Porsche GB to Fight Red Kens scam
Discussion
Cpn Jack Spanner said:
Wonder if anyone worked out how it will cost the Gov. in lost car tax and VAT that they now won't get? Must be a fair fortune, along with the taxes from profits from the car makers which they will also lose...
Nothing, they'll just up the tax on lower emission vehicles, in the name of reducing congestion - now that pollution has been reduced by the removal of high-emission vehicles.
How about a public revolt everyone?
Its long overdue and will be the only option left soon. There are too many people complaining but not enough people taking action. Until this swaps around they will keep on instituting draconian things like this to ever more squeeze the legal car owner!
Just as a thought, an 80yr old pensioner was sent to jail for 30 days here in Lincolnshire. His crime? Refusing to pay his tax as he branded the amount unfair! Now if everyone was to take this course of action what could the government do about it??
Oh well, life goes on eh!
Its long overdue and will be the only option left soon. There are too many people complaining but not enough people taking action. Until this swaps around they will keep on instituting draconian things like this to ever more squeeze the legal car owner!
Just as a thought, an 80yr old pensioner was sent to jail for 30 days here in Lincolnshire. His crime? Refusing to pay his tax as he branded the amount unfair! Now if everyone was to take this course of action what could the government do about it??
Oh well, life goes on eh!
The whole London environmental traffic argument is so laughably piss funny
The City of London was deliberately designed to maximaise building floorspace by building upwards just like New York etc or any city where both the need to be within the infrastructure and maximise land cost returns is important.
There's no point building a city with ever more Canary Wharfes etc which the planners are all too pleased to do considering the kickbacks they get from 106 agreements and then trying to stop people coming in.
The simple solution to congestion and pollution in London would be to knock half of it down reducing the concentration and the need for the influx.
However given that this would never happen then just accept that London is a highly populated area that will have pollution problems and stop trying to jold back the sea like king Canute.
Alternatively anyone in London with environmental concerns has an easy option.
Move out!
Its getting like people who buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise..
Glad I live in Harrogate... its nice you know.
The City of London was deliberately designed to maximaise building floorspace by building upwards just like New York etc or any city where both the need to be within the infrastructure and maximise land cost returns is important.
There's no point building a city with ever more Canary Wharfes etc which the planners are all too pleased to do considering the kickbacks they get from 106 agreements and then trying to stop people coming in.
The simple solution to congestion and pollution in London would be to knock half of it down reducing the concentration and the need for the influx.
However given that this would never happen then just accept that London is a highly populated area that will have pollution problems and stop trying to jold back the sea like king Canute.
Alternatively anyone in London with environmental concerns has an easy option.
Move out!
Its getting like people who buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise..
Glad I live in Harrogate... its nice you know.
funkyrobot said:
How about a public revolt everyone?
Its long overdue and will be the only option left soon. There are too many people complaining but not enough people taking action. Until this swaps around they will keep on instituting draconian things like this to ever more squeeze the legal car owner!
Just as a thought, an 80yr old pensioner was sent to jail for 30 days here in Lincolnshire. His crime? Refusing to pay his tax as he branded the amount unfair! Now if everyone was to take this course of action what could the government do about it??
Oh well, life goes on eh!
I agree i really hope there is a revolt and soon, millions of innocent motorists are yet again being raped by the goverment. We already pay extremely high fuel prices and road tax, this new charge is another pathetic use of the global warming excuse to tax us all more. The planet's climate changes naturally and creates it's own pollution which is far greater than we will ever generate in our cars. New cars have to meet stricter emissions levels and are very clean. Not trying to hijack this thread or get into a debate on global warming but this subject really winds me up! Even if we are doing so much damage in our cars and global warming is true (please note on the adverts on tv small text at bottom says based on 90% confidence - or words to those effect)-NOT PROOF, the amount England pollute's isn't even a drop in the ocean compared to America and China so what is the point? - to make money out of us all.Its long overdue and will be the only option left soon. There are too many people complaining but not enough people taking action. Until this swaps around they will keep on instituting draconian things like this to ever more squeeze the legal car owner!
Just as a thought, an 80yr old pensioner was sent to jail for 30 days here in Lincolnshire. His crime? Refusing to pay his tax as he branded the amount unfair! Now if everyone was to take this course of action what could the government do about it??
Oh well, life goes on eh!
