• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
More than double every year adds up quickly. Then there's the VAT on fuel, car tax, VAT on car sales, punitive BiK rates, etc. There's plenty in the pot from drivers.
Click to expand...

I moan about paying BIK tax as much as the next HMT-bilking entrepreneur, but the fact is that if it was really punitive company cars would not be a thing.
 
scaramanga said:
Best I can find is an announcement from 2020 that the govt were going to launch a big new £27B project to upgrade/repair/build UK roadways over a few years. That ended up being scaled back, but had it gone ahead that's just over one year of fuel duty - not to mention the overlap with ongoing repairs mentioned above.

Motorists are a cash cow for the govt and way outspend their costs.
Click to expand...
You are not considering things such as air pollution, road accidents, noise pollution, visual blight, congestion, the ecological impact, the loss of land use, the invasion of public space, toxic greenhouse gases, water pollution, effect on property prices and how driving in traffic seems to turn everyone into a clam. The tax/maintenance equation is an oversimplification.
The point though is that nondrivers do subsidise the car culture through their taxes as well as the societal and environmental impacts. You can play whack-a-mole with that list if you like or you could just be genuine and say I like driving so I don't give a fudge. That would be the honest response.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
I moan about paying BIK tax as much as the next HMT-bilking entrepreneur, but the fact is that if it was really punitive company cars would not be a thing.
Click to expand...
They weren't for me for a long time.

If I'd taken my Aston as a company car as I wanted to, the BiK would have been over £20k per year.
 
Rorschach said:
You are not considering things such as air pollution, road accidents, noise pollution, visual blight, congestion, the ecological impact, the loss of land use, the invasion of public space, toxic greenhouse gases, water pollution, effect on property prices and how driving in traffic seems to turn everyone into a clam. The tax/maintenance equation is an oversimplification.
The point though is that nondrivers do subsidise the car culture through their taxes as well as the societal and environmental impacts. You can play whack-a-mole with that list if you like or you could just be genuine and say I like driving so I don't give a fudge. That would be the honest response.
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot like all that "Stakeholder" flimflam I pretend to care about every now and then.
 
scaramanga said:
Tell me you don't understand how a business works without saying you don't understand how a business works.
Click to expand...


History says hello. I'm pretty sure business continued to invest after 1945 when Labour nationalized steel, coal and a heap of others besides. You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
History says hello. I'm pretty sure business continued to invest after 1945 when Labour nationalized steel, coal and a heap of others besides. You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.
Click to expand...
You're right, the late 40s and early 50s were a roaring economic success.

Oh, hang on.....
 
scaramanga said:
You're right, the late 40s and early 50s were a roaring economic success.

Oh, hang on.....
Click to expand...

Who said they were? That was not the debate. I see what you did there... you shifted your position because your original argument was debunked. Nationalization did not result in capital fleeing Britain when we followed this policy in the 40's and 50's. Why can you never admit that you are just plain wrong?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Who said they were? That was not the debate. I see what you did there... you shifted your position because your original argument was debunked. Nationalization did not result in capital fleeing Britain when we followed this policy in the 40's and 50's. Why can you never admit that you are just plain wrong?
Click to expand...
Did it result in investment? (Hint, the answer is "No")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back