 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / May 2008I've been robbed !
My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is happening. > My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is > happening. Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! >> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is >> happening. > > Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! Don't be bloody stupid.  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k >>> is happening. 116p/l, last lot I bought was 113p/l (all but .1 of a penny) but that was two weeks ago. >> Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! > > Don't be bloody stupid. Aye he missed the real cause: Bush. SignatureCheers Dave. >>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is >>> happening. >> >> Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! > >Don't be bloody stupid. what's stupid about that? They're the ones who decide how much tax to put on the fuel, and said tax altogether is probably about 3/4 of the price by now - if you take into account that the various people along the line pay corporation tax out of the well-under-half that isn't direct taxation. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > what's stupid about that? Well, it's very simplistic for a start.. I suppose the conservatives, who have a history of introducing even more dictatorial laws, and were also responsible for the NERC act, would sort it all out.. They have the luxury of being able to shout nice-sounding but unworkable ideas from the sidelines, safe in the knowledge that if they ever get into power again then what they say now will be forgotten. Whoever is in government gets the blame for whatever happens, e.g. Brown getting the blame for the economy having a bit of a hiccup right now, despite our economy being in pretty good shape compared to the basket-cases that form most of Europe. Whatever happens to our economy, we won't be as bad-off as Italy ;-) > They're the ones who decide how much tax to put > on the fuel, and said tax altogether is probably about 3/4 of the price by > now - if you take into account that the various people along the line pay > corporation tax out of the well-under-half that isn't direct taxation. It's not the tax that's put it up, it's the cost of oil, and that's not down to the UK politicians. There's a shitstorm going on in the states right now remember, amongst other things. Dropping the fuel tax would reduce revenue, and that means something somewhere can't be paid for, or the money comes from somewhere else. Given that the rising cost of fuel doesn't seem to be stopping people from driving, maybe it's best to just leave it as it is. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ > It's not the tax that's put it up, it's the cost of oil, and that's > not down to the UK politicians. There's a shitstorm going on in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Given that the rising cost of fuel doesn't seem to be stopping people > from driving, maybe it's best to just leave it as it is. I can just imagine, any less spent on roads around here and every day will be an adventure. I best get saving for a winch! We have to bear in mind that they don't actually want us to stop driving, or indeed drive any less. If we did then they would tax fuel even more. What we need to do is to drive far more often thus increasing the revenue and allowing the tax to be lowered. If you are thinking of walking up to the shops then think of your wallet and go in the V8. You know it makes sense! :-) >> It's not the tax that's put it up, it's the cost of oil, and that's >> not down to the UK politicians. There's a shitstorm going on in the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You know it makes sense! > :-) You wanna try riding a bike round Leeds, the roads are utterly f.cked. SignatureNige, talking utter shite since 1967. Focus ST3 Discovery 3 XS BMW K1200S NIGE#1 > You wanna try riding a bike round Leeds, the roads are utterly f.cked. You bought the wrong bike, you want one of these; http://www.rokon.com/products/ranger.htm Even good in the floods as they're designed to float! I think they do about 10MPH though, so a bit fast for city traffic. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ > I can just imagine, any less spent on roads around here and every day will > be an adventure. Well, you know why you bought a 4x4! > What we need to do is to drive far more often thus increasing the revenue > and allowing the tax to be lowered. If you are thinking of walking up to the > shops then think of your wallet and go in the V8. You know it makes sense! Heh, I wish ;-) However if people still drive despite the high tax then it can't be high enough to really have an effect. The sh.t public transport helps of course!! It's been sh.t since time began so hardly the fault of the current shower. I often wonder what it is about the British public transport system that makes it so hard to improve, they've been "trying" for years, in quotes because motorist taxation really *is* a decent source of revenue, unlike income tax though it's one that many of us can reduce if we really wanted to (like me moving to work from home). SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >It's not ONLY > the tax that's put it up, it's the cost of oil, and that's >not down to the UK politicians. There's a shitstorm going on in the >states right now remember, amongst other things. It's partly oil cost. didn't stop them implementing a tax hike though, nor does it alter the fact that way over half the price at the pump is tax in one for or another, nor that our diesel is the most expensive in Europe. >Dropping the fuel tax would reduce revenue, and that means something >somewhere can't be paid for, or the money comes from somewhere else. >Given that the rising cost of fuel doesn't seem to be stopping people >from driving, maybe it's best to just leave it as it is. They could of course reduce the number of salaries in government, or cut their expenses a bit... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > They could of course reduce the number of salaries in government, or cut > their expenses a bit... Yeah, that'd really have an effect.. Plus of course who would they fire, while it's nice and easy to snort at the government they do a hell of a lot and the civil service is normally understaffed rather than overstaffed in my experience. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>> Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! >> >> Don't be bloody stupid. > > what's stupid about that? They're the ones who decide how much tax to > put on the fuel, Or not, Darling "delayed" the 2p on the duty due on 1st April to October. > and said tax altogether is probably about 3/4 of the price by > now The percentage tax actually falls as the oil price goes up as the duty is a fixed amount per litre, currently 50.35p/l on ULS unleaded and diesel. So: 120p/l 100p/l 80p/l Duty 50.35p 50.35p 50.35p VAT 17.87p 14.89p 11.91p ----- ------ ------ Taxes 68.22p 65.24p 62.26p Oil 51.78p 34.76p 17.74p ====== ====== ====== 120.00p 100.00p 80.00p %Tax 56.85% 65.24% 77.82% I'm *NOT* defending 'em mind, they really do need to think about the cost of fuel or they are going to have great difficulty in stopping us following the US into a serious recession, ATM I think they are managing to keep us out but only just. SignatureCheers Dave. >>>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k >>>> is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > what's stupid about that? If there's one thing in this world that's out of the control of the British government it's the price of fuel. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k >>>>> is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If there's one thing in this world that's out of the control of the British > government it's the price of fuel. Not really. Ok, they have to charge some tax on it, but they don't have to charge a fortune in other taxes on it. They're not responsible for the actual cost of fuel, but they're mainly responsible for what we pay in tax on it. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 Range Rover V8 Turbo Range Rover 4.6 HSE "Professional Petrolhead" >>>>> "Austin" == Austin Shackles <austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net> writes: Austin> what's stupid about that? They're the ones who decide how Austin> much tax to put on the fuel, and said tax altogether is Austin> probably about 3/4 of the price by now - if you take into Oh, it was 3/4 of the price 10 years ago. It's more like 85% now. And they're laughingall the way to the treasury - for every penny the oil companies put on a litre, they take another fivepence in tax. What a bunch of crooks. Andy SignatureAndy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. -- Marcus to Franklin in B5: A Late Delivery from Avalon > Oh, it was 3/4 of the price 10 years ago. It's more like 85% now. > > And they're laughingall the way to the treasury - for every penny the > oil companies put on a litre, they take another fivepence in tax. Cite or utter bollocks? As previously posted: The percentage tax actually falls as the oil price goes up as the duty is a fixed amount per litre, currently 50.35p/l on ULS unleaded and diesel. So: 120p/l 100p/l 80p/l Duty 50.35p 50.35p 50.35p VAT 17.87p 14.89p 11.91p ----- ------ ------ Taxes 68.22p 65.24p 62.26p Oil 51.78p 34.76p 17.74p ====== ====== ====== 120.00p 100.00p 80.00p %Tax 56.85% 65.24% 77.82% SignatureCheers Dave. > The percentage tax actually falls as the oil price goes up as the duty is > a fixed amount per litre, currently 50.35p/l on ULS unleaded and diesel. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > %Tax 56.85% 65.24% 77.82% Do you know what the duty was when the price was 80p litre ? Steve >> The percentage tax actually falls as the oil price goes up as the duty is >> a fixed amount per litre, currently 50.35p/l on ULS unleaded and diesel. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Do you know what the duty was when the price was 80p litre ? I don't. I doubt it was much different, though. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> Do you know what the duty was when the price was 80p litre ? > > I don't. I doubt it was much different, though. Betcha its around 5-7 p Steve >>> Do you know what the duty was when the price was 80p litre ? >> >> I don't. I doubt it was much different, though. > > Betcha its around 5-7 p I was paying around 83p/l in early 2005 of which 49.02 was duty: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_04/press_notices/bud_bud04_pre ss03.cfm SignatureCheers Dave. >> Oh, it was 3/4 of the price 10 years ago. It's more like 85% now. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >%Tax 56.85% 65.24% 77.82% There's also the VAT which is on the fuel part of it, and is a fixed percentage, not to mention the corporation tax on the oilcos profits... which I see are up by something like 40%. It's not only the government that are crooks. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> 120p/l 100p/l 80p/l >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's also the VAT which is on the fuel part of it, and is a fixed > percentage, Check my maths by all means. B-) The VAT shown *is* the VAT on the oil and duty combined. ie the full retail price. I laid out the table so that the taxes were together. > not to mention the corporation tax on the oilcos profits... which I see > are up by something like 40%. It's not only the government that are > crooks. Aye, and I'm sure the oil co's accountants are busy as we write ensuring that as little corporation tax as possible will be paid. The cost of production has not risen anything like the cost of a barrel of oil, which is determined by "The Market", so of course the oil companies "profits" have shot through the roof. SignatureCheers Dave. >>> 120p/l 100p/l 80p/l >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and duty combined. ie the full retail price. I laid out the table so that >the taxes were together. I could see that, actually, I wasn't faulting your maths. However, the fact remains that our diesel (especially) is the most expensive in Europe and has been for some time, which doesn't actually help anyone in this country be competitive. >Aye, and I'm sure the oil co's accountants are busy as we write ensuring >that as little corporation tax as possible will be paid. The cost of >production has not risen anything like the cost of a barrel of oil, which >is determined by "The Market", so of course the oil companies "profits" >have shot through the roof. I'm sure they are. I also know how much an independent shell filling station gets per litre... I'm not necessarily arguing that fuel should be cheaper. However, I'd like to see a lot more of the "take" both oilcos and governments being fed back into credible alternatives: as one example - the development of halophile oil crops and large-scale salt-water irrigation of desert land to grow them, so we don't get a conflict between oil crops and food crops. