Criminals on TV

[Steve Firth]

Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:

> [1] Shall I stop ranting now?

I think it's mandatory in any cycling/motoring interchange of views.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Clive. <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message
> <1i3ppk1.1753qfrovsp7dN%[email protected]>, Ekul
> Namsob <[email protected]> writes

> > > VED is payable by anyone owning a motorised vehicle whether they chose
> > > to use it or not.

> >No it's not. Have you not heard of SORN?
> Yes.

So you know that your statement above is incorrect.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[raisethe]

On 30 Aug, 23:46, %[email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
> raisethe <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30 Aug, 22:46, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > raisethe wrote:
>
> > > [ ... ]
>
> > > > Whenever I try to have a rational debate with a motorist about the
> > > > various problems they cause for cyclists, pedestrians, non motorists
> > > > generally as well as themselves and other motorists, it always ends in
> > > > my being abused
>
> > > Ever tried having a rational debate with a cyclist (Militant Lycra
> > > Wing and Bar) about the various problems they cause for pedestrians,
> > > motorists and other road users in general?
>
> > Yes.
>
> And did you enjoy the ranting, stupid response you got from them?- Hide quoted text -
>

; I )

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 00:07, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> raisethe wrote:
> > On 30 Aug, 22:46, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>raisethe wrote:
>
> >>[ ... ]
>
> >>>Whenever I try to have a rational debate with a motorist about the
> >>>various problems they cause for cyclists, pedestrians, non motorists
> >>>generally as well as themselves and other motorists, it always ends in
> >>>my being abused
>
> >>Ever tried having a rational debate with a cyclist (Militant Lycra
> >>Wing and Bar) about the various problems they cause for pedestrians,
> >>motorists and other road users in general?
>
> > Yes.
>
> With any more success?
>
> I'd love to see the record of a debate where a militant cyclist
> accepted that he and his cohorts cause any undue problems for anyone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Out of interest, what is a Militant Lycra Wing and Bar?

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 10:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to,
> > and a tarrif should be placed on imports where the origin countries do
> > not apply the same level of duty.
>
> So that UK consumers pay twice?

No, just the once.




>
> I'd like to see the figures, but there is no direct link between annual
> emission and engine thirst. Annual emission is a function of engine
> thirst _and_ annual mileage.


I'm no mathematician, but that seems pretty direct to me.



>
> > But
> > yes, the rfl, road tax, ved, call it wtf you like, is a pretty clumsy
> > tax, I agree.
>
> Clumsy tax = unjust tax.


No.

Clumsy tax = clumsy tax.


> >
> > I don't know whether your 10% figure is right or wrong but in my view
> > whatever the rate is, it is not enough.
>
> So if 100%, rather than 10% of national revenue was raised for motoring
> (i.e. there were _no_ other taxes), you think they should still pay more?

You're trolling now.



>
> > There should be a congestion
> > tax on each stretch of road subject to traffic jams set at such a rate
> > that jams do not routinely occur.
>
> They would also ensure that any
> money collected was being used effectively to solve the problem that was
> responsible for its collection - the goal being free road use for all.
>

Wrong. The most equitable solution would be to put the tax revenue
into the central pot, as per my original post. You are now making the
same mistake as Adrian.



> > There should also be a tax to charge
> > for noise and visual pollution in our towns
>
> Agreed. That should be based on noise level, and ugliness though, not
> on whether it is a car or not. The big payers of the "noise tax" would
> be be moped/motorbike users, the bus and train companies, and the
> garbage collection and road work companies. The big payers of the "ugly
> tax" would be the billboard companies, and the councils responsible for
> the clutter of signs, signals, barriers, poles, posts, lines, that
> festoon our streets.

If you had the necessary equipment you would probably find that the
bulk of road noise comes from cars and commercial vehicles. If so,
they would pay the bulk of the tax. If not, they wouldn't.


> > The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
>
> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.

Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
on the ability to pay. It can be based on other things, such as
polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.


>
> Why do you think that motorists should further subsidise non-motorists?
>

Trolling again.

