Martin Lewis on Daily Politics

Strider590

andygb wrote: »

The OP was talking about two military "adventures" which we should not be involved in, and which are costing us £billions.

Billions that come back into the economy, as almost everything is designed and built here by British businesses. As somebody else mentioned above, job loses would otherwise be enormous.

keystone

andygb wrote: »

The OP was talking about two military "adventures" which we should not be involved in, and which are costing us £billions.

Nah - thats a cover story. OPs got a bee in t'bonnet about boats in their backyard.

Cheers

Crabman

I haven't seen it yet (since the BBC cut iPlayer availabity to those with Nokia smartphones I've only been able to catch-up on TV at home) but here's the iPlayer link for anyone who's interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ms5xr/Daily_Politics_10_09_2012/

mikey72

Just looked at it.

Think it was fair to say Martin agreed that if they cut tax on fuel, it had to come from somewhere else. And he also said he didn't suggest cutting the tax.

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

Just looked at it.

Think it was fair to say Martin agreed that if they cut tax on fuel, it had to come from somewhere else. And he also said he didn't suggest cutting the tax.

That's always the issue with "stealth" tax, though.

It starts in a fairly innocuous way, that rises and rises, until it's no longer innocuous in that they then claim fait accomplis and is become "essential".

It begs a few questions, though - why are motorists fair game for extra taxation? If it's because of their "burden" on society, then surely at least some proportion of the punitive taxation should be used to address alternatives - and actually go some way to providing worthwhile alternatives.

But it's not based on the "green agenda" - after all they can't afford for it to be.

Nor do I really buy it's there to control growth - they probably factor in some growth.

It's there, simply because it could be introduced largely unnoticed, and can then be predicated on an excuse.

It's a divisive thing - ie usually implemented on things that can be pointed at as having an undesirably connotation that needs control or reduction - which is probably the big lie - those unaffected will largely see it as fair game - after all, it's taxation that may not have much of an effect on them. Those that do, complain. There's not much empathy in society, these days.

mikey72

Wongsky wrote: »

That's always the issue with "stealth" tax, though.

It starts in a fairly innocuous way, that rises and rises, until it's no longer innocuous in that they then claim fait accomplis and is become "essential".

It begs a few questions, though - why are motorists fair game for extra taxation? If it's because of their "burden" on society, then surely at least some proportion of the punitive taxation should be used to address alternatives - and actually go some way to providing worthwhile alternatives.

But it's not based on the "green agenda" - after all they can't afford for it to be.

Nor do I really buy it's there to control growth - they probably factor in some growth.

It's there, simply because it could be introduced largely unnoticed, and can then be predicated on an excuse.

It's a divisive thing - ie usually implemented on things that can be pointed at as having an undesirably connotation that needs control or reduction - which is probably the big lie - those unaffected will largely see it as fair game - after all, it's taxation that may not have much of an effect on them. Those that do, complain. There's not much empathy in society, these days.

That's always a problem with paying for infrastructure. Nobody wants to do it.
The country is in debt, heavily. But cutting tax is always going to be a vote winner. So no-one in their right mind is going to publicly increase it. So the money is borrowed off the next generation mainly. Only downside to that is I also need the next generation to pay my pension. Which is being put back reguarly now as well.
So I as a car driver, who does a family milage of 40K plus a year, am going to have to accept tax on petrol as a necessity.

It does also make me consider my usage, so the green part works. There are a lot of times when I won't take the car shopping when I would have before. I either leave it until the next time, or order online. The family also find it's as cheap to use the train, rather than take the car and pay for parking.

Oil is a diminishing resource, so the higher tax is certainly making me use less of it.
Economy is considered essential to buying a new car, as is the tax band now, so cleaner motoring as well.

So overall, as I have to pay the tax somewhere anyway, I don't think the balance is too far out. (Then again, I also support paying to use town centre car parks, so I am fairly well on my own in my views)

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

That's always a problem with paying for infrastructure. Nobody wants to do it.

That's not really my argument - I think people accept they have to pay for it. True enough, tax is rarely something people give willingly, but my point, really, is about the equity of the situation.

You can talk about debt, you can talk about need, you can talk about diminishing resources - and that's all well and good - but that's not why stealth taxes are in place, nor why they are levied where they are.

Successive governments (ie not just the current...) can't afford for people to suddenly develop a green conscience and en-masse start using less fossil fuels - they've bet the shop on the public doing the opposite.

It's not for any great purpose, it's so The Man can smoke tax past the people.

mikey72 wrote: »

The country is in debt, heavily. But cutting tax is always going to be a vote winner. So no-one in their right mind is going to publicly increase it. So the money is borrowed off the next generation mainly. Only downside to that is I also need the next generation to pay my pension. Which is being put back reguarly now as well.
So I as a car driver, who does a family milage of 40K plus a year, am going to have to accept tax on petrol as a necessity.

It's only a necessity, now, because of 2 main factors:-

1. A while back, politicians realised that direct taxation wasn't favourable in terms of votes
2. A cash cow (well several, but I suspect this is one of the largest) was spotted in terms of something people use a lot, and can be mad out to be a patsy on pseudo-ecological reasons.

mikey72 wrote: »

It does also make me consider my usage, so the green part works. There are a lot of times when I won't take the car shopping when I would have before. I either leave it until the next time, or order online. The family also find it's as cheap to use the train, rather than take the car and pay for parking.

Thing is, sensible, thinking, middle class people may take all those factors into account - diminishing oil reserves, the environment, the cost - but in general, the masses probably won't. Some segments of society won't easily be able to: circumstance, time constraints etc.

But here's the kicker - the government can't afford for everybody to start questioning / reducing / stopping fuel usage - they can only afford to pitch taxation at just the right level, to gather as much revenue as the willing, voting, public will tolerate (+ or - a certain, certain, based on the British Stiff Upper Lip...)

mikey72 wrote: »

Oil is a diminishing resource, so the higher tax is certainly making me use less of it.

No doubt that's great and all - but it's not why they're doing it.

mikey72 wrote: »

Economy is considered essential to buying a new car, as is the tax band now, so cleaner motoring as well.

Thing is, though, overall, how green is it to be consumers of new cars all the time, rather than simply running cars a little longer (that doesn't mandate keeping polluting old bangers on the road, there is a middle ground that needn't be occluded)?

mikey72 wrote: »

So overall, as I have to pay the tax somewhere anyway, I don't think the balance is too far out. (Then again, I also support paying to use town centre car parks, so I am fairly well on my own in my views)

I just don't get why additional burden of taxation shouldn't be more equitably spread through society - well I get it, actually - it's not a vote winner - it's easier and more sellable to marginalise the situation.

All the same, it doesn't sit right with me.

If the extra taxation really did have teeth - if it really was going to address the ills of private motoring, and really was providing an alternative, I'd no doubt have a different perspective - but it's not.

It's just a means of gathering a lot of money, with a good excuse, out of a marginalised group. Same with tax on fags and booze - it's not done with conscience, it's done because they can.

mikey72

Wongsky wrote: »

............It's just a means of gathering a lot of money, with a good excuse, out of a marginalised group. Same with tax on fags and booze - it's not done with conscience, it's done because they can.

I don't think you could ever call motorists a marginalised group.
A few years ago there was about 1 car for every two people.
So about 50/50
As that has no doubt increased, so non car owners are probably the marginalised group now.
Same with booze, I would hazard a guess more people drink than not.

Wongsky wrote: »

.........But here's the kicker - the government can't afford for everybody to start questioning / reducing / stopping fuel usage....

Most people already have.

Wongsky

mikey72 wrote: »

I don't think you could ever call motorists a marginalised group.
A few years ago there was about 1 car for every two people.
So about 50/50
As that has no doubt increased, so non car owners are probably the marginalised group now.
Same with booze, I would hazard a guess more people drink than not.

What I mean, is it starts out as a marginalised thing - at first, the only people to whinge and complain, are those that are largely marginalised - those people who drive a lot of miles that they can't easily get out of, and can't get any tax back; or those people who smoke and drink a lot, but don't have much of an income.

Then it's ramped up, and starts to bite a whole lot bigger audience - but then it's got momentum.

Stealth tax at such high levels didn't just arrive overnight, it was introduced and grown, and acquiesced to, right up to the point when it affects a lot more people, and the whinges and complaints aren't just from a small number of unreasonable people.

mikey72 wrote: »

Most people already have.

Not buying it - not for a second.

Middle class, vegetarian, Gruaniad reading, Waitrose shopping people maybe - but when I walk my child to school, the congestion around it with cars, seems ever increasing - and the demographic is hardly just all the "haves".

colino

The tax on fuel is the issue to be addressed, don't be diverted by the fall in international reserves, there isn't one. BP have said there is 40 years left of crude, as they have done for the past 30 years or so and the "proved" reserves are any number our middle-eastern friends care to make up. Green is only an issue because money is to be made by trading carbon credits, thats right, bits of paper, just like money with no intrinsic value.