You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Jump to page : First 1 Last
Format:  Go
Road Tolls
AuthorMessage
userMike Chapman
Posted: 1 December 2006 4:09 PM
Subject: Road Tolls
 
A posting machine

Posts: 360
1001001002525


Have just read the news article about the proposed road mileage tolls.

The article states that these tolls will collect £28 Billion per annum which SHOULD be spent on public transport. I wonder if this takes into account the total revenue less the revenue lost when all those wicked polluting vehicle drivers swith en-masse to the greatly improved public transport system? No mention of reducing the tax/duty on fuel or road tax so, can we assume that these road toll mileage charges are in addition to the existing taxes.

The take from vehicle taxes at present is £30 billion per annum of which approx £3 billion is spent on roads and transport which probably explains the state of UK roads.

Does government never think of trying to achieve a reduction in road use, and therebye also pollution, by an incentive system such as cheaper rail and bus fares or greatly reduced taxes for the manufacture, purchase and running of super clean hybrid vehicles? Did I not read recently that rail fares are to increase by up to 15%?

Angry and taxed to the hilt.

Mike.
userWingpete
Posted: 1 December 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Lives on the forums

Posts: 512
500
Location: S E London


'Be better if they come clean and say something like, "everyone has to travel by public service vehicles, provided for all parts of the country and its population, and ban all privately owned vehicles".
That way, transport vehicles would be free to roam, and WE, the tax payers would not have that burden, of paying for vehicles unused.
But of course, that would kill the golden goose.
Road fund licences were introduced to pay for wear and tear on roads, and for past 70 years, that money has been squandered in the Treasuery coffers, to pay for things we gain no benefit from, like overseas aid, wars, beaurocracies, local government busy bodies, and many other inefficient services we have come to accept.
'Bout time we took a leaf from the French protestations booklet.
Like this weeks Calais dispute.
userKeith T
Posted: 1 December 2006 6:00 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1378
1000100100100252525
Location: Autotrail 610SE Dawlish, Devon


Hi Mike - of course it's in addition to all present and future taxation - have you ever know the govenemnt to actually reduce any taxes.......and yes, I think we should do what the French do, just blockade everything, and the govemnet would have to take note.
Likewise the COuncil Tax. All it seems to be intended to do is raise the amount they waste already....so if the new %age style tax is introduced, we should all go to the local Council Offices and just sit there until they change their minds.....and meantime not pay a penny, certianly not on the 'advance' monthly direct debit which I suspect most of us do now.
userMel B
Posted: 1 December 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


The special one

Posts: 12468
5000500020001001001001002525
Location: E Yorks, 2015 Globecar FamilyScout L Ducato Maxi


Mike Chapman - 2006-12-01 4:09 PM


Does government never think ...


Did you really need to ask? They create chaos when they don't think, what a right mess it would be if they did!!!!!
userzulurita
Posted: 3 December 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 155
1002525


It will only the rich able to drive before too long We will be back to the CLASS system again. Of course those in Government will be alright Jack, they will claim it on EXPENSES
userKeith T
Posted: 3 December 2006 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1378
1000100100100252525
Location: Autotrail 610SE Dawlish, Devon


claim on expenses, yes of course they will...and that's in addition to the 66% pay rise they now seem intent on awarding themselves!
Ther's no stopping htme, it seems, and all Parties are in it. Claim they need it to 'keep up' with the DOctors etc in their salary levels........
....what about the mjiserable increases the Pensioners get (if they're lucky, that is?)
userMike Chapman
Posted: 3 December 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
A posting machine

Posts: 360
1001001002525


Is that the Civil Servant Pensioners retiring at 60 or the private sector pensioners having to work to 68 to support them?

Mike
userKeith T
Posted: 3 December 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1378
1000100100100252525
Location: Autotrail 610SE Dawlish, Devon


Hi Miake - no I hadn';t thought about either of those.....just the current ly retired people living on pensions which are rapidly being downvalued by costs over which we have no control.......so, I guess if the road tolls are introduced, we shall just go and look at the fields, and count the sheep! That';s for those of us fortnuate enough to have that luxutry, I guess, and evehn thjat the govenment are doing their best to destoy!.
usercolin
Posted: 3 December 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8175
500020001000100252525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


I keep hearing people talking about pensioners who only get increase in earnings linked to cost of living, and how it should be linked to increase in average pay! well try linking it to my pay, I havn't had a pay increase in 4 years
userKeith T
Posted: 3 December 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1378
1000100100100252525
Location: Autotrail 610SE Dawlish, Devon


hi Colin - point taken and understood. However, it's all ;'averages', and as we all know (and the politicaians and otehr wish to ignore) these are made up of the variation between hgihs and lows, and no we won't go into the mathematical calculations and weighting!
However, the point being made was simply that those in power and authority by and large pass on any extra actual costs which are 'reclaimable', and then award themselves huge rises inot the bargain - that is unacceptable, but ther's little , it seems, we can do about it, as 'jo public'...they're all tarred with the same brush, it seems.
usermichele
Posted: 4 December 2006 1:22 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


50005000500100100100100
Location: Rapido ..ask him what size


Keith,
Suppose I better do the customary thing first (sorry o/t)

where in cornwall some pretty places for xmas there
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 4 December 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Mike Chapman - 2006-12-03 4:32 PM Is that the Civil Servant Pensioners retiring at 60 or the private sector pensioners having to work to 68 to support them? Mike >

You won't thank me for this, but the two are different.  The one is an occupational pension, such as provided by private companies, many of which have hitherto allowed retirement from 55, or even 50.  The other is the state pension, which all recieve whether civil servant or not.

userBrian Kirby
Posted: 4 December 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


These proposals won't survive.  The thing to watch is what replaces them.  It's an old trick.  Propose something really unacceptable, wind everyone up, and then slip the real proposals, which will look much milder, onto the table.  Everyone heaves a sigh of relief, accepts them and then wakes to realise they've just swallowed something they'd previously have baulked at anyhow!

The first nonsense is that these proposals will do nothing to promote public transport.  How can they?  All tax revenue goes to the government, and all public transport is now privately owned.  How can that government revenue get transferred into the private sector?  Handouts for the favoured?  Do I hear potential for corruption? 

The second nonsense is that they will do little to nothing to reduce consumption of carbon fuels - their stated objective.  If the cost of road transport is increased the only measurable effect, apart from a temporary surge in sales of smaller new cars etc, will be an increase in prices.  You can't transfer the journeys to public transport, a) it hasn't the capacity and b) for large parts of the country it doesn't exist.  So road use will continue more or less unabated, but will just become more expensive.

Consequence: all businesses will seek to recover their increased costs through increased prices.  Employees will seek increased pay, to meet their increased travel costs and the generally increasing prices, meaning that businesses will in turn increase prices again to meet the increased pay demands.  Those businesses that can't pull off that trick will fold.  Unemployment will rise, so the cost of the dole will increase, and the increased take from the road charging will disappear down a black hole called unemployment.  Called stagflation, if I remember!

A toast: Messrs Eddington and Brown, the smartest men in the country!  Spherical and plural comes to mind!



Edited by Brian Kirby 2006-12-04 11:16 AM
userbigmoney2
Posted: 4 December 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Liking what I've found

Posts: 46
25


Brian Kirby - 2006-12-04 10:51 AM

Mike Chapman - 2006-12-03 4:32 PM Is that the Civil Servant Pensioners retiring at 60 or the private sector pensioners having to work to 68 to support them? Mike

You won't thank me for this, but the two are different.  The one is an occupational pension, such as provided by private companies, many of which have hitherto allowed retirement from 55, or even 50.  The other is the state pension, which all recieve whether civil servant or not.



well said Brian, this is often misquoted. Also the fact that an occupational pension is defered salary, as its part of your total remuneratioin package, and is payed into throughout your working life.

