Fuel up/down again

rypt said:
You cut wasteful spending, cut the silly pension liabilities, and cut the pointless spending

Now you don't need to tax fuel at all :)
Click to expand...

SC?

How do you just 'cut' your liabilities like that?

That has other effects.

Pointless spending? Would that be UK plc? ;)

No, you don't need people spouting out useless economic soundbites from the past as if it has some modern day relevence.
 
Biohazard said:
SC?

How do you just 'cut' your liabilities like that?

That has other effects.

Pointless spending? Would that be UK plc? ;)

No, you don't need people spouting out useless economic soundbites from the past as if it has some modern day relevence.
Click to expand...

The government can surely find a way, say by privatising/spinning off parts of it and then basically letting them fail.

And pointless spending is with regards to huge parts of welfare system, wars we don't need, parts of NHS

Wasteful spending is MOD procurement, parts of NHS
 
Dolph said:
You really could do to learn to quote me in context rather than pushing the same old tired and discredited crap.
Click to expand...

Oh, I stirred the beast.

:D

Dolph said:
The whole 'taxation is theft' argument relates to an argument I made around why taxation should be minimised to only that which is necessary, not an argument for removal of taxation. You know this, but yet you keep misquoting the same tired crap. One can only presume this is because you don't have an answer to the actual argument I put across.
Click to expand...

I'm not misquoting, that was your old argument. It was theft. You never rectified it in that conversation. You made all sorts of daft claims about business, society state and tax as a counter to try and shield the issue.

You revised since after to equate to a small tax environment, while still bleeting on about it being 'theft' and monopoly of force to emote the issue, for some unknown reason.

You may mean it to be one thing, but you're wording suggests wildly different.

For example. 'Why is it that the left can only do stuff with thefted money taken by force'? yada yada the other day.

You weren't actually throwing the insult of a low tax economic setup at them were you?

No, didn't think so.

Dolph said:
So, in the context of fuel duty, at no point would I argue for the abolishment of fuel duty, instead, I argue that fuel duty should be limited strictly to addressing the harms of fuel use and road usage to society, and be set accordingly. This is in contrast to what happens now, where it is just a revenue stream that goes into general taxation and can be raised at a whim.
Click to expand...

Good man. ;)

If you didn't wrap it under taxation 'theft' and monopoly of force, that comes across as rather sensible.

But then what to the loss in 'general' taxation? It is still a loss to government income.

Dolph said:
Likewise, I do not argue for the abolishment of general taxation, but for it to be fair, and the burden to fall as an equal percentage on all, just as I argue that the welfare state should be reformed so that it offers the same benefit to all in a roundabout way (either direct payment or tax offset).

There is also a consideration to be made that sales taxes are a lot less like theft than direct taxation, because they relate to choice based activities, but being realistic, you can't run the necessary functions of the state fairly exclusively on indirect taxation due to the regressive nature of it.
Click to expand...

Realistic! So can we stop with the 'theft' and 'monopoly of force' if we both now agree it to be the only realistic way for the state to exist?

Anyway, probably best left for another time.
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
I would like to nominate this as 'Most ridiculous Motors thread of 2011'.

I think it's going to win.
Click to expand...

It's the usual left wing vs right wing debate, where the left wing people want everyone else to give more and more money and utterly fail to grasp that their position is wrong and that the right economic position is correct
 
rypt said:
It's the usual left wing vs right wing debate, where the left wing people want everyone else to give more and more money and utterly fail to grasp that their position is wrong and that the right economic position is correct
Click to expand...

No, it isnt that at all.
 
rypt said:
It's the usual left wing vs right wing debate, where the left wing people want everyone else to give more and more money and utterly fail to grasp that their position is wrong and that the right economic position is correct
Click to expand...

Omg. Facepalm. :p

Like first of all its a stupid motors thread.

At worse at the end its a spaz out, it's very little to do with a left wing right wing debate but Dolph and I arguing?

We aren't the 'left and right' are we?

The last part of your sentence is nothing but ignorant.
 
Your views are those of the left economically

Dolph's views tend to be those of the right economically

Dolph is correct in his view, you are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom