hedgehog

The new government road charge looks like it is going to come out at around £1.45 per mile according to a "leaked" report. As we know the government often "leak" such things to prepare us for the worst, plus they are quoting the charges in kilometers to try and soften the blow.

Just remember that all your speeding fines are being used to put the enforcement infrastructure in place to ensure you pay your money for using the road.

Anyone see the parallel with Stalinist Russia where there were checkpoints on each road to ensure you went where you were told and did it in the time the government had decided it should take?

The article is here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...258751,00.html

Please remember that there is an election coming up. If you don't fight the cameras and the charges then you will not be driving, simple as that.

milo

im going to be unpopular again for this, but whatever...

to me this sounds like a GOOD thing.

it DOES say "UP TO £1.45 per mile", not that it would be 1.45/mile everywhere. i would imagine its only 1.45 thru central london. driving thru eastcambums**** or on a standard motorway probably wont even be a fraction of that:

if this does away with road tax, which is a flat tax regardless of how much u use the roads, but for simply owning a car, then i think its a good thing.

tiggers

Hedgehog,

No offence, but can you please explain to me how I can vote against this. Given that only Labour or Conservative are likely to win the election and that Labour are the party you want us to vote against can you point me to where the Conservative's have a printed manifesto saying they are to remove speed cameras and lower fuel tax etc.

Not being funny, but I don't see we can vote against it as to my knowledge no party (that is likely to be elected) is offering us any hope.

It seems like we either vote for the party who introduced all this lovely legislation such as speed cameras and fuel tax escalators or the party that has continued in the same vein - not much of a choice really is it?

tiggers.

milo

rubbish.. no WAY does the government care about what you do if you're not breaking the law. if they did, you'd be implanted at birth with a chip and be tracked.

in this case, they merely want to make more money to pay for the many public services they offer to you free of charge.

conspiracy theories are great and all, but you're the one on the gullable side if you truly believe that those in power want to see what you're doing at any given time.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

What I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned more often, is that 80% of the cost of road fuel is tax already. This tax is, by its very nature, a per-mile charge for the use of the road network. We already have road pricing - it's just collected at the pump rather than at a separate toll booth.

So, we already pay income (and other) tax which pays to build and maintain the roads, road tax for the privilege of actually owning a car, and fuel tax for the privilege of driving the car we've already paid for on the roads we've also already paid for.

Hands up who genuinely believes that fuel tax will be slashed if per-mile road pricing is introduced in a different way?

Kyl3cook

let me get this straight...as I do over 50,000 per year, I would be expected to pay £72,500.....**** me! one reason not to vote this bunch of prix back in!

milo

no.. what's more likely to happen is that the extra revenue generated will go into the horrendously under-funded nhs. and rightly so, imo.

Poor Guy

how would they put chips into classic cars ?
nothing to plug it into! no ECU or fancy shuch gizmos.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

All the money goes in one big pot, whether it comes from drivers, income tax, corporation tax or whatever. If the Government needs to raise more revenue (no doubt a topic for an endless, and completely separate, debate in itself), then that's still no justification to place all of that burden squarely on the shoulders of any one group - in this case, motorists.

skiddus_markus

I'd reluctantly pay a pence per mile charge on the condition that there was no tax on fuel or insurance.The chances of that are nil to **** all though.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Err where TF did they pick the study group from? Seems like they were picked straight out of rehab still suffering the effects from the mathadone

I don't think it's us you need to preach to, it's the seeming majority of non-snetters who do the usual of not voting, and the ones that don't really think of what putting the the cross in the labour box means.

Also the issue (conspiracy theory - I know) that sorted votes seem to get "lost" under the desk, strangely they all non-labour ones. I wonder how that happened?? OK the missing ones were BNP, but the point is that it was done, so the system is corrupt.

tiggers

No it's simply that there has to be a cross on the ballot paper not a paw print

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

LOL nice one

milo

taxing the motorist does two things: raises more money AND cuts down on vehicle usage and therefore pollution. this is what the government wants.

what's the alternative? put the tax burden on income tax or corporation tax and raise more money at the expense of people working (and therefore end up having to pay more our in benefits anyway)?

taxing luxury items, in particular those which in themselves cause public bads, such as burning petrol and smoking, are a proven stream of revenue which does NOT come at the expense of something that'd good for the economy.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

To pay for a service that's used by everybody, like the NHS, do you not believe it fairer that the cost of that service should also be borne by everybody?

