OH SHIT

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 May 2010, 12:42

A good new tax would be drugs.

Make 'em all legal, treat 'em in a similar manner to alcohol and tobacco and then tax 'em.

Think of the amount of money saved chasing thugs, dealing with supply-related crime etc etc. Win-win.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 14 May 2010, 13:01

It's hard to see how this variable rate tax would be implemented.

How would it be calculated ? Against the average sale price of petrol at the pump, or some fraction of the price of oil? Which grade of oil priced on which exchange? Using the price in dollars, Stirling, or perhaps Euros?

How often would the price be recalculated? weekly, monthly, annually?
Would the entire price changes be offset, or simply some fraction of it, perhaps on a sliding scale...

If the price of oil went down sharply in one month, I could see long lines at the forecourts as drivers rush beat the monthly tax rise.

I think power switch should contact this minister with send a presentation, based on the financial implications of recent oil trends for the UK economy...

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 14 May 2010, 13:17

This about Hammond

He has had many business interests including house building and property, manufacturing, healthcare and oil and gas. He has undertaken various consulting assignments in Latin America for the World Bank in Washington, DC, and was a consultant to the government of Malawi from 1995 until his election to Parliament.

In October 2009, New Statesman estimated his personal wealth at £9m and describes his directorship of Castlemead Property - "in which he has shares worth £4.9m" - as "lucrative".

Why am I not surprised to see the words 'oil and gas' ?

http://www.roadtransport.com/Articles/2 ... nsport.htm

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 14 May 2010, 13:36

How about a lower tax in rural areas where fuel tends to be more expensive, and there aren't the alternatives to the car, and a higher tax in urban areas where there are more alternatives!

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 14 May 2010, 14:49

Within 24 hours of taking on the portfolio he confirmed the new administration would bring in a "fuel price stabiliser" which would see the taxes reduced if the price of oil rises sharply.

This whole article is predictable stuff from the Tories. The ill-advised "fuel price stabiliser", no cash for new speed cameras, cutting back on clamping, possible tolls on new roads, the worrying reference to "new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure" and the sweetener of "possible high speed rail" that will never be built.

The language is the usual Tory stuff - "ending the war on motorists" and "motorist-friendly". If you use public transport, be very scared.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 14 May 2010, 15:20

Quintus wrote:
Within 24 hours of taking on the portfolio he confirmed the new administration would bring in a "fuel price stabiliser" which would see the taxes reduced if the price of oil rises sharply.
This whole article is predictable stuff from the Tories. The ill-advised "fuel price stabiliser", no cash for new speed cameras, cutting back on clamping, possible tolls on new roads, the worrying reference to "new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure" and the sweetener of "possible high speed rail" that will never be built.

The language is the usual Tory stuff - "ending the war on motorists" and "motorist-friendly". If you use public transport, be very scared.

+1

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 14 May 2010, 15:59

Coming from the telegraph, the language is hardly surprising. I'm more interested in what the government is actually going to do. I can choose not to read the telegraph...

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 14 May 2010, 17:15

foodimista wrote:Does it say that the total tax take from fuel duty will go down? No. It depends where they set the motorist's price for fuel. It also doesn't say that that price will be fixed for all time. This might be a stealth tax. We'll have to wait and see.

However, I'm sure a more stable fuel price would be welcomed by businesses for their budgeting and cashflow.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 14 May 2010, 17:29

emordnilap wrote:
clv101 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:This '5-year fixed term' - is it legal? I mean, surely it's not up to a party to decide on this, it ought to be a referendum issue. On the face of it, it doesn't seem like a good idea, pretty far right in fact.

Does it really mean you have to put up with this lot no matter what antics they get up to?
Why do you say that? I think fixed term parliaments are a fundamentally good thing. Of course any parliament can be ended by a vote of no confidence but putting that aside, it's much better to know when an election will be rather than forever second guesses and for the current PM being able to call a snap election whenever it suits them.
That's fair enough, if you're happy with it. I just saw it from the point of view of "we're coming in for five years and you can't put us out" type of thing. It comes across as a move rightwards (not surprisingly).

Some confusion here as well.

The Con-Lib coalition have agreed a 5-year fixed term parliament and have set the level for a no confidence vote at 55%. This is to tie them BOTH into a full 5-year parliament as the Tories have 47% of the seats and, unless they are go for a vote of no confidence in themselves with the aid of other parties, there is no way that the government can be voted out, barring a big change in the distribution of seats following by-elections.

I don't know what I think about the general application of fixed 5-year parliaments yet. If a single party government wants to cut and run to the polls, I guess they can engineer a vote of no confidence in themselves (probably worked some other way, but to the same result) or even change the rules again and scrap the fixed parliament idea.

As I said, the 5-year fixed term parliament is a device to tie the coalition together and prevent either side being opportunistic and cutting and running to the polls.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 14 May 2010, 19:11

I think most other countries have fixed terms for their parliaments. They think we're odd.

Pip · Post by **Pip** » 14 May 2010, 22:10

Quintus wrote:

The language is the usual Tory stuff - "ending the war on motorists" and "motorist-friendly". If you use public transport, be very scared.
I use both, roughly equally. I don't know whether to be scared or happy

Cutting back on clamping and speed cameras I'm all for - there are far too many cowboy clampers and speed cameras are being used to replace human traffic cops, which they are no match for.

To an extent I'm up for toll roads as well, providing theres a consequent decrease in VED - I think a pay per use system of car tax would encourage people to use cars less. Once you've paid VED then you may as well use the car as you've already paid your years worth.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 May 2010, 22:25

Pip wrote: I think a pay per use system of car tax would encourage people to use cars less.

It's called a tax on fuel - we have it and it is very cheap to administer. It could be higher, but it is rather smart as it falls most heavily on those who use the most fuel.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 14 May 2010, 22:42

Car clamping's apparently illegal in Scotland. Clampers are counted as Highwaymen. I rather like that

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 14 May 2010, 23:49

RenewableCandy wrote:Car clamping's apparently illegal in Scotland. Clampers are counted as Highwaymen. I rather like that

Several centuries after the collapse of industrial civilisation and the legend of Dick Turpin will have changed radically. Becoming merged with Robin Hood, we will have Dick Turpin and His Merry Clampers.

Post by **clv101** » 15 May 2010, 00:46

biffvernon wrote:
Pip wrote: I think a pay per use system of car tax would encourage people to use cars less.
It's called a tax on fuel - we have it and it is very cheap to administer. It could be higher, but it is rather smart as it falls most heavily on those who use the most fuel.

Indeed, the fuel tax is great. Very cheap to collect, very hard to defraud, scales perfectly with use... I'd be quite happy to see Road Tax (expensive to collect, often defrauded, poorly related to 'sin') scrapped and fuel duty increase by 10p (that's about how much it would be to be revenue neutral).