Congestion - ?

[eggplant]

esra_ptrap wrote:
Quote:
Councils told : “ Jam up traffic “
Councils are being told to deliberately create traffic jams—then bring in road tolls to “ease” them.

I bet that is so true, some of the "regenerated" areas in my area are unbelievable, lots of unnecessary traffic ligths and one way systems that make you drive over a mile to go 300 metres. Part of the master plan, if you pay per mile then of course it makes sense (to them) to make you drive further, nothing to do with the environment, its to do with their pockets. HOW are people meant to earn a living if they cant drive to jobs?

 

[joe-90]

Why can't you people grasp the simple principle that tax doesn't go into Gordon Brown's personal pocket but is used to offset the cost of education, health, welfare and asylum seekers?

Putting VAT up to 20% would raise far more money and cost nothing extra to collect.

The only way to stop people using their cars when they don't need to is to make it cost more.

The best way to do that is to raise the tax on fuel. If petrol were to double in price then those that drive gas guzzlers will be the first to suffer. Those that choose to commute silly distances rather than working where they live will also be penalised.

Tripling road tax would get the army of 'school taxis' off the road so the fat little blighters will have to walk to school as I did.

If these measures raise enough revenue then income tax could be reduced. Either way, there is a target amount that Gordon Brown must raise - so let those that are extravagant pay the biggest share. Sounds OK to me.

 

[Nige F]

[quote="Thermo
still brighton council has managed to screw up what was a very easy to move around city 10-15 years ago and turned it into a giant gridlocked car park. All by introducing well thought out road improvement schemes. [/quote]...........Indeed, when I was there 30 years ago "I wandered the streets and the gay crowded places"with impunity

 

[twm.bwen]

No offence Joe-90 but explainsomething to us.

How can you make such an excellent, intelligent, logical and wise answer about tax and congestion but also spout such balls about blaming it on immigrants which shows ignorance to the contrary of your last post.

Wether less is more than fewer and many Immigrants are hardly causing congestion. Here's why.

Most come over to work, they work long hours for much lower than average money doing the dire jobs that 'our own' think are beneath them or are either too lazy to get off their asses. They can't afford keep and run a car.

Secondly the vast majority of immigrants live in the cities and need no cars.

Where softus' dog is from is just about as relevent as where his 'paternal grandparents' are from and still none of your beeswax.

The contrast in the intelligence shown by your arguments amazes me.

 

[Softus]

Why can't you people...

Ahh, that sweet and familiar overture is like a herald to a bigoted and prejudiced non-sequitur; I can hardly wait.

...grasp the simple principle that tax doesn't go into Gordon Brown's personal pocket but is used to offset the cost of education, health, welfare and asylum seekers?

And there it is. joe-90 believes that he's the only forum member who knows where our taxes go.

Putting VAT up to 20% would raise far more money and cost nothing extra to collect.

Nothing? Really? What's the labour cost of changing all the accounting systems in all the land? The paperwork? The explanatory notes? The VAT seminar information? The cost of processing the registration of all those traders whose revenue (to offset the extra input tax) would then exceed the registration threshold?

The only way to stop people using their cars when they don't need to is to make it cost more.

That's one way of making car usage less attractive to people, but you have no evidence to support your claim that it will result in cars being used less.

The best way to do that is to raise the tax on fuel. If petrol were to double in price then those that drive gas guzzlers will be the first to suffer.

The big fuel users are haulage companies - the cost of their fuel will be transferred to the cost of the goods that they transport. This won't reduce the miles that they drive, because consumers will still want tons more new stuff, instead of mending and making do with what they've got.

Similarly, most of the miles that I drive are for business. If fuel goes up then my overheads, and therefore my labour rate, goes up. This doesn't stop me driving, it just makes my customers pay more, with no effect on congestion whatsoever.

Those that choose to commute silly distances rather than working where they live will also be penalised.

This is nothing more than blinkered and stupid hypocrisy.

Tripling road tax would get the army of 'school taxis' off the road so the fat little blighters will have to walk to school as I did.

This is nothing more than prejudiced nonsense.

If these measures raise enough revenue then income tax could be reduced. Either way, there is a target amount that Gordon Brown must raise - so let those that are extravagant pay the biggest share. Sounds OK to me.

It sounds OK, but you haven't proposed one single way in which the most extravagant would pay the most.