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 10:08, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So if 100%, rather than 10% of national revenue was raised for
> > motoring (i.e. there were _no_ other taxes), you think they should
> > still pay more?
>
> Of course he does. The chip on his shoulder's showing.


Whenever I try to have a rational debate with a motorist about the
various problems they cause for cyclists, pedestrians, non motorists
generally as well as themselves and other motorists, it always ends
in
my being abused once the individual concerned realises he has no
valid
logical response to my arguments which are in some cases, though not
all, irrefutable.

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 11:00, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
>
> To suggest that all motorists cause problems for cyclists is about as
> daft as to suggest that all cyclists cause problems for motorists.
>



Both of those suggestions are not daft at all, but in fact, quite
true. Similarly, all motorists cause problems for other motorists.

 

[Adrian]

raisethe ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> > So if 100%, rather than 10% of national revenue was raised for
>> > motoring (i.e. there were _no_ other taxes), you think they should
>> > still pay more?

>> Of course he does. The chip on his shoulder's showing.

> Whenever I try to have a rational debate with a motorist about the
> various problems they cause for cyclists, pedestrians, non motorists
> generally as well as themselves and other motorists, it always ends
> in my being abused once the individual concerned realises he has no
> valid logical response to my arguments which are in some cases, though
> not all, irrefutable.

Have you considered that your utterly closed-minded and biased attitude,
together with your witlessness, may contribute to your eventual ridiculing?

Some fine examples from this thread alone...

....When told that 10% of the entire UK tax take is raised directly from
motor vehicle use
"whatever the rate is, it's not enough"

....Of fuel duty being charged on petrol even when it isn't being used for
road vehicles
" It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to, and a tarrif
should be placed on imports where the origin countries do not apply the
same level of duty."

....Then there's the utterly priceless
"Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
on the ability to pay."

On top of that, you don't actually seem to grasp the difference between tax
take and tax spend.

Christ, you've only posted in this thread eight times, and you've come up
with a long list of absolute classics worth of Duhg himself.

Oh, and FWIW, I think you'll find that not only do I not agree with your
seeming belief that "cyclists", "pedestrians" and "motorists" are somehow
three separate people, but I am actually all three personally.

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Christ, you've only posted in this thread eight times, and you've
> come up with a long list of absolute classics worth of Duhg himself.

You don't think it's possible that he's a ......

Nooooo, it doesn't bear thinking about!!!

> Oh, and FWIW, I think you'll find that not only do I not agree with
> your seeming belief that "cyclists", "pedestrians" and "motorists"
> are somehow three separate people, but I am actually all three
> personally.

Psychiatric help is available ---------> thataway.

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>,
raisethe <[email protected]> writes
>On 30 Aug, 11:32, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>> Tax take from motor vehicles vastly outweighes the tax spend on said motor
>> vehicles and their infrastructure.
>>
>
>Irrelevant.
>
>Adrian, you do not understand the purpose of the various taxes paid by
>motorists. They are not for paying for the roads as has been repeated
>ad infinitum on this forum.
>
>1) New vehicles attract VAT. This is a general tax on expenditure
>applied to most goods and services (other than certain exempt and zero
>rated items). It has nothing to do with 'tax spend on said motor
>vehicles and their infrastructure' whatever you mean by that.
>
>2) Petrol attracts VAT. See above. It also has fuel duty. This tax is
>to discourage fuel consumption because it is a depleting resource and
>because its use causes polution. Again, nothing to do with paying for
>the roads.
>
>3) Road Fund Licence is a tax which traditionally has the purpose of
>ensuring a vehicle which can be used to kill and maim people (either
>negligently or through aggression) is recorded as being kept at a
>particular location and by a particular person. Also, it is used as a
>way of taxing harmNothing to do with paying for the roads. Now it is
>used to tax the polution caused by the use of these vehicles. Nothing
>to do with paying for the roads.
>
>These taxes are all targetted at specific actions of taxpayers in
>order to generate revenue in a fair way for central government to
>spend. The people who pay most tax are those who have the most to
>spend (VAT), those who deplete finite resources (fuel duty) and those
>who pollute (fuel duty and road fund license). There is no direct link
>between these taxes and expenditure on the road.
Gullibility strikes again.
--
Clive.

