:gun_bandana:

Dont even get me started on Tax.... my corporate and personal including VAT is well over 1M a year my Jan balancing payment is £128K and I paid over £300K in August and pay £70k a quarter in VAT. I am just one big tax producing asset stuck on a wheel supporting an army of jobless stone heads and xbox experts.

 

im sick of it 50% on everything plus NI so the revenue earns more money from all my work now than me. highest tax in the world here now for people like me even higher than the communist countries like Russia, Cuba, and China. We are only a diplomatic state if you are on the dole or a low earner. im sick of it i get nothing from the state and they do nothing and are the leading fininancial beneficiary in my company dispite doing absolutely nothing for it.

 

Feckers like me are employers and i really cant be bothered to risk it all anymore so the tax man can benefit. From the 1st Jan i told my staff we had three new employees joining. I said they will not do feck all, they will never do anything to help any of us but never the less we have to give them a decently paid job for life. basically this increase in VAT is the same cost to my business as three new staff.

Here is something apt that was sent to me

 

Why is our income tax burden unfairly distributed?

 

 

1. Some £155 billion per annum is raised by our government from income tax.

The average earner (about £25,000 pa) pays 14.8% of their total pay in income tax and 20% marginal tax on pay rises.

But a high earner (say £250,000 pa) pays 41% of their total pay in income tax and 50% marginal tax on pay rises.

This high earner pays over 27 times more income tax than the average earner.

 

 

2. Of the 30 million taxpayers in the UK, some 28 million pay basic rate tax or less.

Only a small fraction are high earners – for example, there are only 14,000 people earning £1m pa or more, representing just 0.05% of total taxpayers, yet they pay 7.6% of total income tax revenue (Office for National Statistics).

 

3. Business leaders create and run operations that employ millions of people. They are usually higher rate taxpayers. But their employees also pay income tax, national insurance and VAT. Their companies pay corporation tax. Their shareholders pay income tax (including pension funds) and capital gains tax.

 

Without this revenue the government would have no money to pay their civil servants or support the massive payouts on our welfare & benefits system. This wealth is created by entrepreneurs and businessmen. The country cannot survive without them.

 

 

4. So high tax paying business leaders are vital members of our society. Without them there would be no welfare state. They deserve a much fairer tax treatment. Unfortunately they are a small minority. The vast majority of voters are easy to attract with “tax the rich more” policies and any scheme which supports “wealth redistribution”. The great majority think that having a higher rateof tax is fair and forget that higher rate taxpayers already pay 27 times more tax. That is due to ignorance.

 

 

5. An estimated £170 billion will be paid out in welfare benefits 2010/11 (Treasury forecast) – £15 billion more than the £155 billion raised from income tax.

Some 6 million Britons live in homes where no one has a job and benefits are a way of life – nearly one in six of all households in the country. 80% of these homes have no one even looking for a job. Some 130,000 households with a total income over £50,000 are currently eligible for Gordon Brown’s tax credits of about £10 a week! (Daily Mail).

Summary

 

Although high tax rates cause some entrepreneurs to exploit loopholes, the number doing so is far smaller than those who cheat our welfare system. Clearly there must be a safety net for the disadvantaged – but we must all recognise that entrepreneurs create the taxes that support it from the enterprises they run. They are not villains and as such deserve far more encouragement than they get, despite being a small minority. So enough of taxing these few vital, disenfranchised wealth creators. People are not the same – some create, some take. Wealth redistribution will not solve our debt problem – it will worsen it

Here is something apt that was sent to me

 

Why is our income tax burden unfairly distributed?

 

 

1. Some £155 billion per annum is raised by our government from income tax.

The average earner (about £25,000 pa) pays 14.8% of their total pay in income tax and 20% marginal tax on pay rises.

But a high earner (say £250,000 pa) pays 41% of their total pay in income tax and 50% marginal tax on pay rises.

This high earner pays over 27 times more income tax than the average earner.

 

 

2. Of the 30 million taxpayers in the UK, some 28 million pay basic rate tax or less.

Only a small fraction are high earners – for example, there are only 14,000 people earning £1m pa or more, representing just 0.05% of total taxpayers, yet they pay 7.6% of total income tax revenue (Office for National Statistics).

