[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

There are thousands of people that rely on their cars just for day to day living,if public transport served the population in an efficient manner,then yes you could assume people could live ordinary lives without cars.I'm sure there are lots of people that would willingly give up on road tax,insurance,fuel bills etc,but they can't, and I'm sure there lots that would string you up for your viewpoint,which in my opinion sucks!

What about people like me, im supplied a works van etc. Without that and the free fuel it wouldnt be worth it. I do to many miles in it.. A bus pass just wouldnt work. I work all over the shot.


Otherwise i drive purely for pleasure, i enjoy it end of. Its what i like doing etc.

[Hotcoupe]

needforspeed Quote:

I don't think that's clear at all.
OK,so I was wrong and in reality you are impoverished,but can afford to run a petrol 330 but object to paying taxes and would welcome them coming down

I'm from a very working class and generally deprived area in the North East of England.
See above
My point isn't about wealth or class.

When I was a kid (late 70's and early 80's) most of men in the area worked in heavy industry - mining, factories and ship building. The vast majority didn't have cars and most cycled or walked to work.
That was in the day's when there were thriving shipbuilding/mining industries.Travelling to work was very local and getting about by bike was no problem.We have now moved on,and all the local traditional ways of making a living have disappeared.

My father owned a car, but because he worked away at sea for months at a time and my mother couldn't drive as a child I went just about everywhere on the bus.
Yep back in the old days, pre-privatisation of the bus companies,there were far more routes then today,bus travel was the norm and convenient and cheap

We are now more reliant on cars because travelling and commuting has become a bigger part of our lives. We take it for granted and society expects it of us.
No, we are now far more reliant on cars because we have to be,work is now not local and not accessible by public transport.Society does not expect it,our employers do,they're not bothered how we get to work,just that we do.I don't take a car for granted,I could not work without one

No kids at my school were ever dropped off by car, but now the school run is a 'normal' everyday event.

Again back in the old days, schools were more local and it was common for a village to have more then one school.The number of schools has been dramatically reduced over the years, and parents are having to take their children further afield.On top of this there is a real fear amongst parents about children's safety,so for those 2 reasons alone,yes the school run is a daily occurence

My grandmother was from a very small village in the South West. She never learned to drive and the only bus service to the village called once a week.

Not sure what your point here is,the above is even more reason why people need cars,as public transport is probably worse now than back then

The concept that people can't survive without their cars is flawed. Our current way of life makes us think this way, but it's a fallacy.

Bullshit,if you're not a politician,you really should be

The problem with cars versus public transport is simple.

Cars are more pleasant and more convenient, but that's not the real issue. If you lay out the money to buy, tax and insure a car, using public transport isn't a sensible financial option. Even with diesel at £1 a litre a 100 kilometre journey would cost less than £10. For a family of 4 their is no way that they could travel cheaper by public transport.

Again,even more reason why people have cars,public transport is not financially viable, plus it's inconvenient,dirty and uncomfortable.Most families struggle to afford a car for all the above reasons.Yet you seem to think that everyone who owns a car will stump up any increase without any detrimental effect on their standard of living.

So if people have cars, they will use them because it is still the best financial option open to them.

Well yes,I agree,which funnily enough I find strange.
Of course they use them as there is no viable alternative.

We do agree on some things!

[RockIt]

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

If you think that the public services offer any kind of value then you do live in a different world from me. Why do you think that everyone who can has private health cover and private education for their kids.

The system (if you can call it that) is total shite and waste is everywhere.

Just to take issue...

I work in one of these 'total shite' educational establishments that your tax money funds. There is accountability, there are standards and there is not a lot of waste, because we don't have much to waste in the first place. Additionally Ofsted grades value for money as part of the standard school inspection regime.

I'm not naive enough to believe that all aspects of our public services are being run efficiently and economically, but your statement is inaccurate.

[Evil Diesel]

I am completely reassured.

It must be my imagination that improved educational standards are produced by a narrowed curriculum and multiple choise exams and the school leavers who can barely read and write are a figment of my fertile mind.

[beemerbird]

Originally Posted by RockIt

Just to take issue...