Edited by Adrianq on Wednesday 20th February 18:32
Balmoral Green said:
The principle should be that if you pollute twice as much, you should pay twice as much. But this sort of thing appears to be pollute 40% more, pay 600% more. Wholly disproportionate.
Ahh you see but that's why they're winning.The reason that 40% pollution has a 600% tax levy is because the people who pollute 40% more are percieved to have 600% more cash. On top of this, they know that people who pollute 40% more can afford to pay 40% more tax. If they ask for the greater ammount they know that people will eventually settle for the 40% that they can afford.
The thing is that there is no certainty that 40% more pollution is either of 600% or 40% worse!
Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 19th February 20:22
Had to laugh when I read the comment by the Mayors adviser on Climate Change Mark Walters "No one needs to drive these big polluting cars in central London".
For big polluting cars read big expensive cars. Nobody "needs" to work hard & earn £3 million a year & pay a fortune in tax etc, but they do & since London generates a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth for the rest of the Country to spend,its a damn good job they do as well.
What next, "No one needs an 8 bedroom house or a £4 million pound apartment overlooking the Thames, so we consider it only right we increase there Rates bill to £40,000 a year".
The Politics of envy, you cant beat it.
For big polluting cars read big expensive cars. Nobody "needs" to work hard & earn £3 million a year & pay a fortune in tax etc, but they do & since London generates a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth for the rest of the Country to spend,its a damn good job they do as well.
What next, "No one needs an 8 bedroom house or a £4 million pound apartment overlooking the Thames, so we consider it only right we increase there Rates bill to £40,000 a year".
The Politics of envy, you cant beat it.
mark69sheer said:
The whole London environmental traffic argument is so laughably piss funny
The City of London was deliberately designed to maximaise building floorspace by building upwards just like New York etc or any city where both the need to be within the infrastructure and maximise land cost returns is important.
There's no point building a city with ever more Canary Wharfes etc which the planners are all too pleased to do considering the kickbacks they get from 106 agreements and then trying to stop people coming in.
The simple solution to congestion and pollution in London would be to knock half of it down reducing the concentration and the need for the influx.
However given that this would never happen then just accept that London is a highly populated area that will have pollution problems and stop trying to jold back the sea like king Canute.
Alternatively anyone in London with environmental concerns has an easy option.
Move out!
Its getting like people who buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise..
Glad I live in Harrogate... its nice you know.
Canary Wharf is not part of the City of London. The City was not 'designed' in any real sense of the word ... a glance at the street map will tell you that. It evolved over 2,000 and some years, with a little help from the Luftwaffe (as did the East End) - StreakyThe City of London was deliberately designed to maximaise building floorspace by building upwards just like New York etc or any city where both the need to be within the infrastructure and maximise land cost returns is important.
There's no point building a city with ever more Canary Wharfes etc which the planners are all too pleased to do considering the kickbacks they get from 106 agreements and then trying to stop people coming in.
The simple solution to congestion and pollution in London would be to knock half of it down reducing the concentration and the need for the influx.
However given that this would never happen then just accept that London is a highly populated area that will have pollution problems and stop trying to jold back the sea like king Canute.
Alternatively anyone in London with environmental concerns has an easy option.
Move out!
Its getting like people who buy a house near an airport and then complain about the noise..
Glad I live in Harrogate... its nice you know.
dilbert said:
[quote =Balmoral Green]The principle should be that if you pollute twice as much, you should pay twice as much. But this sort of thing appears to be pollute 40% more, pay 600% more. Wholly disproportionate.[/quote ]
Ahh you see but that's why they're winning.
The reason they 40% pollution has a 600% tax levy is because the people who pollute 40% more are percieved to have 600% more cash. On top of this, they know that people who pollute 40% more can afford to pay 40% more tax. If they ask for the greater ammount they know that people will eventually settle for the 40% that they can afford.
The thing is that there is no certainty that 40% more pollution is either of 600% or 40% worse!
And they still call it a Congestion Charge, talk about confusing. Atb Derek.Ahh you see but that's why they're winning.
The reason they 40% pollution has a 600% tax levy is because the people who pollute 40% more are percieved to have 600% more cash. On top of this, they know that people who pollute 40% more can afford to pay 40% more tax. If they ask for the greater ammount they know that people will eventually settle for the 40% that they can afford.
The thing is that there is no certainty that 40% more pollution is either of 600% or 40% worse!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff