Good news for the planet, less so for performance car owners
17 January 2007, 09:11 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love reading what the experts say too 
Sweet lord... I recently read the Monckton report as was posted on here late last year after being printed in the telegraph. I believe the contents. I believe it has far more credibility than the stern report.
I believe that data was omitted from the stern report that proves beyond doubt that hundreds of years before industrialisation the world was warmer than it is now or is forecast to be in the next century.
I believe that there is no logical reason for the climate change bandwagon other than green party(s) pressure and government led taxes.
Friends of the Earth and co banged on the nuclear drum during the 80's to no avail and needed a different angle to keep their funding alive... The government have seen it as a fantastic lever to levy more sterling from the publics pocket. Retailers such as M&S are now using it as a marketing tool, Banks such as HSBC now advertise they will donate to conservation projects...
The environmental drum bangs loud in all industrial sectors becasue the the industrial sectors will find angles to help it work for them... Look at the cost of a Toyota Prius
It's a clever ploy because people are like zombies... Keep telling people it affects their children and their childrens children, how all life will die and people will begin to listen.
Come up with buzzwords like "Carbon Footprint" FFS, and people have phrases they can assosciate with... Throw in a "report" that back all this up and BANG, half the population are brainwashed into thinking its a human caused effect.
Look up in the sky... See the big glowing orange thing peeking out from behind the clouds? Yep just there to the left... Thats it... There's the cause...
Still if you conspiracy theorists want to believe its anything more complicated than that, feel free. If it means so much to you, you can pay my green taxes for me. Thanks!
Sweet lord... I recently read the Monckton report as was posted on here late last year after being printed in the telegraph. I believe the contents. I believe it has far more credibility than the stern report.
I believe that data was omitted from the stern report that proves beyond doubt that hundreds of years before industrialisation the world was warmer than it is now or is forecast to be in the next century.
I believe that there is no logical reason for the climate change bandwagon other than green party(s) pressure and government led taxes.
Friends of the Earth and co banged on the nuclear drum during the 80's to no avail and needed a different angle to keep their funding alive... The government have seen it as a fantastic lever to levy more sterling from the publics pocket. Retailers such as M&S are now using it as a marketing tool, Banks such as HSBC now advertise they will donate to conservation projects...
The environmental drum bangs loud in all industrial sectors becasue the the industrial sectors will find angles to help it work for them... Look at the cost of a Toyota Prius
It's a clever ploy because people are like zombies... Keep telling people it affects their children and their childrens children, how all life will die and people will begin to listen.
Come up with buzzwords like "Carbon Footprint" FFS, and people have phrases they can assosciate with... Throw in a "report" that back all this up and BANG, half the population are brainwashed into thinking its a human caused effect.
Look up in the sky... See the big glowing orange thing peeking out from behind the clouds? Yep just there to the left... Thats it... There's the cause...
Still if you conspiracy theorists want to believe its anything more complicated than that, feel free. If it means so much to you, you can pay my green taxes for me. Thanks!
17 January 2007, 10:21 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said before keep an open mind... whats wrong with that?
17 January 2007, 10:31 AM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all too easy to latch onto one piece of 'evidence' that supports your point of view.
If you truelly had an open mind on this then there a massive amount of scientific evidence that you should consider as well.
As I said before, I'm in no position to know the real answer, I just think it's prudent to be cautious.
If you truelly had an open mind on this then there a massive amount of scientific evidence that you should consider as well.
As I said before, I'm in no position to know the real answer, I just think it's prudent to be cautious.
17 January 2007, 11:01 AM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points taken, but we all know its happening and all have to do what we can.
What i don't believe however is that the car is the main cause of it or even a small percent of it. We should'nt be charge for something thats a small cause of the problem. We are charged for the privilage because we are easy targets and everyone thinks its ok 'cos its green'
Thats whats bo11ocks
What i don't believe however is that the car is the main cause of it or even a small percent of it. We should'nt be charge for something thats a small cause of the problem. We are charged for the privilage because we are easy targets and everyone thinks its ok 'cos its green'
Thats whats bo11ocks
17 January 2007, 11:42 AM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth I don’t believe the Global warming crap either it’s just another way to tax the working man.
However reading through the posts nobody has mentioned the new fuel, Bioethanol. Saab have been testing their cars on the stuff for the last couple of years and more recently Lotus. People in scandinavian countries are already using it! This new super fuel is made from barley and it’s easy to produce and not difficult to change an existing engine to run on the stuff, a 1 hour job apparently and it's rated at 107 ron. Saab reports that turbo cars show a significant increase in power and fuel consumption, so do Lotus. However the most startling claim is that a car running this fuel is three times greener then any of these so called green cars in production like the Toyota and the Honda.