 

3. Business leaders create and run operations that employ millions of people. They are usually higher rate taxpayers. But their employees also pay income tax, national insurance and VAT. Their companies pay corporation tax. Their shareholders pay income tax (including pension funds) and capital gains tax.

 

Without this revenue the government would have no money to pay their civil servants or support the massive payouts on our welfare & benefits system. This wealth is created by entrepreneurs and businessmen. The country cannot survive without them.

 

 

4. So high tax paying business leaders are vital members of our society. Without them there would be no welfare state. They deserve a much fairer tax treatment. Unfortunately they are a small minority. The vast majority of voters are easy to attract with “tax the rich more” policies and any scheme which supports “wealth redistribution”. The great majority think that having a higher rateof tax is fair and forget that higher rate taxpayers already pay 27 times more tax. That is due to ignorance.

 

 

5. An estimated £170 billion will be paid out in welfare benefits 2010/11 (Treasury forecast) – £15 billion more than the £155 billion raised from income tax.

Some 6 million Britons live in homes where no one has a job and benefits are a way of life – nearly one in six of all households in the country. 80% of these homes have no one even looking for a job. Some 130,000 households with a total income over £50,000 are currently eligible for Gordon Brown’s tax credits of about £10 a week! (Daily Mail).

Summary

 

Although high tax rates cause some entrepreneurs to exploit loopholes, the number doing so is far smaller than those who cheat our welfare system. Clearly there must be a safety net for the disadvantaged – but we must all recognise that entrepreneurs create the taxes that support it from the enterprises they run. They are not villains and as such deserve far more encouragement than they get, despite being a small minority. So enough of taxing these few vital, disenfranchised wealth creators. People are not the same – some create, some take. Wealth redistribution will not solve our debt problem – it will worsen it

 

I'd wanna see proof before commenting. I disagree tho

Here is something apt that was sent to me

 

Why is our income tax burden unfairly distributed?

 

 

1. Some £155 billion per annum is raised by our government from income tax.

The average earner (about £25,000 pa) pays 14.8% of their total pay in income tax and 20% marginal tax on pay rises.

But a high earner (say £250,000 pa) pays 41% of their total pay in income tax and 50% marginal tax on pay rises.

This high earner pays over 27 times more income tax than the average earner.

 

 

2. Of the 30 million taxpayers in the UK, some 28 million pay basic rate tax or less.

Only a small fraction are high earners – for example, there are only 14,000 people earning £1m pa or more, representing just 0.05% of total taxpayers, yet they pay 7.6% of total income tax revenue (Office for National Statistics).

 

3. Business leaders create and run operations that employ millions of people. They are usually higher rate taxpayers. But their employees also pay income tax, national insurance and VAT. Their companies pay corporation tax. Their shareholders pay income tax (including pension funds) and capital gains tax.

 

Without this revenue the government would have no money to pay their civil servants or support the massive payouts on our welfare & benefits system. This wealth is created by entrepreneurs and businessmen. The country cannot survive without them.

 

 

4. So high tax paying business leaders are vital members of our society. Without them there would be no welfare state. They deserve a much fairer tax treatment. Unfortunately they are a small minority. The vast majority of voters are easy to attract with “tax the rich more” policies and any scheme which supports “wealth redistribution”. The great majority think that having a higher rateof tax is fair and forget that higher rate taxpayers already pay 27 times more tax. That is due to ignorance.

 

 

5. An estimated £170 billion will be paid out in welfare benefits 2010/11 (Treasury forecast) – £15 billion more than the £155 billion raised from income tax.

Some 6 million Britons live in homes where no one has a job and benefits are a way of life – nearly one in six of all households in the country. 80% of these homes have no one even looking for a job. Some 130,000 households with a total income over £50,000 are currently eligible for Gordon Brown’s tax credits of about £10 a week! (Daily Mail).

Summary

 

Although high tax rates cause some entrepreneurs to exploit loopholes, the number doing so is far smaller than those who cheat our welfare system. Clearly there must be a safety net for the disadvantaged – but we must all recognise that entrepreneurs create the taxes that support it from the enterprises they run. They are not villains and as such deserve far more encouragement than they get, despite being a small minority. So enough of taxing these few vital, disenfranchised wealth creators. People are not the same – some create, some take. Wealth redistribution will not solve our debt problem – it will worsen it

 

Being one of those who sees a larger share of my hard earned going to the State than ni my own pocket I agree whole heartedly.

 

Added to this, my previous role was as a Chartered Tax Advisor to Private Equity Funds and HNW individuals...basically setting up off shore SPVs for them to avoid paying tax here. I'm all for it and am not ashamed to say it.

 

My core reason for feeling this way - freeloaders. The majority of the people in this country have come to 'expect' things they have no right to. As soon as I can save up enough to make it worthwhile I too will be diverting my income elsewhere.

Suppose that once a week 10 men go out for a beer together having been friends for years. The bill for them all comes to £100. However, some of the men had no jobs and one was now very wealthy. They agreed to pay for their beer the way they paid their taxes and claimed their state benefits. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3, the seventh £7, the eighth £12, the ninth £18 and the 10th man (the richest) would pay £59. The ten men drank in the pub every week seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the landlord caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men now cost just £80.

 

 

 

The group still wanted to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink their beer for free but what about the other 6 men; the paying customers? How would they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if the subtracted that from everyone’s share then not only would the first 4 men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

 

 

So the landlord suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3. The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £15 instead of £18 and the tenth £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

 

But, once outside the pub, the men began to compare their savings. “I got only £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10.” “Yes that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I saved only £1 too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more saving than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!”

 

 

 

So the nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. Funnily enough the tenth man didn’t turn up the next week for their regular drink, so the nine sat down and had their drinks without him. But when they came to pay for their drinks, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

Suppose that once a week 10 men go out for a beer together having been friends for years. The bill for them all comes to £100. However, some of the men had no jobs and one was now very wealthy. They agreed to pay for their beer the way they paid their taxes and claimed their state benefits. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3, the seventh £7, the eighth £12, the ninth £18 and the 10th man (the richest) would pay £59. The ten men drank in the pub every week seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the landlord caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men now cost just £80.

 

 

 

The group still wanted to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink their beer for free but what about the other 6 men; the paying customers? How would they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if the subtracted that from everyone’s share then not only would the first 4 men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

 

 

So the landlord suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3. The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £15 instead of £18 and the tenth £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

 

But, once outside the pub, the men began to compare their savings. “I got only £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10.” “Yes that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I saved only £1 too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more saving than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!”

 

 

 

So the nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. Funnily enough the tenth man didn’t turn up the next week for their regular drink, so the nine sat down and had their drinks without him. But when they came to pay for their drinks, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

 

 

Seen this before and think its the best explanation I've seen yet!

gotta disagree there with you Richard, VAT disproportionately hits those on a lower income - including those of us who work VERY hard for a low wage which this government are planning on freezing. I totally agree that this refusing because your better off on benefits culture must end, but spare a thought for us poor b@stards who decided to take a career in the public sector eh? Lol

http://www.robinhoodtax.org

FTW

 

I understand how you feel Jane and appreciate just how hard some public sector workers graft. But, fuel aside, I still say that VAT is a fairer way to raise the money needed to pay off the nation's debt than income tax or NI.

 

I have a pretty good understanding of tax; I worked for many years as an accountant and when I left practice in 2004 I was a tax manager for a reasonable sized Chartered Certified Accountants.

 

Most essentials like food, rates, domestic rent, insurance etc are zero rated so the VAT increase will have no effect on grocery bills. And you cannot say that because the supermarket is paying more VAT on fuel they will have to raise prices - they shouldn't as supermarkets can reclaim the VAT; whether it's 17.5% or 20%! VAT on home energy is still 5% so no increase there either. And if you decide to spend, say £50, on cosmetics and cleaning products for example, the extra VAT is only £1.25 - OK an increase but not a busting lot.

 

And as for alcohol, sure that has VAT but you can bet your arse that until the government steps in, in a ham-fisted attempt to curb binge drinking, the supermarkets will continue to sell it cheap anyway and absorb the VAT incease themselves!!

 

Finally, and whilst I hate any relationship with the rest of Europe, our VAT is pretty much in line with our peers over there now. France and Germany have VAT at around 19 - 19.6% and the Scandinavians pay a whopping 22 - 25%!!