I work in one of these 'total shite' educational establishments that your tax money funds. There is accountability, there are standards and there is not a lot of waste, because we don't have much to waste in the first place. Additionally Ofsted grades value for money as part of the standard school inspection regime.

I'm not naive enough to believe that all aspects of our public services are being run efficiently and economically, but your statement is inaccurate.

RockIt, not sure that Evil (Tony) was actually referring to the people at the sharp end in the public sector, but more the faceless bureaucrats that we 'suffer' throughout our working lives. The people who waste money and fail to provide the necessary funding for the people who need it most. I am certain that the enviroment you work in is far worse in this respect than my working enviroment.


I must admit though, initially when I read his comments, I thought eh!

+1 on Ian's thoughts BTW

[DaveC]

The key points to understand are:

1. There is no proven link between high fuel taxation and reduced fuel usage (or ownership), in fact quite the reverse is true:

DEFRA Carbon Dioxide outputs for road transport (millions of tons) since at 5 year intervals since 1990: 109 111 116 118 119 120

These figues actually show a slow steady increase in output despite introduction of pretty stringent taxation. If taxation isn't working (which it clearly isn't) maybe we should be looking at alternatives like enforced economy targets?

2. There are no realistic alternatives to road transport for the vast majority of people.

I don't drive for pleasure anymore, years of not repairing roads and not upgrading the infrastructure to cope with the numbers of cars on the road mean that driving isn't fun anymore, its not something I do unless I need to.

3. Road Transport accounts for approximately 1/5th of UK Carbon Emissions - it's an easy target. Why isn't my house taxed for emissions? why aren't all the empty office buildings I see at night with their lights blazing out taxed? Why aren't inefficient boilers or non economy lights taxed?

Essentially what it boils down to is that the motorist is an easy target for revenue - taxing us has achieved no decrease in emissions (nor of congestions although its a hard to say what would have happened without increased taxation).

The key point is that taxing end user motorists does little or nothing to reduce emissions.

[Evil Diesel]

Originally Posted by beemerbird

RockIt, not sure that Evil (Tony) was actually referring to the people at the sharp end in the public sector, but more the faceless bureaucrats that we 'suffer' throughout our working lives. The people who waste money and fail to provide the necessary funding for the people who need it most. I am certain that the enviroment you work in is far worse in this respect than my working enviroment.


I must admit though, initially when I read his comments, I thought eh!

+1 on Ian's thoughts BTW

Thanks BB for the defence but my comments attack everyone!!!!!!!!

To be fair though I do respect anyone who can stand in front of a bunch of unruly kids who 'know their rights' and who don't have any respect for themselves let alone anyone else. The parents appear to have subrogated their responsibilities to anyone other than themselves and don't give a toss.

In reality I don't blame those at the sharp end for churning out the unemployable of tomorrow and am sure that the love of targets for everything do little to assist to broaden the horizons of the car thieves of tomorrow.

[DaveC]

I know I've cut out a few of these but some need replying to:

Originally Posted by needforspeed

When I was a kid (late 70's and early 80's) most of men in the area worked in heavy industry - mining, factories and ship building. The vast majority didn't have cars and most cycled or walked to work.

They've closed. When I was a kid the local paper mill would blow a horn for lunch and about 3000 people would wander down into the village. All gone. The site is now trendy flats. So, if people can't work in the local factory what are they expected to do?

Originally Posted by needforspeed

We are now more reliant on cars because travelling and commuting has become a bigger part of our lives. We take it for granted and society expects it of us.

Society is more specialised now. It expects us to be IT consultants or Customer Relations Specialists or HR wankers. Beause jobs are more specialised and segreated the distance needed to travel to reach a suitable job has gone through the roof. Add to this the fact that nobody has a job for life anymore and cannot afford to risk relocating for every new job you can hardly blame people for commuting.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

My grandmother was from a very small village in the South West. She never learned to drive and the only bus service to the village called once a week.

Bet the village no longer has a suitable shop for buying everything.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The concept that people can't survive without their cars is flawed. Our current way of life makes us think this way, but it's a fallacy.

