Forum menu
Beyond that it becomes impractical for the normal owner
Only because we've become used to having the moon on a stick.
I pay enough tax already to fund other people.
Do you? How do you know what 'enough' is? Are you actually paying it, or is it just a number on a payslip?
As tpbiker isn't super rich I suspect he does pay enough tax to fund other people.
Calls to tax the little people to pay for whatever is like Bono or Bob telling audiences to "give us your ****ing money". Now how much of their own money have those two given? much less than they've made from the publicity I suspect. And how much tax for the benefit of all would they have paid with a fairer tax system and without tax evasion and tax havens. Quite apart from the scandalously low amount of the cash raised that reached poor Africans and sums that reached armed rebels.
I was sceptical about Baid Aid from the outset, didn't buy the record and got flak form mates over my synicism, unfortuneatly I was right. I'm equally sceptical about a tax to fund a green revolution and think people would be better doing something themselves, just as as suggested giving the local down and outs some cash rather than Band Aid..
no one should be buying new cars.
So lets think that through. So no new car sales in the Uk from a specified date. How many additional ones would be bought i the run up to that date? We are going to change our boiler early whilst we can still have another gas one.
we are then going to have thousands of unemployed people from the motor industry as all the factories shut as who would have a factory in the Uk if you can’t sell the product here? Production moves somewhere else and another factory is built to replace the one that is abandoned in the UK as the UK is a net exporter of cars.
So ow we have destroyed the sector, increased emissions globally moving production elsewhere and what is the net impact on global emissions in reality? The number of cars in circulation won’t drop meaningfully for at least a decade and as the vast majority still run on fossil fuels that wont go down as no one can buy an alternative.
Do you? How do you know what ‘enough’ is? Are you actually paying it, or is it just a number on a payslip?
of course I’m paying it, because if I wasn’t I’d be about £2000 quid better off a month in my account. And I’ll tell you how I know it’s enough… last month I managed to spend my entire pay check on bills and food. I have a good job and I work hard, yet I save nothing. And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..
im more than happy to pay tax, but I’m pretty sure when I find myself having to dip into my meager savings anytime I want to treat myself to something nice, despite earning a decent salary, that I’m probably paying enough already.
of course I’m paying it, because if I wasn’t I’d be about £2000 quid better off a month in my account
If tax were phased out, do you think everyone would be £2,000 richer? Or would employers simply start paying us less, because they knew we'd get more take-home? Your level of compensation is based on what your post-tax salary buys, so the pre-tax number is pretty irrelevant to you. It's how the government cools down the economy to stop it overheating. They could abolish income tax but make employer's NI the same amount, your employer would end up paying you the same amount as your after-tax salary but yay, no tax.
last month I managed to spend my entire pay check on bills and food
That's because the economy is ****ed up, it's not because you pay tax. It's not like public services are swimming in tax. The school my wife works at cannot buy any more PAPER for the rest of the year so now tell me that we (collectively) are taxed enough and there's plenty of money to fund things that are needed. Or is it just you personally that pays enough tax, and everyone else has to pay more?
And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..
****'s sake, how ignorant and self-centred can you be? You benefit from other people's tax all the time. Those other people's kids you resent educating will grow up to contribute to the economy in which you may still work - or if not, they will pay your pension.
Sure, I don't support fighting other people's wars, unless they are the innocent victims of tyranny, perhaps, and need help - but those are political decisions, and we still need tax.
Nope. I pay enough tax already to fund other people.
(Here we go again!)
No you don't. You pay tax to maintain prices at roughly the level they're at now. I presume you don't want runaway inflation? Well the only way to avoid that is for everyone to pay taxes. Of course there's a debate to be had about the relative amounts of tax people should pay based on income and wealth. If you're saying that working people like us pay too much and the rich and corporations pay too little then I completely agree. The question though is would you vote for a political party which proposes higher taxes for the rich? Past elections have shown that people who think they pay too much tax generally vote for the party which supports lower taxes for the rich.
It gets a bit boring but it's worth repeating again because clearly ignorance of how govt finances work is entrenched. The taxes you pay do not fund anything. The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things. The only thing your taxes do is maintain the balance between money created by the Bank of England and the money which exists in the economy. Without taxes we'd have hyperinflation and the money system wouldn't work.