 

Trouble is, with a debt of £1 trillion, the government (which ever party is in power) MUST raise revenue to repay that ASAP otherwise we'd truly be in the shite. And raising income taxes too much will result in our highest earners moving overseas like they did in the 1970s. And 40 (or 50)% of something raises a lot more tax than 80% (or more as it reached 90-something in the 1970s) of nothing! At least they are doing something to alleviate the problem rather than sitting on their hands and doint nothing. Only time will tell; but I believe it will work......

 

Richard:flowers:

I understand how you feel Jane and appreciate just how hard some public sector workers graft. But, fuel aside, I still say that VAT is a fairer way to raise the money needed to pay off the nation's debt than income tax or NI.

 

I have a pretty good understanding of tax; I worked for many years as an accountant and when I left practice in 2004 I was a tax manager for a reasonable sized Chartered Certified Accountants.

 

Most essentials like food, rates, domestic rent, insurance etc are zero rated so the VAT increase will have no effect on grocery bills. And you cannot say that because the supermarket is paying more VAT on fuel they will have to raise prices - they shouldn't as supermarkets can reclaim the VAT; whether it's 17.5% or 20%! VAT on home energy is still 5% so no increase there either. And if you decide to spend, say £50, on cosmetics and cleaning products for example, the extra VAT is only £1.25 - OK an increase but not a busting lot.

 

And as for alcohol, sure that has VAT but you can bet your arse that until the government steps in, in a ham-fisted attempt to curb binge drinking, the supermarkets will continue to sell it cheap anyway and absorb the VAT incease themselves!!

 

Finally, and whilst I hate any relationship with the rest of Europe, our VAT is pretty much in line with our peers over there now. France and Germany have VAT at around 19 - 19.6% and the Scandinavians pay a whopping 22 - 25%!!

 

Trouble is, with a debt of £1 trillion, the government (which ever party is in power) MUST raise revenue to repay that ASAP otherwise we'd truly be in the shite. And raising income taxes too much will result in our highest earners moving overseas like they did in the 1970s. And 40 (or 50)% of something raises a lot more tax than 80% (or more as it reached 90-something in the 1970s) of nothing! At least they are doing something to alleviate the problem rather than sitting on their hands and doint nothing. Only time will tell; but I believe it will work......

 

Richard:flowers:

 

I agree with you there. Howether there still need to make sure that they dont tax out the working public who are on the breadline. Take a little too much and it soon will put people into a position of been unable to afford to work.

Its just a shame that this gov is getting all the slack for what previous gov has done.

 

To bring this back on topic tho, our fuel prices are way too much to the proportion of how much it can be sold for and still make a healthy vat and duty income.

To bring this back on topic tho, our fuel prices are way too much to the proportion of how much it can be sold for and still make a healthy vat and duty income.

 

:clap: Yep. :clap:

£30 today did 100 miles. This fuel hike has made quite a noticable difference as im sure i used to get 130 miles on £30???

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

I agree with you there. Howether there still need to make sure that they dont tax out the working public who are on the breadline. Take a little too much and it soon will put people into a position of been unable to afford to work.

Its just a shame that this gov is getting all the slack for what previous gov has done.

 

To bring this back on topic tho, our fuel prices are way too much to the proportion of how much it can be sold for and still make a healthy vat and duty income.

 

Very true mate - but tough times call for tough measures. Unfortunately.

 

To bring this back on topic tho, our fuel prices are way too much to the proportion of how much it can be sold for and still make a healthy vat and duty income.

 

:clap: Yep. :clap:

 

Agreed mate - VAT is just a small part of the issue. It's the fuel duty we have to suffer in this country that is unacceptable - and the VAT just adds to the problem as it's a tax on a tax; so to speak.

 

IMO the duty should be varied in accordance with the price of crude. Let's say the government settles at a price per litre for fuel, which everyone is comfortable with paying - then if crude prices rise, they drop the duty temporarily to ensure pump prices do not rise. Then when crude prices fall, the duty reverts back again - keeping prices at the pumps constant.

 

I doubt anyone would argue with that as at least it would appear to be playing fair.