The question is why isn’t the government championing this new fuel? Oil companies losing billions if this new fuel is adopted could have something to do with it. The government would rather tax us heavily under the guise of global warming than introduce this new fuel as they can make more money that way.
However reading through the posts nobody has mentioned the new fuel, Bioethanol. Saab have been testing their cars on the stuff for the last couple of years and more recently Lotus. People in scandinavian countries are already using it! This new super fuel is made from barley and it’s easy to produce and not difficult to change an existing engine to run on the stuff, a 1 hour job apparently and it's rated at 107 ron. Saab reports that turbo cars show a significant increase in power and fuel consumption, so do Lotus. However the most startling claim is that a car running this fuel is three times greener then any of these so called green cars in production like the Toyota and the Honda.
The question is why isn’t the government championing this new fuel? Oil companies losing billions if this new fuel is adopted could have something to do with it. The government would rather tax us heavily under the guise of global warming than introduce this new fuel as they can make more money that way.
17 January 2007, 12:58 PM
#67
Not so sure about the above.
The UK gov will tempt/tell/encourage the public to use the new fuels, wait till they are hooked, and 'gotcha!' the tax rockets. Look at deisel in the UK now.
LPG hasn't gone that way due to lack of availability.
Graham
The UK gov will tempt/tell/encourage the public to use the new fuels, wait till they are hooked, and 'gotcha!' the tax rockets. Look at deisel in the UK now.
LPG hasn't gone that way due to lack of availability.
Graham
17 January 2007, 01:27 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing against bioethanol I've heard is it would rapidly increase deforestation. Masses of rain forest would be cleared in order to cash in on what could turn out to be a boom. I've no idea if that would be the case, but new fuels should be encouraged.
In any case, even if cutting oil consumption has little or no effect on 'global warming', there is a case of cutting down anyway; the stuff will run out one day!
In any case, even if cutting oil consumption has little or no effect on 'global warming', there is a case of cutting down anyway; the stuff will run out one day!
17 January 2007, 03:59 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What evidence do you base this on? Realistically, we have perhaps 100 years of decent climate data to estimate rates - which really tells us little about what a "normal" rate is. Anything prior to this typically has a centennial or millenial scale sampling/smoothing - which means the temps could have changed this rapidly in the past, but the current data we have would not reflect it.
17 January 2007, 04:40 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points taken, but we all know its happening and all have to do what we can.
What i don't believe however is that the car is the main cause of it or even a small percent of it. We should'nt be charge for something thats a small cause of the problem. We are charged for the privilage because we are easy targets and everyone thinks its ok 'cos its green' Thats whats bo11ocks
What i don't believe however is that the car is the main cause of it or even a small percent of it. We should'nt be charge for something thats a small cause of the problem. We are charged for the privilage because we are easy targets and everyone thinks its ok 'cos its green'
Thats whats bo11ocksIf CO2 is the problem then cars are a very sensible place to start tackling it. If you could reduce the total CO2 levels but about 10% through changing the engine in cars then that is a terrific way to make the necessary savings. All that it means is people drive around in different cars. It has no affect on the global economy and is a good spring board for putting pressure on the remaining polluters.
And one further point on taxation. I hate taxes as much as the next man. However, if we got rid of petrol tax etc then taxes on other things would have to go up. And they would have to go up a lot. Now I am sure that a lot of you revolutionary types would love to see higher income earners taxed to death, but that would be disastrous for the economy. Other than VAT (which would have to rise massively) there is no other source of revenue. We have to tax vehicles.
One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of governments is to change the effects of a purely free market. A lot of the people poo pooing global warming are doing so because it suits them. If it were left to the free market they would cause massive damage before the relevant market mechanisms kicked in to force a correction. It would, however, probably be too late. We might not always agree with them, we might hate them, but sometimes we are awfully lucky to have politicians (you won't hear that said very often!)
Last edited by Blueblaster; 17 January 2007 at 04:44 PM.
17 January 2007, 04:57 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it isn't the CO2 from cars then what is causing the problem?
If CO2 is the problem then cars are a very sensible place to start tackling it. If you could reduce the total CO2 levels but about 10% through changing the engine in cars then that is a terrific way to make the necessary savings. All that it means is people drive around in different cars. It has no affect on the global economy and is a good spring board for putting pressure on the remaining polluters.