My car is not a luxury item, it's the only means I have of getting to work. My office is in the middle of nowhere. The government has this bizarre notion of the 'unnecessary journey', as if people drive around to go places they don't really need to go. With fuel as heavily taxed as it already is, rest assured that this is not the case.

milo

that's not the point of taxation. the point of taxation is to REDISTRIBUTE the wealth. if everyone paid the same for the nhs, then there'd be no point in having a public funded nhs, because nobody would gain any benefit from it. some people HAVE to pay more than others for a public service so that others can pay less, to make there be any point in having the public service.

given that, i feel that those who choose to pollute the environment by driving a car (YES I AM IN THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE) should have to pay considerably more for public services than those who don't. when i get in my car, i accept that i should pay. just like i know that i should have to pay more for public services than the person who lives next door to me earning half what i do.

heck, road accidents are a major cost to the nhs in themselves, and these road accidents are almost always caused by fuel propelled vehicles. why should non-drivers be paying for this cost at all?

too many people think that the only cost motorists cause is road costs and this simply isnt true.

im never popular for posting this **** on a car forum, and being a driver of a fuel guzzling vehicle myself you may think it odd that i hold these views. but think about it - they're fair and the best for the economy. nobody forces us to drive anywhere, period.


that must suck to have had a gun held to your head and be forced to take a job in the middle of nowhere and to not live close enough to work to walk / cycle / bus / etc.

your car IS a luxury item, and NOBODY forces you to make a journey. it is a lifestyle choice that you have made to take a job in the middle of nowhere.

what can i say?

Kyl3cook

If I use Private medical instead of NHS, and use Private Schools for my children, I should be paying less tax, as I am not using these government institutions....why shoudl I have to pay twice for medical care, and so my children can get an eduction!

Cheers,

Matt

p.s, I haven't got any children yet...just thinking of the future

rav4640

you might be able to pay these costs, many are not, i own a van which i do light haulage with, 80.000 plus miles a year i wont be able to pay these charges if they come in, so it could end up packing it all in and on the dole i go, f**k em

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Here I really do have to take issue with you.

My company is a small British manufacturing company which exports goods all round the world. It is successful and brings a lot of money into the country. I work there as a design engineer.

The office is in a barn conversion - a listed building which would otherwise have been left derelict. When first built, proximity to public transport was not a consideration. Everyone who works there, can only get there by driving.

You seem to have a vision of a world in which everyone lives near enough to work to walk or cycle, or where public transport is viable. Think about this from the company's point of view for a moment - all of a sudden the already shallow pool of talented people from whom you can choose your workforce is decimated, because now you can only choose from those who can get to work without a car. What do you think would happen to the company?

You might also like to consider the state of the job market. Good jobs for talented people - in my field of expertise at least - are few and far between. My boss does, like most people's, force me to come into work every day. If I don't, I get fired, and have to find another job - which means either (a) I'm on jobseekers' allowance for a while, and therefore actually a burden to society, or (b) I take a job which pays less, which means I pay fewer taxes. In both cases my employer also doesn't get the benefit of my skills, which I like to believe would mean that the company is less successful and therefore brings less money into the country.

Do you believe that your utopia, in which everyone lives within a walk, cycle or public transport journey of their place of employment, is actually workable? What happens when a company needs to move offices? Or when someone gets married or has kids and has to move house? What happens to the workers when a company goes bust? And can everyone get a job which makes the very best of all their skills, or is a huge proportion of the resources that are put into the education system wasted?