 

[Adrian]

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> Christ, you've only posted in this thread eight times, and you've
>> come up with a long list of absolute classics worth of Duhg himself.

> You don't think it's possible that he's a ......
>
> Nooooo, it doesn't bear thinking about!!!

I don't think Duhg has the wit to use sockpuppets. Besides, he didn't rant
quite enough.

>> Oh, and FWIW, I think you'll find that not only do I not agree with
>> your seeming belief that "cyclists", "pedestrians" and "motorists"
>> are somehow three separate people, but I am actually all three
>> personally.

> Psychiatric help is available ---------> thataway.

Ah, yes, clicking the red "X" in the top right corner of my news client. It
calms me down no end...

 

[Brimstone]

Adrian wrote:
> Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>>> Christ, you've only posted in this thread eight times, and you've
>>> come up with a long list of absolute classics worth of Duhg himself.
>
>> You don't think it's possible that he's a ......
>>
>> Nooooo, it doesn't bear thinking about!!!
>
> I don't think Duhg has the wit to use sockpuppets.

I was thinking more about him being a clone, or somesuch.

> Besides, he didn't
> rant quite enough.

He's doing well for only eight posts. I think he could develop.

>>> Oh, and FWIW, I think you'll find that not only do I not agree with
>>> your seeming belief that "cyclists", "pedestrians" and "motorists"
>>> are somehow three separate people, but I am actually all three
>>> personally.
>
>> Psychiatric help is available ---------> thataway.
>
> Ah, yes, clicking the red "X" in the top right corner of my news
> client. It calms me down no end...

Glad you found help.

 

[Matt B]

raisethe wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 10:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to,
>>> and a tarrif should be placed on imports where the origin countries do
>>> not apply the same level of duty.
>> So that UK consumers pay twice?
>
> No, just the once.

Ah, so no fuel duty if there is an import tarrif. :-/

>> I'd like to see the figures, but there is no direct link between annual
>> emission and engine thirst. Annual emission is a function of engine
>> thirst _and_ annual mileage.
>
> I'm no mathematician, but that seems pretty direct to me.

Well, only if you (as you seem to wish to) ignore the annual mileage.

>>> But
>>> yes, the rfl, road tax, ved, call it wtf you like, is a pretty clumsy
>>> tax, I agree.
>> Clumsy tax = unjust tax.
>
> No.
> Clumsy tax = clumsy tax.

What's clumsy about it then?

>>> I don't know whether your 10% figure is right or wrong but in my view
>>> whatever the rate is, it is not enough.
>> So if 100%, rather than 10% of national revenue was raised for motoring
>> (i.e. there were _no_ other taxes), you think they should still pay more?
>
> You're trolling now.

I /never/ troll. You said "whatever the rate is, it is not enough",
which I assumed meant, even if it was 100%. If you actually /meant/
what it actually is now, which like I said is about 10%, then I
misunderstood - and jumped in a bit harshish :-(

>>> There should be a congestion
>>> tax on each stretch of road subject to traffic jams set at such a rate
>>> that jams do not routinely occur.
>> They would also ensure that any
>> money collected was being used effectively to solve the problem that was
>> responsible for its collection - the goal being free road use for all.
>
> Wrong. The most equitable solution would be to put the tax revenue
> into the central pot, as per my original post.

Should the extra added to rail fares for peek-time travel be put into
the same pot?

> You are now making the
> same mistake as Adrian.

I'm not making a /mistake/, I'm making a suggestion which you disagree
with ;-)

>>> The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
>> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.
>
> Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
> on the ability to pay.

It does.

> It can be based on other things, such as
> polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.

It can be, but they are /unfair/ taxes. The fair way to control those
things is by rationing, or by prohibition. The country's smog problem
wasn't solved by allowing the rich to emit as much smoke as they liked,
so long as they paid tax on it. It was solved by banning smoky fuel.
Tewksbury didn't solve their recent drinking water shortage problem by
allowing only those who could afford it to have it, the army distributed
it equally amongst the population.