I dont really understand you. People respond to their current way of life, politicians and industry create that way of life. How exactly do you expect me as an individual to change societies need for skilled, short term, disposable emplyees? I can't unless I want to work in Tescos.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Cars are more pleasant and more convenient, but that's not the real issue. If you lay out the money to buy, tax and insure a car, using public transport isn't a sensible financial option. Even with diesel at £1 a litre a 100 kilometre journey would cost less than £10. For a family of 4 their is no way that they could travel cheaper by public transport.

Balls. it would take me 2.5 - 3 hours to travel into London, across town and back out to cover the 25-30 miles I do each way. Its nothing to do with cost although that would be an issue, its simply not feasible.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by DaveC

The key points to understand are:

1. There is no proven link between high fuel taxation and reduced fuel usage (or ownership), in fact quite the reverse is true:

DEFRA Carbon Dioxide outputs for road transport (millions of tons) since at 5 year intervals since 1990: 109 111 116 118 119 120

These figues actually show a slow steady increase in output despite introduction of pretty stringent taxation. If taxation isn't working (which it clearly isn't) maybe we should be looking at alternatives like enforced economy targets?

2. There are no realistic alternatives to road transport for the vast majority of people.

I don't drive for pleasure anymore, years of not repairing roads and not upgrading the infrastructure to cope with the numbers of cars on the road mean that driving isn't fun anymore, its not something I do unless I need to.

3. Road Transport accounts for approximately 1/5th of UK Carbon Emissions - it's an easy target. Why isn't my house taxed for emissions? why aren't all the empty office buildings I see at night with their lights blazing out taxed? Why aren't inefficient boilers or non economy lights taxed?

Essentially what it boils down to is that the motorist is an easy target for revenue - taxing us has achieved no decrease in emissions (nor of congestions although its a hard to say what would have happened without increased taxation).

The key point is that taxing end user motorists does little or nothing to reduce emissions.

1. Fuel taxation has not been increased directly. It has only increased in line with changes in the price of crude oil. All this demonstrates is that CO2 ouputs from cars are increasing, despite taxation remaining static and cars becoming more efficient. The only explanation for this is that we are using cars more. This directly counteracts the argument that high levels of taxation are forcing people off the road.

2. I agree if you consider all of a persons travel requirements. However, it would be nonsense to argue that there are not journeys that could be easily undertaken using public transport. The problem as I said before is that once the fixed outlay associated with running a car is taken into account it is much cheaper and more convenient to use that car than to use public transport.

3. You do pay tax on the energy you use in your home. VAT and other levies are included in the tarriff. Business pay similar taxes and the climate change levy adds an additional burden. As major generators of CO2 the electricity generation companies also have shrinking emissions targets, which impose further costs which we pay as consumers.

Whilst taxing the motorist at the current rate does not reduce emissions, reducing that taxation would increase them.

Worth also noting the actual amounts we are talking about. The average mileage is 10,000 a year. At 30 mpg this would require 333 gallons or 1514 litres of fuel. 7 years ago during the fuel protests @ 76p a litre this would cost £ 1151 per year. At £1 per litre it will be £1514 per year. An additional cost of £363 per annum or 3.63p per mile. A typical family car (ford focus diesel) costs around 40p per mile to run. So this change is pretty minor in terms of the overall cost of motoring and a 10% reduction in annual mileage (e.g. walking the kids to school) would offset it.

Bear in mind also that the 10,000 includes high mileage company drivers, so the personal mileage is much less.

[RockIt]

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

I am completely reassured.

It must be my imagination that improved educational standards are produced by a narrowed curriculum and multiple choise exams and the school leavers who can barely read and write are a figment of my fertile mind.

The curriculum is broader than ever and pupils are expected to attain higher standards than ever. There's more to a broad and balanced curriculum than a pure academic focus. Additionally the numbers of school leavers who are literate and numerate has increased. The things that we expect 11 year olds to do, for example, are far in excess of what I was expected to achieve in the 1970s. Don't believe what you read in the tabloids. The culture of celebrity and easy money has much to do with young people opting out, but that's another debate.

Originally Posted by beemerbird

RockIt, not sure that Evil (Tony) was actually referring to the people at the sharp end in the public sector, but more the faceless bureaucrats that we 'suffer' throughout our working lives. The people who waste money and fail to provide the necessary funding for the people who need it most. I am certain that the enviroment you work in is far worse in this respect than my working enviroment.