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > However, the fact remains that our diesel (especially) is the most > expensive in Europe and has been for some time, which doesn't actually > help anyone in this country be competitive. Agreed and the base cost is the pretty much the same everywhere in europe. > I also know how much an independent shell filling station gets per > litre... You mean their profit or how much they pay the distributer? Either or both would be interesting. > However, I'd like to see a lot more of the "take" both oilcos and > governments being fed back into credible alternatives: When digging for the duty rate in 2004 last night I was surprised, no make that shocked, at how much HMG gets per annum from fuel duty. £25 Billion, yes that is billion not million. Well over 20% of the Treasuries income. I was so shocked that I have choosen to ignore it until I have the time to dig a bit deeper and confirm it. > as one example - the development of halophile oil crops and large-scale > salt-water irrigation of desert land to grow them, so we don't get a > conflict between oil crops and food crops. Be nice. I see the US are just about to push $770m into helping with food prices, I've not read what they are actually doing with that money but I can't help feeling that there is a certain amount of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The development of other renewable energy sources would be good or even decent, national, everyone gets (not just OAPs or those on benefit) energy conservation measures to at least curtail demand if not decrease it. We are on a collision course between energy and food supply and comodidity market economics. I just hope the bottoming out isn't going to be too hard and that only about 50% of the worlds population end up starving to death rather than 99%+ that could if the bump is a hard one. SignatureCheers Dave. >> However, the fact remains that our diesel (especially) is the most >> expensive in Europe and has been for some time, which doesn't actually >> help anyone in this country be competitive. > > Agreed and the base cost is the pretty much the same everywhere in europe. Well, down here in the Antipodes our diesel has no excise content* other than 12.5% GST (=VAT). Current price is about $1.55/litre which with an exchange rate of 40p to the NZ dollar gives a price of 55p/litre exclusive of any taxes. There's probably a wee bit more transport cost in getting the oil to us, and our only oil refinery charges over the odds for refining but it'll be close enough for a comparison. *Diesel powered vehicles are charged on a distance travelled basis according to their weight and axle configuration. For a typical light vehicle (<3 tons) with 2 axles this is about 12 quid per 1000km. Petrol, which does have a significant tax content, is selling here for about $1.90/litre, whixh ex-GST/VAT equates to 68p/litre. >> I also know how much an independent shell filling station gets per >> litre... > > You mean their profit or how much they pay the distributer? Either or both > would be interesting. I used to aim for about 4p/litre when I ran an independant here, but the realities of competing with the company owned stations meant I was normally working on a margin of about 2.7p >> However, I'd like to see a lot more of the "take" both oilcos and >> governments being fed back into credible alternatives: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was so shocked that I have choosen to ignore it until I have the time to > dig a bit deeper and confirm it. And they will get SFA company taxation income - the oil companies run their accounts such that any "profit" is made in a suitable tax haven where one of their holding companies is based. > When digging for the duty rate in 2004 last night I was surprised, no make > that shocked, at how much HMG gets per annum from fuel duty. £25 Billion, > yes that is billion not million. Well over 20% of the Treasuries income. I > was so shocked that I have choosen to ignore it until I have the time to > dig a bit deeper and confirm it. That's about right. Serious isn't it ? Plus everything else they screw us for. Steve >> However, the fact remains that our diesel (especially) is the most >> expensive in Europe and has been for some time, which doesn't actually [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You mean their profit or how much they pay the distributer? Either or both >would be interesting. How much they make. It's well under 5ppl - why d'you think there's that "no cheques under £10" everywhere, it's cos the fee for banking the cheque wipes the profit on the fuel. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is >> happening. > > Bliar, Brown and Darling's Britain! Emigrate. > My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is > happening. Your right it is stupid 4.5 x £1-18 is £5-31 per gallon. >> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the f**k is >> happening. >Your right it is stupid 4.5 x £1-18 is £5-31 per gallon. I saw one at 126.9 today, and there are none around here under 1.20 any more. Elsewhere it's a bit better, I did see one at 116.9 but I bet that'll be going up very soon. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the >>> f**k is happening. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any more. Elsewhere it's a bit better, I did see one at 116.9 but I > bet that'll be going up very soon. It can't carry on this way, action will have to be taken to sort this out. I'm sorry, but this is an impossible situation ffs. How are you supposed to run a business with this kind of sh.t going on? SignatureNige, talking utter shite since 1967. Focus ST3 Discovery 3 XS BMW K1200S NIGE#1 > It can't carry on this way, action will have to be taken to sort this out. > I'm sorry, but this is an impossible situation ffs. How are you supposed > to run a business with this kind of sh.t going on? Well we could always move to Venezuela where it's currently $0.20 per litre Dave >>>> My God it has just cost me £5-28 per gallon for diesel, what the >>>> f**k is happening. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'm sorry, but this is an impossible situation ffs. How are you supposed to >run a business with this kind of sh.t going on? I've just written to the council asking that the rate for my contract be increased to take account of the increase in fuel prices since the contract was priced last August, which is now just under 25% (the increase, that is). SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > I've just written to the council asking that the rate for my contract be > increased to take account of the increase in fuel prices since the > contract was priced last August, which is now just under 25% (the > increase, that is). Good luck. No, I really mean it. Fuel must be a significant part of the costs for that contract and a 25% increase will make a serious dent into the "profit" required to buy food for you and your family. Time to keep accurate records of the businness costs and how much you need to make to pay your private bills. Thus know when it's time to start looking for a more profitable engagement or have the figures to present to a council suit if/when they refuse any increase in the contract fee. SignatureCheers Dave. >> I've just written to the council asking that the rate for my contract be >> increased to take account of the increase in fuel prices since the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > looking for a more profitable engagement or have the figures to present to > a council suit if/when they refuse any increase in the contract fee. Perhaphs future contracts would be as well to factor in the fuel relative to pump prices so x for the service plus fuel. That was everyone knows the score and you would be less stressed Austin. This is me speaking though, not a business dude.. just a dude. I guess there is some reason that the council may not like such a contract as it's not as transparent as x hundred quid. trying to be elpful and not clever. Lee >Perhaphs future contracts would be as well to factor in the fuel relative to >pump prices so x for the service plus fuel. That was everyone knows the >score and you would be less stressed Austin. The council want a fixed price, though. >trying to be elpful and not clever. fair enough. I can't see the council going for it, though, they like everything either fixed rate or the rates adjustable by themselves (they do some stuff on a mileage rate, but they set the rate, not the contractor). I did include a bit extra for fuel increases, I wasn't banking on 25% in about 6 months. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> I've just written to the council asking that the rate for my contract be >> increased to take account of the increase in fuel prices since the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >costs for that contract and a 25% increase will make a serious dent into >the "profit" required to buy food for you and your family. And is paid for out of council tax which will have to go up which will make a serious dent in the income of poorer people who have already suffered as a result of the dropping of the 10% tax band. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > And is paid for out of council tax which will have to go up which will > make a serious dent in the income of poorer people who have already > suffered as a result of the dropping of the 10% tax band. Don't you get a discount if you are below a certain income level. Steve >> And is paid for out of council tax which will have to go up which will >> make a serious dent in the income of poorer people who have already >> suffered as a result of the dropping of the 10% tax band. > Don't you get a discount if you are below a certain income level. Stop ruining the fantasy... Also most poorer people are better off, it's just young and middle-aged single poor people who are worse off, to the tune of £5 per week, which when I had £20 a week left after paying bills when I was on the dole would have hurt, but as repeated endlessly by the group hand-wringers, the dole lot have pots of cash these days and can afford expensive mobile phones, flash cars, huge houses, private jets and so on.. Plus of course fuel costs not being significant in the council tax given that things like paying people is a tad more expensive. But heigh ho, we're pissing on people's whinging fantasies here, which is typical of people today, just can't let a moan run without interrupting, no manners any more, I blame the teachers etc etc. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>> And is paid for out of council tax which will have to go up which will >>> make a serious dent in the income of poorer people who have already [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >which is typical of people today, just can't let a moan run without >interrupting, no manners any more, I blame the teachers etc etc. You would no doubt be the first to squeal if the tax changes took away say an additional 5% - 7% of your income. No doubt you are one of the gainers under these changes. The other group who are worse of are pensioners aged below 65 (women) who are therefore not receiving the over 65's increase in personal allowance. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > You would no doubt be the first to squeal if the tax changes took away > say an additional 5% - 7% of your income. Your bullshit about me "no doubt" being the first to sqeal is just flatulence. I've never squealed about my tax, I lived half my life on benefits due to disabled parents, I've spent 6 months homeless, 3 on the streets and 3 in friends houses, and now I lose 49% of the money coming into my hands to the government. I've appreciated the state, I've been a victim of state loopholes when I was homeless, and now I'm propping up the state with my earnings, I've not spent my life with my hand out demanding more and complaining bitterly at whatever decisions are made. > No doubt you are one of the gainers under these changes. I'm not a low single earner, but what I do gain is as insignificant as the loss to the few who do lose out. Changes in company tax laws have made me lose quite a bit, but no complaints from me. What's not remembered is that there are far more gainers than losers in the change to the tax bands, it's typical of the whinging mentality in Britain that the sole concentration is on the few losers and not the greater number of gainers. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >, and now I lose 49% of the money > coming into my hands to the government. So when will they be taking too much, 50, 52, 90% ? Steve >>, and now I lose 49% of the money >> coming into my hands to the government. > So when will they be taking too much, 50, 52, 90% ? 0%! However I know the kind of thing it's used for, and don't agree with it all, but I appreciate that anyone born into this country is a damned sight better off than the majority of the world so keep a wary but *fair* eye on what the government get up to. It's very lazy to just slag off whoever is in power rather than looking at what's going on and give them a fair trial. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>>, and now I lose 49% of the money >>> coming into my hands to the government. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >just slag off whoever is in power rather than looking at what's going >on and give them a fair trial. I can see a lot of wasted money in the mechanism of government in this country. Whether things would be better if it were all changed, I don't know, nor do I think it's likely that we'll find out as bureaucracy tends to be self-perpetuating. I'll give you a good example: The council here got on to my parents and suggested they apply for pension credit. One of their employees came and went through the forms, and in due course, they got the pencred. In about 3 months time, they had a request to submit all the forms again. Mother phoned them, and queried this, and was told that a random pick is made for people to "check up on" that their circumstances haven't changed. There are 2 points to note here: 1) there should be in place something that rejects new applicants being pulled out of the hat for re-assessment for changed circumstances, it's a waste of time and resources. This is probably an inaccurate bit of programming, but there should be scope for the people on the ground saying "hang on, we've only just had a form from these people" and ignoring the computer. 2) The whole mechanism of operating means-tested things like pencred undoubtedly costs more than simply paying all pensioners a bit more. Granted, the best-off pensioners don't "need" it, but then the best-off pensioners (i.e. those with substantial private incomes) don't need state pension AT ALL, but they still get it. The extra cost to pay the relatively few a bit more is not going to be as high as employing a bunch of people in every council in the land to administer the means-testing, AND pay all the pension credit to top up the large-ish number of pensions that don't meet the minimum income guarantee level. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > I can see a lot of wasted money in the mechanism of government in this > country. No argument there, no idea why the civil service is so inefficient although I've seen it improve in a few ways, mostly down to neccessity due to people being sacked. I know a few people who used to work for the milk quota and similar crowd, they seemed to go through endless cuts. > Whether things would be better if it were all changed, I don't > know, nor do I think it's likely that we'll find out as bureaucracy tends to > be self-perpetuating. I think it's been inefficient since the dawn of time! Still, there's a lot of good that comes out of it but you'll not find many who will admit that. > In about 3 months time, they had a request to submit all the forms again. > Mother phoned them, and queried this, and was told that a random pick is > made for people to "check up on" that their circumstances haven't changed. Well, when I was a student, I had endless fun with the grants department and even more when they changed over to loans. It's not much better in industry though, I've finally had the correct invoice for a job done 7 months ago by an electrical outfit here, after repeatedly calling them about the invoice being wrong and not even addressed to me. Each time they said they'd get it fixed but I just get more threats through the post for someone who doesn't live here. Finally they got it right. And don't get me started on trying to report problems to or otherwise deal with ebay, Sony, Panasonic or any other large corporation, compared to whom the government and civil service are an absolute pleasure... SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> You would no doubt be the first to squeal if the tax changes took >> away say an additional 5% - 7% of your income. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in Britain that the sole concentration is on the few losers and not > the greater number of gainers. Hmm. What do I gain, pray tell? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >> What's not remembered is that there are far more gainers than losers >> in the change to the tax bands, it's typical of the whinging mentality >> in Britain that the sole concentration is on the few losers and not >> the greater number of gainers. > > Hmm. What do I gain, pray tell? What's that got to do with anything? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>> What's not remembered is that there are far more gainers than losers >>> in the change to the tax bands, it's typical of the whinging [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's that got to do with anything? Just interested, I got the feeling losers 10% gainers nil, is all. You suggested otherwise. SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > Just interested, I got the feeling losers 10% gainers nil, is all. Hmm, not sure what that actually means!! Or are you saying that you don't think anyone gained at all? One tax band was removed so those on it had to pay more tax, but the tax band they were moved to was reduced so those on it originally now paid less, and at the same time a load of benefits aimed at those on lower incomes were increased. Have a quick browse around the beeb website's money section, should be something on there that makes it clear. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >What's not remembered is that there are far more gainers than losers >in the change to the tax bands, it's typical of the whinging mentality >in Britain that the sole concentration is on the few losers and not >the greater number of gainers. I'll give you bloody good odds that the overall tax burden has increased, though. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>>> And is paid for out of council tax which will have to go up which will >>>> make a serious dent in the income of poorer people who have already [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >pensioners aged below 65 (women) who are therefore not receiving the >over 65's increase in personal allowance. Pensioners also lose the 10% tax rate, for those who pay tax. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > Pensioners also lose the 10% tax rate, for those who pay tax. The numbers I've seen would suggest that those making above the average wage round here (Stoke-on-Trent), either from pension or wages are better off, those below it are worse off. SignatureTciao for Now! John. > The numbers I've seen would suggest that those making above the average > wage round here (Stoke-on-Trent), either from pension or wages are > better off, those below it are worse off. If they don't claim other benefits to which they are entitled. The fuss is about the childless and relatively young people who are the worse off, however those who don't claim the benefits specifically aimed at them, then moan about being worse off aren't worth listening to. There are some losers but there's more gainers amongst the low-paid than losers supposedly. It's not good enough to just crank out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ IR >There are some losers but there's more gainers amongst the IR> low-paid than losers