Budget 2015: Osborne vs. the Economy
- Thread starter Dr Jack
- Start date
He will come out with more BS when we get the EU vote. But we do know this PM can't be trusted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,573
Now we see the truth and that is VED has never been about improving the environment. It is about making the government money (money that has been widely misspent I might add). Since 2009 the income from VED and fuel duty has consistently been in the vicinity of £30bn but actually in real terms the amount of VED taken on average per vehicle has decreased because of the 25% increase in cars on the road in the same period. When you also consider the cars are going further on less fuel this clearly has got the Chancellor foaming at the mouth over all of your money he isn't grabbing.
The car I will be collecting in August costs me £20 a year to tax. The same car in 2017 (if I bought it then) is going to cost £140. I wouldn't mind so much if our road network wasn't totally ****, or if there was a public transport alternative in any region outside of London, lol. I would be happy to pay more VED and fuel duty if they had spent the majority of the money they have taken in the last 10 years on actually improving the fricking roads in the first place. They don't spend as much as they should and when they do they throw it at inefficient private companies under the umbrella of the Highways Agency (Amey, Enterprise Mouchel, Ringway et al).
I would be keenly interested to hear the governments official justification on why the car is going to be 7 times the price to tax given it has relatively low impact emissions and it is not a luxury saloon. Such a back track on VED policy is probably something they want to take your attention off, just like they will want you to forget their promises on permanent non-dom status when they accidentally on purpose forget all about it in a couple of years time
But what I really don't agree with is the luxury tariff for cars costing over £40k. That is complete BS, particularly because a lot of them have low emissions and a lot of them will be leased or bought on finance and is just another example of cynical money grabbing by the government to hit both private drivers and businesses alike and it has absolutely no justification in my book. It is just another punishment for those doing alright for themselves.
The developing culture and mindset of feeling it is OK to hammer those with a bit more money "bcuz they can afford it innit, bruv" is insipid and counter productive. Little wonder those earning more resort to creative tax avoidance schemes when we are consistently telling people that if you do well for yourself we will punish you. Way to go government - this will really help you to improve tax revenues from those earning more money and won't alienate them at all, lol.
As for VED income being ring fenced for spending on infrastructure. Just lol. I will believe that when I see it.
i still don't see why people should subsides others decision to breed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Quite. People arguing against cuts to child benefits are essentially saying "why should it be the responsibility of the parents to look after their own child"
In your example for a higher rate tax payer (ignoring all personal allowances)
Rental proceeds: £300
Less maintenance expenses: (£50)
Rental income = £250
Tax charge before allowances = £100
Less: Interest allowance (£100 x 20%): (£20)
Tax due = £80
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-personal-bank-accounts-to-recover-debts.html
Bend over boys and girls you with the Eton crowd now.
Good. There is no reason why anyone owing over a grand should not cough up.
Indeed. Just because others got the benefits before you, doesn't mean change isn't needed at some point.
No, you see the truth that if it's to continue having an environmental effect the bands need updating as cars get more efficient. Otherwise there is no further downwards pressure on carbon emissions.
*headdesk*
No. We're saying that the state should support its people when they fall on hard times and - especially - that no child should suffer because of their parents misfortunes.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,295
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Given the size of the country and our existing population, is having more than two children a responsible thing to do regardless of your financial situation?
If they have more children than they can afford to raise without requiring handouts from other people, then they are free to give the extra child up for adoption (as is normal in almost every country and was in this one before it became benefitworld).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,624
- Location
- London
I don't think anyone would dispute that, but regardless the child shouldn't have to suffer for their parents mistakes/lack of responsibility.
we give out condoms for free....
nah there is a limit... contraception is available, terminations are available... no one accidentally has 8 kids - if a parent deliberately has more kids than they can support there isn't much we can do about it, just as if a parent deliberately feeds them junk food or doesn't care if they go to school etc.. that is down to the ****less parents... help is there for people in general who fall on hard times, a two kid cap is absolutely fine IMO
that is just how the world works though, irresponsible parents = suffering kids.. take it to the extreme and we'll have to take them away from the parents
this doesn't just apply to breeding but also abuse in the home, feeding them rubbish, sitting them in front of the TV all day... there are plenty of scumbag parents out there
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,573
So a blanket £140 VED for nearly all cars creates that pressure? I don't think so. Nor will manufacturers because the majority of car users are not going to rush out an buy electric vehicles which are a niche market, so their sales will not really be effected.
This policy decision will halt that downward pressure if anything and just cost motorists more in the process.