I must admit though, initially when I read his comments, I thought eh!

+1 on Ian's thoughts BTW

Thanks Beemerbird.

Originally Posted by Evil Diesel

Thanks BB for the defence but my comments attack everyone!!!!!!!!

To be fair though I do respect anyone who can stand in front of a bunch of unruly kids who 'know their rights' and who don't have any respect for themselves let alone anyone else. The parents appear to have subrogated their responsibilities to anyone other than themselves and don't give a toss.

In reality I don't blame those at the sharp end for churning out the unemployable of tomorrow and am sure that the love of targets for everything do little to assist to broaden the horizons of the car thieves of tomorrow.

Your respect is dutifully accepted. After all, you pay my wages. Thankfully I work in the primary sector and don't have to deal with unruly teenagers. Targets are certainly an issue, the parental comment I agree with absolutely and I shall leave it at that. This is so far off topic it's in danger of doing the Fandango.

[dxb335d]

Evil pays your wages?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by DaveC

I dont really understand you. People respond to their current way of life, politicians and industry create that way of life. How exactly do you expect me as an individual to change societies need for skilled, short term, disposable emplyees? I can't unless I want to work in Tescos.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that the availability of affordable motoring has changed society to the extent that we are now more reliant on the car than we were just 20 years ago.

This was in response to the statement 'people need their cars to survive'.

I think people do need cars, but not as much as they claim to. The fact that our society functioned 20 years ago illustrates this.

Many of the non-essential journeys - (e.g. school run) could be reduced. It's just that we lead busier lives now and feel we can't afford the time.

I'm not suggesting that as individuals we can turn back the clock. All I am saying is that IF fuel costs were a majpr burden on my life I could take steps to reduce that.

I'm lucky enough to have found a job with an office within 5 miles of my house. Commuting is an evil which has increased in the last 20 years and I think we could all do without it.

I agree with the other points you have made!

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The point I was trying to illustrate is that the availability of affordable motoring has changed society to the extent that we are now more reliant on the car than we were just 20 years ago.

This was in response to the statement 'people need their cars to survive'.

I think people do need cars, but not as much as they claim to. The fact that our society functioned 20 years ago illustrates this.

Many of the non-essential journeys - (e.g. school run) could be reduced. It's just that we lead busier lives now and feel we can't afford the time.

in theory, why would I Fandango need a car?

Cuz i enjoy them too much!!!

without them i woul turn into a dangerous rebel, a danger to society. I would turn to drugs and drink and prob mug old grannies... Please dont take away the only thing im addicted too

[NFS]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

in theory, why would I Fandango need a car?

Cuz i enjoy them too much!!!

without them i woul turn into a dangerous rebel, a danger to society. I would turn to drugs and drink and prob mug old grannies... Please dont take away the only thing im addicted too

There is a difference between wanting and needing.

I WANT a 3.0 litre car, but I don't NEED one.

The cost of petrol doesn't bother me, but Red Kens latest mental idea of the congestion charge does.

I understand that the proposed extended area for the change is pretty much everything within the M25 and that owners of 3.0 litre cars will be inelligable for resident discounts.

So it would cost on average an additional £6K per year to run a 330i compared to a 320i

The man has gone completely nuts and must be stopped.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

1. Fuel taxation has not been increased directly. It has only increased in line with changes in the price of crude oil. All this demonstrates is that CO2 ouputs from cars are increasing, despite taxation remaining static and cars becoming more efficient. The only explanation for this is that we are using cars more. This directly counteracts the argument that high levels of taxation are forcing people off the road.

Errr yes it has! I sense you weren't around as a fuel buyer at the time. My figures covered the period 1990 to 2005. In that time the DIRECT level of taxation (not VAT or anything else but the direct level of something called fuel duty) has grown. Fuel Duty has increased year on year with a couple of minor exceptions throughout the period covered. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...sis/933648.stm gives a nice graph showing how the fuel duty has increased year on year. Sadly it only covers 1991 to 2000 but you'll get the picture. The policy of successive goverments has been to increase fuel duty (which VAT is added on top of) every year.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

2. I agree if you consider all of a persons travel requirements. However, it would be nonsense to argue that there are not journeys that could be easily undertaken using public transport. The problem as I said before is that once the fixed outlay associated with running a car is taken into account it is much cheaper and more convenient to use that car than to use public transport.

Hmmm, nonesense? I really can't think any significant or regular journeys I make that could be replaced by public transport. Really, I can't.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

3. You do pay tax on the energy you use in your home. VAT and other levies are included in the tarriff. Business pay similar taxes and the climate change levy adds an additional burden. As major generators of CO2 the electricity generation companies also have shrinking emissions targets, which impose further costs which we pay as consumers.

It's in no way the same. I pay a pretty much flat rate of tax onto an already trivial cost. To demonstrate how ridiculous it is I pay more per month on petrol than than I do per quarter on heating and lighting my house. Far far more. I am barely taxed based on how efficient I am at all, by the time you take the standing charge into account I could swap every light in my house for super innefficient halogen lights and it wouldnt make a blind bit of differene to how much I pay.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Whilst taxing the motorist at the current rate does not reduce emissions, reducing that taxation would increase them.

Source please. I have quoted a source showing increasing tax doens't reduce them but you need to prove the reverse.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

Worth also noting the actual amounts we are talking about. The average mileage is 10,000 a year. At 30 mpg this would require 333 gallons or 1514 litres of fuel. 7 years ago during the fuel protests @ 76p a litre this would cost £ 1151 per year. At £1 per litre it will be £1514 per year. An additional cost of £363 per annum or 3.63p per mile. A typical family car (ford focus diesel) costs around 40p per mile to run. So this change is pretty minor in terms of the overall cost of motoring and a 10% reduction in annual mileage (e.g. walking the kids to school) would offset it.

You should work for the labour party! If the raw cost has gone up by the best part of a third how in hell does reducing mileage by 10% offset this? please check your math. To offset a price rise of nearly 30% I need to reduce my fuel consumption by a third not 10%.

[Gibbo]

Have not read the whole thread but looks a bit heated.

Fuel is much cheaper on the continent. Tax in this country is a discrace if you are PAYE, then VAT on top you pay 17.5% on nearly everything. Then my car cost £38,200 VAT about £6500 - I pay far to much makes me.

If you move house stamp duty

What the hell do they do with all the bloody money as I know I don't get my fair share

Rant over the fuel is poor but every other way they do us over it becomes insignificant.

[Evil Diesel]

Don't pour oil on troubled waters - Red Ken and NFS will tax you to death for all of the fish you kill.

Its far easier to say 'eveything is bollocks' and move on.

[Hotcoupe]

I'm dipping out of this one.

I've had my rant, and it's clear there will always be people with opposing views.
There are the people who live in the real world, and those that don't.

This thread clearly demonstrates the point.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Source please. I have quoted a source showing increasing tax doens't reduce them but you need to prove the reverse

I don't need to prove anything Dave

I really don't understand why this is such a heated subject. I almost feel like I should apologise for having a differing view.

Anyway .. I'm taking Evil Diesels advice .. Bollocks to the whole thing

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

I'm dipping out of this one.

I've had my rant, and it's clear there will always be people with opposing views.
There are the people who live in the real world, and those that don't.

This thread clearly demonstrates the point.

People who disagree with you are not always wrong.

[Hotcoupe]

needforspeed Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotcoupe
People who disagree with you are not always wrong.

I could not agree more NFS,you have differing views to me that's clear.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that my views are more valid then yours, or vice versa.

I would however say my views take into consideration a bigger picture,whilst yours are based on your own circumstances,which is quite blinkered, as they only affect you personally.

In other words ' I'm alright Jack!'.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I don't need to prove anything Dave

I really don't understand why this is such a heated subject. I almost feel like I should apologise for having a differing view.

Anyway .. I'm taking Evil Diesels advice .. Bollocks to the whole thing

Uh I guess I feel if you say something is so you should be able to back it up otherwise its just a random statement.

For what its worth I'm not i the slightest heated and I'm quite happy for people to have a point of view different to my own - life would be pretty dull if everyone was a grumpy cynical old git like me.

But, its not worth getting into a really crap argument / quote war over things so yeah, bollocks to it all - the world sucks, the goverment sucks, life sucks