If tax were phased out, do you think everyone would be £2,000 richer?
If taxes were phased out the economy would collapse as money would have no value.
< delete post because dazh has covered it all >
The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things
Yes it does. Every month I do a back transfer to the government for employees income tax payments, national insurance, each quarter the VAT and annually the corporation tax. It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
"Beyond that it becomes impractical for the normal owner"
Only because we’ve become used to having the moon on a stick.
A reasonable assumption in a first world country in the modern era? not just cars, any transport. A commuter bike (electric or not) and public transport I would apply similar logic. It needs to be there, and work, 100% of the time to be considered fit for purpose.
Not averse to paying money for this, not averse to putting effort in in preventative maintainence for this, not averse to learning new skills to be able to acheive this.
Oh, alright then...
The government spends money and takes money back. Inflation and devaluation would be rife otherwise (and also money would become EVEN MORE concentrated in the hands of some). This is not the same as taxes paying for services... but it does mean that the balance between money in, money out, and money shifted/borrowed/giltbonded all needs managing to avoid decline and poverty even worse than that already endured by many in this country.
It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
FFS of course the govt has a bank account into which taxes go. The point is that money is not used to pay for things. The govt pays for things with new money, and then removes money from the economy later by collecting taxes. Sounds pedantic but the key point is that they do not have to raise money through tax before it is spent on public services.
If taxes were abolished overnight we'd all be richer temporarily, but our biggest outgoing is probably the most elastic. Rents and house prices are purely based on affordability i.e. what we can afford, and they would shoot up almost overnight be auae suddenly everyone's got more money. So you wouldn't be richer; landlord and landowners would.
It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
Government has a few bank accounts at the BoE (Collectively known as the Central Funds.)
The Consolidated Fund though is the government's main current account. It starts everyday at zero. It cannot accumulate money at the end of the day as it's a credit system for 'reserves' or base money delivered to the commerical banking system for payments into state services (Into the PMG account which makes the payments.)
There is an HMRC (tax receipts) account a the BoE. The HMRC acc is 'swept' at the end of the day to zero also. The HMRC Balance DOES NOT transfer to CF account to be spent or accumulated the next day for example but to simply offset the balance which can either be negative or positive. The spending position takes place from a zero balance.
"The end-of-day consolidation of all Exchequer accounts at the BoE is known as the Exchequer Pyramid sweep (or just Exchequer sweep) and results in all balances (positive or negative) being consolidated into the Central Funds and ultimately the NLF, which is used to assess the net Exchequer position and thus indicate how much liquidity the DMO should offset by selling/buying gilts with the private sector to neutralise the day’s fiscal impact on reserves in the banking system."
" in regard to the sequencing of public financing and liquidity risk, the analysis in Section 3 shows there is no requirement for a provisioning of money balances through taxation and ‘borrowing’ activities to occur before government spending can be undertaken. As such, there are no circumstances whereby it can be said that the government has ‘insufficient money’ for expenditure to be able to take place or that the government is at risk of ‘running out of money’. Indeed, one of the fundamental organising principles of the UK Exchequer is for the accumulation of cash balances to be minimised. Instead, all spending arises via the creation of new monetary assets and this process is independent of tax and securities dealing activities. The upshot, which HM Treasury (2020) acknowledges, is that there is no aspect of the government's banking arrangements which can prevent government expenditure from being realised once it has been authorised by Parliament."
Taxation first and foremost is to create a demand for your government's currency.
I.E You need to earn pounds to pay your taxes.
( and currency is a way for the government to provision itself.)
Rich people don't also understand (perhaps don't need to) without a reasonable taxation system the value of their wealth would decrease.
I spent a year doing an economics option entitled "The British tax system". The conclusion to the year was that is a fair tax sytem is a progressive one based on ability to pay and the British one has got it all arse about face because it is precisely the opposite. The richer you are the smaller the proportion of your income ulimately ends up as tax and tax on wealth is negligible. Earned income is taxed more than non-earned income etc. etc. Tpbiker is exactly the kind of person who is absolutely knobled by the British tax system, as everything he does beyond breathe is taxed.
I think people would have a more positive attitude to tax if the system was seen to be fair and genuinely progressive.
