Jump to content

Will new bill save red diesel?


Midnight

Featured Posts

Taxing fuel for  a few boats isn't going to do anything to slow down global warming. 

 

I suggest grounding all aircraft worldwide for a year and if that creates a measurable benefit  the aircraft should be scrapped.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Taxing fuel for  a few boats isn't going to do anything to slow down global warming. 

 

I suggest grounding all aircraft worldwide for a year and if that creates a measurable benefit  the aircraft should be scrapped.

Im all for that plus a strict limit on having children.....maximum one per couple with a cash incentive to have none. That would be a positive step to reducing emissions....much more than tinkering around the edges with diesel for boats.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Taxing fuel for  a few boats isn't going to do anything to slow down global warming. 

 

I suggest grounding all aircraft worldwide for a year and if that creates a measurable benefit  the aircraft should be scrapped.

I agree, but to start how about two up to 4 hour return flights a year after that a 1000 squids tax each way on top of the flight? that will make people think twice about flying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, frangar said:

Im all for that plus a strict limit on having children.....maximum one per couple with a cash incentive to have none. That would be a positive step to reducing emissions....much more than tinkering around the edges with diesel for boats.

 

It’s not having one or two children that is the problem.  It’s having ten or twelve.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dor said:

It’s not having one or two children that is the problem.  It’s having ten or twelve.  

Well if the powers that be think it’s worth tinkering about the amount of diesel a narrowboat uses then I think it’s only fair to have a strict restriction on breeding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frangar said:

Im all for that plus a strict limit on having children.....maximum one per couple with a cash incentive to have none. That would be a positive step to reducing emissions....much more than tinkering around the edges with diesel for boats.

 

Meanwhile in the real world, in a climate emergency, political parties of all colours fight with each other as to how much they can give away in child related benefits. It seems odd really, paying people to have children on one hand, then running around waving arms in the air saying that the world is doomed on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Oh Yes it is!  Seasonal greetings!

It's generally agreed by scientists that human behaviour is responsible for climate change. Accepting this, bringing any children into the world is a bad thing, because nature doesn't discriminate as to whether damaging activity comes from someone in a small family, or a large one. What we can probably say is that it's more damaging for people in developed countries to have children than it is in less developed ones, given that the former will consume more. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Similar argument for Smellys VAT thing. Red diesel and VAT were the oft repeated reasons we should leave the EU, yet they were actually things that OUR government wont be changing any time soon, or ever.

 

Looks like Jeremy Clarkson is right :( 

Wrong and you know it but this isnt the politics thread :P

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I agree, but to start how about two up to 4 hour return flights a year after that a 1000 squids tax each way on top of the flight? that will make people think twice about flying

Please Mr myself and the missus no longer fly. Fat lot of good it will do though lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Meanwhile in the real world, in a climate emergency, political parties of all colours fight with each other as to how much they can give away in child related benefits. It seems odd really, paying people to have children on one hand, then running around waving arms in the air saying that the world is doomed on the other.

 

Political parties see children as an investment as they are future taxpayers. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Meanwhile in the real world, in a climate emergency, political parties of all colours fight with each other as to how much they can give away in child related benefits. It seems odd really, paying people to have children on one hand, then running around waving arms in the air saying that the world is doomed on the other.

I don't recall anyone paying me to have kids. It seems to have cost me a fortune and still does, and the buggers are middle aged now... Just another urban myth, I'm afraid, like the one about girls having babies to get a council house. The only people who fall for those myths... No, I won't say it, this isn't the political bit! 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't recall anyone paying me to have kids. It seems to have cost me a fortune and still does, and the buggers are middle aged now... Just another urban myth, I'm afraid, like the one about girls having babies to get a council house. The only people who fall for those myths... No, I won't say it, this isn't the political bit! 

Well no, it's not a fantasy. Child benefit is payable up to a certain income. Paid for childcare is available, and this cash giveaway is growing. Child tax credits are available to some as are other things such as free dental treatment, for the whole family in some cases. So I'm sorry, it's not an urban myth; when people have children; the government pays money to the parents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Well no, it's not a fantasy. Child benefit is payable up to a certain income. Paid for childcare is available, and this cash giveaway is growing. Child tax credits are available to some as are other things such as free dental treatment, for the whole family in some cases. So I'm sorry, it's not an urban myth; when people have children; the government pays money to the parents. 

These are benefits your parents receive but which you pay back in taxes in your own adult life. 

They are not costs but a redistribution of money.

Similarly you receive a free education as a child  but you pay for it later via tax.

 

Without younger people paying tax the retired will have no source of money to pay their state pension.

 

Elderly people also place financial demands on the state as their healthcare needs increase. Volutary euthanasia of the elderly might be an equal or better means of population control rather than limiting new births ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't recall anyone paying me to have kids. It seems to have cost me a fortune and still does, and the buggers are middle aged now... Just another urban myth, I'm afraid, like the one about girls having babies to get a council house. The only people who fall for those myths... No, I won't say it, this isn't the political bit! 

Didn't you use to get income tax reduction on kids, you did on getting married and family allowance for kids, not marriage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

These are benefits your parents receive but which you pay back in taxes in your own adult life. 

They are not costs but a redistribution of money.

Similarly you receive a free education as a child  but you pay for it later via tax.

 

Without younger people paying tax the retired will have no source of money to pay their state pension.

 

Elderly people also place financial demands on the state as their healthcare needs increase. Volutary euthanasia of the elderly might be an equal or better means of population control rather than limiting new births ?

 

 

 

Following your reasoning: We need more people being born, not less. Everyone knows that there's a crisis in the care of the elderly. Similarly with pensions, we have an ageing population, their pensions can only be paid if there are more young people around to pay the required taxes. All good so far? Now then, if you think back to what we were discussing; the planet being damaged by human behaviour, how does your reasoning square with this?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, frangar said:

But benefits can change behaviour.....

In general people have do not have children in order to receive benefits.

Having children costs money ...big time.

 

I any case the UK birth rate is under 2 per female.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49192445

Therefore any UK  population increase is due to people living longer plus immigration.

 

Therefore reducing child benefits would probably have no meaningful impact.

 

 

Just now, The Welsh Cruiser said:

Spot on. If child related benefits were scrapped just watch the birth rate fall...

Rubbish. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Didn't you use to get income tax reduction on kids, you did on getting married and family allowance for kids, not marriage 

Er, that's me paying a bit less because I had more people to support, not someone paying me. Only in fact, I didn't, because we weren't married. And all that got junked many, many years ago. Now what happens is so that dividends to shareholders can be kept high, and directors payments made at the lower rate, the government bankrolls businesses by paying part of people's wages, so the companies don't have to. Same as they happily pay  part of the rent bills, so landlords can make lots of money even though the rents they charge are too high for people to pay. It's the Tory version of the market economy, and has nothing to do with diesel. 

It's a real problem, having studied economics and knowing something about it. It's lucky that expertise is regarded as a waste if space in our brave new world. Apart from the guy who's going to fix my engine, of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

So, I'm struggling to keep up a little here, but are we all agreed that changes to child benefit are unlikely to affect the price of red diesel? ;)

 

I think, I could be wrong, but a reduction in child benefit could reduce the ability to extract red diesel from the children, maybe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I think, I could be wrong, but a reduction in child benefit could reduce the ability to extract red diesel from the children, maybe

No without child benefit parents would have to send their kids down the red diesel mines so there would be a glut. Those that lose out on tax relief would send their kids down the white diesel mines so they don't get stained. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.