Adrian F

But why should Petrol be taxed more than is required to maintain the road network?

Currently the motorist pays 42 billion approx per year and they invest 6-7 billion in roads therefore they are creaming off 35 billion a year to pay for what? If this money is required why not raise it out of income tax?

You are all paying 75% Tax on every gallon of petrol how can that be right?

milo

because that's the taxation system of the government which was VOTED in.

that means we chose for taxation to be this way. essentially, stuff that's considered bad for you, or for the environment, is taxed higher than things which are good for the economy (such as having people in work).

personally im a VERY strong believer in reducing income tax as low as possible, to encourage strong employment, with the money coming from areas the government needs/wants people to cut back on - i.e. anything anti-social.

for instance, if they reduced petrol taxes.. people would just do more journeys in their cars... spending the same in petrol, but just costing the environment more. where's the benefit in that?

and for instance, if they had a 75% tax on electricity too, you could BET people would be more careful about leaving lights on.


that's overly simplistic. are you saying the cost to other members of the public of motoring is no more than the investment in roads? what about (for example):
* nhs costs for road traffic accidents
* police officer / traffic patrol costs
* compensation for pollution (if you're making a public bad as opposed to a public good, you can expect to fund it)

and what about road congestion now as opposed to years ago? the increase is vast, and always will be. ANYTHING that alleviates this, however slight, is a benefit.

as for charging it to income tax instead... to make £1bn, the govt must increase income tax by around 1/3p on the standard rate (iirc). given that your figures suggest we need an extra £35bn from income tax, that would mean almost a 12p rise in income tax on the pound at the standard rate!!! that would cripple a LOT of people financially.... MUCH more so than petrol costs.

gareth123

It's not. The UK public is being ripped off by their own government. AND THEY DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. WTF?!

Petrol is currently the most expensive I've ever seen it here in California - it is $2.35 per US gallon for the top grade stuff - about 35p per litre by my math.

imlach

Yes, U$ petrol is cheap compared to here, but you pay for it in other ways in the US. The U$ goverment has decided that fuel should be cheap. They reap in the money in other ways....

For instance, do they have a NHS anything like ours? No.

We are not being ripped off as you put it. The goverment raises revenue one way or another, and the model used in the UK is the one we live with. If you don't like it so much, feel free to move to another country.

Cigarettes are taxed at about 75% as well are they not? No-one seems to mind that, as it is seen as discouraging many from smoking. Well, petrol can be thought of in the same manner....high prices have the benefit of reaping in money for the goverment, but on the flipside, it also helps to discourage people from making unneccessary journeys, and helps the goverment to meet green credentials too.

Petrol has a damaging impact on our environment. The goverment has to pay out to rectify that.

I would honestly prefer all taxes to be collected on a 'pay as you go' basis anyway (ie, VAT, fuel duty, booze duty, etc). Seems fair. If you earn a lot, you spend a lot generally. If you earn less, you spend less. Ergo, taxes paid are proportional to your income (as most people live to their incomes).

milo

absolutely 100% agree. try getting sick in the states.. people's ENTIRE family savings are often wiped out with a single series of medical bills for one illness. you'd better have private medical insurance (which you have to pay for if its not provided by your company).

then consider university bills... average student debt in the US? MUCH higher, because of tuition fees.

i'd rather be paying £40-50+ for a tank of fuel than 40-50k+ on a decent education, or an operation.

it's ALWAYS swings and roundabouts.

gareth123

As someone who emigrated to the US from the UK I can tell you that my money goes much, much further living here than in the UK. Why? The US government simply does not take as much of MY money away from me as the UK government did. I keep more of MY hard earned dosh.

No, there is no NHS here. So far I've had much better medical treatment here than I had in the UK. Private coverage in both countries.

imlach

That's fine if you're either :

a) in a good job
b) not got a chronic or life threatning disease eg, hepatitis, cancer, hiv, or a disability.

As Milo said, I'm sure it's quite easy to eat into your savings if you need prologned or 'for life' medical treatment. Your premiums will rocket.

I'd rather have the NHS thanks, with the choice of private treatment if you really really want to pay. Anyway, the more private treatment there is, the less the NHS has to shell out.

Freak

Absolute madness
I do in excess of 1000 miles a week to/from work (add on to that all my non work related miles)- costs me an obscene amount more than it should do- and for what? Wars, and other assorted crap el presidente bliar deems it should be spent on.
The roads are utter ****e-they clearly arent being spent on them. I drove the entire length of the m5 last night, and didnt see one cop car, so they arent being spent on them either-its rare i do see one on my journeys.
I have to use the car- 4 record boxes would be a struggle on a train, and not many trains run at 3am to bring me home, and certainly not around here- i have no alternative.
Add on to this insurance tax,road tax,toll bridges/roads and the fact that im constantly told by the govt. that my car isnt 'essential' and i get a tad f*cked off.

Robbing f*cking *******s-wouldnt vote labour if you paid me to.

ahem
/soapbox

gareth123

Medical insurance is not the same as car insurance. No sick people would have coverage if it was. It is illegal for premiums to increase because of claims you have made.

You obviously think it is best for the government to decide how YOUR money is spent, whereas I'd prefer to make that decision for myself. I choose if I spend MY money on medical insurance. You have NO SAY in the matter of how YOUR money gets spent. And you get ****e service in return.

I believe in the individual, you think B.Liar knows best. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

milo

presumably tho, thats because you emigrated AFTER you finished your education, so you weren't left with a whopping debt after college or grad school that most americans end up with? how much further would your money go if you had a huge debt hanging over you with payments to make? plus you haven't hit the time yet when you'll want/need to help your kids out when they want to go to college.

as someone who emigrated to the uk from the us.. i can tell you i get paid a HEAP more in the uk. plus i have a MUCH less stressful existence than most of my friends back home who routinely work 12 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, and probably will until the day they die... as is reality in a large chunk of corporate america...

imlach

I find it outstanding you think my views are aligned with Blair?! Where have you seen a labour bias in my postings? Silly presumptious boy.
I'm afraid I am politcally neutral on this one....

Not that it matters, but my last two votes in the general election were NOT for Blair.

PS Medical insurance premiums cannot be increased if you stay with the same insurer, but if you move company, I'm sure they'd take existing conditions into account.

gareth123

Only an idiot would rack up a $100K (or whatever) debt paying for a degree that won't mean squat after a few years working. State colleges are that expensive, eh?

The government didn't pay for my university education - I and my parents did. WTF my parent's income had to do with MY eligability for government funded education I never understood. Only poor people deserve it? The ones who don't actually pay much tax get all the benefit? Fantastic.

Anyway, petrol is just another example of rip-off Britain. Even the spineless, cowardly French would have effectively protested by now

Dark Blue Mark

I wont say who I work for, but its oil replated. To produce this oil, we have to pay massive royalties, and are also taxed on it. I can't recall how many times its taxed from leaving the ground, being refined, then shipped, on the way to the fuel pump, but it does add up.

I am obviously taxed on my salary for helping produce it, taxed in all sorts of ways for driving my car to work, to help produce it, then taxed at the pump on the very stuff I helped produce. Clearly, tax is a good thing, and we wouldn't tick without it - its the rate of tax and the way they do it that pisses me off.

We do produce a fair bit of the stuff in the UK, so why its massively more that nearly every EU country, cannot be justified in my mind.

MB

milo

of course you have a say - that's what elections are for.

sure for your benefit you're best at spending your money... but be realistic.. its FAR better for everyone else IN THE MAJORITY if the government spends your money (or at least a portion of it). face it (taking it to the extreme), if taxes were zero and benefits were zero, any decent person who ever lost their job and needed geniune help would be screwed. further, for example, all the old people who fought for YOU in ww2 and now need help from the government would be told to get lost. want a good education for your kid, but dont have much money? hard luck.

VERY harsh... but good for the people who are well-off and generally pay for private anyway? sure.

good for everyone else? hell no.

gareth123

Well, duh!

Presumably these poor sick people you referred to - the ones who bankrupted themselves with medical bills - we forced to move insurers?! OR DID THEY NOT INSURE THEMSELVES IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you CHOOSE not insure your house and it burns down, what do you think should happen?

imlach

I'll bow out here, as I don't know enough about the US medical insurance system to comment on why or when people might be forced to move insurers, or how common it is to be refused or have limitations placed on your health insurance.....

Milo may like to comment.......

All I know is that the NHS seems a fairer, all-encompassing, benefit to the country (poor or rich) than the American system.

milo

look up how much it costs to be a doctor in the states. some people WANT to do this.. and it costs a LOT to do it.

saying a degree doesn't mean squat is ludicrious... im surprised with you living in the us that you haven't worked out that over there its almost essential... and a good one too.

certainly to have a proper "traditional" career you need grad school in many cases... and this is seriously expensive.


TUITION FEES, not halls of residence expenses. you're HONESTLY telling me your parent paid for your tuition fees in full? what year did you go to uni in? because friends of mine in the uk, born in the uk, who went to uni in the late 90's didn't pay a PENNY.. and their parents are VERY rich.

yes, their parents paid for their LIVING EXPENSES.. but its the tuition fees im talking about... which i am certain you got for free from the uk government.


that's generally the case in a democratic country. the many (i.e. the slightly under average income) vote for the people who will distribute the wealth of the few VERY rich among the many relatively poor people.

i would be willing to bet that a LOT more people than they realise are actually a burden to the tax system (i.e. they cost tax payers more than they themselves pay in tax). and that's NOT limited to those earning miniscule amounts. i would say most people are a burden, and it's those earning circa 6 figures plus that are paying for them.

imlach

If YOU decided what the goverment should spend money on, as a wage-earner, I presume you'd want nothing spent from YOUR pocket on social services, welfare state, disability benefits, etc etc.

How does that work then?

milo

or perhaps they're old and/or can't/couldn't afford medical insurance?

maybe they have just been made redundant and have lost their company's medical insurance, and can't afford to pay for it.

in the us.. even WITH health insurance, the out of your pocket costs for your medical expenses can still cost a packet. i truely hope you realised that before pretty much stating that those who can't afford their medical bills are foolish.

THIS IS LIFE IN THE US.. even the irs allows an exemption from early withdrawal penalties when you use your retirement funds to pay for medical expenses!!! the fact that rule is even in there means it's common-place.

i am MUCH happier knowing i will be treated on the nhs, no matter what (and yes i currently do have private insurance thru work.. but am still glad that the nhs is there).

gareth123

Silly presumptious boy.

I'd certainly pare down the current benefits system. A lot. And make people who beg off society actually contribute towards society - for the money WE give them. I see no harm in the unemployed picking up litter / digging ditches / whatever.

I'd certainly have none of my money spent on the folly in Iraq. Or asylum seeker's centres/housing/benefits. Or fancy new buildings for MPs. Or government 'fact finding missions' to the Seychelles... you get the idea.

gareth123

milo - in theory Universal Healthcare is a wonderful idea. In practice it's ****e - just look at the NHS. Have you actually been an NHS patient yet? It's a frigging disgrace. Throwing (taxpayer) money at it is not the solution. There needs to be some sort of personal stake in the system for the patients.

If everyone was taxed an additional 5% for government supplied car insurance, how flipping bad would some people's driving get? A landwhale diabetic chain smoker gets the same treatment, potentially at no cost to themselves, as a health aware individual? Well that's just great, isn't it.

imlach

OK, so our company, which made hundreds of people on our site redundant last year, released 100+ highly-skilled R&D engineers & management onto the ranks of the unemployed.

Are you saying you'd like to see these people picking up litter while unemployed? These are people who WANT to work, but need time to search for new jobs. Some took up to 6 months to find a new position due to scarcity of jobs. However, under your misguided "system", you'd rather have these people picking up litter, perhaps to the detriment of finding good new positions?

One day, (and I suspect soon if in the US! ), you'll learn what it feels like to not have a regular monthly income through no fault of your own. I'll expect to see you digging trenches/cleaning public toilets with the rest of your buddies

imlach

Just out of interest, have YOU been a NHS patient yet? If so, please give some examples of why it was bad for you....

