Bad news for the low paid and carers

[Nick H]

The cost of private motoring has fallen and is now lower in real terms (i.e. taking account of inflation) than it was in 1975!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1426363,00.html

There are numerous economic techniques of measuring the costs and benefits - both social and private - of motoring, and I have not seen one that claims that the private cost of motoring is equal to the social cost.

There is nothing in the UK that raises more tax revenue for the government.

This is an absurd claim. Income tax, NICs, corp tax, and VAT all contribute far more to the Treasury's coffers.

I am afraid its all too easy for some to jump on the bandwagon without any real thought on the subject.

Classic. The pro-motorist lobby, as we have seen on this board, use simple man-off-the-street arguments with little or no reference to the facts. If you asked most people they would have no idea that the cost of motoring has fallen - but it has. People are just too ignorant. People in favour of the motorist paying less for the enormous damage it causes are rather like the tailend no. 11 who keeps swinging and missing outside the off stump ball after ball, connecting with nothing but thin air. Or like the boxer who is on the ropes and about to go out but thrashes wildly in the futile hope of landing some fortuitous knock out blow. They throw simpleton tabloid arguments around, but fail to connect. They miss the point. Theirs are desperate arguments. In short, they haven't a clue.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[HighPressure]

The cost of private motoring has fallen and is now lower in real terms (i.e. taking account of inflation) than it was in 1975!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1426363,00.html

There are numerous economic techniques of measuring the costs and benefits - both social and private - of motoring, and I have not seen one that claims that the private cost of motoring is equal to the social cost.

This is an absurd claim. Income tax, NICs, corp tax, and VAT all contribute far more to the Treasury's coffers.

Classic. The pro-motorist lobby, as we have seen on this board, use simple man-off-the-street arguments with little or no reference to the facts. If you asked most people they would have no idea that the cost of motoring has fallen - but it has. People are just too ignorant. People in favour of the motorist paying less for the enormous damage it causes are rather like the tailend no. 11 who keeps swinging and missing outside the off stump ball after ball, connecting with nothing but thin air. Or like the boxer who is on the ropes and about to go out but thrashes wildly in the futile hope of landing some fortuitous knock out blow. They throw simpleton tabloid arguments around, but fail to connect. They miss the point. Theirs are desperate arguments. In short, they haven't a clue.

OK, if I accept you argument which I do not, I have to say ask where is the tax currently being paid by motorised going? You say you want more, I say can we have the percentage of environmental cleansing we are paying done before you come back for extra, please?

[The PIT]

It hasn't fallen Insurance has gone up fuel has gone up. Note the ignoring inflation factor but what has happened Public transport has got more exspensive. Besides I haven't been driving thirty years.

Bascially you're all mouth and offer no solutions just the the pro Goverment stance that everything has to be taxed. Yup on you're on the ropes and the ref has counted you out. one two three four five six seven eight nine ten it's over.

While we're at it lets bring road safety into it. Good example within five minutes from where I live. Council put sin speed humps. One set on a road where your lucky to see a car in two minutes. Yet the road has detoroated back almost to it's clay base. The other road is a main road but it so badly broken up before patching it was dragging you car to the right. TRying to stop in a striaght line would be near impossible. In afew months the patches will be gone and we'll have the same problem.

[Nick H]

It hasn't fallen Insurance has gone up fuel has gone up. Note the ignoring inflation factor

It's amazing isn't it. I put up a link demonstrating that the cost of motoring has fallen - the first time someone in this thread has resorted to facts/evidence/statistics rather than anecdotal assertion - and within ten minutes you say the cost has not fallen. What the f is the point of having reasoned debate if you can't even accept the facts? There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

The cost of motoring is not confined to insurance (I haven't seen evidence that insurance has gone up, but I'll have a look and in the meantime would be interested to see where you get that bit of info, I genuinely don't know how the cost of insurance has changed, though) or fuel, there is the cost of the purchase, the associated depreciation, and repair works, all of which have fallen.

And the study does not ignore inflation, it takes into account inflation, as I said at the top.

PIT, I can now see why you had trouble getting a job at 30, and at 40.

OK, if I accept you argument which I do not, I have to say ask where is the tax currently being paid by motorised going? You say you want more, I say can we have the percentage of environmental cleansing we are paying done before you come back for extra, please?

Which part of my argument do you not accept? The bit where I said that motoring does not contribute the largest source of the Exchequer's revenue? That assertion was demonstrably a falsehood and symptomatic of your complete lack of knowledge. And as for where the money is going, well it's being wasted by socialists who were probably voted in by the very same people who squeal about the perfectly reasonable suggestion of road charging.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[crimsone]

My insurance on my first car, with a clean and new license at age 21 (a 1 litre old banger of a citroen AX) cost me £889 (and that was cheap!!! Everywhere else i looked wanted around £1.3k!)

