Re: UKIP masterstroke : Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:20 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I bet they get that wrong too

Their whole economic policy works around how much we can save, not how much we can earn

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:02 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Whats wrong with charging those that use roads most for their use?

Its what a private market would do?

Or do UKIP live in some leftist fantasy that roads should be free at the point of delivery and paid for out of general taxation so that those that work the hardest are penalised for their hard work by paying the most, whilst the feckless and lazy pay little but can drive around the roads as much as they want?

Business needs good infrastructure. Business would like to rig the market so that infrastructure is paid for out of taxation, rather than the businesses themselves fund it.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:07 pm  

Dally wrote:

Business needs good infrastructure. Business would like to rig the market so that infrastructure is paid for out of taxation, rather than the businesses themselves fund it.

Another reason to introduce LVT

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:12 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Another reason to introduce LVT

Are you related to Legionnaire? You both have your obsessions!

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:03 am  

Andy Gilder wrote:

That's what the Lib Dems were thinking heading into the last election - didn't quite work out as they were expecting though

I know, I've said that before, I'd have loved to have been in the room when Clegg told Cable that they had a crack at being in power and that he might get a chance to put his oft-spouted-on-television theories into practice, "Oh fook" would be the winning caption to that photo.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:43 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Whats wrong with charging those that use roads most for their use?...

I'd charge more for those who damage the roads most.
i.e. Weight x Distance.
It's not cars that crush those wheel-tracks into the wearing surface and substructure on motorways.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:56 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

I'd charge more for those who damage the roads most.
i.e. Weight x Distance.
It's not cars that crush those wheel-tracks into the wearing surface and substructure on motorways.

The only problem there is that everyone still pays, if you put a higher levy on HGV's (as already happens) then those levy's will not come from profits they'll just get added to the end user prices and there is nothing that anyone can do about it for EVERYTHING that is sold in a shop or even online gets transported on the roads.

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:37 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I know, I've said that before, I'd have loved to have been in the room when Clegg told Cable that they had a crack at being in power and that he might get a chance to put his oft-spouted-on-television theories into practice, "Oh fook" would be the winning caption to that photo.

Did you and several others on here also factor in that equation when you registered for them last time round?

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:19 pm  

WIZEB wrote: Did you and several others on here also factor in that equation when you registered for them last time round? It went something like... Conservative - Nope Labour - Who the hell is he ? LibDem - Heard of him, he's the one who likes beer Alan Proctor - sorely tempted, the local nutter who puts cctv inside his wheelie bin to find out who's putting their rubbish in it instead of him, sorely tempted, the nutter who was persecuted by the BNP members next door (according to him) and then got a police caution for putting cctv in a tree in his garden so he could watch what they were plotting next, I almost put a tick in his box, I should have done, I will do the next time I promise. Late edit : just found this page http://www.yournextmp.com/seats/leeds_north_west poor old Alan got well thrashed by his next door neighbour

WIZEB wrote: Did you and several others on here also factor in that equation when you registered for them last time round? It went something like... Conservative - Nope Labour - Who the hell is he ? LibDem - Heard of him, he's the one who likes beer Alan Proctor - sorely tempted, the local nutter who puts cctv inside his wheelie bin to find out who's putting their rubbish in it instead of him, sorely tempted, the nutter who was persecuted by the BNP members next door (according to him) and then got a police caution for putting cctv in a tree in his garden so he could watch what they were plotting next, I almost put a tick in his box, I should have done, I will do the next time I promise. Late edit : just found this page http://www.yournextmp.com/seats/leeds_north_west poor old Alan got well thrashed by his next door neighbour

Re: UKIP masterstroke : Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:36 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The only problem there is that everyone still pays, if you put a higher levy on HGV's (as already happens) then those levy's will not come from profits they'll just get added to the end user prices and there is nothing that anyone can do about it for EVERYTHING that is sold in a shop or even online gets transported on the roads.

True ... and I'm not sure of the extent, how much extra it would cost or even whether it's worth the effort of change but, at the moment, road transport of goods is subsidised.
What I am saying would mean that road miles as part of the true cost for food and consumer goods would be more accurately costed-in and be better reflected in the price at the supermarket or delivery charges than is the case at the moment.
The consumer could then decide whether to buy or not whereas, at the moment, they pay anyway.

p.s. I am not supporting the view that tolls should be introduced, just that, if they are, the opportunity will arise to eliminate that subsidy.