Klaatu

What has GW got to do with CS/Govn't abusing the taxes you pay apart from the introduction of so much legislation to "combat climate change" via taxes?

Yes, human induced g/w, climate change, whatever "label" you want to use, is an invention of Govn't policy analysts going back to the days of Thatcher.

Talking of Thatcher, during the Faulklands "conflict" an enormous amount of legislation was passed, in secrecy, introducing new, almost Orwellian, Govn't powers.

Martin2005

Klaatu have a day off mate

Klaatu

That's your best post in this thread so far

Suresh

So is the existing burden on the more productive harder-workers / genetically-advantaged not already enough then that it needs to be increased every year?

'Your sort' would you tax the rich into extinction. Then we could all be poor. That sort of attitude is just jealousy isn't it?

PeteBrant

No i didnt say it needs to be increased every year
Not really, maybe I earn a fabulous amount of money, I just beleive in the common good.



Maybe veering quite a ways off topic here though.

Geezer

Well, it is linked in a way. Why tax a gaz guzzling (probably a well off person) car more than an economical one? You already pay more in tax due to the increased amount of fuel you use. It's exactly like income tax, you already pay more because you earn more.

It's just a very cynical way of getting more money for no good reason. If you are gonna drop £50k on a Range Rover etc. then £400 a tax isn't going to deter nor bother you. It's so obvious it's untrue.

Geezer

PeteBrant

I actually agree with you, just add the duty to fuel and then you have an instant fair system, - More miles - more tax, less economical - more tax.

However if the whole thing is a revenue exercise, then why not do just that, because they would earn much, much more revenue doing thing that way.

Devildog

Because the road haulage companies that are already on fine margins would fail as the amount per litre would have to be a fairly large hike to recover similar amounts from the aveage motorist.

Lets say you do 8000 miles a year @ 30 mpg. Thats what, 1200 litres of fuel.

10p a litre would be £120 a year tax, so its more likely to be 15p or 20p a litre.

PeteBrant

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...cientist.thtml

Quite an interesting read.


Also

washingtonpost.com

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change - SourceWatch

So, I was mistaken, I thought that there was pretty much consensus on man made global warming. It seems that actually, we are far from it - You have two camps and in both those camps are respected climatologists.

Now no way Am I going to say which side is right or wrong, on things like the climate I am not going to claim to be an expert (i'm certainly not going to claim that "anyone with a primary education can see it doesn't work" )

I still don't buy the revenue raising aspect, or the control or any of the conspiracy theories - But I do accept that the debate is no where near as over as the government or the media are conveying.

PeteBrant

But there is nothing to stop you concessing haulage companies is there.

Klaatu

In practicve that doesn't work, well certainly for Australia and New Zealand. Petrol in Australia has a fixed tax, plus GST at 10%. NZ on the other hand has CPI linked taxes, plus levies (ACC), a (Supposedly temporary tax introduced some years back to raise NZ$90m) NZ$0.04 c p/l Auckland tax, all taxes are subject to GST of 12.5%. Each time the price rises, more people start driving less and using public transport.

In NZ Road User Charges (RUCs) were introduced in 1974 to "reflect the real cost of road use, maintenace and building". Very few roads get maintained by national Govn't, that's largely left to ratepayers. Problem was that in the 80's cars became more fuel efficient, and the reaction of Govn't? It raised the RUC's, and has been ever since.

The congestion tax was introduced in London as a deterant, and to provide additional funding for additional PT services. PT services haven't increased significantly, but the tax is going up.

Revenue from existing taxes on cars, road use and fuel drops, taxes go up and/or additional taxes are introduced.

Klaatu

He refers to working out averages. Keep it accurate.

PeteBrant

Yeah, the wink means it was a light hearted comment. I'll stick a neon sign on next time *






*Winky smile indiciates a comment of not entire serious nature. No offence is either neither implied nor intentional. Any laspses in accuracy of comment pertaining to winky are to be accepted in the scope of a light hearted off the cuff remark.
Winky smaile may go up as well as down, and your smiley may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a winky or any other loan secured on it.

Klaatu

So?

Klaatu

No **** Sherlock!

Leslie

Seems pretty relevant to me, if that is not pickpocketing what is? They were desperate to avoid the public knowind about the allowances they can claim for setting up their second houses!

Les

Devildog

Yes - cash flow and cost.

You can't give a concession at the pumps - not workable in practical terms. Commercial only filling stations? Too expensive.

Any concession would have to be by way of a repayment claim - time consuming, delayed and more beurocracy. Not to mention a good few million quid setting it up.

Klaatu

I wonder how many millions of tonnes of Co2 can an active volvano, errupting every 2 or 3 hours every day for 800 years, emit?

warrenm2

If you're into that sort of thing check out the underground coal fires in China, where one estimate puts Chinese fires alone consuming 120 million tons of coal annually. One fire there has recently been put out which had burnt for 50 years....

Klaatu

That's true, but that is a direct result of mining. The volcano, Yaser on Vanuatu, is a completely natural event.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Well, what about the CO2 from oceans, accounts for alot, I think, and that's natural too.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

LMAO!

Klaatu

And so too wetlands, more than all of human activities combined.

Suresh

No this is perfectly on topic Pete. What we have established is that our typical 'greenie' -

- Is poorly informed about the climate change discussion
- Is poorly informed about increased taxation
- Has no problem with bogus climate change claims being used as a smokescreen to implement new taxes that affect the rich

Finally if you are that concerned about the common good, why now give up all your excess income instead of volunteering others to do so . Starting with your Subaru of course .

Klaatu

Much of the recent IPCC "predictions" are based on climate models. These models have a "normal" temperature value determined by the average of the recorded temperatures between 1961 and 1990. All climatologists, the IPCC, Al Gore etc use this "normal" to determine "variation".

This really is cronically bad "scinece".

But "showroom", "congestion" and "carbon" taxes will fix climate change.

PeteBrant

Be no different to some form of tax return - In fact, seeing as you would claim back the VAT on all your fuel anyay, it would be fairly simple to extend that to an extra concession to haulage firms.

PeteBrant

We haven't established that at all. Points 2 and 3 are certainly up for debate
THat really is too far off topic IMO, I'll happily debate it else where though

Leslie

Please could you list the "Orwellian" legislation brought in during the Falklands campaign.

Les

silent running

I've not bothered to read the rest of the thread, just the last page. In answer to the original question...

no

Klaatu

The British Nationality Act (1981), effectively redefining "citizenship", was in force before the war, the Govn't weren't too concerened about Falkland nationals applying to enter to Britain or their welfare, until the envasion. The result was, simply, shear luck that Thatcher won her "good war".

And while Britain's attention was focussed on the war...

Legislation was passed to reduce the funds, via license fees, to the BBC. The BBC at the time wasn't showing the Govn't in it's best light.

The Employment Act 1982.

Legislation to prevent homosuxual teachers from proselytising.

Legislation to limit freedoms of the press.

And many many more, we'll all know in a few years, or sooner if Gordon get's his way (A diversionary tactic yet again).