Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Another New Labour TAX`fiasco due -

Recommended Posts

Having suffered a back-lash from their core support, over the 10p tax debacle, which hit the poorest in society; seems the Government havn't learned a thing. :roll: They are now considering increasing car tax on older vehicles (which tend to be owned by the least wealthy folk), and increasing the tax on fuel (which increases, as a knock on effect, the price of everything). :roll: Joan Ruddock, the Minister said "whilst we sympathise, there are enviromental considerations involved". :roll: Well, excuse me Joan, as you should have learned from Crewe, voters act mainly out of self interest. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are now considering increasing car tax on older vehicles (which tend to be owned by the least wealthy folk),

 

and are you calling me poor like or what (3 of mine are 40 years old so I can expect a rite hammering!!)?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But aren't cars built before 1st January 1973 exempt from road tax. Think it used to be a rolling 25 year exemption but Labour created a static date when they came to power, thereby ensuring the exemption "withered on the vine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car tax on cars built between 1973 and 2001 was based on size of engine. After 2001 it was based on carbon emissions, so any car which produces carbon dioxide emissions below 100 g/km mark would also be free from car tax..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No this is true the Corsairs are tax exempt (just my way of a very small kick in Labours tax grabbing pocket!)

 

As for my other ones, they are all at least 10 years old and so aren't subject to all this emissions nonsense that newer cars are taxed on.... seems that old is good for once!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer would be to relate the tax to the cc of the vehicle; thus say 1100cc pays ?110 etc. :roll: As for 4X4s, they can double that if they want! :wink: This would allow those with least money to downsize. :? As for age, the MOT supposed to cover that aspect. :roll: It all boils down to an apparent inability of this Government, to think through a policy, before introducing it. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it is all part of the labour party theft of money from every law abiding citizen whilst the MPs and some top civil servants can cheat and lie their way to a fortune Tony Bliar and his home mortgage is such an example.

The rumoured nonsense of giving every MP 23000 tax free allownaces is also another attempt to steal money from the populace. The only way is a civil disobedience campaign until all these thieves are kicked out then stop their pensions just as they stop ours.

i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rumoured nonsense of giving every MP 23000 tax free allownaces

 

It isn't a rumour, it is a fact, they can claim upto ?23,000 tax free second home allowance....the words "second home" is a misnomer as it seems some have been claiming it for other things. :x

 

I posted the following on a Conservative Website earlier today:

 

"Maybe the solution to the MPs second home allowance is to scrap it altogether, give them a pay rise to say ?85,000- ?90,000...or an appropriate Senior Civil Service Grade which it could then remain linked to, and then to be allowed to claim any legitimate expenses against tax, thereby making the HMRC the arbiters of this unseemly haggling.

 

Worth noting that if MPs aren't happy with their lot, they can always stand down....and be trampled underfoot by the rush of equally capable people, wanting to do their job. :wink:

 

Posted by: Paul Kennedy | 27 May 2008 at 09:23"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

I can't believe that you would advocate a rise like that. Partly because as I have stated before that because the trough snufflers have an index linked, gold plated, paid for by us, final salary pension, we would be paying even more to them even after they are booted out.

 

They should take the 60 grand they currently get and bloody well live on it like the rest of us have to. If they want to stay over in london, stay in a hotel. If they want a secretary, give them ione that isn't their wife or husband.

 

I am absolutely bloody amazed that the two that represent this little town take home between them the salaries of a medium sized business employing 10 people. They do nothing for me and they do even less for the town; as do most MP's. It is all about how much they can steal from the populus and offering them even more for doing bugger all is beyond belief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A glorified barracks for MPs, similar to a YMCA, would suffice for their London accomodation, all office equipment and staff provided by the State, thus no expense to them, thus no claims and no fiddles. :roll: Simple, but it won't happen cos they can legislate their own cheques; no wonder they're living in ivory towers. :roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As PJ said in another post.....You know that it can't be right when the pigs decide how much slop goes into the trough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a way of saving money and rewarding honest endeavour perhaps they could all be put on performance related pay :D We would save millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends how you determine performance related pay, I see that the Chief Executive of Royal mail is on such a scheme.....he earned over ?3 million last year, his basic salary is ?633,000. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what's the point in voting for a system that's intrinsically and institutionally corrupt?! :?:wink:

 

Not sure that there is an alternative that is any better, indeed many are much worse. Remember that if you feel your MP has failed to perform, you can sack them via the ballot box.....as indeed many will be at the next General Election....and time will tell if we get a better bunch. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends how you determine performance related pay, I see that the Chief Executive of Royal mail is on such a scheme.....he earned over ?3 million last year, his basic salary is ?633,000. :wink:

 

And how many Communities and businesses suffered to give him that money?

What a morally corrupt society we live in. :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is Paul, it will never improve, because any new blood becomes corrupted by the remnants of the old, you would need to replace almost every single MP in order to clean out the stables - which won't happen, unless we get a new Oliver Cromwell! :roll::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and even he was biding his time until he could "reluctantly" snatch the crown. Politics requires corruption to incentivise otherwise we would have to put them on similar salaries as blue chip boardroom members and even then greed takes over. The British parliamentary system has served us well for hundreds of years compared to our continental neighbours. You will not get an ideal government since that ideal is maintained supressing the freedoms of the proletariat. No.... I can turn a blind eye to corruption so long as they keep us in work and out of wars (tut, tut Tony)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends how you determine performance related pay, I see that the Chief Executive of Royal mail is on such a scheme.....he earned over ?3 million last year, his basic salary is ?633,000. :wink:

 

And how many Communities and businesses suffered to give him that money?

What a morally corrupt society we live in. :x

 

Refuse wage increases on a regular basis do you? Get real the big bad mill owner does not exist except in the small businesses you claim he is stuffing. 3 million investment in the right man with the right connections may be justified if he has prevented insolvency of a major employer. It is simple cost benefit strategy, spend 3 million to avoid loosing billions. This image of directors stealing food from the mouths of babes is sensationalist and distracts from the real business of keeping these businesses flying so that can continue to provide work and revenue that can be taxed...a lot :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't disagree with some of your comments, but we should discuss the former Chief Executive of Northern Rock, paid millions......... cost the country billions. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Paul has pointed out; these sharks never lose out, even when blatantly incompetant as with Northern Rock, where the much vaunted capitalist system had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. :roll: As for "politicians", they are rightly a totally discredited profession, hence the growing disillusionment with politics generally. There are ways to bring our archaic system into the 21st century; to make it more relevent, minimise corruption etc; but such options won't be tried by the very people, with the power to change it, who are benefiting from said corruption . :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock didn't have to be bailed out by the taxpayer, but our incompetent government decided to do that to save face for itself and votes in its northeastern labour constituencies. Left to itself the capitalist system would have had to find an alternative solution however painful. :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And painfull it would have been for many small investors/savers; it would have destabilised our banking system on a much wider basis; thus demonstrating that when push comes to shove; the state (taxpayers) always have to save "capitalism" from the results of it's inherant greed. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bail out has destabilised the banking system. Allowing the system to sort out its own mess would have been less painful to the majority (i.e the taxpayer) :wink::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less painfull to taxpayers, but not to investors/savers, it would have proved Ken Dodd to be right - the best place for your money is under your mattress! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...