VAT & Fuel Duty

[Guest Tracker]

I thought this should be passed to as many people as possible.

 

 

When VAT was temporarily reduced to 15%, the Chancellor added 2% duty to fuel to offset the reduction in tax collected from motorists.

 

Now that VAT has been increased to 17.5% again this hidden tax has not been removed - hence recent rises in your fuel costs.

 

Sign the petition at the link below to have this stealth tax removed!

 

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/DutyReduction/

 

[GJH]

Wasn't that the 2p which was supposed to have been added in April 2008, was then postponed until October 2008 and then postponed again until brought in at the same time as the VAT reduction? :-)

 

The fact is that with the way that the economy is at the moment, whatever party forms the next government will either have to increase taxes, reduce public spending or both - which will mean that we will all end up paying more for less anyway.

 

If fuel duty is reduced the shortfall would have to be made up in another way - basically "In what way would you like to pay your tax sir?" :-)

 

I notice the petitioner makes no mention of how he would prefer to pay :-)

 

Graham

[Guest Tracker]

GJH - 2010-02-12 7:09 PM

 

If fuel duty is reduced the shortfall would have to be made up in another way - basically "In what way would you like to pay your tax sir?" :-)

 

Graham

 

I don't mind how I pay my tax and I accept that is me who will have to bail out the extravagancies of the government - all I ask is that it is fair and as last year the taxation raised from road transport added up to around £60,000,000,000 - 60 billion pounds - is that fair?

 

Maybe a few higher earners could pay a bit more income tax so that people on the minimum wage are not further penalised by paying 20% income tax and 11% NI - a total of £1732 or 14% of their total earnings a year on what is already the lowest possible wage in the country. I doubt any high earners or even those on average wages contribute such a percentage of their income. No wonder nobody wants low paid jobs when £5.80 an hour is really £4.97 an hour?

[malc d]

Tracker - 2010-02-12 5:46 PM

 

I thought this should be passed to as many people as possible.

 

 

When VAT was temporarily reduced to 15%, the Chancellor added 2% duty to fuel to offset the reduction in tax collected from motorists.

 

Now that VAT has been increased to 17.5% again this hidden tax has not been removed - hence recent rises in your fuel costs.

 

Sign the petition at the link below to have this stealth tax removed!

 

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/DutyReduction/

 

 

 

If this is a "hidden" "stealth" tax, how come you know about it ?

 

 

:-|

[GJH]

Tracker - 2010-02-12 7:26 PM

I don't mind how I pay my tax and I accept that is me who will have to bail out the extravagancies of the government - all I ask is that it is fair and as last year the taxation raised from road transport added up to around £60,000,000,000 - 60 billion pounds - is that fair?

Trouble is with the environmental lobby to balance against the motoring public, fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder. The government could, also, easily turn round and point out that diesel is still about 20p a litre (and petrol about 10p a litre) below the (profit, not tax, driven) price hikes of mid 2008.

 

We have to remember also that it isn't just the extravagances of the government which have put us in the current economic mess. The little matter of greedy people borrowing more than they can afford to finance lifestyles they don't deserve had a lot to do with it - pity the government didn't make them pay instead of penalising those of us who weren't so greedy. Goodness knows how many people are laughing at the way low interest rates have allowed them to pay off their extravagant debts whilst those of us who have actually saved money get virtually nothing >:-(

 

Maybe a few higher earners could pay a bit more income tax so that people on the minimum wage are not further penalised by paying 20% income tax and 11% NI - a total of £1732 or 14% of their total earnings a year on what is already the lowest possible wage in the country. I doubt any high earners or even those on average wages contribute such a percentage of their income. No wonder nobody wants low paid jobs when £5.80 an hour is really £4.97 an hour?

I wouldn't disagree with that. In the end tax has to be raised from those who have the money to pay.

 

Graham

[W3526602]

Maybe a few higher earners could pay a bit more income tax

 

Hi,

 

The rich already pay more tax. In simple terms, if you earn twice as much as your neighbour, you pay twice as much tax as he does. Then you spend twice as much, and pay twice as much VAT.

 

If the poor get all the advantages of the rich, what is the point in struggling to become rich? Unfortunately, I can't think of an alternative to the present system. (Actually I can. It would save HMG billions per year, and millions of people of all classes would be better off).