And one further point on taxation. I hate taxes as much as the next man. However, if we got rid of petrol tax etc then taxes on other things would have to go up. And they would have to go up a lot. Now I am sure that a lot of you revolutionary types would love to see higher income earners taxed to death, but that would be disastrous for the economy. Other than VAT (which would have to rise massively) there is no other source of revenue. We have to tax vehicles.
One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of governments is to change the effects of a purely free market. A lot of the people poo pooing global warming are doing so because it suits them. If it were left to the free market they would cause massive damage before the relevant market mechanisms kicked in to force a correction. It would, however, probably be too late. We might not always agree with them, we might hate them, but sometimes we are awfully lucky to have politicians (you won't hear that said very often!)
If CO2 is the problem then cars are a very sensible place to start tackling it. If you could reduce the total CO2 levels but about 10% through changing the engine in cars then that is a terrific way to make the necessary savings. All that it means is people drive around in different cars. It has no affect on the global economy and is a good spring board for putting pressure on the remaining polluters.
And one further point on taxation. I hate taxes as much as the next man. However, if we got rid of petrol tax etc then taxes on other things would have to go up. And they would have to go up a lot. Now I am sure that a lot of you revolutionary types would love to see higher income earners taxed to death, but that would be disastrous for the economy. Other than VAT (which would have to rise massively) there is no other source of revenue. We have to tax vehicles.
One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of governments is to change the effects of a purely free market. A lot of the people poo pooing global warming are doing so because it suits them. If it were left to the free market they would cause massive damage before the relevant market mechanisms kicked in to force a correction. It would, however, probably be too late. We might not always agree with them, we might hate them, but sometimes we are awfully lucky to have politicians (you won't hear that said very often!)
It's good to read somebody actually having the guts to speak up in support of politicians, sometimes I think people allow there natural cynicism towards government cloud their judgement on every issue
17 January 2007, 05:16 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put, it's refreshing to read something balanced and well thought out (although I fear you are about to be well and truelly flamed by the usuall suspects i.e the denialsts and conspiracy theorists)
It's good to read somebody actually having the guts to speak up in support of politicians, sometimes I think people allow there natural cynicism towards government cloud their judgement on every issue
It's good to read somebody actually having the guts to speak up in support of politicians, sometimes I think people allow there natural cynicism towards government cloud their judgement on every issue
I find Global Warming a bit like GOD, prove to me it exists and I'll believe.
17 January 2007, 05:20 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not this government acting it's own on climate change policy. Many other governments and institutions, scientists etc etc also believe that Man has an effect on the climate.
A quick question; Do you trust the US government who deny climate change by man? The same government that has also lied about Iraq
Anyway, I've never been to Australia but I'm fairly sure it exists
A quick question; Do you trust the US government who deny climate change by man? The same government that has also lied about Iraq
Anyway, I've never been to Australia but I'm fairly sure it exists
17 January 2007, 05:54 PM
#74
As an aside, there is more to crude oil than cars.
Plastic/pharmasuticals (sp sorry) all the way to women's tights and chewing gum.
Taxing cars as the only viable source of Gov income seems a good argument, but income tax must bring in far more along with vat.
We should also remember we do get something back for all the taxes
National Heath/schools/City Hall/police..../parking Officers and more serious stuff as the Armed Forces (who would be there now?) and defence.
And a domocratic country with a lot of freedoms.
Remember 'we' voted New Labour and Blair/Gordon.
I was taught that you convert energy, you cant destroy it, so we burn fuel and convert the energy, but it never 'dies'; = global warming and the effects on the climate which then knocks-on to other issues as a result (ie the Polar Bear) and prolonged drought.
Fossil fuel consumption has grown over the last 100/200 years, and all that energy has to be somewhere.
There is a point where the effect is 'nothing' but grows to a point where it can be counted (depending on your equation) as influential, or 'critical' if you are a Tree Hugger or Taxman.(with a different equation)
Where are we on the curve? Who really knows, but we sure are on it somewhere, and many say that we are at the 'inflential' stage.
Graham
Plastic/pharmasuticals (sp sorry) all the way to women's tights and chewing gum.
Taxing cars as the only viable source of Gov income seems a good argument, but income tax must bring in far more along with vat.
We should also remember we do get something back for all the taxes
National Heath/schools/City Hall/police..../parking Officers and more serious stuff as the Armed Forces (who would be there now?) and defence.
And a domocratic country with a lot of freedoms.
Remember 'we' voted New Labour and Blair/Gordon.