Kyl3cook

totally right there mate.

milo

you don't HAVE to pay twice. private medical and private schooling are OPTIONAL. if you choose not to take the public system - that's your choice.

this is england - we have voted this system. if you don't like it, you don't HAVE to live here.

im american. i didnt like the american system of various things... so i moved. i didnt stay in america and complain about the system that i didnt like.

rav4640

sounds to me like you should p*ss off back over there, we dont need p*icks like you here

milo

every single one of your points is optional and a lifestyle choice. there is no getting around that. in the argument of "i HAVE to drive" you will never win, because it's ALWAYS optional due to the choices you've made in life.

you chose to take a job that requires you to drive. that was your choice, knowing that petrol taxes are there and have continually risen over time. that's ultimately the bottom line.

i dont believe this is utopia where everyone can live within walking distance - i just believe that it's ALWAYS a choice (and it is).

nobody cares if you live 200 miles away from work and choose to drive there in a car that does 15mpg each day, as long as you pay for the privilege. i dont understand why you have an issue with that.

hundreds/thousands/millions of people across the country are able to walk to work each day because they choose to. what on earth makes you so special that you're not able to (answer: nothing - it's a lifestyle choice you've made - which is of course fine, as long as you pay for it). the fact that you want to live where you choose, work where you choose, but not take the consequences (i.e. paying more in tax via fuel than others who live closer to their work) is what the issue here really is.

incidently, how do you feel about smokers who have to pay a ridiculously high tax for cigarettes? i suspect somehow that if you're a smoker, you'll be against high tax on cigs, otherwise you'll probably be for it (the alternative is that you pay the tax burden out of your income tax).

too many people are against higher taxes on motorists simply because they're a motorist. they fail to see the huge proven benefits to the economy that taxing the motorist has brought.

milo

typical lame response from a worthless jerk who has nothing useful to add to this thread

milo

or better still, take your attitude and get the f**k out of england.

we don't need chumps like you mooching of the system just because you don't get your own way.

cry baby.

rav4640

and the haulage industry, cost comes back to the housewife that does the shopping and uses her car to get there becouse most of the big stores are moving out of towns, so she pays twice

Kyl3cook

You don't seem to understand. This is my country (and other peoples of course)...why should I leave? I did not vote the ar$e holes, that are labour, in. Tax should be equally weighted for every single person in the UK! Income dependant tax should be abolished because it is utter bollox! why the F*** should one person who has worked all his/her life to earn good money, pay any more than someone who is too bone idle to get off their **** and do the same! (exceptions exist of course...but should be individually reviewed).

Everyone should pay for what they use...i.e street lighting, general maintenance, refuse. Anything extra should be weighted as to what the person uses....e.g., if you drive, there will be a tax on petrol to pay for the road maintenance. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this as it is completely 100% fair! Ok so there are cases where people may not be able to pay tax (legitimate ones!!!)...such as disabled or elderley...for these people, of course we should pay more tax, but it should be spread damn well equally! I'm pissed off about all these people who think it is their god given right to expect some people to pay more than others, for no reason but to line the pockets of people who spend it all on drugs, booze and ****! (again there are exceptions, but lazy people should be deported!!!)

bring on the backlash, but I know my views can't be argued with.

Matt

hedgehog

Tiggers made a good point about who do you vote for? I agree totally with your basic premise which is that the Tories started it and Labour are only carrying on the policies. However, where I believe you can make a difference is at a local level and on the doorstep. Tell politicians who come to your door that you will vote for the most motorist friendly party and let them know you mean it. Ask them where they stand on such policy matters and ask the same questions off local politicians.

In the end this grassroots message does get back up the party and it is the only weapon we have. I totally agree, Labour are as bad as the Tories and a change at the top tomorrow would change nothing. However, about 23 million motorists are voters and that is a considerable lobby so we should all be asking hard questions of our local politicians. If you feel inclined to do so then write to your local representitives and ask where they, and their party, stand on motoring issues. We need to make it clear to them that this WILL be a big issue at the next election and the party to get it wrong stand to lose 23 million votes before the polling station doors open.

If every politician is opening a mailbag full of motoring issues each and every day then be assured that the party will have to move it's position. You need only look at the success the BNP have been having, based upon politics at a local level, to see that this can and does work.

What we need now is a motorists party! 23 million potential voters, big oil companies and car firms as potential sources of "donations," an electorate sick of PC spin. You could hardly go wrong.

rav4640

like the we dont need bit, i was born here, dont think we really need yank bas*ards supporting a goverment thats out to screw the car owner every which way