park. All by introducing well thought out road improvement schemes.
[/quote]...........Indeed, when I was there 30 years ago "I wandered the streets and the gay crowded places"with impunity
still brighton council has managed to screw up what was a very easy to move around city 10-15 years ago and turned it into a giant gridlocked car park. All by introducing well thought out road improvement schemes.
[/quote]...........Indeed, when I was there 30 years ago "I wandered the streets and the gay crowded places"with impunityNo offence Joe-90 but explainsomething to us.
How can you make such an excellent, intelligent, logical and wise answer about tax and congestion but also spout such balls about blaming it on immigrants which shows ignorance to the contrary of your last post.
Wether less is more than fewer and many Immigrants are hardly causing congestion. Here's why.
Most come over to work, they work long hours for much lower than average money doing the dire jobs that 'our own' think are beneath them or are either too lazy to get off their asses. They can't afford keep and run a car.
Secondly the vast majority of immigrants live in the cities and need no cars.
Where softus' dog is from is just about as relevent as where his 'paternal grandparents' are from and still none of your beeswax.
The contrast in the intelligence shown by your arguments amazes me.
How can you make such an excellent, intelligent, logical and wise answer about tax and congestion but also spout such balls about blaming it on immigrants which shows ignorance to the contrary of your last post.
Wether less is more than fewer and many Immigrants are hardly causing congestion. Here's why.
Most come over to work, they work long hours for much lower than average money doing the dire jobs that 'our own' think are beneath them or are either too lazy to get off their asses. They can't afford keep and run a car.
Secondly the vast majority of immigrants live in the cities and need no cars.
Where softus' dog is from is just about as relevent as where his 'paternal grandparents' are from and still none of your beeswax.
The contrast in the intelligence shown by your arguments amazes me.
Sponsored Links
Ahh, that sweet and familiar overture is like a herald to a bigoted and prejudiced non-sequitur; I can hardly wait.joe-90 said:
And there it is. joe-90 believes that he's the only forum member who knows where our taxes go.
Nothing? Really? What's the labour cost of changing all the accounting systems in all the land? The paperwork? The explanatory notes? The VAT seminar information? The cost of processing the registration of all those traders whose revenue (to offset the extra input tax) would then exceed the registration threshold?
That's one way of making car usage less attractive to people, but you have no evidence to support your claim that it will result in cars being used less.
The big fuel users are haulage companies - the cost of their fuel will be transferred to the cost of the goods that they transport. This won't reduce the miles that they drive, because consumers will still want tons more new stuff, instead of mending and making do with what they've got.
Similarly, most of the miles that I drive are for business. If fuel goes up then my overheads, and therefore my labour rate, goes up. This doesn't stop me driving, it just makes my customers pay more, with no effect on congestion whatsoever.
This is nothing more than blinkered and stupid hypocrisy.
This is nothing more than prejudiced nonsense.
It sounds OK, but you haven't proposed one single way in which the most extravagant would pay the most.
Oh, and your repeated references to the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than make you look factual and knowledgeable, merely make you look narrow-minded with a personal grudge.
Please post some more garbage - all we need to do as assemble enough of your bizarre arguments and cosmically-challenged postulates, and whatever you haven't proposed is bound to be the solution to the country's problems.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
I'm allowed an opinion just as you are.
I'd like to see immigration stopped. I'd like to see all asylum seekers returned.
I'd like to see all benefits rigorously policed to force the work-shy back into the job market.
I'd like to see emmigration to Oz etc continue so that we end up with a smaller, leaner economy similar to Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland etc which are the economies doing well. The USA and Britain are bloated economies where the standard of living is falling.
We just don't have the infrastructure for all these immigrants so what is the net gain? They are forcing house prices up so that Brits can no-longer afford to live in areas where they were born. We have a tiny and already overpopulated country - what are we letting them in for? Wait until the economy takes a dive (as it must) and then see what a can of worms comes to light.
I'd like to see immigration stopped. I'd like to see all asylum seekers returned.
I'd like to see all benefits rigorously policed to force the work-shy back into the job market.
I'd like to see emmigration to Oz etc continue so that we end up with a smaller, leaner economy similar to Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland etc which are the economies doing well. The USA and Britain are bloated economies where the standard of living is falling.
We just don't have the infrastructure for all these immigrants so what is the net gain? They are forcing house prices up so that Brits can no-longer afford to live in areas where they were born. We have a tiny and already overpopulated country - what are we letting them in for? Wait until the economy takes a dive (as it must) and then see what a can of worms comes to light.
I wholeheartedly agree. Please continue to post your opinions.joe-90 said:
That's your personal preference, not a reasoned conclusion. It's this preference that makes you appear xenophobic; whether or not you are is a different matter, but you don't do yourself any favours.
Those who are determined to play the system will always find a way that makes it too expensive to detect them. However, I agree that the system appears to be too easy to cheat.
We don't have the culture of those countries, and radically changing immigration policy is not enough to bring about the fundamental change that's needed.
I really don't see how you arrive at this conclusion.
Because we always have. Why should it change now?
OK.
That's for me to know and you to, er, not know.joe-90 said:
I know you can't help yourself, but this topic is about congestion, not capital punishment.joe-90 said:
No.
I can't see your point here - it already has changed. The status quo is that hanging people is illegal.
Your definition of "foreign" is almost certainly different to mine, and your pathetic attempt to deduce the details of my background is doomed to failure.joe-90 said:
Sponsored Links