My current car is a 1.6 Astra - old but well looked after for its age. It's currently costing me about £460 (can't remember the exact figure off hand, but it's fairly close). Anybody else out there with roughly equivelant figures from before then?

(might be worth adding that I'm 25 now! lol)

Edited May 26, 2007 by crimsone

[Nick H]

It's amazing isn't it. I put up a link demonstrating that the cost of motoring has fallen - the first time someone in this thread has resorted to facts/evidence/statistics rather than anecdotal assertion - and within ten minutes you say the cost has not fallen. What the f is the point of having reasoned debate if you can't even accept the facts? There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

The cost of motoring is not confined to insurance (I haven't seen evidence that insurance has gone up, but I'll have a look and in the meantime would be interested to see where you get that bit of info, I genuinely don't know how the cost of insurance has changed, though) or fuel, there is the cost of the purchase, the associated depreciation, and repair works, all of which have fallen.

And the study does not ignore inflation, it takes into account inflation, as I said at the top.

PIT, I can now see why you had trouble getting a job at 30, and at 40.

OK, if I accept you argument which I do not, I have to say ask where is the tax currently being paid by motorised going? You say you want more, I say can we have the percentage of environmental cleansing we are paying done before you come back for extra, please?

Which part of my argument do you not accept? The bit where I said that motoring does not contribute the largest source of the Exchequer's revenue? That assertion was demonstrably a falsehood and symptomatic of your complete lack of knowledge. And as for where the money is going, well it's being wasted by socialists who were probably voted in by the very same people who squeal about the perfectly reasonable suggestion of road charging.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

It's amazing isn't it. I put up a link demonstrating that the cost of motoring has fallen - the first time someone in this thread has resorted to facts/evidence/statistics rather than anecdotal assertion - and within ten minutes you say the cost has not fallen. What the f is the point of having reasoned debate if you can't even accept the facts? There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

The cost of motoring is not confined to insurance (I haven't seen evidence that insurance has gone up, but I'll have a look and in the meantime would be interested to see where you get that bit of info, I genuinely don't know how the cost of insurance has changed, though) or fuel, there is the cost of the purchase, the associated depreciation, and repair works, all of which have fallen.

And the study does not ignore inflation, it takes into account inflation, as I said at the top.

PIT, I can now see why you had trouble getting a job at 30, and at 40.

Jeez you're thick.

How come I'm paying the same level of insurance as did twenty years ago despite having a none modifed car and a car with a smaller engine. The article clearly says ignoring the inflation factor. Fuel £4.35 per gallon these days. Okay George could have made this higher but fuel protests swayed his hand.

How about answering the other posts where I suggested progress or the post I made about Sheffield and the cheap transport system it used to have.

Look you're talking crap suggesting people move homes change jobs as though it's easy as making toast in the morning.

Again your posting nothing.

[Nick H]

How come I'm paying the same level of insurance as did twenty years ago despite having a none modifed car and a car with a smaller engine.

How about answering the other posts where I suggested progress or the post I made about Sheffield and the cheap transport system it used to have.

I'm truly in schock at your breathtaking ignorance. The reason you're paying "the same" insurance that you did twenty years ago is, you may not know this, the UK like almost every other economy experiences inflation. For your benefit, inflation is rising prices. Retail prices have roughly doubled in the last twenty years. So if you're paying "the same" now as you were 20 years ago, the cost has actually fallen in real terms! Thank you, you've proved my point!

The article clearly says ignoring the inflation factor.

Bloody hell, sometimes I wonder why I post on boards with people of this level of intelligence.

The article says "the cost of owning a car for Britain's 24.5 million motorists has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 1975". Yet again, let me explain what real terms mean. It means taking account of inflation. The opposite of real terms is nominal terms, ie. the prices that you see on the tin or on the invoice.

Fuel £4.35 per gallon these days. Okay George could have made this higher but fuel protests swayed his hand.

Who is George?

Of course I want to see cheaper public transport, I want to see cheaper public transport as much as you do. But I also want to ensure that the private cost of motoring is reflected in the cost overall to society of using a car. The two are not incompatible.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

So the statements so far.

My viewpoint is that a proper intergrated public transport system should be in place frist of all. This should be a public service where all profits go into improving the service. When this is in place then you can introduce taxes.

Nick H viewpoint so far stated. Tax car travel regardless. If you live in a remote village tough you should move. If you commute tough it's your fault for trying to get a job.

[crimsone]

I'm truly in schock at your breathtaking ignorance. The reason you're paying higher insurance than you did twenty years ago is, you may not know this, the UK like almost every other economy experiences inflation. For your benefit, inflation is rising prices. Retail prices have roughly doubled in the last twenty years.

Bloody hell, sometimes I wonder why I post on boards with people of this level of intelligence.

