We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tolls 'could pay for new roads'...
Comments
-
Love this report - firstly lots of motoring taxes are not really motoring taxes at all then without giving any figures it is stated that road infrastructure and maintenance costs far exceed those bits of motoring taxation that are deemed to be motoring taxes....In the interests of balance, the view from the lobby in the other corner. (SERA is linked with the Labour Party.)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/103we29.htm
"road users fail to pay the true road costs by a very large factor"I think....0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Car useage in this country is decreasing anyway, as the cost of motoring increases. .
And economic performance is decreasing along with it.
Taxing road users to death is not the way forward.
If the government or private industry wants to invest in building a network of public transport that can effectively compete with the car for efficiency, comfort and price, good luck to them.
However it's not remotely acceptable to skew the result through financially penalising motoring via higher and higher taxation.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »And economic performance is decreasing along with it.
As usual, you have it the wrong way round.
Our economic performance is dependent on being able to reliably transport goods around the country from manufacturers to ports and retailers. It is also dependent on staff being able to arrive at work on time each day. Congestion on the roads costs us dearly.
Squeezed household incomes due to the economic crisis means that people restrict their travel to essential usage of their cars. They are far less likely to use their cars for leisure activities.
Stop taxing the motorist so much, and at the same time divert more public spending towards roads? Who do you suggest that the government goes to to replace these tax revenues and fund the additional expenditure? It may have escaped your attention, but even with "austerity" for almost 3 years we are still spending far more than we are bringing in through taxation. Think of this as austerity light. You really aint seen nothing yet!"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »Our economic performance is dependent on being able to reliably transport goods around the country from manufacturers to ports and retailers. It is also dependent on staff being able to arrive at work on time each day. Congestion on the roads costs us dearly.
No, what costs us dearly is charging motorists nearly 1000% more in tax than is spent on roads.Squeezed household incomes due to the [STRIKE]economic crisis[/STRIKE] ever increasing tax burden means that people restrict their travel to essential usage of their cars. They are far less likely to use their cars for leisure activities.
Fixed that for you.Stop taxing the motorist so much, and at the same time divert more public spending towards roads?
No, not at all.
Use the money collected from motoring to pay for the roads and infrastructure repairs and upgrades we badly need.
Stop treating motorists like a cash cow to subsidise general taxation.Who do you suggest that the government goes to to replace these tax revenues and fund the additional expenditure?
This country needs to have a very honest conversation about the costs of taxation in general, and stealth taxation in particular.
The political narrative is dishonest in the extreme when it comes to taxation, and it's about time that changed.It may have escaped your attention, but even with "austerity" for almost 3 years we are still spending far more than we are bringing in through taxation. Think of this as austerity light. You really aint seen nothing yet!
"Austerity" is a failed doctrine, we need growth as well as cuts, and we're not going to see that in any great measure until either taxation declines or spending on productive ventures (like infrastructure or housing) increases.
At the moment we have the worst of both worlds.
An inefficient government taxing us to death, and spending what they raise in all the wrong places.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »No, what costs us dearly is charging motorists nearly 1000% more in tax than is spent on roads.
Fixed that for you.
No, not at all.
Use the money collected from motoring to pay for the roads and infrastructure repairs and upgrades we badly need.
Stop treating motorists like a cash cow to subsidise general taxation.
This country needs to have a very honest conversation about the costs of taxation in general, and stealth taxation in particular.
The political narrative is dishonest in the extreme when it comes to taxation, and it's about time that changed.
"Austerity" is a failed doctrine, we need growth as well as cuts, and we're not going to see that in any great measure until either taxation declines or spending on productive ventures (like infrastructure or housing) increases.
At the moment we have the worst of both worlds.
An inefficient government taxing us to death, and spending what they raise in all the wrong places.
Absolute nonsense. Taxation in the UK has remained at just under 40% of GDP for many years. Government spending however has been 50% of GDP. This has created a false sense of affluence amongst the UK population.