Oh, and your repeated references to the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than make you look factual and knowledgeable, merely make you look narrow-minded with a personal grudge.

Please post some more garbage - all we need to do as assemble enough of your bizarre arguments and cosmically-challenged postulates, and whatever you haven't proposed is bound to be the solution to the country's problems.

 

[joe-90]

I'm allowed an opinion just as you are.

I'd like to see immigration stopped. I'd like to see all asylum seekers returned.

I'd like to see all benefits rigorously policed to force the work-shy back into the job market.

I'd like to see emmigration to Oz etc continue so that we end up with a smaller, leaner economy similar to Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland etc which are the economies doing well. The USA and Britain are bloated economies where the standard of living is falling.

We just don't have the infrastructure for all these immigrants so what is the net gain? They are forcing house prices up so that Brits can no-longer afford to live in areas where they were born. We have a tiny and already overpopulated country - what are we letting them in for? Wait until the economy takes a dive (as it must) and then see what a can of worms comes to light.

 

[joe-90]

Please post some more garbage - all we need to do as assemble enough of your bizarre arguments and cosmically-challenged postulates, and whatever you haven't proposed is bound to be the solution to the country's problems.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it far more elequently.

Oh and I call him Gordon Brown because that's what everyone else calls him - even his Mum.

 

[Softus]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it far more elequently.

Assuming that you meant to write eloquently, there's no shame in being thought worse than a truly great writer.

Oh and I call him Gordon Brown because that's what everyone else calls him - even his Mum.

Well, by that reasoning you should instantly stop calling him by that name, because I don't use it.

 

[joe-90]

Oh and I call him Gordon Brown because that's what everyone else calls him - even his Mum.

Well, by that reasoning you should instantly stop calling him by that name, because I don't use it.

Yes. I'll instantly stop using it cuz Softus doesn't use it.

 

[Softus]

Yes. I'll instantly stop using it cuz Softus doesn't use it.

Oh. Were you lying when you wrote the following then?

Oh and I call him Gordon Brown because that's what everyone else calls him - even his Mum.

 

[joe-90]

I didn't know that you didn't use it until you told me so - so the answer to your question is NO I didn't tell a lie (a known falsehood).

How long have your ancestors lived in the UK, Softus?

 

[Softus]

I'm allowed an opinion just as you are.

I wholeheartedly agree. Please continue to post your opinions.

I'd like to see immigration stopped. I'd like to see all asylum seekers returned.

That's your personal preference, not a reasoned conclusion. It's this preference that makes you appear xenophobic; whether or not you are is a different matter, but you don't do yourself any favours.

I'd like to see all benefits rigorously policed to force the work-shy back into the job market.

Those who are determined to play the system will always find a way that makes it too expensive to detect them. However, I agree that the system appears to be too easy to cheat.

I'd like to see emmigration to Oz etc continue so that we end up with a smaller, leaner economy similar to Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland etc which are the economies doing well. The USA and Britain are bloated economies where the standard of living is falling.

We don't have the culture of those countries, and radically changing immigration policy is not enough to bring about the fundamental change that's needed.

They are forcing house prices up so that Brits can no-longer afford to live in areas where they were born.

I really don't see how you arrive at this conclusion.

We have a tiny and already overpopulated country - what are we letting them in for?

Because we always have. Why should it change now?

Wait until the economy takes a dive (as it must) and then see what a can of worms comes to light.

OK.

How long have your ancestors lived in the UK, Softus?

That's for me to know and you to, er, not know.

 

[joe-90]

How long have your ancestors lived in the UK, Softus?

That's for me to know and you to, er, not know.

It's OK Softus, there is no shame in being 'foreign'. Our old mate BAS used to be very open about the fact that his Grandfather arrived as an asylum seeker.

 

[joe-90]

We have a tiny and already overpopulated country - what are we letting them in for?

Because we always have. Why should it change now?

Until 40 years ago we 'always hanged people'. Maybe you'd advocate that practice continuing? After all - why should it change?

 

[Softus]

Until 40 years ago we 'always hanged people'.

I know you can't help yourself, but this topic is about congestion, not capital punishment.

Maybe you'd advocate that practice continuing?

No.

After all - why should it change?

I can't see your point here - it already has changed. The status quo is that hanging people is illegal.

It's OK Softus, there is no shame in being 'foreign'.

Your definition of "foreign" is almost certainly different to mine, and your pathetic attempt to deduce the details of my background is doomed to failure.