>> Why do you think that motorists should further subsidise non-motorists?
>
> Trolling again.

Like I said I don't.

I won't ask it again, because I assume you disagree with the premiss
there. Can you back-up your opinion on that?

Remember that the equation has two sides. On the one side are the costs
to society, such as those of maintaining the roads, etc. On the other
side are the benefits to society, such as tax revenue and the huge
revenues from motoring fines, personal mobility, flexible public
transport & transport of goods, employment in vehicle manufacture,
maintenance and servicing (petrol stations etc.), export duties on
exported vehicles, the cost of replacing motor vehicle use with whatever
would replace it, etc. Remember too that the cost of congestion is
borne, not /caused/ by motorists - and so is a benefit to society as
they don't have to provide the system necessary to eliminate it. Also
the health costs and compensation costs caused by liable motorists are
paid from motor insurance, giving the additional benefit of 1000s of
jobs in the insurance, health, and repair businesses. Don't forget the
jobs created for countless 1000s of bureaucrats and administrators in
maintaining the vehicle and driver registers, and in dealing with car
parks, MOTs, tax and fine collection, police, magistrates, etc.

--
Matt B

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 19:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>

God only knows what the others are wittering on about, but here is a
reply for you Matt.


> >>> It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to,
> >>> and a tarrif should be placed on imports where the origin countries do
> >>> not apply the same level of duty.
> >> So that UK consumers pay twice?
>
> > No, just the once.
>
> Ah, so no fuel duty if there is an import tarrif. :-/


It amounts to the same thing. If we have fuel duty in the UK, but an
imported good or service from abroad does not have fuel duty applied
to it (whether in its construction or shipping) the overseas companies
have an unfair competitive advantage over UK companies. It is
therefore equitable to charge a tarrif to make up for the fuel duty
not applied to the imports.

> >>> But
> >>> yes, the rfl, road tax, ved, call it wtf you like, is a pretty clumsy
> >>> tax, I agree.
> >> Clumsy tax = unjust tax.
>
> > No.
> > Clumsy tax = clumsy tax.
>
> What's clumsy about it then?

Its purpose seems to change on the whim of the Chancellor. It is not
the best way to tax pollution. It is either too high or too low a cost
for vehicle registration. It is probably expensive to collect (the
Post Office presumably get a considerable cut of the revenue).


> Should the extra added to rail fares for peek-time travel be put into
> the same pot?
>

T


> > You are now making the
> > same mistake as Adrian.
>
> I'm not making a /mistake/, I'm making a suggestion which you disagree
> with ;-)
>
> >>> The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
> >> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.
>
> > Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
> > on the ability to pay.
>
> It does.
>
> > It can be based on other things, such as
> > polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.
>
> It can be, but they are /unfair/ taxes. The fair way to control those
> things is by rationing, or by prohibition. The country's smog problem
> wasn't solved by allowing the rich to emit as much smoke as they liked,
> so long as they paid tax on it. It was solved by banning smoky fuel.
> Tewksbury didn't solve their recent drinking water shortage problem by
> allowing only those who could afford it to have it, the army distributed
> it equally amongst the population.
>
> >> Why do you think that motorists should further subsidise non-motorists?
>
> > Trolling again.
>
> Like I said I don't.
>
> I won't ask it again, because I assume you disagree with the premiss
> there. Can you back-up your opinion on that?
>
> Remember that the equation has two sides. On the one side are the costs
> to society, such as those of maintaining the roads, etc. On the other
> side are the benefits to society, such as tax revenue and the huge
> revenues from motoring fines, personal mobility, flexible public
> transport & transport of goods, employment in vehicle manufacture,
> maintenance and servicing (petrol stations etc.), export duties on
> exported vehicles, the cost of replacing motor vehicle use with whatever
> would replace it, etc. Remember too that the cost of congestion is
> borne, not /caused/ by motorists - and so is a benefit to society as
> they don't have to provide the system necessary to eliminate it. Also
> the health costs and compensation costs caused by liable motorists are
> paid from motor insurance, giving the additional benefit of 1000s of
> jobs in the insurance, health, and repair businesses. Don't forget the
> jobs created for countless 1000s of bureaucrats and administrators in
> maintaining the vehicle and driver registers, and in dealing with car
> parks, MOTs, tax and fine collection, police, magistrates, etc.
>
> --
> Matt B