The article says "the cost of owning a car for Britain's 24.5 million motorists has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 1975". Yet again, let me explain what real terms mean. It means taking account of inflation. The opposite of real terms is nominal terms, ie. the prices that you see on the tin or on the invoice.

Who is George?

Of course I want to see cheaper public transport, I want to see cheaper public transport as much as you do. But I also want to ensure that the private cost of motoring is reflected in the cost overall to society of using a car. The two are not incompatible.

While the train providers are trying to price people out of the market to solve overcrowding rather than putting on extra carriages, the two are indeed incompatible... and all this moving people are going to have to do is going to mean far more lorries and vans on the roads. One of the biggest congestion problems out there is actually just that - lorries... and with road pricing, even that's going to suddenly become a lot more expensive to do.

Edited May 26, 2007 by crimsone

[HighPressure]

Which part of my argument do you not accept? The bit where I said that motoring does not contribute the largest source of the Exchequer's revenue? That assertion was demonstrably a falsehood and symptomatic of your complete lack of knowledge. And as for where the money is going, well it's being wasted by socialists who were probably voted in by the very same people who squeal about the perfectly reasonable suggestion of road charging.

I got to agree with some others on here, you are offering nothing at all, you even suggest the goverment is wasting the taxes already collected yet you want more? Who for and for what then? As for lack of knowledge oil provides 19% of UK indirect taxation, making it the largest single tax raising item by a massive amount. The only thing larger is VAT but this is on nearly all products including fuel.

I want the public transport system I have already paid for about 3 times over, then I want the rest of my motoring taxes to go on the environmental impact of it, and then if more is needed come back then!

Edited May 26, 2007 by HighPressure

[crimsone]

making it the largest single tax raising item by a massive amount. The only thing larger is VAT but this is on nearly all products including fuel.

Not forgetting of course that VAT is even payable on fuel duty. lol

[The PIT]

I'm truly in schock at your breathtaking ignorance. The reason you're paying higher insurance than you did twenty years ago is, you may not know this, the UK like almost every other economy experiences inflation. For your benefit, inflation is rising prices. Retail prices have roughly doubled in the last twenty years.

Bloody hell, sometimes I wonder why I post on boards with people of this level of intelligence.

The article says "the cost of owning a car for Britain's 24.5 million motorists has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 1975". Yet again, let me explain what real terms mean. It means taking account of inflation. The opposite of real terms is nominal terms, ie. the prices that you see on the tin or on the invoice.

Who is George?

Of course I want to see cheaper public transport, I want to see cheaper public transport as much as you do. But I also want to ensure that the private cost of motoring is reflected in the cost overall to society of using a car. The two are not incompatible.

You the ignorant one.

I wish you wouldn't as your arguments are rather boring.

Quote ignoring inflation The data took account the cost .....

Now I did say that you could argue that cost of a new car has dropped. Guess you missed that bit.

Over to you on my own viewpoints to solve the problem which you keep ignoring.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[Nick H]

I got to agree with some others on here, you are offering nothing at all, you even suggest the goverment is wasting the taxes already collected yet you want more? Who for and for what then? As for lack of knowledge oil provides 19% of UK indirect taxation, making it the largest single tax raising item by a massive amount. The only thing larger is VAT but this is on nearly all products including fuel.

Road charging would not be a tax in my ideal world, where the roads would not be owned and maintained by the inefficient State but would be privately owned and the owners charge tolls. But before the roads are privatised I accept the only ways of reducing congestion is to hand over money to the State. I make a distinction between taxes on behaviour and taxes on wealth/work. In general, I don't have a problem with tax on behaviour, particularly where that behaviour causes social ills, like smoking, motoring. It's taxes on hard work, thrift and the right to pass on gifts to whomsoever you choose which I have a problem with.

I repeat, income tax, NIC, corporation tax and VAT account for larger shares of Treasury receipts than fuel and vehicle excise duty. This ignorance is quite shocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tax_system

[The PIT]

While the train providers are trying to price people out of the market to solve overcrowding rather than putting on extra carriages, the two are indeed incompatible... and all this moving people are going to have to do is going to mean far more lorries and vans on the roads. One of the biggest congestion problems out there is actually just that - lorries... and with road pricing, even that's going to suddenly become a lot more expensive to do.

You know living near a railway line for forty years it's amazing how the service has reduced and the number carriages on the trains that still run kave shrunk.

Road charging would not be a tax in my ideal world, where the roads would not be owned and maintained by the inefficient State but would be privately owned and the owners charge tolls. But before the roads are privatised I accept the only ways of reducing congestion is to hand over money to the State. I make a distinction between taxes on behaviour and taxes on wealth/work. In general, I don't have a problem with tax on behaviour, particularly where that behaviour causes social ills, like smoking, motoring. It's taxes on hard work, thrift and the right to pass on gifts to whomsoever you choose which I have a problem with.

