Cutting benefits in order to fund a freeze in fuel duty.

[Victor McDade]

Liberal Democrat cabinet members are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the Treasury pressing ahead with plans to withhold some benefit increases for the unemployed to fund a delay in the planned 3p rise in fuel duty due in January. A yearlong delay would cost £1.3bn.


Wise move by Gideon?

[AJS-]

Bad move by the Monster Raving Lib Dems I think. Can't think of a better vote winner outside of st Street Council Estate.

Edited by AJS- on Saturday 19th November 11:20

[Jasandjules]

The thing is, it's a lie to suggest that we need to cut one thing to prevent a tax rise in another............ That's just an excuse.

If they want to cut benefits then they need to outright say that some benefits need to be cut, and get on with it.

And they should be cutting fuel tax because it's a con based on a lie.

[madbadger]

I thought tax take on fuel was up due to the high price, so cutting the duty would bring it in line with predictions.

Also all the talk seems to be debating freezing the rise in the duty, rather than any actual cut.

[nelly1]

madbadger said:

I thought tax take on fuel was up due to the high price...

Not so, apparently...

Yes, yes - I know it's Quentin Bloody Willson, but the idea's sound...

[JagLover]

Victor McDade said:

Liberal Democrat cabinet members are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the Treasury pressing ahead with plans to withhold some benefit increases for the unemployed to fund a delay in the planned 3p rise in fuel duty due in January. A yearlong delay would cost £1.3bn.


Wise move by Gideon?

Those criticising the Conservatives need to realise they are in coalition with the Lib Dems so cannot do all that needs to be done.

Of course fuel duty should be frozen, and again benefits should be frozen or cut, and the Conservatives realise that.

[shauniebabes]

Victor McDade said:

Liberal Democrat cabinet members are fighting a rearguard action to prevent the Treasury pressing ahead with plans to withhold some benefit increases for the unemployed to fund a delay in the planned 3p rise in fuel duty due in January. A yearlong delay would cost £1.3bn.


Wise move by Gideon?

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

[jains15]

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

That is oversimplifying it far too much and you know it. Stop trolling

[Globs]

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

People on benefits are far from the poorest people in the UK, get real. Many also get fuel allowance.
Fuel tax is a punitive tax on the poor, a fixed tax that hurts the low paid far more than the higher paid.

[V88Dicky]

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest most feckless and workshy members of society so Range Rover hard working owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

Fixed that for you.

[Mojocvh]

Globs said:

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

People on benefits are far from the poorest people in the UK, get real. Many also get fuel allowance.
Fuel tax is a punitive tax on the poor, a fixed tax that hurts the low paid far more than the higher paid.

^^^this^^^^^

I had the misfortune to be unemployed for some 19 months, not one single "benefit" was I able to claim due to a service pension that took me slightly above the £92 a week income that is/was allowed for a family of four to live on.

We, as a country, are really up against it.

But very few can see it.

[LukeSi]

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

I think it is a brilliant idea. If they want money they should get a job like everyone else bloody does. How do you think Range Rover owners have their cars. By working for them.

[shauniebabes]

jains15 said:

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

That is oversimplifying it far too much and you know it. Stop trolling

And lumping all benefits claimants as undeserving scroungers who shouldn't take money away from people who can afford cars isn't "oversimplifying it far too much" ?

[shauniebabes]

LukeSi said:

I think it is a brilliant idea. If they want money they should get a job like everyone else bloody does. How do you think Range Rover owners have their cars. By working for them.

Why not raise company car tax in order to reduce petrol prices for the rest of us ?

Or perhaps being provided people with a free car for private use is far more important than heatng a bedsit ?

[turbobloke]

shauniebabes said:

jains15 said:

shauniebabes said:

Well if you think taking money away from the poorest members of society so Range Rover owners can save a couple of quid a tank is moral, its a fantastic idea.

That is oversimplifying it far too much and you know it. Stop trolling

And lumping all benefits claimants as undeserving scroungers who shouldn't take money away from people who can afford cars isn't "oversimplifying it far too much" ?

Benefits claimants are getting a rise of over 4%, which is twice the pay rise of private sector workers if they get one at all. So yes make the benefits rise 2% and take fuel duty back a notch.

[shauniebabes]

Globs said:

People on benefits are far from the poorest people in the UK, get real.

Who are the poorest people in the UK then ?

[Marf]

shauniebabes said:

Why not raise company car tax in order to reduce petrol prices for the rest of us ?

Or perhaps being provided people with a free car for private use is far more important than heatng a bedsit ?

Way to contradict yourself there.

"company car tax"

"being provided people with a free car"

It's not free if it's taxed genius!!

[turbobloke]

shauniebabes said:

Globs said:

People on benefits are far from the poorest people in the UK, get real.

Who are the poorest people in the UK then ?

Working people who earn just enough not to get any benefits or anything for free. And those who slip through the net, worst of all.

A large part of the benefits debate is about how it should be possible that being on benefits can be more generous than being in work. Did you miss it?

[12gauge]

How did they link the two.

Sounds like typical 2+2=5 Grauniad hogwash to me.

They may as well headline with 'ABSENCE OF 90% INCOME TAX MEANS LESS AVAILABLE FOR BENEFITS: POOR SUFFER'

[turbobloke]

12gauge said:

How did they link the two.

Sounds like typical 2+2=5 Grauniad hogwash to me.

They may as well headline with 'ABSENCE OF 90% INCOME TAX MEANS LESS AVAILABLE FOR BENEFITS: POOR SUFFER'

They may indeed and yet with benefits booming under liarbore, every measure of poverty published seems to have increased over the past 12 to 13 years. By inescapable failed socialist failed logic, cutting benefits will decrease poverty.

Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 19th November 13:37