As I have pointed out in another thread, most taxes that you seem to think of as stealth taxes are, in fact, voluntary taxes. This includes taxation on the motorist. If a car is being used in connection with someone's employment or business then they can claim tax relief on the costs of that mileage. Any private mileage over and above that is a choice, and the motorist chooses to pay the extra tax for the convenience of using their car rather than public transport.
We certainly don't need to reduce the tax burden in this country. We DO need to match up public spending with the amount of tax raised - probably at around 45% of GDP each. In my opinion, voluntary taxes are clearly the way to go about raising the level of taxation. Those who can afford to pay them will continue to do so. Others will sacrifice convenience to save money. Its all a matter of personal choice."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
MacMickster wrote: »In my opinion, voluntary taxes are clearly the way to go about raising the level of taxation. Those who can afford to pay them will continue to do so. Others will sacrifice convenience to save money. Its all a matter of personal choice.
The only down side to "voluntary" taxes is that they tend to be more easily afforded by the richer in society, who retain choice.
I certainly don't have a problem with "luxury" items being taxed more heavily. the discussion then centres around what is luxury.
Luxury to one section of society is considered a necessity for another. Premier football tickets, subscription TV, alcohol, cigarettes, tablets, big flatscreens, smartphones, video games, overseas holidays, air travel, cars over a certain size etc.
For those that are poorer they are denied any choice, they simply have to accept the few scraps they are tossed. They are simply priced out of choice."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
MacMickster wrote: »We certainly don't need to reduce the tax burden in this country. We DO need to match up public spending with the amount of tax raised - probably at around 45% of GDP each. In my opinion, voluntary taxes are clearly the way to go about raising the level of taxation. Those who can afford to pay them will continue to do so. Others will sacrifice convenience to save money. Its all a matter of personal choice.
Utterly bonkers. Anyone who believes a government and its civil servants can be trusted to wisely spend 45 per cent of the country's GDP cannot have been paying attention to the behemoth of waste, corruption and inefficiency that has characterised government spending since the war.
Reading this prescription is like reading the words of a mediaeval doctor who, close to killing the patient with a quack remedy, proclaims "this isn't working! We must do more of t!"0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Luxury to one section of society is considered a necessity for another. Premier football tickets, subscription TV, alcohol, cigarettes, tablets, big flatscreens, smartphones, video games, overseas holidays, air travel, cars over a certain size etc.
For those that are poorer they are denied any choice, they simply have to accept the few scraps they are tossed. They are simply priced out of choice.
I totally agree. Everyone needs to cut their cloth according to their means.
For many years however, government spending, way in excess of tax revenues, has allowed people to feel far richer than they actually are, and so contributed to the entitlement culture.
We have seen the relatively well off on these forums who feel that they are entitled to their child benefits, pensioners bus passes etc.
We have employers who feel entitled to pay miniscule wages to their staff, because the government will top up the wages through in-work benefits.
We have those who feel that they should be entitled to benefits to help them to pay for some or all of the luxuries that you have described.
We have been living above our means, both as a nation and individuals. Even those who consider themselves prudent have benefitted from the apparent boost to the economy of the trillion pound government borrowing being spent. Now is the time for a reality check.
We can't go on spending as we have done. Increased taxes and cuts in public spending are both unpalatable and essential. There is no way to sugar the necessary medicine."When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson0 -
Utterly bonkers. Anyone who believes a government and its civil servants can be trusted to wisely spend 45 per cent of the country's GDP cannot have been paying attention to the behemoth of waste, corruption and inefficiency that has characterised government spending since the war.
Reading this prescription is like reading the words of a mediaeval doctor who, close to killing the patient with a quack remedy, proclaims "this isn't working! We must do more of t!"
Question is who do we trust to spend our money wisely?
The net cost to the man in the street whether we pay more tax or simply buy it off the shelf will be little different.
We may, of course, decide not to buy something, or not provide for it in advance and it will simply cost us a premium when we do need it."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Question is who do we trust to spend our money wisely?
.
The answer simple. The man or woman who earned it. The further away from that person, the worse the way it is spent is likely to be.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards