No.10 Downing St Email
21 February 2007, 10:28 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No.10 Downing St Email
So....... who's received an email from mr Tony Blair with regards to the new way of taxing vehicles 
?
It is one long email!! Haven't read it all... yet
!!
?It is one long email!! Haven't read it all... yet
!!
21 February 2007, 10:56 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: I'm still around in deepest Essex, now with a Fiesta ST-2
Posts: 3,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you did ask ......
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
21 February 2007, 11:12 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, can anyone translate it?
Probably something along the lines of:
"We're not getting enough money from you already skint people, so we've come up with this idea to get more money from you, and if you refuse to go along with it, we'll fine you bundles more!!"
Would that be right do you think???????
Probably something along the lines of:
"We're not getting enough money from you already skint people, so we've come up with this idea to get more money from you, and if you refuse to go along with it, we'll fine you bundles more!!"
Would that be right do you think???????
21 February 2007, 11:27 AM
#6
at that email from mr i talk a lot with my hands but waffle even more in an email.why didn't he just say that it's not decided upon yet so worry about it later.
the annoying thing is road tax is meant to pay for the rads anyway. get rid of all the illegal immigrants and we won't need to charge people for driving on PUBLIC roads as they'll be paid for by road tax and won;t be as congested as they'll be half the amount of people in the country.
21 February 2007, 11:30 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: family life is superb but i MISS my scoob!!
Posts: 9,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with you there matey, if they spent as much time and effort concentrating on the cars that shouldn't be on the road ie: non taxed/insured etc then that would go a long way to decreasing the amount of cars on the road.
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
Trending Topics
21 February 2007, 11:46 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: I'm still around in deepest Essex, now with a Fiesta ST-2
Posts: 3,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with you there matey, if they spent as much time and effort concentrating on the cars that shouldn't be on the road ie: non taxed/insured etc then that would go a long way to decreasing the amount of cars on the road.
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
)
21 February 2007, 11:53 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: I'm still around in deepest Essex, now with a Fiesta ST-2
Posts: 3,024
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess this includes bald tyres etc ,but flippin heck that's a lot
21 February 2007, 11:55 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 6,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why didn't he just say that it's not decided upon yet so worry about it later.
the annoying thing is road tax is meant to pay for the rads anyway. get rid of all the illegal immigrants and we won't need to charge people for driving on PUBLIC roads as they'll be paid for by road tax and won;t be as congested as they'll be half the amount of people in the country.
the annoying thing is road tax is meant to pay for the rads anyway. get rid of all the illegal immigrants and we won't need to charge people for driving on PUBLIC roads as they'll be paid for by road tax and won;t be as congested as they'll be half the amount of people in the country.
As for road tax being spent on the roads- As a country we reinvest the least compared to our beloved friends in Europe. The last time I looked at figures we invest 5-7% as opposed to countries like Germany and France which were about 25-30 IIRC.
Oh and we cant kick the immigrants out as Tony has signed us up for stupendous fines if we were to do such a thing to any European resident, who under the new rules has a right to work anywhere in Europe now
. Then you have the proper immigrants that once here are never to be seen again or ponce off you and I via the state and our taxes.
A survey carried out in London this month found over 80% of Londoners do not feel this is their country any more. Now that in itself should be ringing alarm bells in Tonys office but I shant be holding my breath.
<Sorry about that must get off my soap box my chest feels much better
>
21 February 2007, 12:09 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly people, do you think ANY amount of petitions, whinging, bitching etc etc will make the slightest bit of difference if the powers that be decide for it.
21 February 2007, 12:13 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with you there matey, if they spent as much time and effort concentrating on the cars that shouldn't be on the road ie: non taxed/insured etc then that would go a long way to decreasing the amount of cars on the road.
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
Dont know exact figures on how many illegal cars there are out there, but am sure it's in the thousands!!!!
I wouldnt be suprised if its not in the millions, i mean can you imagine how many scoobs they could have straight off the road by doing road side emmissions testing,
21 February 2007, 12:14 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point is to make people use public transport more........ er.......... HELLO !! Look at the state of public transport 
!! Maybe if they made it more HUMAN friendly and ALOT safer, then people would be more inclined to use it!!
I hate public transport...... the thought of sitting on an over crowded train/bus, being pushed and squashed and being charged stupid amounts to experience this is not my cup of tea
!!!
I think they ran tests on a seat from a train once and lets just say they could have made about 5 extra people from all the different types of DNA they found on it.... and we're not just talking about dead skin
!!!!!