Another thought on road usage, don't government see that people travel in the rush hour because they have to get to work, they don't just think we'll travel at the busiest time just to clog up the roads! Maybe it is a by-product of high employment and we should all go on the dole so we only have to travel to sign on once a fortnight
userhowie
Posted: 4 December 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


2000200010010025
Location: Dunnshargin


Hi Brian. The smartest men in the country, of course not, but when it comes to self preservation and low cunning they are up there with the best of them. By ensuring that a large percentage of the population are well looked after re. unemployment and long term sickness benifit, and even immigrants, then this in turn gives them the guaranteed support base that keeps them in power regardless of the damage done to this country.
I take your point on occupational/state pensions, but the bone of contention I believe is that some sections of the civil service were entitled to recieve their state pension at 60 and were really upset about proposals that this should be raised to 65 to bring in line with the rest of us. Howard.
userWingpete
Posted: 4 December 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Lives on the forums

Posts: 512
500
Location: S E London


I was in an occupation with NHS where it was impossible to stay on over the age of 60, so retirement became compulsory, meaning I have to make an inferior pension last longer & go further.
Prior to that, I was in a Fire Brigade, where the age of retirment was set at 55, so I also had to retire from that profession prematurely as well.
Fortuitously, both occupations do have inflation linked increments, so with the OAP element, I can afford the pleasures I now indulge in, when I could not when working.
I do recall that over the years, each government, whichever comlexion, has moved the conditions for retirments, pensions and other important matters for workers from one ideal to their version.
All we could do is obey the legislators.
Now, If we were French, I think things may have been different.
userMike Chapman
Posted: 4 December 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
A posting machine

Posts: 360
1001001002525


Hello Brian,

What I was referring to was the State Pension retirement age increasing from 65 to 68 for private sector workers. At present, if you retire from a private pension under Rule of 80 or specifically because the scheme allows retirement at 50 or 55 you will have to wait until you are 65 men and 60 or 65 (depending) women before you receive State Pension.

Are you indicating that someone retiring from a Civil Service Pension at 50, 55 or 60 will receive State Pension at that age or have to wait until they are 60/65? My point, maybe too briefly put, is that state retirement age should be equitable across the whole workforce male and female. Are Civil Servants going to have an increase in State Retirement age by three years to 63 or perhaps even 65 or 68 which may answer the comments about being forced to retire at 60.

Surprisingly, I am sympathetic to some Civil Servants such as Police, Fire Brigade, Armed Forces etc., receiving an early pension due to the extreme nature of their occupation.

I apologise for taking this thread off subject.

Regards,

Mike.
usercolin
Posted: 4 December 2006 7:51 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8175
500020001000100252525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


Reading this I just remembered to tell gf she won't be eligable for state pension till she's 66, she didn't look happy like myself her work has a high manual labour content, I'll be lucky to stay at my job till I'm 65, I need to find a way to spend more time in the office, trouble is all the workforce at our company is aging with no youngsters coming in to keep us going
usernet-traveller
Posted: 5 December 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
A posting machine

Posts: 349
10010010025


Call me a cynic but has anyone noticed that the cost of replacing Trident is very similar to the sum expected to be raised by road tolls.

I would also like to mention that the Eddington who produced the road toll report is not the late Paul Eddington who, with Nigel Hawthorne, made us laugh in Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.

Cheers
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 5 December 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


howardtcz - 2006-12-04 12:48 PM Hi Brian. The smartest men in the country, of course not, but when it comes to self preservation and low cunning they are up there with the best of them. By ensuring that a large percentage of the population are well looked after re. unemployment and long term sickness benifit, and even immigrants, then this in turn gives them the guaranteed support base that keeps them in power regardless of the damage done to this country. I take your point on occupational/state pensions, but the bone of contention I believe is that some sections of the civil service were entitled to recieve their state pension at 60 and were really upset about proposals that this should be raised to 65 to bring in line with the rest of us. Howard.

Well, yes, and no, Howard.  All civil servants (that is to say civilian employees of central government, but not the armed services or local authority employees, who had different conditions and are not, strictly, civil servants) had a right to retire at 60.  All could, under certain conditions retire later.  All their pension schemes were final salary schemes, based on 1/80 of their final salary for each year worked.  So, to retire on half pay, they needed to work for government continuously for 40 years.  The scheme was non-contributory, that is to say the civil servant did not contribute from his/her salary to a fund, because there was no fund.  The pension was, in effect, as stated above by Julie, deferred salary.  However, the value of contributions necessary to maintain a pension of that type, nominally around 5% of salary, were taken into account in assessing civil servant's salaries.  Inevitably, this was/is a bit of a theoretical calculation and its validity has often been disputed.  The value of the pension is revised annually against the RPI - which is of course changed from time to time.