 

And it's about time that the government stopped jumping of the "environmental" band wagon. Global warming has ceased to be owing to the cold snowy spells for 2 winters running - it's now been re-branded as "climate change." Rubbish - cars are not the cause of any changes to the world's shifting patterns so CUT THE BLOODY NONSENCE ABOUT TAXING US OUT OF OUR CARS FFS!!!!!

 

Richard:confused1::winkiss::sorcerer:

Over 80p litre is tax and Vat http://www.petrolprices.com/price-of-petrol.html

 

But remember its for our own good or the good of the environment or some or others MPs Expensis lol.

 

What gets me is the blame the high petrol prices on retailers and greedy fuel companies. However you cut it they think we are stupid. Will be 1.50 litre by March as well. just one of those unfortunate things we have no control over. It also annoys me that my "gas guzzlers" cost me £450 each per year in road tax. Again are we not supposed to be a capitalist country ????. if i have a car that does 12MPG and im happy owning it surely the cost of fuel is already a big enough tax on its own.

 

Give it a few years and car ownership will be a luxury unaffordable to a lot of people in the UK. But I just cant see how it will be affordable to so many people. These high fuel prices also effect transport costs, the price of food, taxis, blah blah blah.

I would like to see the day where people rebel against the high costs. Were not allowed to protest on streets about fuel, but they couldnt do owt about people simply refusing to use a vehicle for 2days a week at the same time.

If nothing in the country moved at all for 2days every week they would have no choice but to lower the price as the loss to the taxman would be out of pocket beyond what they could take.

unfortunatly this would never happen tho.

I would like to see the day where people rebel against the high costs. Were not allowed to protest on streets about fuel, but they couldnt do owt about people simply refusing to use a vehicle for 2days a week at the same time.

If nothing in the country moved at all for 2days every week they would have no choice but to lower the price as the loss to the taxman would be out of pocket beyond what they could take.

unfortunatly this would never happen tho.

 

Getting everyone not to use there car though, its not realistic. I think it's been tried before, when prices increased the first time.

 

I do think a rebellion is called for, not simply over fuel prices, but over Government in general.

 

I first lost hope when Tony Blair explained that he wouldn't be 'bullied' by fuel protests. Wait a sec, 'bullied'? Isn't it your people; your country trying to tell you something, don't you understand?!

 

I think the whole expenses thing showed just how detached MP's are from the people, they have no clue, or simply don't care.

 

Then the recent student Uni cost protests, especially after the promises...I really don't blame the students for losing it.

 

I have no respect or hope for the Government... The UK people have been pushed too far now, I honestly wouldn't be surprised by a rebellion against the Government in the near future. Protesting and petitions are either pointless or illegal, they'll do what they want, we're just cattle.

 

The cattle are tired of being milked.

Suppose that once a week 10 men go out for a beer together having been friends for years. The bill for them all comes to £100. However, some of the men had no jobs and one was now very wealthy. They agreed to pay for their beer the way they paid their taxes and claimed their state benefits. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3, the seventh £7, the eighth £12, the ninth £18 and the 10th man (the richest) would pay £59. The ten men drank in the pub every week seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the landlord caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men now cost just £80.

 

 

 

The group still wanted to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink their beer for free but what about the other 6 men; the paying customers? How would they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if the subtracted that from everyone’s share then not only would the first 4 men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

 

 

 

So the landlord suggested a different system. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing. The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3. The seventh paid £5 instead of £7. The eighth paid £9 instead of £12. The ninth paid £15 instead of £18 and the tenth £49 instead of £59. Each of the last six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free.

 

 

 

But, once outside the pub, the men began to compare their savings. “I got only £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10.” “Yes that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I saved only £1 too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more saving than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The rich get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor!”

 

 

 

So the nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. Funnily enough the tenth man didn’t turn up the next week for their regular drink, so the nine sat down and had their drinks without him. But when they came to pay for their drinks, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

 

Love it

seems to me that there is a bit of an inside job going on where they are trying to destroy our country. thats the only reason i can think of that our government would allow all these things to happen. its a hostile takeover

seems to me that there is a bit of an inside job going on where they are trying to destroy our country. thats the only reason i can think of that our government would allow all these things to happen. its a hostile takeover

 

It's not down to the guys in power now, they are just trying to fix the last decade plus, of uncontrolled spending..................