I was taught that you convert energy, you cant destroy it, so we burn fuel and convert the energy, but it never 'dies'; = global warming and the effects on the climate which then knocks-on to other issues as a result (ie the Polar Bear) and prolonged drought.
Fossil fuel consumption has grown over the last 100/200 years, and all that energy has to be somewhere.
There is a point where the effect is 'nothing' but grows to a point where it can be counted (depending on your equation) as influential, or 'critical' if you are a Tree Hugger or Taxman.(with a different equation)
Where are we on the curve? Who really knows, but we sure are on it somewhere, and many say that we are at the 'inflential' stage.
Graham
Last edited by 911; 17 January 2007 at 05:56 PM.
17 January 2007, 06:02 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it isn't the CO2 from cars then what is causing the problem?
If CO2 is the problem then cars are a very sensible place to start tackling it. If you could reduce the total CO2 levels but about 10% through changing the engine in cars then that is a terrific way to make the necessary savings. All that it means is people drive around in different cars. It has no affect on the global economy and is a good spring board for putting pressure on the remaining polluters.
And one further point on taxation. I hate taxes as much as the next man. However, if we got rid of petrol tax etc then taxes on other things would have to go up. And they would have to go up a lot. Now I am sure that a lot of you revolutionary types would love to see higher income earners taxed to death, but that would be disastrous for the economy. Other than VAT (which would have to rise massively) there is no other source of revenue. We have to tax vehicles.
One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of governments is to change the effects of a purely free market. A lot of the people poo pooing global warming are doing so because it suits them. If it were left to the free market they would cause massive damage before the relevant market mechanisms kicked in to force a correction. It would, however, probably be too late. We might not always agree with them, we might hate them, but sometimes we are awfully lucky to have politicians (you won't hear that said very often!)
If CO2 is the problem then cars are a very sensible place to start tackling it. If you could reduce the total CO2 levels but about 10% through changing the engine in cars then that is a terrific way to make the necessary savings. All that it means is people drive around in different cars. It has no affect on the global economy and is a good spring board for putting pressure on the remaining polluters.
And one further point on taxation. I hate taxes as much as the next man. However, if we got rid of petrol tax etc then taxes on other things would have to go up. And they would have to go up a lot. Now I am sure that a lot of you revolutionary types would love to see higher income earners taxed to death, but that would be disastrous for the economy. Other than VAT (which would have to rise massively) there is no other source of revenue. We have to tax vehicles.
One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of governments is to change the effects of a purely free market. A lot of the people poo pooing global warming are doing so because it suits them. If it were left to the free market they would cause massive damage before the relevant market mechanisms kicked in to force a correction. It would, however, probably be too late. We might not always agree with them, we might hate them, but sometimes we are awfully lucky to have politicians (you won't hear that said very often!)
and what part of my 80 grands worth of tax a year do i get value for money, thats without whatever extra i get taxed on everything else!
17 January 2007, 06:31 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside, there is more to crude oil than cars.
Plastic/pharmasuticals (sp sorry) all the way to women's tights and chewing gum.
Taxing cars as the only viable source of Gov income seems a good argument, but income tax must bring in far more along with vat.
We should also remember we do get something back for all the taxes
National Heath/schools/City Hall/police..../parking Officers and more serious stuff as the Armed Forces (who would be there now?) and defence.
And a domocratic country with a lot of freedoms.
Remember 'we' voted New Labour and Blair/Gordon.
I was taught that you convert energy, you cant destroy it, so we burn fuel and convert the energy, but it never 'dies'; = global warming and the effects on the climate which then knocks-on to other issues as a result (ie the Polar Bear) and prolonged drought.
Fossil fuel consumption has grown over the last 100/200 years, and all that energy has to be somewhere.
There is a point where the effect is 'nothing' but grows to a point where it can be counted (depending on your equation) as influential, or 'critical' if you are a Tree Hugger or Taxman.(with a different equation)
Where are we on the curve? Who really knows, but we sure are on it somewhere, and many say that we are at the 'inflential' stage.
Graham
Plastic/pharmasuticals (sp sorry) all the way to women's tights and chewing gum.
Taxing cars as the only viable source of Gov income seems a good argument, but income tax must bring in far more along with vat.
We should also remember we do get something back for all the taxes
National Heath/schools/City Hall/police..../parking Officers and more serious stuff as the Armed Forces (who would be there now?) and defence.
And a domocratic country with a lot of freedoms.
Remember 'we' voted New Labour and Blair/Gordon.