I repeat, income tax, NIC, corporation tax and VAT account for larger shares of Treasury receipts than fuel and vehicle excise duty. This ignorance is quite shocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tax_system

Nick H Out of interest if you don't mind me asking how old are you???

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[Nick H]

You the ignorant one.

I wish you wouldn't as your arguments are rather boring.

Quote ignoring inflation The data took account the cost .....

Now I did say that you could argue that cost of a new car has dropped. Guess you missed that bit.

Over to you on my own viewpoints to solve the problem which you keep ignoring.

Yet again, absolutely no recourse to facts. Just mindless hitting and hoping.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

Yet again, absolutely no recourse to facts. Just mindless hitting and hoping.

Pity you didn't read the article I just quoted a bit too you.

Doh.

Again out of interest how old are you??

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[Nick H]

Again out of interest how old are you??

53, not that it has anything to do with the debate.

Quote ignoring inflation The data took account the cost .....

Yet again you show complete lack of understanding. When they say "ignoring inflation", they mean inflation has been taken into account of, that it is measured in real terms. Inflation is ignored because to do otherwise would distort the analysis.

I sometimes don't know why I bother.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

53, not that it has anything to do with the debate.

Thought you were a hundred.

Your responses indicate someone much younger than maybe not considering some of the rubbish my collegues comeout with.

So since you dodged my public transport plan again what do you think of it.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[HighPressure]

I repeat, income tax, NIC, corporation tax and VAT account for larger shares of Treasury receipts than fuel and vehicle excise duty. This ignorance is quite shocking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tax_system

Yes and if you read what I said that is spot on, fuel is the single biggest indirect taxation object in the UK as income and corporation taxes are direct taxation and VAT is on almost all items including fuel. You can argue this point all you like but I am right!

[Nick H]

Yes and if you read what I said that is spot on, fuel is the single biggest indirect taxation object in the UK as income and corporation taxes are direct taxation and VAT is on almost all items including fuel. You can argue this point all you like but I am right!

Your original point was that fuel duty is the largest source of revenue to HMRC.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

Your original point was that fuel duty is the largest source of revenue to the HMRC.

Still dodging my question.

Your original point was that fuel duty is the largest source of revenue to HMRC.

No it wasn't if you read the post correctly Vat came first.

[Nick H]

Still dodging my question.

Let's be clear here, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is whether or not it is desirable that the motorist does not pay the true social cost (which virtually every study supports) of motoring. The second is the adequacy or otherwise of our public transport system. You say you want a "fully integrated public transport system". Great: who doesn't? The trouble is that government - particularly a Labour government - has very little idea of our how to run a decent service. They should take a leaf out of the private sector's book where such a high importance is attached to service quality, the reason being customers simply take their money elsewhere. By the way, do you now accept that the cost of motoring has fallen in real terms?

No it wasn't if you read the post correctly Vat came first

The original assertion was:

"Motorist's (sic) are already taxed to the hilt with the more mileage you do the more you pay. There is nothing in the UK that raises more tax revenue for the government" (High Pressure.)

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

Let's be clear here, there are two separate issues at hand. The first is whether or not it is desirable that the motorist does not pay the true social cost (which virtually every study supports) of motoring. The second is the adequacy or otherwise of our public transport system. You say you want a "fully integrated public transport system". Great: who doesn't? The trouble is that government - particularly a Labour government - has very little idea of our how to run a decent service. They should take a leaf out of the private sector's book where such a high importance is attached to service quality, the reason being customers simply take their money elsewhere.

You've got a new career a politican you don't really answer the question rather side step it.

The issues are simple.

a) public transport has failed due to being private and having to pay it's shareholders etc

B ) The roads are over crowded mainly due to the above.

First of all you need to solve the first problem. This going to cost money as you need to buy out some companies. Ignoring the probably court cases.

Once the companies are set up as public service companies you then progress to the next stage.

The service is there but not enough people are using it. Now you tax.

"Motorist's (sic) are already taxed to the hilt with the more mileage you do the more you pay. There is nothing in the UK that raises more tax revenue for the government" (High Pressure.)

And it was corrected.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[Nick H]

a) public transport has failed due to being private and having to pay it's shareholders etc

Well I applaud you for at least trying to start a reasoned debate rather than the wild and unfounded assertions you have been posting recently.

Now it's me who is wondering how old you are.

Do you seriously think British Rail was great? Come on, take those rose-tinted glasses off. BR was a 3rd rate institution with no service culture. Remember National Rail Enquiries under BR? You had a devil of a job getting through to anyone. And that's just one example. It was precisely for these reasons the idea of privatisation was first mooted in the late 80s.

And it was corrected

By me.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H