 

IoW garage has super unleaded at £1.40 a litre :thumbdown:

So, what i want to know, is now we are having hard times to get the country out of dept, what happens when we finally achieve this goal? or will they leave the goal post alone and come up with another excuse?

 

Dont get me wrong i understand and in a strange way i support it. but can we really trust things to go back to a reasonable level once and IF we actually drop our dept.

This is the state of the country the first three digets are "billions" basically if every asset including every property private and state owned were sold and all proceeds were given to the state we would still be in debt. When they talk about the defict being 13 billion it is not the size of the debt but the difference between the debt and the amount we can realisticallyy service.

 

The public sector is now 53% of the economy and the 47% private sector cant pay for it its just not possible. 53% is higher than russia was as a comunist country its so messed up.

 

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

I would like to see the day where people rebel against the high costs. Were not allowed to protest on streets about fuel, but they couldnt do owt about people simply refusing to use a vehicle for 2days a week at the same time.

If nothing in the country moved at all for 2days every week they would have no choice but to lower the price as the loss to the taxman would be out of pocket beyond what they could take.

unfortunatly this would never happen tho.

 

:thumbup::thumbup::clap:

 

 

Do you know, I have been saying this for years, they keep going on and on that people should use public transport more. If people implemented your suggestion and don't use their cars for two days a week, it would highlight the woefully Inadequateate state of our public transport system and the fact that it could not handle the numbers of people they think it can, as well as causing caos, and people not being able to get to work and the likes, they would soon reduce fuel duty. :clap::punk:

:thumbup::thumbup::clap:

 

 

Do you know, I have been saying this for years, they keep going on and on that people should use public transport more. If people implemented your suggestion and don't use their cars for two days a week, it would highlight the woefully Inadequateate state of our public transport system and the fact that it could not handle the numbers of people they think it can, as well as causing caos, and people not being able to get to work and the likes, they would soon reduce fuel duty. :clap::punk:

 

What irritates me is that we pay such extortionate prices for fuel yet we have v little alternative to using our cars because our public transport is a shambles. You only have to go to Europe in business or something to see how clean, reasonably priced, well run their transport system is - and joined up too - you can get your connections!! Our Government should be using the money gained from fuel duties to improve the transport infrastructure

What irritates me is that we pay such extortionate prices for fuel yet we have v little alternative to using our cars because our public transport is a shambles. You only have to go to Europe in business or something to see how clean, reasonably priced, well run their transport system is - and joined up too - you can get your connections!! Our Government should be using the money gained from fuel duties to improve the transport infrastructure

 

That's so true Jane:sad:

 

Richard:winkiss:

What irritates me is that we pay such extortionate prices for fuel yet we have v little alternative to using our cars because our public transport is a shambles. You only have to go to Europe in business or something to see how clean, reasonably priced, well run their transport system is - and joined up too - you can get your connections!! Our Government should be using the money gained from fuel duties to improve the transport infrastructure

 

Quite right Jane. :clap:

What irritates me is that we pay such extortionate prices for fuel yet we have v little alternative to using our cars because our public transport is a shambles. You only have to go to Europe in business or something to see how clean, reasonably priced, well run their transport system is - and joined up too - you can get your connections!! Our Government should be using the money gained from fuel duties to improve the transport infrastructure[/quote

 

 

The money from duty and road tax should be going into making the roads better and giving us something that reflects the money they gain from drivers.

if public service users want better services then let them fund it thro higher fares.

Edited January 8, 201114 yr by davezx

What irritates me is that we pay such extortionate prices for fuel yet we have v little alternative to using our cars because our public transport is a shambles. You only have to go to Europe in business or something to see how clean, reasonably priced, well run their transport system is - and joined up too - you can get your connections!! Our Government should be using the money gained from fuel duties to improve the transport infrastructure

 

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately most of our public transport is owned privately (usually by the French) and, now that they have bigger monopolies, can charge what they like. Many people would be worse-off using public transport and many people simply refuse to take a bus or train through fear of getting their heads kicked in by some chav - yet another big problem here!