supposedly. It's not good enough to just crank IR> out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting IR> poorer. Being sat on the wrong end of the 40% tax, I can see why those that have lost their 10% are having some problems, but as has been pointed out, there are plenty of benefits that can be claimed if you look into it. I'd rather that 40% of my earning went to legitimate claims than just some huge pot, but I guess I'll never know :( Of course no-one ever seems to see it that way, those that earn more, pay more (tax), enabling those that don't earn enough to claim benefits, benefit from increased govt spending etc, that's the whole point of the system. Or at least, it was. SignatureNeil >> The numbers I've seen would suggest that those making above the average >> wage round here (Stoke-on-Trent), either from pension or wages are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >worse off, however those who don't claim the benefits specifically >aimed at them, ...zero, in my case... >then moan about being worse off aren't worth listening >to. There are some losers but there's more gainers amongst the >low-paid than losers supposedly. Probably true if you just look at the income tax/benefit equation; I doubt they're so stupid as to be caught out by such a transparent failure. However, I wouldn't take bets on the overall position. >It's not good enough to just crank >out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting >poorer. even if it's true? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>It's not good enough to just crank >>out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting >>poorer. > > even if it's true? Do you know it's true or do you just feel it's true? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>> It's not good enough to just crank >>> out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting >>> poorer. >> even if it's true? > > Do you know it's true or do you just feel it's true? The governments own ONS says its true. Steve >> Do you know it's true or do you just feel it's true? >> > The governments own ONS says its true. Got a link, as I'd like to see what the context is as from my own experiences, people seem a damned sight better off now than they did when I were a lad. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >>> Do you know it's true or do you just feel it's true? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > experiences, people seem a damned sight better off now than they did > when I were a lad. Ah but, the GAP between the "rich" and "poor" is what we are talking about as the rich-er and poor-er. When poverty is now defined as a particular percentage below the average, the poor are of course always with us, although many can still afford resources that even the relatively rich in other countries might envy. I'll dig out a link for you. Steve > Ah but, the GAP between the "rich" and "poor" is what we are talking > about as the rich-er and poor-er. Who gives a sod about that, it's how you are doing relevant to how well you were doing that counts. There's too much of an anti-success culture and the whole idea of analyzing the difference between the richest and the poorest is a symptom of that, if someone does well then more power to them, they almost invariably make a far greater contribution to the state than the poorest in pure financial terms and that lowers the taxes for the bottom-feeders. > When poverty is now defined as a > particular percentage below the average, the poor are of course always > with us, although many can still afford resources that even the > relatively rich in other countries might envy. Also not a good measure IMHO, what counts is how well you are doing compared to last year, not how well you are doing compared to an average. If someone has made a million more than you, then great, I'd like to do the same but off my own back thanks. These days, entertainment is so much more varied and cheaper, there's stuff available for free that would have boggled my mind when I was a teenager, but somehow we're going to the dogs? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >There's too much of an anti-success > culture and the whole idea of analyzing the difference between the > richest and the poorest is a symptom of that I agree with that. The current powers that be were elected on a promise to reduce the gap, and have actually failed. Steve >>>> Do you know it's true or do you just feel it's true? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Steve Just put my pedants hat on, and as a lurker perhaps I should shut up. If poverty is a particular percentage below the average, then we will never get rid of poverty. 20% of 50% for example, will still be there regardless of the change in income/tax/wealth. I'll get my coat Giles >> Ah but, the GAP between the "rich" and "poor" is what we are talking about >> as the rich-er and poor-er. When poverty is now defined as a particular >> percentage below the average, the poor are of course always with us, >> although many can still afford resources that even the relatively rich in >> other countries might envy. > Just put my pedants hat on, and as a lurker perhaps I should shut up. > > If poverty is a particular percentage below the average, then we will never > get rid of poverty. 20% of 50% for example, will still be there regardless > of the change in income/tax/wealth. Which is exactly what I said:- "When poverty is now defined as a particular percentage below the average, the poor are of course always with us " Steve >>> Ah but, the GAP between the "rich" and "poor" is what we are talking about >>> as the rich-er and poor-er. When poverty is now defined as a particular [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"When poverty is now defined as a particular percentage below the >average, the poor are of course always with us " what bothers me these days is the "national average wage" and how far below it my income is. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > what bothers me these days is the "national average wage" and how far > below it my income is. Average wage about 23/24k, likewise I'm well below that but fortunately don't have a mortgage or pay rent, so a low income doesn't threaten the roof over our heads in quite so directly as it does for many. The other thing that bothers me is "fuel poverty" defined as a household spending more than 10% of their income on energy. We spend about 25% on oil and electricity. Particularly in the last year with the price of oil heading for the stratosphere. SignatureCheers Dave. >> what bothers me these days is the "national average wage" and how far >> below it my income is. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >oil and electricity. Particularly in the last year with the price of oil >heading for the stratosphere. I found a thing about "are you eligible for tax credits?" and on the face of it I may be, provided they don't count that I live with the parents, and that they have pensions and so forth. Some years ago I was living in my grandmother's house and paying rent, and unemployed, and I couldn't get housing benefit 'cos I was in a relative's house, notwithstanding that I paid rent and had a rent book to prove it. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > I found a thing about "are you eligible for tax credits?" and on the > face of it I may be, provided they don't count that I live with the > parents, and that they have pensions and so forth. Good question. The online "Do I Qualify" doesn't mention or ask anything about others apart from your "partner", singular. Parents are not your "partner"... > Some years ago I was living in my grandmother's house and paying rent, > and unemployed, and I couldn't get housing benefit 'cos I was in a > relative's house, notwithstanding that I paid rent and had a rent book > to prove it. Right bar stewards at times aren't they? But I can see why they do it. 'Cause the spongeing toe rags and chavs would all be living in relatives houses paying "rent" with completed rent book to "prove it"... SignatureCheers Dave. >>> The numbers I've seen would suggest that those making above the average >>> wage round here (Stoke-on-Trent), either from pension or wages are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...zero, in my case... Same here. Same for someone in reasonably well paid work with 2 kids. Same for a couple of lads I know that work for the same company as I do. I'm 90 quid a year better off at just under 19 grand, the lads that work with me break even exactly (They drive further to get to work & drink a bit more.), the one with the kids but on more money including his wife's income is 150 quid or so better off, & someone earning 14000 a year in full time work (Not rare round here) is about 40 quid a year worse off, I'd guess. Possibly some of the 1000 or so who have lost their jobs this last year or two round here may be better off than they would be otherwise, but that's a different discussion. That's before the changes in council tax, of course. (Up about 8% this year, I believe. Mine's up just over 50 quid a year, but I live in a band A property.) Incidentally, ignoring housing costs & loan interest, my cost of living has increased 12 or 15% in the last year or so. (Petrol, food, electricity, & other household bills.) >> then moan about being worse off aren't worth listening >> to. There are some losers but there's more gainers amongst the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they're so stupid as to be caught out by such a transparent failure. > However, I wouldn't take bets on the overall position. The figures in the budget report say the government are going to take 4.6 billion in extra tax, & intend to pay out an extra 0.5 billion in tax refunds. That's income tax & national insurance, ignoring the indirect stuff. Overall, they're hoping for a 26 billion net increase in income, which is an increase of just under 5% as against a predicted 2% growth in the economy. >> It's not good enough to just crank >> out the old refrain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting >> poorer. > > even if it's true? I'm with you on that, Austin. SignatureTciao for Now! John. > Same here. > Same for someone in reasonably well paid work with 2 kids. > Same for a couple of lads I know that work for the same company as I do. In theory I'm better off by about £400 but in practice I now work for myself having lost my job last year, and my mortgage comes up for renewal in a few months -- currently my interest rate is about 4.6%, ouch! That's not going to be fun adjusting... > I'm 90 quid a year better off at just under 19 grand, the lads that work > with me break even exactly (They drive further to get to work & drink a > bit more.), the one with the kids but on more money including his wife's > income is 150 quid or so better off, & someone earning 14000 a year in > full time work (Not rare round here) is about 40 quid a year worse off, > I'd guess. Sounds a bit harsh I know but when I was on income support or basically getting subsidised by the state (as anyone on less than 18K a year is) I didn't feel I had the right to moan, I took what I could and pulled myself up. Not relevant for those who are disabled or ill though, having had two parents in that state I don't begrudge them a penny. However while swanning around at the arse-end of society I met an awful lot of people who should be hosed off the decks into the sea. > Possibly some of the 1000 or so who have lost their jobs this last year > or two round here may be better off than they would be otherwise, but > that's a different discussion. Yes, rather perversely apparently manufacturing is on the up due to the falling strength of the pound, and there's even talk of opening up some coal mines.. > I'm with you on that, Austin. Bear in mind that the top 12% of the population pay 60% of the tax income IIRC, so more power to them. The "poor" can still afford a whole shitload more than I could when I was skint, they're happy to breed like bunnies too. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> Same here. >> Same for someone in reasonably well paid work with 2 kids. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > renewal in a few months -- currently my interest rate is about 4.6%, > ouch! That's not going to be fun adjusting... I managed to clear my home loan a year or three ago, thank goodness. I think you'll find good & bad points about working for yourself. More freedom, but less security and so on.... >> I'm 90 quid a year better off at just under 19 grand, the lads that work >> with me break even exactly (They drive further to get to work & drink a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > penny. However while swanning around at the arse-end of society I met > an awful lot of people who should be hosed off the decks into the sea. I'll agree with all that. I've been on the dole now & again, & it's a useful safety net, but I've always got off as soon as possible. The longest it ever took me was 6 weeks, IIRC, in the early 80s economic low. Disability benefit, likewise, as long as the system's not abused. There was a family living near me until about 3 years ago who were third generation unemployed. "Too ill to work", until the father died of an overdose. >> Possibly some of the 1000 or so who have lost their jobs this