For many years, private sector final salary pensions were broadly similar, but were often based upon 1/60 of final salary for each year worked.  So, to retire on half pay, they needed to have worked continuously for their employer for 30 years.  The variability within the private sector was inevitably much greater but the schemes were generally contributory, with employees paying around 5/6% of their salary and employers paying somewhere in the region of 10-12% on top of that.  Whether that money ever got into a fund, as it was supposed to, and it seems most understood it would, now seems questionable.  A bit like choosing your parents carefully, you also needed to choose your employer with care!  If you did, and the fund was properly managed, you get your pension.  Many of the better pensions also carried a "best endeavours" clause, to increase the pension in line with RPI.  However, fund managers did not do their jobs very well, and advised employers that the funds had accumulated far more money than the liabilities necessitated, so it would be safe to reduce or stop paying in.  Later, when the stock market began to fall in value, all the assets of the pension funds crashed with it, and the funds ended with insufficient money to cover their liabilities.  Panic set in, funds were wound up or closed, or the employees were transferred to money purchase schemes where the eventual pension depends upon the amount accumulated, and the performance of the fund manager, and not on the number of years worked.  However, in changing to such schemes those who had reduced, or stopped, contributions were now embarrassed.  They needed to resume making payments into their staff pension schemes, and those payments would have to come from profits.  The most common decision in response seems to have been to resume employers’ contributions at about half the rate previously applicable, and to dress up the difference with a lot of old flannel designed to confuse employees as the true effect of what was being done.  Sadly, it seems the ruse worked, and the con hasn't generally been spotted.  The main difference, of course, being the need to continue working for another 5 or so years.  Those extra years are, mainly, necessitated to compensate for the now reduced employer's contributions.  The fuss over state pension levels just provides a convenient smokescreen to hide that inconvenient fact.

Neither the civil servant nor the private employee could gain more that half pay from either scheme.  Both could, however, buy enhanced pensions from elsewhere by making additional voluntary contributions.  If you were a director, none of the above necessarily applied, and you could, if you were sufficiently favoured, benefit from very much larger scales of contributions into a pension fund, retiring on a pension equal to full pay, or even more.

The true scandal is the way employees were conned into accepting reduced pensions by being switched into under funded money purchase schemes, and the way no one seems to have noticed that a lot of companies never put the money into anything more substantial then their own shares, if that.  When those companies have failed, the pensions pots have been empty and the employees defrauded of their pensions.  Faced with the prospect of changes to what has always been a very good pension scheme, to make it more like those now available to the private sector, the civil servants are up in arms.  They just seem to have been given better advice then their private sector contemporaries and can smell the rat. 

What puzzles me is why this entirely rational reaction engenders such criticism from those other, less fortunate souls, who have been cheated over their pensions.  Is this any more than a case of I've been conned, so you should bl**dy be conned as well, or put another way, all turkeys should vote for Christmas.

No one stands to gain from this.  It won't get the lost pensions back for those who have been cheated, to insist another group of employees are cheated as well.  Surely it would be far better to band together to reclaim as much as possible of what has been lost, than to bring everyone's retirement expectations down to the same level?  Pushing a wedge between groups of employees, so that they fall upon each other instead of upon those who have conspired against them, can only serve the interests of the conspirators, and not of the employees.  The private sector unions have been startlingly quiet while this has gone on, and I for one cannot understand why legal proceedings have not been brought against certain employers for their outrageously fraudulent behaviour.  Membership of the company pension scheme was a condition of employment imposed by many of these firms.  Employees had no choice whether they joined or not, yet it seems the employers could walk away from the scheme whistling as soon as the going got rough, with many of the directors who took those decisions gaining pensions bonuses for themselves for so deciding.  Outrageous!  Rant over!