It's far far too easy to slag off the NHS, but as someone who has a wife working there, and know of many others helping it to run, it sometimes beggars belief the undue slagging it gets...

Yes, it's FAR from perfect, but it is by no means "****e".

gareth123

I would hope that "highly-skilled R&D engineers" would have enough sense to have at least 6 months of living expenses in a liquid fund for an emergency such as this. I'm a "highly-skilled R&D engineer" and I do. It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It is much better than running crying to the government.

imlach

Just out of interest, are you a fit, healthy, young, single bloke with no family nor any responsibilities to anyone yet?

gareth123

Nope. Arguably on all four counts at my weight

gareth123

Yes.

Last non-trivial thing was a broken arm. It took four hours to get seen by anyone. The x-rays, cast and follow-up physio were all done in what was, with the benefit of hindsight, a field hospital left over from the Crimean War.

It was ****e.

milo

yes ive been an nhs patient MANY times, both for medical and dental. ive not had a single complaint. ive had root canal treatment on my teeth on a saturday early morning, and have been prescribed pain killers by a doctor in the middle of the night one weekend. it's "cool" to say "the nhs is crap", but in reality.. it is actually not as bad as people make out. ive also had a variety of tests done.. blood tests, liver profiles etc etc.

yes they make mistakes sometimes (and when they do the press are ALL over it).. but that's because NOT ENOUGH money is given to it. clearly, look at other countries... like france. they "throw" around £40m a year MORE than the uk at their healthcare system.. and it has better results.

the uk govt should be spending MORE on the nhs, investing in it, and paying medical staff what they deserve.

as-is, it isn't perfect... but it is NOT bad. i sure have no complaints from my treatments.


so you're suggesting because people have healthcare free in the uk, they don't bother taking care of their health as much as in non-free healthcare countries?! EVERYONE i know in the uk looks both ways when crossing the street, that's for sure!

we're talking about people's lives here... their ability to have medical care and education... NOT free car insurance. there's a HUGE difference.

Brit_in_Japan

gareth123, your dislike of the NHS appears to be idealogical, you should control your expenditure not the state. So long as you can afford treatment then you are happy, whatever that costs and immune to the millions who might not be able to afford it. Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their views. You are certainly in the right country.

Personally I think that society does have a responsibility to look after those less well off, especially when they fall ill (which can happen to anybody, anytime). Illness can be stressful enough without worrying that you might be depleting all your savings, going into debt or mortgaging your family's future to pay for treatment.

I have had no complaints any time I've needed NHS treatment. The NHS is getting more money now and signs are standards are improving. The French health system is regarded as one of the best in the world, paid for by the state via taxes.
Give me a national health service anytime.

For interest (maybe) the system in Japan is that health insurance is either paid for by your company, or you can pay it as an individual. The cover is the same, but you have to pay 30% of the cost of any treatment. When someone here falls ill and needs a major procedure, the families, work colleagues etc have to have fund raising events to cover the cost of the treatment. Is that right? I have needed to take advantage of the healthcare system, and although I could afford it, it felt very strange to have to go to a counter in the hospital and hand over thousands of yen for an appointment.

imlach

...and do you really think they left you there for 4 hours deliberately? It's called prioritisation. If there was a serious RTA victim(s) being treated, would you rather they tended to your broken arm first? While a bad injury, it's hardly life threatning if treated in a timely manner.

OK, in the ideal world, they'd treat you in minutes. However, that requires infinite staff & resource, which in ANY system, is an unrealistic expectation. A couple more nurses & doctors would be nice, but that costs money, and as you are moaning about petrol duty, I suspect you'd moan if income tax was to rise to cover the additional costs of an improved NHS too.

As for the hospital, yes, some are a bit prehistoric now, but aside from that, did your treatment suffer? Was your arm fixed to your satisfaction?

My experiences suggest the staff in the NHS do the very best they can with the resources they have. To call it "****e" is an affront to their hard work and perserverance.