last year >> or two round here may be better off than they would be otherwise, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the falling strength of the pound, and there's even talk of opening up > some coal mines.. Shame it came too late to save the potbanks. Some of the workers have got jobs in the new distribution warehouses that are being built round here, but not all. In my opinion, as well as others, closing the mines was always a stupid idea, it's just that my reasons for believing it aren't the same as most others I meet. >> I'm with you on that, Austin. > > Bear in mind that the top 12% of the population pay 60% of the tax > income IIRC, so more power to them. The "poor" can still afford a > whole shitload more than I could when I was skint, they're happy to > breed like bunnies too. That's how you get your own flat if you're stuck at home, I believe. Produce a child, & you move to near the top of the housing list. They make a profit on each child, too, under the benefit system, depending on how they live. SignatureTciao for Now! John. > I managed to clear my home loan a year or three ago, thank goodness. > I think you'll find good & bad points about working for yourself. More > freedom, but less security and so on.... Yeah the line of work I'm in means I rarely have a pipeline, I don't usually know if I'll have any work next week until the Wednesday of the week before, which is unnerving.. Mind you so far I've been able to maintain my income while only working 2 weeks a month :-P Hopefully the customer list will grow, seems to be. > I'll agree with all that. I've been on the dole now & again, & it's a > useful safety net, but I've always got off as soon as possible. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > generation unemployed. "Too ill to work", until the father died of an > overdose. In my case I was stuck between years at University, it took me 6 years to finish a 3-year degree due to financial and health problems, so was on the dole for some of the inbetween time, worked for some of it, and due to being eligible for a grant but not getting it until halfway through the year I fell through the beaurocratic cracks and couldn't get dole or the grant so had no income for a while! Could have got a job but actually enjoyed roughing it for a while living in a number of derelict houses, it was quite an adventure at the time. Maggie Thatcher put paid to that a few years later with the "Criminal Justice Act", a mish-mash of needless goose-stepping for the Daily Mail. > That's how you get your own flat if you're stuck at home, I believe. > Produce a child, & you move to near the top of the housing list. They > make a profit on each child, too, under the benefit system, depending on > how they live. I always thought that was a myth until I worked in a sawmill and met people who were doing it.. He had a job but the pay was so low he qualified for benefits and a council house but was on the waiting list, so him and his girlfriend decided that they were going to have some kids anyway at some point so just had them and let the state pull the extra weight required and jump the council house waiting list. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> The fuss is about the childless and relatively young people who are the >> worse off, however those who don't claim the benefits specifically >> aimed at them, > > ....zero, in my case... Eh? I thought you woz like me and getting Working Tax Credit and (possibly) Child Tax Credit. Both of which have been fiddled with to compensate for the removal of the 10% band. Remember "Benefits" ain't just the dole, income support, housing, council tax etc... IIRC there is (or was) a calculator on the BBC site where you could plug in your figures and see if you gained or lost. Here we are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7290230.stm Tells me I'm around a grand better off. Most of that coming from Tax Credits (I have two children). The NI figure is wrong, that pages says I'm £11.60 better off but the Class 2 Self Employed rate has gone up by 10p/week, maybe they have put the Class 4 down or shifted the threshold? SignatureCheers Dave. >>> The fuss is about the childless and relatively young people who are >>> the worse off, however those who don't claim the benefits [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > gone up by 10p/week, maybe they have put the Class 4 down or shifted > the threshold? Seems I'm £135 worse off, thanks a bunch! SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question >>> The fuss is about the childless and relatively young people who are the >>> worse off, however those who don't claim the benefits specifically [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >compensate for the removal of the 10% band. Remember "Benefits" ain't just >the dole, income support, housing, council tax etc... You can't get those if you don't have a family and/or are self-employed, AFAIK. It's like the con about how you can be part-time employed (say doing 20 hours per week) and get IS to top up yer money, but you can do 20 hours a week SE and because you're SE that's automatically full-time, and you can't get owt. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> Eh? I thought you woz like me and getting Working Tax Credit and >> (possibly) Child Tax Credit. > > You can't get those if you don't have a family and/or are self-employed, > AFAIK. Agreed you need dependant kids to get Child Tax Credit but I'm self employed and get Working Tax Credit. Pretty sure I'm not falsely claiming, the forms have spaces for figues containing "Income from Self Employment". B-) WTC is based on your income and hours worked and isn't a great deal compared to CTC but if they want to give me money I'll take it, I'm not proud. I paid enough PAYE and NI when I was in full time employment... > It's like the con about how you can be part-time employed (say doing 20 > hours per week) and get IS to top up yer money, but you can do 20 hours > a week SE and because you're SE that's automatically full-time, and you > can't get owt. I've not seriously looked at Income Support, it's one of the means tested ones and I have more than 8k in the bank which instantly stops any of the means tested ones. Like Council Tax Benefit & Housing Benefit but not Incapacity Benefit if you can't work due to sickness or injuury. Yes the Self Employed can get IB. Again IB isn't much but it'll stop you starving. SignatureCheers Dave. >>> Eh? I thought you woz like me and getting Working Tax Credit and >>> (possibly) Child Tax Credit. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Inc |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message