The Big Society Page 4

Quote: sootyj @ July 20 2010, 11:12 PM BST

If you've ever worked with the beneifts system you'll see there are billions waiting to go. Get rid of all Newlabs idiot bribing people with their own money initiatives and you'd shave a fortune.

And appeals are the mother of all money wasters.

View original

You can't go out and Means Test everybody currently on benefits. Too expensive. You need to cut benefits arbitrarily and only Means Test when you really have to. Appeals don't need to be expensive, it's mismanagement that makes it expensive.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 20 2010, 11:29 PM BST

Sorry, your argument is facile.

Value Added Tax can obviously be used for general purposes. Income Tax the same. Defence can be paid for out of that general taxation.

Road Tax could be used for the roads. Motorists pays Road Tax so why shouldn't it be used to pay for the roads they drive on?

View original

Quite frankly you're just making yourself look silly now.

Quote: Badge @ July 20 2010, 11:35 PM BST

Motorists pay vehicle excise duty, Frankie. It might appear to be semantics, but it does mean that the money raised goes into the general fund rather than to be spent on roads.

View original

Perhaps that's not the way it should be done.

Quote: Badge @ July 20 2010, 11:35 PM BST

If you want motorists to pay for the true costs imposed by their activity then the price might be a bit high for most drivers (or politicians) to accept.

View original

I think that road users should pay for the true cost of the roads. If that means some current users cannot afford to use the roads anymore, then so be it. They should use what transport they can afford. That's the whole point.

Quote: Oldrocker @ July 20 2010, 11:39 PM BST

Quite frankly you're just making yourself look silly now.

View original

How so?

Explain that to me.

-------------------------------------------

Sorry, I'm bored now. See you another time. Or not.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 20 2010, 11:50 PM BST

How so?

Explain that to me.

View original

Read your posts back.

If you can't see it then any attempt by me to explain will be a waste of keystrokes I could more profitably use elsewhere.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 20 2010, 11:50 PM BST

I think that road users should pay for the true cost of the roads. If that means some current users cannot afford to use the roads anymore, then so be it.

View original

I agree in principle. However, it's a case of that Utopia devil you dismissed earlier. If, for example, all lorries were made to pay the true costs that they impose (in congestion, pollution and maintenance costs to keep the roads operable) then the costs of all our goods would sky-rocket. UK plc (sic) would die because our distribution costs would be enormous.

Quote: Oldrocker @ July 20 2010, 11:55 PM BST

Read your posts back.

If you can't see it then any attempt by me to explain will be a waste of keystrokes I could more profitably use elsewhere.

View original

I can't see it and can only suggest that you go and do something else rather than waste your time on me.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 20 2010, 11:57 PM BST

go and do something else rather than waste your time on me.

View original

Now that's the only sensible thing you've said all evening.

Quote: Badge @ July 20 2010, 11:56 PM BST

I agree in principle. However, it's a case of that Utopia devil you dismissed earlier. If, for example, all lorries were made to pay the true costs that they impose (in congestion, pollution and maintenance costs to keep the roads operable) then the costs of all our goods would sky-rocket. UK plc (sic) would die because our distribution costs would be enormous.

View original

That's a good argument (in theory) for maintaining the status quo. But those costs are being paid for by somebody (guess who!) Wouldn't it be better to get them paid for the those actually using the roads? I'd like to see the figures as to how much the cost of goods would rise. Do you have any?

Quote: Oldrocker @ July 21 2010, 12:00 AM BST

Now that's the only sensible thing you've said all evening.

View original

Nice to have something I've said appreciated!

Now I really must go. See you tomorrow (unless you can skillfully avoid me).

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 12:08 AM BST

I'd like to see the figures as to how much the cost of goods would rise. Do you have any?

View original

No.

But if you take just the basic view that only lorries should pay for upkeep of the roads (which is pretty much near enough because the stress on the road surface is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight) then you end up with the haulage industry paying 100% of the country's road maintenance bill. They won't like that.

Anyway, we're moving away from the overall "Big Society" question, on which I pretty much agree with what Chipolata said earlier.

Quote: chipolata @ July 20 2010, 3:58 PM BST

...Big Society is merely a way to save money, nothing more and nothing less... Which it won't do, because at some point the taxpayer will have to step in and clean up the mess.

View original

OK mate, if you say so.

Frankie xxx

P.S. It's not reasonable that only lorries pay for the roads. All road users should pay for roads. Cyclists too! It's about time that lycra lot paid something towards the upkeep of their damned cycle lanes!

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 12:22 AM BST

OK mate, if you say so.

View original

It's only an opinion, not gospel. Only time will tell. "OK mate, if you say so" doesn't really add that much to the debate, though.

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 12:22 AM BST

It's not reasonable that only lorries pay for the roads. All road users should pay for roads. Cyclists too! It's about time that lycra lot paid something towards the upkeep of their damned cycle lanes!

View original

I thought that old chestnut was coming!

Fourth power of axle weight? The wear and tear on roads or cycle lanes by cycling on them is negligible. Not much more than that imposed by people walking on footpaths.

P.S. Most cyclists already pay vehicle excise duty. They're also drivers.

That's not the point. Why should cyclists use their cycle lanes for free?

Quote: Frankie Rage @ July 21 2010, 12:50 AM BST

That's not the point. Why should cyclists use their cycle lanes for free?

View original

What about pedestrians then? Walking tax, anyone?

Quote: Badge @ July 21 2010, 12:51 AM BST

What about pedestrians then? Walking tax, anyone?

View original

I thought that old chesnut was coming!

General taxation - as everybody uses the footpaths!

They don't though, do they? Lots of people hardly use footpaths and some don't use them at all. Shouldn't payment be sorted out according to use?

Or maybe the best way is to let roads, cycle paths and footpaths all get paid for out of general taxation?

Hang on, where were we again?

Okay, I'm being a bit flippant, but I guess my point is that being in Government is hard and knee-jerk opinions are easy. Which is why I don't like the idea of a policy like Big Society that panders to knee-jerk opinions and absolves Government from many of its hard tasks.