I was taught that you convert energy, you cant destroy it, so we burn fuel and convert the energy, but it never 'dies'; = global warming and the effects on the climate which then knocks-on to other issues as a result (ie the Polar Bear) and prolonged drought.
Fossil fuel consumption has grown over the last 100/200 years, and all that energy has to be somewhere.
There is a point where the effect is 'nothing' but grows to a point where it can be counted (depending on your equation) as influential, or 'critical' if you are a Tree Hugger or Taxman.(with a different equation)
Where are we on the curve? Who really knows, but we sure are on it somewhere, and many say that we are at the 'inflential' stage.
Graham
Makes me glad I don’t live there anymore
17 January 2007, 07:48 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RB5SCOTT, I am afraid that if your company is doing well enough to pay £80k in tax then you will never get anything like that from the government in return. The very foundations of our progressive tax system are based around the idea that the rich pay more than the poor. Just be grateful you are doing well enough to be deemed able to pay that amount of tax.
Moving on to the trustworthiness of governments I find myself on slightly dodgier ground. I agree that the current government has damaged it's reputation beyond repair and you can't trust George Bush any more than you can wrap your arms around the waist of the average American. However, the article which triggered this post refers to the working of the EU. Now I am well aware that the EU is probably one of the most financially corrupt democratic governments on the planet. However, each MEP is hosed down with piles of cash and is virtually unaccountable due to their anonimity. This gives them the ability to do things that national politicians can't do because they fear they won't get reelected. No need to worry about that if you are an MEP as no one knows who you are anyway. This means that we end up, on occasion, with legislation coming from Europe that is exactly what we need. And this, I believe, is one of those occasions.
911, I agree that the manufacturing process of cars is a big pollution problem. However, if we can start generating the power to produce the components by using green technology we could effectively end up driving around in environmentally-neutral cars. It is not rocket science, it just needs the political will.
Ultimately the only way to get the rest of the world to do the right thing is to lead by example. Europe cannot bash China/US over the head if their own house is not in order. I know change is difficult, but we will adapt - remember the outcry when catalytic converters came in? You can see the green evolution unfolding and in many cases it is not bad at all - recycling, wind farms, cleaner engines (have you seen the specs of the new BMW diesels) , more efficient appliances....the list goes on. Although the next generation of cars will be forced to be cleaner than ever before this does not mean they will be any worse for it. Our engineers deserve more credit.
Moving on to the trustworthiness of governments I find myself on slightly dodgier ground. I agree that the current government has damaged it's reputation beyond repair and you can't trust George Bush any more than you can wrap your arms around the waist of the average American. However, the article which triggered this post refers to the working of the EU. Now I am well aware that the EU is probably one of the most financially corrupt democratic governments on the planet. However, each MEP is hosed down with piles of cash and is virtually unaccountable due to their anonimity. This gives them the ability to do things that national politicians can't do because they fear they won't get reelected. No need to worry about that if you are an MEP as no one knows who you are anyway. This means that we end up, on occasion, with legislation coming from Europe that is exactly what we need. And this, I believe, is one of those occasions.
911, I agree that the manufacturing process of cars is a big pollution problem. However, if we can start generating the power to produce the components by using green technology we could effectively end up driving around in environmentally-neutral cars. It is not rocket science, it just needs the political will.
Ultimately the only way to get the rest of the world to do the right thing is to lead by example. Europe cannot bash China/US over the head if their own house is not in order. I know change is difficult, but we will adapt - remember the outcry when catalytic converters came in? You can see the green evolution unfolding and in many cases it is not bad at all - recycling, wind farms, cleaner engines (have you seen the specs of the new BMW diesels
) , more efficient appliances....the list goes on. Although the next generation of cars will be forced to be cleaner than ever before this does not mean they will be any worse for it. Our engineers deserve more credit.
