Clive George said:"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:So what? I just gave an example of an older and fuel efficient car,
well affordable for "the poor".
Ah, so all "the poor" should buy cars like yours. Who'd buy the cars
they currently have (which are, as I said, more likely to be older and
less fuel efficient). Not such a practical proposition after all.
They had the choice to buy an economical car when they bought it.
How do you know?
Quoted message said:It's
not like fuel economy being a good thing is a recent concept.
We are not all in the lucky position of having a free choice. There may
be other overriding factors.
Either way that isn't the substantive point. The point is whether fuel
duty is a regressive tax, or not.
Quoted message said:In real
life, those who have the uneconomical cars do so for other reasons -
they have chosen that way.
It could have been Hobson's choice.
Quoted message said:No sympathy.
You have a hard heart ;-)
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>> Face it, private cars are no more of a luxury than private houses.
>>> Would you like to live in a public dormitory?
>>
>> I think you've just pointed out the absurdity of your last
>> statement there. Ask how many people which they'd put up with
>> giving up, their private house or their private car, and you'll get
>> the answer as to whic is more of a luxury.
>
> Put it another way. Ask how many people would buy a lifetime's
> supply of bus-travel season-tickets, rather than a posh new car, if
> they won the lottery.
I think you're doing quite well at digging here - what do people do
with lottery winnings? Buy luxuries. So you agree that the posh new
car is a luxury.
The point is that, for most, it is more desirable to travel by car
than by bus. Just like it is more desirable to live in a house than
in a hostel. Expecting people to use buses for transport is comparable
to expecting them to live in public dormitories rather than houses -
it is not an acceptable proposition. We need to provide for
aspirations, not suppress them.
No, the point is you said that a car was as much a luxury as a private
house,
Well, no more of one, to be precise. By which I meant that it is no
more acceptable to many to have to use public transport than it would be
to have to live in a public dormitory.
Quoted message said:which was comically easily to demonstrate as nonsense even using
your own arguments.
You might think that my attempts to convince people that taxing poor
motorists disproportionately to their means "until the pips squeak" are
hilarious, but why not try to justify the policies which you seem to
support, rather than ridicule my illustrations. Think of those of
limited resources, making sacrifices to run the all essential car. Do
you think that they think it's funny that they have to subsidise the
wealthy non car user?
Would you like to live in a public dormitory - or do you prefer to have
your own space? Should you be taxed more because you've saved and gone
without to provide your own house?
Why should someone, because they use a car a car, be expected to pay
more of a proportion of their income for the provision of health,
education, and social services?
--
Matt B