 

My income is circa £10,000pa, and I pay virtually no tax. My wife's income is circa £14,000pa, and she pays circa £100pm in tax. Those figures may not be accurate, as I let her sort out the finances. Question ..... should I consider us poor, or comfortably off?

 

602

[Guest Tracker]

The trouble with income tax is that it takes no account of what it actually costs to live in this country.

 

Sure the more you earn the more you pay but when you subtract the basic cost of living from your net income the higher your income the more you have left for little extras - like bigger houses, boats, motorhomes, Jaguars, BMWs etc!

 

It does not alter the fact that people living below a decent standard of living level are paying tax when they could be heating their home or eating better!

 

I don't think it is unreasonable for any pensioner or indeed working couple to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle having paid into the kitty. By comfortable I mean the abilty to fund a warm, dry home, a decent eating clothing, health and leisure standard and maybe enough to fund either a good holiday, or a small car or whatever else the individual prefers.

 

This basic standard of living costs the same for us all and this is the level - I would guestimate at about £12,000 a year but I really don't know - at which income tax and NI should start and if it means me and thee paying a bit more income tax well so be it but it would mean so much more to so many who struggle at the moment through no fault of their own. It used to be called socialism I believe until it got hijacked!

 

Any extras should come from one's own individual pensions or inheritances or savings - much as we that have so much have done.

 

Guess who won't be voting Labour!

[GJH]

Tracker - 2010-02-13 12:51 PM

 

(snip) if it means me and thee paying a bit more income tax well so be it but it would mean so much more to so many who struggle at the moment through no fault of their own. It used to be called socialism I believe until it got hijacked!

 

(snip)

 

Hear hear.

 

Graham

[Basil]

Tracker - 2010-02-13 12:51 PM

 

............. and if it means me and thee paying a bit more income tax well so be it but it would mean so much more to so many who struggle at the moment through no fault of their own. It used to be called socialism I believe until it got hijacked!

 

I really find this hard to accept and IMO is one of the problems we currently have in this country.

So we have two people, for sake of discusion. the first decides to try to make something of their life works hard earns a living and decides to pay into pension schemes and saving plans for the future. The other decides to be a layabout smoke and drink get into social housing get all their bills paid at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.

Then when they are both old the one who has earned and saved for their future gets no help whatsoever and in fact in a lot of ways is penalised and has to sell all he has earned to pay for his carehome. Whereas the 'layabout' gets his rent/ carehome paid for all his commumity charge paid or waived and paid benefits to live on and smoke and drink himself to death all at the expense of others.

Certainly a good and equal society, not! Who is the mug!

 

Guess who isn't going to be voting Labour, Conservative or pinko Liberal!!!

 

Bas

[GJH]

Hear what you say Bas but the people Richard and I are talking about are those who struggle through no fault of their own.

 

Unfortunately every society will suffer from a layabout element and it's a difficult problem. Common humanity says that you can't let them starve so there has to be a basic provision - I suppose it's where you set that level.

 

Graham

[Guest Tracker]

If layabouts layabout and do not contribute into a pension then chances are they will live in 'social housing' and not qualify for as much pension as those who did not choose to layabout - their choice - no sympathy.

 

Those of us that did make a go of it - and I too started from a council estate although my Mum and Dad did 'escape' to much better things so it kinda gave me a headstart you might say - will always subsidise those who did not.

 

Such is life and I doubt it will ever, nor should it ever, change too much in a wealthy caring society like wot we live in.

 

There are many people who through reasons of poor education, mental and/or emmotional illness and instability or just plain lack of inteligence, lack of get up and go, lack of ability, lack of working brain cells or call it what you will who will never make anything of their lives and I do believe that the rest of us has a duty to ensure that these people have a decent basic standard of life and I don't begrudge them.

 

I do begrudge the thieves who make false and excessive benefit claims and I do resent subsidising these barstewards who are bleeding away benefit from those who need it most and as far as I am concerned proper reform and accountability of the entire benefit system can't come soon enough.

 

Gordon obviously does not have the stomach for a fight with this 'less well off and unfortunate' sector of society and I doubt whether any other party will have the balls either when once the PC brigade and the do gooders and media go on the offensive about the 'unfairness' of it all.

 

Gee whiz - ain't I ranting well today!