The insulating materials I've just picked up from the DIY store have 20%VAT on them, will that do for my green tax this month?
Your level of compensation is based on what your post-tax salary buys, so the pre-tax number is pretty irrelevant to you
well straight away why do I not get paid more than my colleagues in England then, given I pay more tax?
****’s sake, how ignorant and self-centred can you be? You benefit from other people’s tax all the time. Those other people’s kids you resent educating will grow up to contribute to the economy in which you may still work – or if not, they will pay your pension.
pipe down you judgemental fud. I never said I resent paying taxes, nor resent paying for educating your kids. I’m happy to pay tax. I never even claimed I was paying too much. All I said was I feel I’m paying enough already given I work my arse off and at the end of the month I’ve spent every penny I’ve earned, without having much to show for it. But because I express an opinion you feel brave enough to start calling me self centered and ignorant from behind your keyboard….
Past elections have shown that people who think they pay too much tax generally vote for the party which supports lower taxes for the rich.
perhaps in general, however I’ve only voted labour and snp so doesn’t really apply to me..
Always worth remembering that very few people pay so much tax that they are in deficit to what the government/councils et al pay for them. Roads, police , hospitals , pensions (hah!), benefits all cost money all the time and you only need to get one trip to the hospital and that's a big bill.
Call it a green revolution, or call it investment for the future.
I never said I resent paying taxes, nor resent paying for educating your kids.
It really sounded like it.
All I said was I feel I’m paying enough already given I work my arse off and at the end of the month I’ve spent every penny I’ve earned, without having much to show for it.
That's not because of the amount of tax you pay though.
I never said I resent paying taxes
"And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work.."
🤔
Another exercise on that economics option was waorking out the true levels of taxation at different levels of income. Things have changed a bit but not much:
Taxes on income:
NI and income tax, don't forget things the employers pays on you behalf. If you do a job you need to include the tax on the the things that enable you to do the job that you wouldn't other wise do or need.
Taxes on where you live. TV license, council tax, the tax on standing charges, the tax part in your water and sewage, refuse taxes...
Taxes on spending which is where it gets interesting because apart from the VAT there's a considerable amount of tax embedded in most everything you buy. That insulation I bought, every stage in its production and transport was taxed and everyone who touched it was taxed, and then they added VAT which is hardly an incentive to insulate my home. If I paid a professional he'd get the VAT back but only if insulation were the only job (same in UK). If he repaired the roof and insulated at the same time he'd have to charge full rate VAT on all the job.
I can't remember the detail but for people who smoked, drank, ran a car and lived in rented accomodation something like 90% of the money they cost their employer ended up in tax.
An extra tax won't help the planet but a fairer tax system and a fairer use of it might.
It would be a lot easier off all people saw was their net income, that is what you really earn. The amount of tax of top of it is irrelevant, you are taking your net income from the system and some take more than others which is where the questions should be rather than what people give to the tax system.
FFS of course the govt has a bank account into which taxes go.
@dazh to quote your earlier post “The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things”
That money might well get swept in to central funds every night but it also gets spent as real money paying supplier and employees of the government. I’m sure and sortfall gets borrowed hence net receipts being published each month.
The mistake people like tpbiker make is associating the tax they pay with what the govt spends and does. The two things are completely independent. If people understood this simple point then the whole debate about what the govt does and the money it spends would be completely different. Instead of it being focused on whether we can afford it, it would be focused on whether it is worth it. Any objective and rational assessment of whether it's worth spending money on avoiding catastrophic climate change would conclude that it is indeed worth it. What have we got to lose?
What have we got to lose?
We spend a shit load of money and it makes absolutely no difference in the big global problem.
Yes, I would pay more. However as mentioned above there are many millions who wouldn't or can't.
Until something affects them personally, a wild fire, home flooding, not enough food on the shelves or prices being ridiculously high for everyday goods, then most people don't give a flying fig about climate change.
We spend a shit load of money and it makes absolutely no difference in the big global problem.
The only thing we can guarantee is that if we don't spend the money it will make no difference. At the end of the day the money will go towards creating jobs, paying salaries and supporting the economy. That in itself is worth it, and there are obvious other benefits like a cleaner environment, more breathable air etc and all the health benefits that provides. I honestly don't understand this obsession with how much money the govt spends. If the govt didn't spend money, we'd all be completely f*****.
