• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Road pricing bill before Commons

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by Churchill
    Ban cars.

    Don't try and tax them out of existence. Ban them for non essential users.
    I'm beginning to wonder if this tax-out-of-existence thing is some sort of social experiment to see exactly how much money people are stupid enough to keep paying before they get the message. Year after year the price goes up and it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the ceiling yet. I mean, only 1.8m people signed that petition. The other 30 million car owners persumably aren't that bothered.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by dang65
      The other 30 million car owners persumably aren't that bothered.
      The other 30 million (myself included) think that signing an online petition is futile and the politicians will do whatever they want.
      Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

      Comment


        #23
        Why can't this tax go on petrol? petrol tax is very hard to avoid - unless you are a farmer...

        Comment


          #24
          From BBC HYS: This has nothing whatsoever to do with congestion. There will be no reduction in traffic because 99.9% of people will still need to drive a car. They'll simply just pay more for it, and NuLabour are very aware of this because they have done nothing to improve or introduce any alternatives.

          The principal aims of this absolute travesty are:

          1. Increase revenue
          2. Track movement of the law obiding populace
          3. Create more admin jobs
          4. £billions Contracts for their friends' companies

          CivilWar I'mWithBorisJohnson


          Spot on.
          Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by gingerjedi
            2. Track movement of the law obiding populace
            nope - we are all criminals now. Well apart from TB, GB and the cronies.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by gingerjedi
              From BBC HYS: The principal aims of this absolute travesty are:

              1. Increase revenue
              2. Track movement of the law obiding populace
              3. Create more admin jobs
              4. £billions Contracts for their friends' companies
              What incredible insight. This guy is some kind of prophet.

              Comment


                #27
                The race to the bottom continues. The shift of tax away from labour to consumption is now underway. As the global pool of labour expands the value of human work shrinks and is not worth taxing.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by threaded
                  Have you something to hide?
                  How much do you earn a year? (try this one on a permie near you).

                  What's you mother's maiden name?

                  et cetera, et cetera.
                  Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by dang65
                    What incredible insight. This guy is some kind of prophet.
                    I see you chose to miss this bit off:

                    They'll simply just pay more for it, and NuLabour are very aware of this because they have done nothing to improve or introduce any alternatives.

                    If I could drive to work (I have no other alternative) and the roads were comparable to the level of traffic in the summer school holidays I would be happy to pay a few quid a day, but they won’t be so why should I pay? Or is working beyond walking distance an outrageous luxury as well?
                    Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by gingerjedi
                      I see you chose to miss this bit off:

                      They'll simply just pay more for it, and NuLabour are very aware of this because they have done nothing to improve or introduce any alternatives.

                      If I could drive to work (I have no other alternative) and the roads were comparable to the level of traffic in the summer school holidays I would be happy to pay a few quid a day, but they won’t be so why should I pay? Or is working beyond walking distance an outrageous luxury as well?
                      Well, it's not true to say that public transport hasn't been improved in the last ten years. It's certainly a lot more clean and comfortable than I can ever remember previously, and I've been using public transport for nearly 40 years. It's not cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than the car. It's clearly a lot safer and smoother than ever before as well. Obviously it's not as quick and convenient as a car, but then a car isn't as quick and convenient as a helicopter. One has to draw the line somewhere... it's just that a lot of people reckon they can afford to keep running a car, regardless of the congestion, stink, noise and destruction it causes for the rest of us.

                      If you can afford to work a long distance from home then keep paying. I don't know what you're complaining about. Do you want some kind of special allowance because you travel a long way to work? I don't think it would be very popular among people who pay huge rents to live in cramped conditions in town if people like you living in massive houses in the countryside for less money were also getting a discount on their travel costs.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X