Legal fuel protests to commence.........

scbk

anewman wrote: »

Apparently a growing threat, a threat as yet with no firm plans, is to ban older cars (older than 10/15 years old) from city centres. It's happened in one city in Germany and apparently Edinburgh was going to consider it.

This is happening in London, starting in about 2months, affecting lorries over 12t. Then in july, lorries over 3.5t, busses, and coaches. If they are belived to not comply with certain emissions regulations, then it will cost £200 a day to be within the m25
In a couple of years it will affect diesel vans made before 2002. It will then cost me £100 to drive within the m25, even just for a few minutes, even at 2am.
I think it effects taxis aswell

If you want more info just google for LEZ or "low emissions zone"

Crabman

Conor wrote: »

Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association have no plans for any action at all - mainly because Joe Public bought the lies that were bandied about by the Govt during the 2000 protests which is why the ones planned a few years ago didn't happen either.

All that's happening now is that hauliers are putting a specific "Fuel Surcharge" entry on their invoices.

What did the Govt say during the 2000 protests?

Poppycat

TB said to GB. Gordon what shall we do about the fuel protesters?"
GB lets make them think they have won but we will get our own back in the years to come and let peasants and road haulers find it so expensive to drive they will either use alternative ways or go bust. Who cares about all the foreign haulers who contribute nothing.

"GB right TB who's round is it?"

Crabman wrote: »

What did the Govt say during the 2000 protests?

zolablue25

wolvoman wrote: »

Surely fuel duty is quite the opposite of what you are saying. If you buy fuel then you have already declared that you can afford the tax. If you can't afford the tax then you don't buy the fuel.

Furthermore, poorer people usually drive smaller cars that use less fuel and hence pay less tax.

In my experience driving through various social housing estates poorer people buy whatever cars they can afford, quite often larger cars as they tend to be cheaper as they get old (check out adtrader). Also, if you have a family a small car isn't going to do the job. Also, as has already been stated, newer cars are far more fuel efficient than older ones, and generally, new cars are bought by more wealthy people than poor ones. If you don't work for a living and live within walking distance of the shops the fuel rises won't have too much effect on you (except for increased transport costs for goods). If you have to travel to work increased fuel charges will definitely effect you whether you are rich or poor, and proportionately to income it will effect poor people more. As I stated in my previous post this rather goes against the left wings 'redistribution of wealth' ethos.

zolablue25

Crabman wrote: »

What did the Govt say during the 2000 protests?

That the tax raised paid for hospitals.

Conor_3

Crabman wrote: »

What did the Govt say during the 2000 protests?

That we were preventing fuel from being delivered to the emergency services and that all the operations they decided to cancel were our fault and that there'd be no food in the shops by the end of the week. They constantly went on about how all the lights would be going out unless we got our way which was far from the truth.

They also glossed over the fact that there was only a fuel shortage at the stations because everyone decided to panic buy at the first mention of it.

There was a lot of negative statements being put out by the Govt as well as some opportunistic things being done, such as operations being cancelled, and blamed on the strike.

MORPH3US

I really wish that there was another fuel strike, they are a pain in the !!!! but I would happily cope with one as a big **** you to this thieving government!!!

Problem is, after last time, they would just arrest the ring leaders and everyone else would fall back into line... people are too scared to take action for fear of being arrested... I know I am, I have a career ahead of me that will be well and truly up the spout with a criminal reccord.

M

Crabman

Thanks for that I wasn't driving at the time so didn't take much notice of what was said but it's a shame people bought it so easily.

Have the opposition mentioned cutting fuel duty? It's all very well having GB for it but if the Conservatives aren't going to rectify the situation, I guess that could explain the sense of apathy among motorists :think:

alanrowell

zolablue25 wrote: »

Most taxes are supposedly based on one's ability to pay

Very few taxes - apart from income tax - are based on the ability to pay.

VAT isn't, Stamp Duty isn't, Council Tax isn't, Road Fund Tax isn't, Air Passenger Duty isn't.

Since Thatcher most taxes in the UK are based on consumption so if you don't want to pay them then you don't consume them

zolablue25

alanrowell wrote: »

Very few taxes - apart from income tax - are based on the ability to pay.

VAT isn't, Stamp Duty isn't, Council Tax isn't, Road Fund Tax isn't, Air Passenger Duty isn't.

Since Thatcher most taxes in the UK are based on consumption so if you don't want to pay them then you don't consume them

Fair point. Only mitigating points would be that you can get relief from council tax if on social, and, I suppose, you could stretch the point that stamp duty on houses comes in at a point where you could afford to pay it, although I'm on shakey ground with this one.