It's been hammered into people's heads for years that the tax payer's pay for everything. And those that sit at the top of chain need this narrative to survive.
It takes a lot of re-wiring.
The thing is there's zero evidence to support the deficit hawks argument. It relies on ignorance. And Labour have done little in this area too.
With one simple argument - where do you get the money to pay your taxes - the whole things crumbles ...
Accountancy is more useful than economics to describe our monetary system.
MMT starts with how the spending system currently works - no other theory or explanation starts from that point. The rest start from the point of creating scarcity of public funds rather than describing what we can or can't do.
If the govt didn’t spend money, we’d all be completely f*****.
Ha ha truly idiotic.
The government and the BoE underpin all the machinations of the market and commercial bank system.
Commercial banks fail? Bailed at the BoE.
Who backs your 85,000 money guarantee at the commercial banks? The BoE.
Where does base money/reserves come from? The BoE
Where do commercial banks have accounts ? - the BoE.
Now explain how a functioning modern Fiat system can work without the state.
Laughable!
Green U-turn poll 😉
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1755977564932194668?t=JVRR0sRq-JgAhRjENAWoKQ&s=19
Reform matching the Libdems! Looks like the progressive socialist future is on hold for another decade at least!
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000;">And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..”
🤔
Other than the first 2, I don’t have an issue with it tbh. And I don’t think any decent human would resent paying money to send refugees to Rwanda or fund the killing of innocent civilians. The others, it’s a part of life I accept to live in a functioning society. I think I pay enough already however, a personal opinion based on the fact i can’t afford to pay more in the current climate.
back on topic there are far better ways to fund green initiatives. and that should start with taxing the people who are are the worst contributors to the problem. Higher fuel bills, higher tax on items that are seen as disposable, higher tax on air fairs, and perhaps an unpopular one, higher tax on families with numerous kids if they can afford it.
what I do resent is people saying I should pay more tax to fund the climate crisis whilst driving their 4 kids around in a brand new 40k transporter. When it comes to climate change, I’m willing to bet that my when time on this earth ends, my carbon footprint is going to be significantly less than 90% of the uk population.
Whilst I agree with the above in also see that it is hard to be fair. Taxing fuel just hammers the low income rural livers who struggle anyway. Just one example
Too my mind we should be hammering any luxury. Most bikes, certainly anything new and those which do not serve a commuting purpose. Mobile devices. Bet you 99% of them are not essential and being able to call the family to say I am home late isn't essential. Foreign holidays. No all holidays. New electricals. Ban most. New cars. Ban the bloody lot.
Sorry but I bet that upsets stacks of people. I'll take people seriously when they put their actions where their mouth is. Concerned about the environment? Don't drive to ride that stupidly excessive bike bought last year and ditched next year.
Oh yeah. Are we talking world or local here? If the former , dream on.
All of the above seems to accept that freedom of choice is wrong which fits in well with the modern ethic anyway. So why not hinder people choosing jobs that need cars? Why not stop making cars that are not easily repairable? Who needs a computer? The points on my mid 60s Mini were fine and we knew how to deal with them. Lets stop all Asian imports. Let's stop making cars and all those who lose their jobs can go an pick fruit or work in the care industry. Added bonus there of reducing immigration.
"Higher fuel bills, higher tax on items that are seen as disposable, higher tax on air fairs, and perhaps an unpopular one, higher tax on families with numerous kids if they can afford it."
High fuel bills are part of the reason the national debt is so big as they had to be subsidised when they went up after Russia invaded Ukraine. As for taxing kids. The UK population (excluding immigration) is producing kids at below the replacement level. Maybe tax breaks for kids are needed?
I noted on the previous page that earned income was taxed more than unearned income:
The Green Revolution – Would You Pay More?
No, nope, cannot and don't want to.
As a "young" person on here, although I do agree with the need for change and follow the debates on how it could be achieved, I do (generally, not here) feel some annoyance at older folk who've already had their fun and established their lives, advocating for me to do X, not do Y, pay more for Z etc.
They're doing the good things now (home improvements, electric car, carbon offsetting their company etc.), but they can afford to now. They had decades of their prime enjoying a cheap energy lifestyle.