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

> raisethe ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :

> > Whenever I try to have a rational debate with a motorist about the
> > various problems they cause for cyclists, pedestrians, non motorists
> > generally as well as themselves and other motorists, it always ends
> > in my being abused once the individual concerned realises he has no
> > valid logical response to my arguments which are in some cases, though
> > not all, irrefutable.
>
> Have you considered that your utterly closed-minded and biased attitude,
> together with your witlessness, may contribute to your eventual ridiculing?
>
> Some fine examples from this thread alone...
>
> ...When told that 10% of the entire UK tax take is raised directly from
> motor vehicle use
> "whatever the rate is, it's not enough"
>
> ...Of fuel duty being charged on petrol even when it isn't being used for
> road vehicles
> " It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to, and a tarrif
> should be placed on imports where the origin countries do not apply the
> same level of duty."
>
> ...Then there's the utterly priceless
> "Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
> on the ability to pay."

Without wishing to defend raisethe's other points, may I ask what you
find so odd about the last example?

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 19:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Should the extra added to rail fares for peek-time travel be put into
> the same pot?


To the extent that the fare includes taxation, yes it should. To the
extent that it is paying the train company for the service provided,
no it shouldn't.


>
>
> >>> The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
> >> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.
>
> > Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
> > on the ability to pay.
>
> It does.


It doesn't. To take a neutral example; the single occupancy discount
on Council Tax has its rationale on the fact that a single occupant of
a house will on average use fewer Council Services that a multi-
occupant household. This is fair, but has nothing to do with the
householders ability to pay.


>
> > It can be based on other things, such as
> > polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.
>
> It can be, but they are /unfair/ taxes. The fair way to control those
> things is by rationing,

Agreed, and the best way to ration is by price, via taxation.


or by prohibition. The country's smog problem
> wasn't solved by allowing the rich to emit as much smoke as they liked,
> so long as they paid tax on it. It was solved by banning smoky fuel.

We are not talking about banning fossil fuels, only restricting their
use. Similarly with congestion.


> Tewksbury didn't solve their recent drinking water shortage problem by
> allowing only those who could afford it to have it, the army distributed
> it equally amongst the population.


A different scenario, as it was a catastrophe. Not relevant here.

>
> Remember that the equation has two sides. On the one side are the costs
> to society, such as those of maintaining the roads, etc. On the other
> side are the benefits to society, such as tax revenue and the huge
> revenues from motoring fines, personal mobility, flexible public
> transport & transport of goods, employment in vehicle manufacture,
> maintenance and servicing (petrol stations etc.), export duties on
> exported vehicles, the cost of replacing motor vehicle use with whatever
> would replace it, etc.

Remember too that the cost of congestion is
> borne, not /caused/ by motorists

Incorrect. It is caused by motorists, and borne by both motorists and
non motorists.

- and so is a benefit to society as
> they don't have to provide the system necessary to eliminate it. Also
> the health costs and compensation costs caused by liable motorists are
> paid from motor insurance, giving the additional benefit of 1000s of
> jobs in the insurance, health, and repair businesses. Don't forget the
> jobs created for countless 1000s of bureaucrats and administrators in
> maintaining the vehicle and driver registers, and in dealing with car
> parks, MOTs, tax and fine collection, police, magistrates, etc.
>


The benefits of motoring are not in dispute here.

All I say is that fuel taxes should be raised to such a level that
consumption is reduced to a level deemed acceptable given the limited
resources and the polution caused by its use, and congestion charges
should be implemented and increased to the rate necessary to pretty
much eliminate that congestion.