17 January 2007, 07:57 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueblaster
That just it about tax that really p1sses you off. You work hard you earn more and by paying a percentage of your earnings you are paying more tax, so why the **** do they want to take even more off of you. Its just like saying 'whats the point in working hard because now your just working for even less to line other peoples pockets'
We work hard so we can spend more its just them ******* say that 'you can live off that,...... so we will have the rest'
That just it about tax that really p1sses you off. You work hard you earn more and by paying a percentage of your earnings you are paying more tax, so why the **** do they want to take even more off of you. Its just like saying 'whats the point in working hard because now your just working for even less to line other peoples pockets'
We work hard so we can spend more
its just them ******* say that 'you can live off that,...... so we will have the rest'
17 January 2007, 08:26 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueblaster
That just it about tax that really p1sses you off. You work hard you earn more and by paying a percentage of your earnings you are paying more tax, so why the **** do they want to take even more off of you. Its just like saying 'whats the point in working hard because now your just working for even less to line other peoples pockets'
We work hard so we can spend more its just them ******* say that 'you can live off that,...... so we will have the rest'
That just it about tax that really p1sses you off. You work hard you earn more and by paying a percentage of your earnings you are paying more tax, so why the **** do they want to take even more off of you. Its just like saying 'whats the point in working hard because now your just working for even less to line other peoples pockets'
We work hard so we can spend more
its just them ******* say that 'you can live off that,...... so we will have the rest'
18 January 2007, 07:26 AM
#81
I do live in this country, and I do pay a lot of tax as I earn a lot.
The times I've used or had relatives use the NHS the serice has been great and sometimes life saving.
I work with the local Education authority trying to persuade school kids to work in Industry (for the last 11 years now) and the schools ARE declining because the kid's attitudes are so poor.
The funding is there, but the stuoid paperwork is there too.
I feel the police system is weak (I have called on it recently) and it failed me and the bast@rd who touched-up my daughter walked away. I was promised i would be prosecuted if i looked after the situation.
The Armed forces? God help them (if there was a god).
I do agree with the though of Leading by Example, but we are talking huge Governments here, and surely there is no need for this approach; the situation is obvious.
Climate is changing. We need to understand this by non political research, but that research has to be funded by the Government using our taxes.
As I asked/said pages ago, no politician will tell you where the tax reaped on the back of the Green Issue is spent.
If they could claim (boast) that it was being ploughed-into research, development and actions then that would be good, but they do not, so it must be to pay for Speed Cameras/paperwork/handcuffing drunkards on a Friday/sat evening in Birmingham/Wars galor/Global policing and all that.
Living in the UK looks poor, but i doubt the grass is greener anywhere else in the West and now some parts of the Far East.
Graham
The times I've used or had relatives use the NHS the serice has been great and sometimes life saving.
I work with the local Education authority trying to persuade school kids to work in Industry (for the last 11 years now) and the schools ARE declining because the kid's attitudes are so poor.
The funding is there, but the stuoid paperwork is there too.
I feel the police system is weak (I have called on it recently) and it failed me and the bast@rd who touched-up my daughter walked away. I was promised i would be prosecuted if i looked after the situation.
The Armed forces? God help them (if there was a god).
I do agree with the though of Leading by Example, but we are talking huge Governments here, and surely there is no need for this approach; the situation is obvious.
Climate is changing. We need to understand this by non political research, but that research has to be funded by the Government using our taxes.
As I asked/said pages ago, no politician will tell you where the tax reaped on the back of the Green Issue is spent.
If they could claim (boast) that it was being ploughed-into research, development and actions then that would be good, but they do not, so it must be to pay for Speed Cameras/paperwork/handcuffing drunkards on a Friday/sat evening in Birmingham/Wars galor/Global policing and all that.
Living in the UK looks poor, but i doubt the grass is greener anywhere else in the West and now some parts of the Far East.
Graham
18 January 2007, 07:37 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Aaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!!!! Not that tofu sandal wearing, eco push-bike riding, greener shade of blue Bliar clone 
I really do not know who I can vote for. Not a chance on Brown, Cameron is no better, the Libs are farcical. All I'm left with is the fringe parties whom make no difference and could never rule anyhow.
I really do not know who I can vote for. Not a chance on Brown, Cameron is no better, the Libs are farcical. All I'm left with is the fringe parties whom make no difference and could never rule anyhow.
18 January 2007, 06:03 PM
#83
Agree with the above.
There are no differences but one.
You know how the Lab Government works/performs/behaves and most probably do not like the result before them today.
So you should vote for one of the others that suits you best.
That way they 'might' get in and then there 'might' be a change for the better (maybe).
Leave Blair/Brown there and you know what might happen next.
Remember Blair WILL go this year, and I bet Brown will move next door straight away.
It is up to the electorate.
Graham.
There are no differences but one.
You know how the Lab Government works/performs/behaves and most probably do not like the result before them today.
So you should vote for one of the others that suits you best.
That way they 'might' get in and then there 'might' be a change for the better (maybe).
Leave Blair/Brown there and you know what might happen next.
Remember Blair WILL go this year, and I bet Brown will move next door straight away.
It is up to the electorate.
Graham.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ossett2k2
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
15
23 September 2015 09:11 AM