Also goes for jealous people who are trying to use the green hammer to stop other people having nice things which they themselves already can't afford.
What does that actually mean? Are you saying you don’t believe in climate change or that you don’t care or that you don’t like it? Seems like an odd use of the phrase ‘nonplussed’…
Oh I absolutely believe in it, seems irrefutable at this point.
I used the word nonplussed with intent - what I meant was that it just doesn’t factor in my day to day life; if I get a flight I’m not looking at the co2 and when I buy a car I’m not looking at the emissions.
My malaise is really due to the fact that I could cut everything out in an effort to ‘make a difference’, which would make no difference at all in reality and we’re a long time dead anyway.
All that said, I’m not anti environment - I don’t waste anything, recycle as much as humanly possible and regularly clear up green spaces.
I’ve got a lot of respect for those that really do care and do what they can, it’s a much less selfish viewpoint.
Too my mind we should be hammering any luxury. Most bikes, certainly anything new and those which do not serve a commuting purpose. Mobile devices. Bet you 99% of them are not essential and being able to call the family to say I am home late isn’t essential. Foreign holidays. No all holidays. New electricals. Ban most. New cars. Ban the bloody lot.
Would be a lot easier if the whole world would just stop eating beef and would have a bigger impact that any of that. Just imagine, all you have to do is replace any meal where you ate beef with a plant based substitute.
Not really much of a sacrifice for the return is it.
Well it wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if it were true but 10 seconds with Google will reveal that the whole of agriculture is dwarfed by transport and beef is a only a part of agriculture. Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Reducing or eliminating meat from you diet is part of a lower carbon lifestyle but not the biggest issue by any means.
Yes, but dietary choices can be made by individuals whereas a lot of transport impacts cannot.
I would rather they banned the sale of EVs that have no proven enubenefit when you factor in manufacture, disposal and replacement of the batteries than beef. EVs are a huge con job that is filling a short term desire to be seen to do something. I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead. EVs will be the Betamax to vhs
I note bmw have joined this lengthening list of car manufacturers who are no longer looking to develop EVs by to focus on hydrogen instead.
Hydrogen is crap though.
robotic systems capable of intelligent interaction with humans, and their application in industrial, medical and rehabilitation settings.
That's not even close to what BMW said. They said, and I quote "hydrogen engines are poised to play a significant role globally in the long term. The focus on fast performance, quick refuelling, and environmental sustainability aligns with the emerging priorities in the transportation sector"
Not that they were abandonning EVs. The problem for BMW and others that produce, large, heavy 4x4 SuVs is that when you add a battery to that, the weight gain is a scaler, not a constant. Unfortunately for BMW, this now represents a substantial part of their revenue, so must be accounted for, H2 might be the only way to do that. But I promise you, it will be bloody expensive to buy and eye wateringly expensive to run. Our (aerospace) best prediction for LH2 are that it will be DOUBLE the price of Kerosene. Out short term figures put that at 4-5times. Coupled with a fuel cell efficiency of, at best 55-60% with PEM cells, it's not attractive for anyone but the luxury market, it's likely to be 8-9 times more expensive than EV at cheap rates.
"Yes, but dietary choices can be made by individuals whereas a lot of transport impacts cannot."
I don't see that one. We can all choose to cycle or use public transport more but we mostly choose not to. I get free bus travel and have used it two or three times in the past year. A bike is faster after allowing for waits at bus stops and the fact a bike is true door to door. Many people are not fit enough or confident enough to mix it with urban traffic though. A car is more comfortable, more or less door to door for most of my journeys, and doesn't stop working at 11:30pm. So I cycle for leisure and use the car the rest of the time.
What would make me replace car commuting journeys with a bike. Decent shower facilities and a locker. Despite working in a building along with hundreds of other employees I don't have a locker or any other personal space and the only shower is a pretty poor one in the disabled toilet. And this is a public sector organisation that has a few £60k EVs parked outside as part of it's green policies.
I don’t see that one. We can all choose to cycle or use public transport more but we mostly choose not to
I said "a lot" not "all". Structural stuff like public transport provision, EV and other infrastructure, electrification, generation fuel mix etc needs government intervention. I agree that most of us could do better but we're heavily constrained in our choices.