Edited by Brian Kirby 2006-12-05 12:54 PM
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 5 December 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


50005000500020001000
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Mike Chapman - 2006-12-04 5:40 PM Hello Brian, What I was referring to was the State Pension retirement age increasing from 65 to 68 for private sector workers.  Are you indicating that someone retiring from a Civil Service Pension at 50, 55 or 60 will receive State Pension at that age or have to wait until they are 60/65? My point, maybe too briefly put, is that state retirement age should be equitable across the whole workforce male and female. Are Civil Servants going to have an increase in State Retirement age by three years to 63 or perhaps even 65 or 68 which may answer the comments about being forced to retire at 60.  Regards, Mike.

Mike

Yes, exactly that.  The state pension is separate from, and has no direct bearing upon, civil service or any other pensions.

To the very best of my knowledge, we all get the state pension at the same age.  Civil servants who are booted into retirement at 60 will not draw their state pension until they are 65, 68, or whatever, just like everyone else.

This appears patently clear, and I can't understand why so few people know this.  However, if anyone knows differently, with facts, I'd be interested to hear.

usercolin
Posted: 5 December 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


Legendary contributor

Posts: 8175
500020001000100252525
Location: Bedfordshire, Globecar 636SB


Brian
As an ex employee of 'big bob' (he who couldn't swim) I've had an interest in the workings of pensions. Myself I got out in time and never lost a penny, others where not so fortunate, a lot like me had the option to get out but didn't, they thought the pot was building up and there would be loads of money, this dispite warnings from the unions. The unions themselves where pointing out the problems to the 'authorities' but as this was the 80s the government took no notice, yes that is correct, the government agencies had been warned by several unions at several companies what 'big bob' (and others) where up to, they took no notice.
As to whether your company is investing in 'the scheme' correctly, well I know of a 'caring sharing' organisation that took a pension holiday and has now had to get employee's to sign new terms to keep scheme afloat, I know several of the trustie's and they where distrougt at what happened, but as they had been advised by a large bank they had thuoght all was ok, pity that bank had never heard of saving for a rainy day!
userhowie
Posted: 5 December 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 


2000200010010025
Location: Dunnshargin


Hi. I think i,ve managed to take most of the comments on board and i,m sure the manner in the way they were presented will be appreciated by all who read them.
Resentment towards others who are perceived to be getting a better deal than themselves can be simply put down to human nature, and be discounted as such, and what it really boils down to is that everyone must take responsibility in securing their own futures, as relying on state pensions becomes more of a lottery unless you are prepared to merely survive rather than enjoying your retirement years.
I well remember the Maxwell debacle Colin, and I also remember the goverment at that time promising that it would never happen again, which explains the recent closure of Allied Steel and Wire where exactly the same things happened, and after paying into the company pension scheme for up to 30 years, employees there lost all their private pension rights with little or no hope of any compensation.
Nothing changes, and perish the thought, but its simply coming down to looking after your own and hoping those less fortunate get by. Howard.
userW3526602
Posted: 12 December 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: Road Tolls
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1079
1000252525
Location: Glynneath South Wales


Hi,

Can I join in the OT element of this discussion?

I served 9 years in the RAF (1958 -1967) in the full knowledge that I would not get a pension. 22 years were necessary to get a pension. What I did not know at that time was that everybody's salary was "abated" to provide an invisible contribution to their non-contibutory pension, that they were not going to recieve anyway. I understand this is currently being appealed in "Europe".

My wife was a Civil Servant with similarly abated salary. She resigned to marry me and come to Malaya. Her pension was preserved as she was resigning for reasons to do with matrimony. She was later re-instated, but resigned to have a baby. She forfeited her pension for BOTH periods of service, as she was already married when she was re-employed.

I was once told that when the Post Office was privatised, everybody had a pay rise of 8.5% with which to pay for their now contibutory pension.

No doubt my neighbour, whose last job was milk-monitor, and who is currently receiving £1500 per month in benefits, will receive a bigger state pension than myself. He will also be taking child benefit into retirement with him.

Sorry about the political rant.

602
Jump to page : First 1 Last
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator