Melodramatic Tax Nonsense

[kalniel]

But we, the public, aren't getting a look-in. Politicians have forgotten how to be honest, largely because the press are forever trying to catch them out and make them look bad. We need a press that respect effort, integrity and competence when it's used, and even competence allows for mistakes. It also allows for policy to change because the situation has changed. But we also need a press that holds politicians up to the harsh light of publicity and public accountability when they don't exhibit that effort or integrity, or when mistakes are bad enough as to be rank incompetence .....which in all honesty won't happen that often.

Completely agree.

They should be able to say 'we're increasing this tax for polluting cars and cutting it for less polluting cars because we think it'll encourage people to change to less polluting cars, and the poorest of people are less likely to be affected than those that can afford it'. And have faith that the British public are sensible enough to think of other people, or at least the long run for themselves. So what if more people end up paying more if they are people that can afford it and it's better for them in the long run?

Problem is the voting public don't seem to think about the long run or other people - a lot of them seem to make the most noise about what affects them immediately and long term consequences be damned.

[Barakka]

Damn that was a full and concise reply Saracen, and to be honest for the most part I agree with you. I was pointing out how I found it interesting the angle the media chose to use when reporting it in order to get maximum effect, and how their choice of words could quite easily leave people to pick it apart and think the opposite. I suppose showing an easy view to take rather than what I neccissarily thought.

Do you know it wouldn't actually surprise me if this:

In what sense does 18% being better off and 43% being worse off constitute a "majority" benefiting?

Could be taken as 18% better off, 39% no worse off, and 43% worse off, therefore 57% either better or no worse off - in a economic climate where every service or commodity is increasing in price then no change in price is as much of a benefit as a saving.

Something does need to be done, and as badly constructed as this is, it does seem to be having some effect, not saying the right effect, but some. Just seems to be a lot of ill-prepared, badly thought out, and poorly executed ideas coming out to create effect and draw attention from the more serious issues in society being overlooked.

[schmunk]

Busy day at work today, Saracen?

[Saracen]

Busy day at work today, Saracen?

An advantage of being my own boss. I work when I want, and only when I want.

On the other hand, a disadvantage of being my own boss - no work, no pay.

[Rave]

I don't really care about the mistruths spouted by Gordon Brown (or not, if you're that way inclined). I've always known that he's an egomaniac windbag who'd sell his own soul to protect his "legacy".

What I do care about is that this new tax regime is a load of disingenuous crap.

It's very simple. To create CO2 and contribute to global warming, you have to burn fuel. Albeit that cars vary slightly in efficiency, the more fuel you burn the more CO2 you produce. Therefore, if you want to tax people according to how much CO2 they produce, and thus incentivise them to buy and use less fuel, you should scrap VED altogether and put all the duty on fuel.

It's not bloody rocket science, is it?