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

Define POOR. Define RICH, Just so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

My wife was a Higher Executive Officer in the Civil Service, on the maximum of her pay scale. Her "take home" was very similar to the benefits (cash and kind) received by a family up the road. It was amazing just how much it cost my wife to go to work (travel, clothing, meals, etc), while the benefit recipient boosted his income by driving a taxi in the evening.

 

It is wrong that somebody who doesn't work should be given a greater disposable income than somebody who does work.

 

I suspect this disparity extends into retirement.

 

602

[Guest Tracker]

Any person's perception of poor or wealthy depends absolutely on where they are coming from.

 

Someone from a 'wealthy' family background with a highly paid job might consider £50,000 a year poor whereas someone from the other end of the social and employment / unemployment spectrum might consider £15,000 a year wealthy!

 

My own perception is that I think it costs about £12,000 a year to live in an average reasonable house (excluding rent or mortgage) and live an adequate if not exiting life whilst still able to enjoy maybe a car, a holiday and a reasonable social life.

 

In my view living rent free in old age is THE major benefit of the financial sacrifices made during a working life to buy and own your own home.

 

It would be interesting to see the official government take on this and also to hear what other forum members think - come on don't be shy!

[Basil]

Ok, if you want to live rent free in old age just do nothing for yourself all through your life and definately don't buy your own home.

My MIL lives in 'Sheltered Housing' (her choice to do this as she did not wish to be a burden on the family, her words not ours). The majority of other residents come from 'social' housing background and pay nothing, including zero or very low rents and service charges, as it is paid by the social services. Whereas, because she owned her own flat before needing 'assisted living', (really only has the services of a non resident warden 0900 to1700 hrs) she has to pay for everything including being taxed on her pension so helping to pay for all the other scroungers living there.

Sorry to me there is something wrong with a society that promotes this kind of thing.

 

Bas

[Guest Tracker]

Fair enough Basil but many of us prefer to have a better home with more facilities and lots of expensive toys to play with as well as being less involved with state interference in our lives and for me that price remains well worth paying!

[donna miller]

I think you all ought to get of your high horses, what gives you the right to infer that everyone who lives in social housing is a beer drinking, fag smoking layabout.

Do people who own there own homes not smoke or drink, are they better people than those who have never been able to afford, or never wanted a mortgage, don't forget, many of your "better class of people" have fell lucky and had houses left to them in wills, how many of them have never worked.

I could name you as many benefit scroungers in mortgaged property as those in council houses. I could also find you thousands of people in council houses who have paid taxes all their lives and paid into pension schemes since starting work.

 

Reading the last few posts, it would appear that snobbery is rife on this forum and the belief that people a little less financially secure than some of the members on here, are somehow inferior. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Basil]

Yes, quite right put me at the head of the queue, but my point is that all you strive for is at risk when you get to an age when the powers that be decide that you have got to help pay for those that have done little to help themselves and relied on being supported by others.

Carehome costs are currently running at £30000 per year, if you have your toys and your home they will be expected to be used to pay for those costs before you get any help, if you don't have the toys and your own home it gets paid for you, by everyone else who pays taxes not my idea of a fair situation. So you, like me, may like your toys and extra's but I don't see why I and the other tax payers should pay for everyone elses!

 

Bas

[Basil]

As usual Donna you have failed to comprehend what you read in the posts, the scenario was specifically stated for sake of discussion.

 

Bas

[Guest Tracker]

Donna,

 

Before you go jumping in with both feet perhaps you can show me where I have sat in judgement on those less fortunate than myself please?

 

I went to some lengths earlier on to say that I do not resent helping the many who for whatever reason did not get or create for themselves the opportunities that I and many others did.

 

I also said that I do resent subsidising the beer swilling, lazy, layabout, and sometimes dishonest rabble that also purporst to be part of our 'society'.

 

I cannot help the way you choose to interpret postings but please don't tell me to get off my high horse whilst you climb on yours - and I stand by all that I have said.

[Guest Tracker]

Fair comment Basil - but at least I will have had the benefit of all my toys for a while before being consigned to the crumblies!

[Basil]

Yes that is true too. Do you think that you would be able to do without them when you become a crumbly though, not sure I will be able to?