!! Look at the state of public transport !! Maybe if they made it more HUMAN friendly and ALOT safer, then people would be more inclined to use it!!I hate public transport...... the thought of sitting on an over crowded train/bus, being pushed and squashed and being charged stupid amounts to experience this is not my cup of tea
!!!I think they ran tests on a seat from a train once and lets just say they could have made about 5 extra people from all the different types of DNA they found on it.... and we're not just talking about dead skin
!!!!!
21 February 2007, 12:24 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point is to make people use public transport more........ er.......... HELLO !! Look at the state of public transport !! Maybe if they made it more HUMAN friendly and ALOT safer, then people would be more inclined to use it!!
I hate public transport...... the thought of sitting on an over crowded train/bus, being pushed and squashed and being charged stupid amounts to experience this is not my cup of tea !!!
I think they ran tests on a seat from a train once and lets just say they could have made about 5 extra people from all the different types of DNA they found on it.... and we're not just talking about dead skin !!!!!
!! Look at the state of public transport !! Maybe if they made it more HUMAN friendly and ALOT safer, then people would be more inclined to use it!!I hate public transport...... the thought of sitting on an over crowded train/bus, being pushed and squashed and being charged stupid amounts to experience this is not my cup of tea
!!!I think they ran tests on a seat from a train once and lets just say they could have made about 5 extra people from all the different types of DNA they found on it.... and we're not just talking about dead skin
!!!!!Agree with you on that one, your obvously talking about women leaving clumps of hair on the train seats,
But I thought the congestion charge was supposed to be going toward improving public transport, and apart from one or two healthy payrises i have seen no difference
21 February 2007, 12:37 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BHP Club
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... road tolling is inevitable. The government have to bring it in to curb carbon emissions and get us into line with the rest of europe. As with the congestion charge what 1.5million of the general public think is completely irrelevant. Pollution is a serious issue and diplomacy has not worked and has not curbed it ... therefore more serious and direct methods are required. In Sweden , for example, income tax is 60% and car insurance is astronomical. They have one of the cleanest environments in europe and are an example to the rest of us. We can't all go around complaining about taxation and the like ... it's greedy and shows a lack of respect for our children and their children who are going to have to live in the environment that we create today.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
21 February 2007, 12:39 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?
21 February 2007, 12:43 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... road tolling is inevitable. The government have to bring it in to curb carbon emissions and get us into line with the rest of europe. As with the congestion charge what 1.5million of the general public think is completely irrelevant. Pollution is a serious issue and diplomacy has not worked and has not curbed it ... therefore more serious and direct methods are required. In Sweden , for example, income tax is 60% and car insurance is astronomical. They have one of the cleanest environments in europe and are an example to the rest of us. We can't all go around complaining about taxation and the like ... it's greedy and shows a lack of respect for our children and their children who are going to have to live in the environment that we create today.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
Well my keyboard is cleaned regulary AND I don't eat my lunch whilst sitting at my desk typing !!!
21 February 2007, 01:03 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: in a quiet corner eating chocolate
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... road tolling is inevitable. The government have to bring it in to curb carbon emissions and get us into line with the rest of europe. As with the congestion charge what 1.5million of the general public think is completely irrelevant. Pollution is a serious issue and diplomacy has not worked and has not curbed it ... therefore more serious and direct methods are required. In Sweden , for example, income tax is 60% and car insurance is astronomical. They have one of the cleanest environments in europe and are an example to the rest of us. We can't all go around complaining about taxation and the like ... it's greedy and shows a lack of respect for our children and their children who are going to have to live in the environment that we create today.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
p.s. I don't agree with road tolling. I think that income tax should be higher to compensate for the deficits in the economic coffers ... however with governments seeking to stay in power as long as possible and taxation (income) being a massive election winning point I don't see it happening in the levels that are required. So if the roads need to be taxed then I think we have to accept it and move on.
On another note regarding the comment about trains being dirty. The same studies about what is on a train seat was eclipsed by the amount of bacteria and diseases found on a keyboard. And seeing as most people eat their lunch whilst browsing on this site and posting during their daily breaks ... think about what you are transferring onto your sandwich and into your mouth during a regular day.
Having children is an expensive business and losing more money to inome tax won't help families in any shape or form.
I don't disagree in principle to motorway toll's but screwing the average family is not the way to go
21 February 2007, 01:06 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 310Nm oil burner....
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching people lane discipline will remove congestion overnight, people should be taught to use the lane on the left!!!!!
£26bn is taken in road tax/duty £6bn is spent on public transport as a whole and those are out of date figures!
Pollution is a complete cop-out and a ridiculas argument (PLANT ANOTHER TREE). Instead they are building on more and more green belt land! We are one of the least poluting country!
Cows farting (methaine) causes more damage to the atmosphere!
If this is introduced no car registered outside England (including Scotland and Wales) will have to pay the per mile charge (just the people who have to get to work to earn a living - which is why the roads are busy).
Pure and simple another tax to cripple this country!
£26bn is taken in road tax/duty £6bn is spent on public transport as a whole and those are out of date figures!
Pollution is a complete cop-out and a ridiculas argument (PLANT ANOTHER TREE). Instead they are building on more and more green belt land! We are one of the least poluting country!
Cows farting (methaine) causes more damage to the atmosphere!
If this is introduced no car registered outside England (including Scotland and Wales) will have to pay the per mile charge (just the people who have to get to work to earn a living - which is why the roads are busy).
Pure and simple another tax to cripple this country!
21 February 2007, 01:12 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Now a Scoobyless Crew Member
Posts: 1,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole tax cr*p is like hitting your head on a brick wall!! I wouldn't mind so much paying tax etc etc, if I actually saw a benefit from it all!!
21 February 2007, 01:25 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BHP Club
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching people lane discipline will remove congestion overnight, people should be taught to use the lane on the left!!!!!
£26bn is taken in road tax/duty £6bn is spent on public transport as a whole and those are out of date figures!
Pollution is a complete cop-out and a ridiculas argument (PLANT ANOTHER TREE). Instead they are building on more and more green belt land! We are one of the least poluting country!
Cows farting (methaine) causes more damage to the atmosphere!
If this is introduced no car registered outside England (including Scotland and Wales) will have to pay the per mile charge (just the people who have to get to work to earn a living - which is why the roads are busy).
Pure and simple another tax to cripple this country!
£26bn is taken in road tax/duty £6bn is spent on public transport as a whole and those are out of date figures!
Pollution is a complete cop-out and a ridiculas argument (PLANT ANOTHER TREE). Instead they are building on more and more green belt land! We are one of the least poluting country!
Cows farting (methaine) causes more damage to the atmosphere!
If this is introduced no car registered outside England (including Scotland and Wales) will have to pay the per mile charge (just the people who have to get to work to earn a living - which is why the roads are busy).
Pure and simple another tax to cripple this country!
Your comment about pollution is massively mis-placed matey. It is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed urgently by all economies that have the means to do so.
In terms of income tax this country has one of the lowest rates, when compared to overall GDP, rates in the developed world. I use the swedish example again. Amazing schooling system, amazing healthcare system ... all paid for by a higher tax rate.
I accept the point that increases do hit home but when you think about the benefits that our children will enjoy it makes perfect sense.
A lot of you just read propaganda in the press and assume that politics and economics is simple. It isn't and 80% of what is written in the press is biased towards their political status and support - and is not factual.
21 February 2007, 02:07 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 310Nm oil burner....
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gangsta
If everyone in this country stopped driving their cars tomorrow the growth in China alone would outstrip ANY benifit of us doing so. That is just one developing country!
This TAX and it is exactly that! would mean that I would be forced out of work! On the figures talked about (£1.30 per mile A1 and M25 at peak times - i.e. the workers of this country) I would need to find another £26k a year just to drive my car to get to work! I don't do this for fun, I do it to earn a fair salary and pay my taxes! (there is no public transport in place that could do my commute). Why the hell should I find another job or move from a place that I love to live because of this governments incompetence.
We already pay high fuel tax (approx 70% of what we pay for fuel), which was put in place to tax people who do high miles.
Add to our income tax all the hidden taxation and you will find we are one of the highest taxed nations in Europe, now higher than Germany. The fact that this government spunks it up the wall with every thing they do and feels they need more money but this time hide behind the guise of a green issues offends me. Back to the good old days of tax and spend!
Sweeden have a high upfront tax that is spent well, end of.
Sounds like I am not the only one listening to the propoganda..
They are sooooooo out of touch it is unreal.
Love you though mate
If everyone in this country stopped driving their cars tomorrow the growth in China alone would outstrip ANY benifit of us doing so. That is just one developing country!
This TAX and it is exactly that! would mean that I would be forced out of work! On the figures talked about (£1.30 per mile A1 and M25 at peak times - i.e. the workers of this country) I would need to find another £26k a year just to drive my car to get to work! I don't do this for fun, I do it to earn a fair salary and pay my taxes! (there is no public transport in place that could do my commute). Why the hell should I find another job or move from a place that I love to live because of this governments incompetence.
