- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Which is obviously in no way related to the constantly shrinking pot the government pay them.
and help to keep the site free for all
New road tax rules, cheeky caveat for the over 40k gang
- Thread starter Mr Bump
- Start date
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Probably not. Our local council took it on themselves to replace a few miles of perfectly good armco. Yet potholes get repaired poorly. We get potholes reappearing in the same place on our road all because the council can't be bothered to repair it properly. They just hope not to many people make claims for tyre, wheel or suspension damage.Which is obviously in no way related to the constantly shrinking pot the government pay them.
OP
Mr Bump
From under the bridge
- Messages
- 9,627
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A lot of armco is getting replaced as it has been proven very bad for motorcycle accidents. So to be honest I would be very happy for that to be replaced. Moat of the time it is with a similar system with a secondary lower barrier added.
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I have to say the outright arrogance by some in this thread is hilariously dated.
Why should people who work harder / have aspirations pay more tax?
The simple answer...
Theres no correlation between hard work and earnings. There's no correlation between aspiration and net worth.
The lower that taxes are for the richest, the bigger the gap between their kids and the poor, the higher the step up they get in their own lives... and on and on.
Progressive taxes aren't the politics of envy, they're a simple attempt to sway some opportunity back down society.
The idea that Donald Trump is 'successful' because he inherited billions is a joke. And his even more stupid children getting a seat at the top table isn't a sign that giving power to the wealthy is a good plan. It's the opposite.
The fact that even idiots who aren't 'well off' have been fooled into believing they should defend the rich 'just in case they ever get rich' is utterly genius.
Why should people who work harder / have aspirations pay more tax?
The simple answer...
Theres no correlation between hard work and earnings. There's no correlation between aspiration and net worth.
The lower that taxes are for the richest, the bigger the gap between their kids and the poor, the higher the step up they get in their own lives... and on and on.
Progressive taxes aren't the politics of envy, they're a simple attempt to sway some opportunity back down society.
The idea that Donald Trump is 'successful' because he inherited billions is a joke. And his even more stupid children getting a seat at the top table isn't a sign that giving power to the wealthy is a good plan. It's the opposite.
The fact that even idiots who aren't 'well off' have been fooled into believing they should defend the rich 'just in case they ever get rich' is utterly genius.
- Messages
- 9,904
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find that it's often road repairs by third parties is where most of the problems are and you see reoccurring holes at the same place where you see the tell-tale repair strip across the road where it was previously dug up. So the cost and liability for these is not with the council but the third party but it would seem the council isn't inspecting their work or making them do it again properly?
- Messages
- 1,546
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
While I would agree you can work hard and still not earn much and also what someone earns is rarely a reflection of the value they add to society, I think the (selective) quote above is misleading. In my experience, excluding inherited wealth/old school tie network/banking, most of us who make more money do so by working harder than most of our peers. Working harder increases chances of promotion and if you're working for yourself it increases chances of your business being a success.
In contrast there are people who have a job and do the bear minimum and then envy those who have 'done better' than them, ignoring the amount of extra effort they've put in.
Also all cars are subject to vat, therefore you buy an expensive car you pay more vat. So you are paying more.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, you can pay up to 100% of your salary into your pension, to a max of £40K a year. As you say, it's sometimes worth paying as much as possible over your 40% tax threshold into the pension, especially if nearing retirement age (or you can afford to)
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I disagree, but don't expect to change your mind.
Life doesn't work like that, but people who are 'successful' will attribute that success to themselves rather than circumstance.
Trump considers his success is down to him being a great businessman and a hard worker, we all know he's done less work than any previous POTUS, but we can't change his mind.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The cable type was a nightmare for motorcyclists. I think the new concrete barrier is the most effective for all vehicles?
- Messages
- 1,546
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think Trump is a good example. Didn't he inherit billions and is now worth millions? He should have worked harder
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,563
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Biker mincers.
Haven't seen many of the concrete barriers here in the UK but do think they're a good idea. Then again, I think that having the "fast" lanes of multi carriageway roads next to each other is pretty dumb (but it's cheaper than rejigging all the junctions!)
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am in a company pension scheme. The amount that the company and I pay in are set by my basic pay plus any extra permanent allowances I receive which doesn't include shift allowance. Additional payments can be made (AVC) but go into a separate pension fund run by an external company and has a lesser pay out. 4yrs ago when some people at work took a deferred retirement, (Voluntary redundancy / early retirement aged 50+ but start receiving pension aged 55) They were unable to cash in their AVC's and had to buy an annuity.
I'm quite happy piling the money into ISAs. I can practically spend the money at anytime I want if need be. But any income I get from them will always be tax free.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Where the M25 has been widened, the central reservation has been replaced by concrete barriers.Biker mincers.
Haven't seen many of the concrete barriers here in the UK but do think they're a good idea. Then again, I think that having the "fast" lanes of multi carriageway roads next to each other is pretty dumb (but it's cheaper than rejigging all the junctions!)
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All the barriers were replaced like for like, single bar.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We've a lot on the M4. Continuous works to put in new information signs, rip out armco for cable, rip out cable for armco, rip out armco and cable for concrete... nice earner for someone.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Strange for the AVC's to go separate? I put 15% of salary in, the company limit their contribution to their percentage
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
He's still a billionaire and you can't argue he's not 'successful'.I don't think Trump is a good example. Didn't he inherit billions and is now worth millions? He should have worked harder
Making a joke about him doesn't mean I'm wrong. It proves my point.
He inherited billions, he's not a great businessman but by any measure he's more successful than we or our children have a chance of being.
A couple of his kids are even less talented, yet still earn more money than I could ever dream of, despite the fact there's been times in my life I've held 3 jobs.
- Messages
- 15,804
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The company pension scheme is one of 3 run by Ford itself. AVC's are invested through The Prudential.
- Messages
- 2,599
- Name
- Ricky
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So move grid generation into renewables and reduce the CO2 at the source.
Not been true about wind energy for over a decade but why let facts get in the way of a good rant.
It takes about 6 months in good conditions, and about 9 months in UK conditions, for a 2MW wind turbine (standard size) to break even on energy and CO2
- Messages
- 25,296
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I used punctuation to show it's not necessarily a universal measure.
- Messages
- 2,616
- Name
- Glenn
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Road tax/VED should be zero on all cars. Instead the taxation should be on fuel and tyres. That way the poluter pays and nobody can avoid paying.
Drive a big gas guzzler? Pay more than someone who drives the same distance using a small modest car or hybrid or EV.
Drive loads of miles on the road? Pay more than someone who has a big posh car, that mainly sits on the drive being polished a couple of times a week.
Drive a clapped out, inefficient old banger that drinks fuel and belches out loads of emissions? Pay more or get something more modern and frugal.
Can't afford to run a car at all due to high fuel and tyre costs? Don't run a car, you can't afford it, take the bus. Less cars on the road, less congestion, less pollution.
Of course this would be deeply unpopular, but is actually the fairest approach from both road usage and environmental viewpoints.
If they really wanted to use VED as tool for change, then the rate should increase as the vehicles get older. So old bangers become economically unviable to have on the road and end up be recycled.
Another deeply unpopular policy as on the face of it, it penalises the poor. The wider benefits would be improved air quality and the likelihood that the overall car parc would be made up of younger/safer/cleaner cars.
Drive a big gas guzzler? Pay more than someone who drives the same distance using a small modest car or hybrid or EV.
Drive loads of miles on the road? Pay more than someone who has a big posh car, that mainly sits on the drive being polished a couple of times a week.
Drive a clapped out, inefficient old banger that drinks fuel and belches out loads of emissions? Pay more or get something more modern and frugal.
Can't afford to run a car at all due to high fuel and tyre costs? Don't run a car, you can't afford it, take the bus. Less cars on the road, less congestion, less pollution.
Of course this would be deeply unpopular, but is actually the fairest approach from both road usage and environmental viewpoints.
If they really wanted to use VED as tool for change, then the rate should increase as the vehicles get older. So old bangers become economically unviable to have on the road and end up be recycled.
Another deeply unpopular policy as on the face of it, it penalises the poor. The wider benefits would be improved air quality and the likelihood that the overall car parc would be made up of younger/safer/cleaner cars.
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Think 1 of the reasons for the concrete is to stop HGV crossing the central reservation...
We've had quite a bit replaced round here - seemed to take absolutely ages on the section of M65 they did - looked very nice, until it proper rained first time, water had no where to go / drain and the the drains couldn't cope with all the new excess water, so massive flooding across 'fast' lanes - a nightmare when it's dark as no lighting, so followed more months of lane closures and roadworks.
Got it sorted now, so hopefully save some lives...