 

[Adrian]

Ekul Namsob ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> ...Then there's the utterly priceless
>> "Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
>> on the ability to pay."

> Without wishing to defend raisethe's other points, may I ask what you
> find so odd about the last example?

Give me one example of a tax which is fair whilst simultaneously being
prohibitively expensive.

 

[raisethe]

On 31 Aug, 20:07, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ekul Namsob ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying :
>
> >> ...Then there's the utterly priceless
> >> "Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
> >> on the ability to pay."
> > Without wishing to defend raisethe's other points, may I ask what you
> > find so odd about the last example?
>
> Give me one example of a tax which is fair whilst simultaneously being
> prohibitively expensive.

I think this guy is waste of time Luke.

 

[Matt B]

raisethe wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 19:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> God only knows what the others are wittering on about, but here is a
> reply for you Matt.
>
>>>>> It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to,
>>>>> and a tarrif should be placed on imports where the origin countries do
>>>>> not apply the same level of duty.
>>>> So that UK consumers pay twice?
>>> No, just the once.
>> Ah, so no fuel duty if there is an import tarrif. :-/
>
> It amounts to the same thing. If we have fuel duty in the UK, but an
> imported good or service from abroad does not have fuel duty applied
> to it (whether in its construction or shipping) the overseas companies
> have an unfair competitive advantage over UK companies. It is
> therefore equitable to charge a tarrif to make up for the fuel duty
> not applied to the imports.

Except that what usually happens is that there is import duty, then duty
is added when it is sold on - too.

>>>>> But
>>>>> yes, the rfl, road tax, ved, call it wtf you like, is a pretty clumsy
>>>>> tax, I agree.
>>>> Clumsy tax = unjust tax.
>>> No.
>>> Clumsy tax = clumsy tax.
>> What's clumsy about it then?
>
> Its purpose seems to change on the whim of the Chancellor.

Yes, it's an unfair tax, and he needs to keep attempting to justify it -
but no matter what excuses he comes up with, he can't.

> It is not
> the best way to tax pollution.

There is no /good/ way to tax pollution.

> It is either too high or too low a cost
> for vehicle registration.

There's no need for vehicle registration to cost more, or be any more
complex than, say, domain name registration.

> It is probably expensive to collect (the
> Post Office presumably get a considerable cut of the revenue).

Yes - it would be difficult to conceive a less efficient tax, other than
the London CC, perhaps.

--
Matt B

 

[JNugent]

raisethe wrote:

> Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> God only knows what the others are wittering on about, but here is a
> reply for you Matt.

>>>>>It should be charged regardless of the use it is put to,
>>>>>and a tarrif should be placed on imports where the origin countries do
>>>>>not apply the same level of duty.

>>>>So that UK consumers pay twice?

>>>No, just the once.

>>Ah, so no fuel duty if there is an import tarrif. :-/

> It amounts to the same thing. If we have fuel duty in the UK, but an
> imported good or service from abroad does not have fuel duty applied
> to it (whether in its construction or shipping) the overseas companies
> have an unfair competitive advantage over UK companies.

*Unfair*?

It is "unfair" for other countries not to hobble their economies with
crippling selective 400% taxation, is it?

> It is
> therefore equitable to charge a tarrif to make up for the fuel duty
> not applied to the imports.

What do you mean, "equitable"?

Let's have an example. The USA does not tax fuel to the extent most
European countries do (and certainly not like we do in Brown's
Britain). Are you saying that special import tariffs should be applied
to USA imports of goods or services (in addition to the current rate
and VAT), in order to "compensate" for the fact that American industry
is not taxed as heavily as ours is (on their fuel, at a minimum)?

If we did, what effect do you say that would have on the USA? Would
they be more likely to:

(a) realise (what you imagine to be) the error of their ways and
immediately ask Golden Brown for advice on how many extra dollars a
gallon to impose?

(b) retaliate for the unjustified British breach of international
agreements on trade and tariffs by increasing American import duties
on imports from the UK?

If it were (b), would that be:

(a) beneficial for the UK and its workers?

(b) a disaster for those parts of British industry which export to the
USA?