We already pay high fuel tax (approx 70% of what we pay for fuel), which was put in place to tax people who do high miles.
Add to our income tax all the hidden taxation and you will find we are one of the highest taxed nations in Europe, now higher than Germany. The fact that this government spunks it up the wall with every thing they do and feels they need more money but this time hide behind the guise of a green issues offends me. Back to the good old days of tax and spend!
Sweeden have a high upfront tax that is spent well, end of.
Sounds like I am not the only one listening to the propoganda..
They are sooooooo out of touch it is unreal.
Love you though mate
21 February 2007, 02:13 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 310Nm oil burner....
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've already given up the car/hobby I love to buy a diesel as tough descisions have to be made with house/job moves, but that was my descision to make.
And on that point of owning a diesel which is more efficient and less polluting, if this new tax is brought in then paying per mile would mean that a V8 could be on the cards as surely they would have to remove tax on fuel!
Who am I kidding, they'll just add this one on top of what is already in place!!!
And on that point of owning a diesel which is more efficient and less polluting, if this new tax is brought in then paying per mile would mean that a V8 could be on the cards as surely they would have to remove tax on fuel!
Who am I kidding, they'll just add this one on top of what is already in place!!!
21 February 2007, 02:38 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BHP Club
Posts: 4,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gangsta
If everyone in this country stopped driving their cars tomorrow the growth in China alone would outstrip ANY benifit of us doing so. That is just one developing country!
This TAX and it is exactly that! would mean that I would be forced out of work! On the figures talked about (£1.30 per mile A1 and M25 at peak times - i.e. the workers of this country) I would need to find another £26k a year just to drive my car to get to work! I don't do this for fun, I do it to earn a fair salary and pay my taxes! (there is no public transport in place that could do my commute). Why the hell should I find another job or move from a place that I love to live because of this governments incompetence.
We already pay high fuel tax (approx 70% of what we pay for fuel), which was put in place to tax people who do high miles.
Add to our income tax all the hidden taxation and you will find we are one of the highest taxed nations in Europe, now higher than Germany. The fact that this government spunks it up the wall with every thing they do and feels they need more money but this time hide behind the guise of a green issues offends me. Back to the good old days of tax and spend!
Sweeden have a high upfront tax that is spent well, end of.
Sounds like I am not the only one listening to the propoganda..
They are sooooooo out of touch it is unreal.
Love you though mate
If everyone in this country stopped driving their cars tomorrow the growth in China alone would outstrip ANY benifit of us doing so. That is just one developing country!
This TAX and it is exactly that! would mean that I would be forced out of work! On the figures talked about (£1.30 per mile A1 and M25 at peak times - i.e. the workers of this country) I would need to find another £26k a year just to drive my car to get to work! I don't do this for fun, I do it to earn a fair salary and pay my taxes! (there is no public transport in place that could do my commute). Why the hell should I find another job or move from a place that I love to live because of this governments incompetence.
We already pay high fuel tax (approx 70% of what we pay for fuel), which was put in place to tax people who do high miles.
Add to our income tax all the hidden taxation and you will find we are one of the highest taxed nations in Europe, now higher than Germany. The fact that this government spunks it up the wall with every thing they do and feels they need more money but this time hide behind the guise of a green issues offends me. Back to the good old days of tax and spend!
Sweeden have a high upfront tax that is spent well, end of.
Sounds like I am not the only one listening to the propoganda..
They are sooooooo out of touch it is unreal.
Love you though mate
China is a frontier economy matey ... they have no adequate system of taxation or climate control as yet. So in this instance comparing them to us is like comparing a rock with butter.
I know you love me ... everybody does
... but I am paid to obtain factual information about these issues which is what I then put my companies money into. If I listened to propaganda then I wouldn't be in a job for very much longer.
21 February 2007, 02:56 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 310Nm oil burner....
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China is a frontier economy matey ... they have no adequate system of taxation or climate control as yet. So in this instance comparing them to us is like comparing a rock with butter.
I know you love me ... everybody does ... but I am paid to obtain factual information about these issues which is what I then put my companies money into. If I listened to propaganda then I wouldn't be in a job for very much longer.
I know you love me ... everybody does
... but I am paid to obtain factual information about these issues which is what I then put my companies money into. If I listened to propaganda then I wouldn't be in a job for very much longer. However, I wasn't drawing comparisions, just stating fact. Any change in this country is insignificant on a global scale!
Got to get on with some work though or I won't have a job to worry about!