I am not sure how we get round this situation and from what has been aired in the media this last week nor do the politicians (bet they will make sure they are all ok though). It seems to me the whole manner in which the social security system works needs a radical rethink so that those that are really in need are catered for and those that are 'playing' the system are taken to task then, maybe, the people that you and Graham quite rightly reffered to caught in the low pay tax trap (which of course affects a lot of people on pension) would be able to be taken out of the trap without having to affect those of us that are already helping to support 'the system' too greatly.

 

Bas

[donna miller]

Basil - 2010-02-14 4:45 PM

 

As usual Donna you have failed to comprehend what you read in the posts, the scenario was specifically stated for sake of discussion.

 

Bas

 

What's with the " as usual" comment ? I read what you wrote, nothing more, nothing less, and believe me, I fully comprehend what you wrote.

 

What may have started as a statement for the sake of discussion, soon brought out your true thoughts,

 

Basil......Ok, if you want to live rent free in old age just do nothing for yourself all through your life and definately don't buy your own home.

 

Rich....Those of us that did make a go of it - and I too started from a council estate although my Mum and Dad did 'escape' to much better things so it kinda gave me a headstart you might say - will always subsidise those who did not.

 

Basil.....Whereas the 'layabout' gets his rent/ carehome paid for all his commumity charge paid or waived and paid benefits to live on and smoke and drink himself to death all at the expense of others.

 

Basil......My MIL lives in 'Sheltered Housing' (her choice to do this as she did not wish to be a burden on the family, her words not ours). The majority of other residents come from 'social' housing background and pay nothing, including zero or very low rents and service charges, as it is paid by the social services. Whereas, because she owned her own flat before needing 'assisted living', (really only has the services of a non resident warden 0900 to1700 hrs) she has to pay for everything including being taxed on her pension so helping to pay for all the other scroungers living there.

 

So Rich, your Mum and Dad escaped to a "better place", and you say they are subsidising folks who couldn't afford to, or were not quite as lucky.

 

Basil, your beef obviously seems to be with those who don't buy their own homes, regardless of whether they work or not, that's your real problem. My Nan worked from the age of 14, in her 60s she held down 2 jobs, my Grandad lost a lung in WW2 yet still worked until he retired at 65, they lived in a council house and after my Nan died, Gramps was taken into sheltered housing which he didn't have to pay for because they had lived in council houses all their lives, was he one of the scroungers you described in the above post ?

 

 

So, if it's all the same with you 2, I'LL stick by what I said.

 

[Basil]

Donna keep it in context ' for the sake of discussion', the scenario's were the two extreme ends of the scale, a quite normal approach to take in discussion groups. I won't dignify your other comments as you clearly want one of your usual arguments where you think you are always right.

 

Bas

[donna miller]

No Basil, you wont "dignify" my other comments, because you haven't got the balls to admit you made comments that others may have found offensive.

So do you still maintain my Grandad was one of your scroungers as you put it, your words not mine.

 

And believe me, an arguement is the furthest thing from my mind, but there again that's the easy option isn't it, call me over because you know all the little backstabbers will rush out to put their oar in, regardless of the facts, and that's far easier than admitting your own wrong doings.

 

And as for always being right, I'm afraid YOU already hold that dubious title.

[Guest Tracker]

donna miller - 2010-02-14 6:22 PM

Those of us that did make a go of it - and I too started from a council estate although my Mum and Dad did 'escape' to much better things so it kinda gave me a headstart you might say - will always subsidise those who did not.

 

 

So Rich, your Mum and Dad escaped to a "better place", and you say they are subsidising folks who couldn't afford to, or were not quite as lucky.

 

 

So, if it's all the same with you 2, I'LL stick by what I said.

 

Of course the better off subsidise the less well off - it has always been this way and will continue for ever and a day - there is no other way unless everyone is able and willing to fully support their own life - and pigs might fly!

 

So who else other than the taxpayers of the country do you think pays all the taxes that provides for their benefits and low or no rent subsidised housing - it sure ain't Santa Claus!

 

Don't confuse telling it the way it actually is with snobery as the two are not related.

 

If social housing tenants really want to feel like they are contributing to society to ease their consciences let them who can afford - and a heck of a lot can afford - offer to pay a realistic rent commensurate with the true running and capital costs of living in the property - odds on that the sound of the silence from volunteers would be deafening!

 

Turkeys voting for Christmas - I think not - and so it will remain that the better off continue to subsidise the less well off - it used to be called socialism I believe and I don't have the problem with that that you seem to have Donna?