Diesel scrappage

[pete75]

Wouldn't it be good that when we leave the EU, the UK brings in a real-world testing regime for vehicles?

All these Euro6 vehicles that exceed the UK emissions regulations would be off the road, even if the EU says they are ok.
I think that the US already do this.

One of the main aims of the leave movement is for less regulation not more. If environmental standards do change they're likely to become laxer not more stringent.

[Vorpal]

Wouldn't it be good that when we leave the EU, the UK brings in a real-world testing regime for vehicles?

All these Euro6 vehicles that exceed the UK emissions regulations would be off the road, even if the EU says they are ok.
I think that the US already do this.

One of the main aims of the leave movement is for less regulation not more. If environmental standards do change they're likely to become laxer not more stringent.

Also, that is likely to be seen by central government as harmful to the economy, and there is no way in the aftermath of Brexit that they will do anything that is likely to be percevied that way.

[Vorpal]

TC, my morals and your morals may both be set at quite a high level....... but rest assured the general population of the UK does not reflect that. If it did we'd have hardly any benefit claimants, disability claims and so on. The mindset of people in large companies to seek loophole is not different to the individual figuring how they can get a little extra cash buy using the tax system "efficiently" or altering circumstances to claim a financial amount.

I'm sorry but I do not accept that we would have 'hardly any benefit claimants' if the population had higher morals. For one thing, the vast majority of money paid out in benefits is not disability or anything like that. It's in stuff that most people use, like child benefit, NHS, state pensions, etc.

Secondly, the number of fraudulent claims is actually quite low, and while I would prefer that there be no fraud, I think that it is entirely acceptable to pay for a few fraudulent claims so that the people who need benefits can get them.

I have known many people on benefits, and not a single one of them did anything unethical, even stretching the truth that I am aware of, with one (understandable) exception. I know several people who could have claimed disability benefits and did not; one was in a quite serious RTC that will probably affect them for the rest of their life.

I also know quite a few people who have good jobs and make loads of dosh that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.

I don't know who your friends and acquaintances are, but if my sample of the population led me to believe that everyone in the UK has no morals, I'd look for different friends.

[old_windbag]

don't know who your friends and acquaintances are, but if my sample of the population led me to believe that everyone in the UK has no morals, I'd look for different friends

Just everyday people. One who worked throughout life then "gave up", sick of seeing tom, dick and harry taking from the system so decided to do the same having "paid in" for 35+yrs. That isn't an uncommon outlook in todays political situation. These aren't "bad" people, put it this way they wouldn't burgle your house or steal your car. Just our system has created a resentment. When you go behind some closed doors its reminiscent of"boys from the blackstuff".

I don't agree with that stance above but I do resent, more than ever, the misuse of the tax I pay. As someone who feels we should pay more tax that is in contradiction that I don't want to pay it. But as it is portioned off into unnecessary payments whilst we cry austerity I don't wish to contribute( CS pensions, certain benefits and tax allowances+ child/working tax credits ). One of the benefits you do mention is child benefit, payable up to £50000 income? This is one of the things I was getting at. The government declares a group of society can claim this, that group even though not needing it will claim. I'm entitled to it so I'll take it. The problem being that in most cases it isn''t needed, it's supposed to fund the needs of the child. It would be better means tested and the money saved put directly into education, healthcare. We have an unjust tax system which favours married with children. I.e. transfer of £1050 of unused tax allowance to lower paid partner, but I'm not allowed to move equipment purchase into next tax year yet was earning well under minimum wage in that tax year. Wot the...... Even the woman at HMRC said you have a valid case to be made.

It needs a complete rethink( think bloody good shake ) and simplification and for everyone to be treat as independent not couples and singletons. We all need to pay our way. We also need to accept and understand our responsibilities and to be treat as adults where bringing children into the world is concerned. At present in the UK families are shielded from the true costs of such and if they weren't then perhaps they'd have smaller families. Which would be environmentally beneficial. The tax system can be "abused" by the rich but the money it does get isn't spent in a sensible manner, I'm left wing but understand how we should hand out money in a fairer manner to all. At present it most definitely doesn't. But I'm not sure a logical political party can ever exist, not with the backgrounds of those in it. So change will never happen. Just as everyone hopes for a cycling utopia also .

[meic]

and for everyone to be treat as independent not couples and singletons.

This would, of course, increase the benefits bill. At the moment couple are entitled to considerably less than two single people are.
Then, also, you could no longer deny benefits to half of a couple where only one is working. So a millionaire's spouse could claim Tax Credits!

[old_windbag]

Well you would be co-habiting and the father has equal payments to make for any child as a mother..... its a shared responsibility. But not a partnership for shifting tax back and forth and getting extra allowances for married status.

Thinking of taxation perhaps it would be better to remove income tax and increase vat. Move to everyone submitting a year end tax return and receiving any allowance related tax refund based on submitted figures. But we also have the universal wage approach for everyone in or out of work. We need a good rethink and a change to make this country a fairer state.

In the millionaires spouse case...... the millionaire would be more than offsetting any claim made in his(her) tax bill. Sticking up for millionaires there . Oh and anyone with high morals wouldn't claim the tax credits knowing they were being well financially supported by someone....... but people would which is my moral argument.

[bigjim]

I don't why the state pension, that I have paid for, is a benefit?

[old_windbag]

is a benefit?

Yes strangely so, I can understand in some respects( comes from NI/tax funds ) but I feel a bit misplaced.



What lead to this diversion was simply the scrappage offers being taken up not always for the right reasons. Betters ways to reduce polluting cars than incentives for new ones, whatever those ways may be. On the jet engine front it's one area that we'll be reliant on fossil/bio fuels for as long as we fly.

[pete75]

TC, my morals and your morals may both be set at quite a high level....... but rest assured the general population of the UK does not reflect that. If it did we'd have hardly any benefit claimants, disability claims and so on.

Interested to know why you think a disabled person claiming disability benefits has low morals.

[Tangled Metal]

The point with child benefit is by being universal it costs less to administer than having it means tested apparently.

I guess a lot of the measures wind_bag suggests could also increase costs. Fairness costs it seems one way or another.

BTW we don't touch our kid's child benefits payment. It goes into a savings account in his name as well as both parent's names. It won't be touched until he turns 18 then he gets the lot to do with as he sees fit. We are not going to tell him about his money until his 18th birthday or just before it. Our reason is that with university tuition fees going the way they are we might not afford to put him through university or other training scheme as we would like (should be decide to go that way). We are older parents in our 40s. We are hoping that he is sensible enough to put it to good use to set himself up in life. However if he isn't then it's still his money to spend even if it's only what we see as wasting it on beer and cars.

As far as I am concerned this is a good use of the money (if he uses it to become a productive member of society with good earning capability to pay back into the system).

If you or anybody got their way and cancelled this universal benefit then he's likely to have a lower prospect in life which will end up in society losing out.

There are other ppl making good and ethical use of benefits. Claiming only what they need. Me and my partner were eligible at one point for various credits. We refused to apply for them because we were happy with our earnings. We could live off them so didn't see how ethically we could claim for what we were entitled to.

Sorry if this is off topic BTW. I lost my thread of thought by an interruption.

[old_windbag]

Interested to know why you think a disabled person claiming disability benefits has low morals.

Eh? Where do you draw that from. I haven't said a disabled person claiming disability benefits has low morals. I said there'd be lower claims if people applied morals, i.e if you can afford to not claim then do you need to, or is it a right for you to take it because you're entitled to it. In that latter case the state owes me roughly £1500.

TM There are other ppl making good and ethical use of benefits. Claiming only what they need. Me and my partner were eligible at one point for various credits. We refused to apply for them because we were happy with our earnings. We could live off them so didn't see how ethically we could claim for what we were entitled to.

Which is what I did above not claiming JSA. On university fee's etc I felt we had a grant system in the 70's/80's that worked, unfortunately the notion that 50% of school leavers should attend a university rather killed that. We should return to that grant system, limit places and have higher entrance grades for genuine economic reasons. It wasn't about academic snobbery but ensuring we had a very high calibre of graduates for those jobs that need them.

TM BTW we don't touch our kid's child benefits payment. It goes into a savings account in his name as well as both parent's names.

I think they also give children a savings pot with contribution for that purpose too..... unless scrapped by a later government.

I think the idea of a fixed universal wage given to everyone has some interesting aspects to it. Even though some points may seem to cost more in theory, I think we need to do a study of several alternatives to find a fairer system for all( well as best we ever can ). Simplifying the system may help take it back to its core principles of helping people through hard times from health issues and job losses etc. I think the term "dis-enfranchised" comes up a lot nowadays, I feel we need radically new ideas to prevent it and make it a more team oriented uk. We're going to need to think that way soon as pulling in opposite directions and have greater divide between the income levels in the uk isn't going to help.

[661-Pete]

This thread appears to have gone way off topic. Is it about diesel scrappage (an important topic) or not?

[old_windbag]

Is it about diesel scrappage (an important topic) or not?

Yes it is so what are you proposing whilst not in france.

[661-Pete]

I wish I had an easy answer to that - whatever country it pertains to. At the moment I'm just seeing what others have to say.

[reohn2]

The point with child benefit is by being universal it costs less to administer than having it means tested apparently.

I guess a lot of the measures wind_bag suggests could also increase costs. Fairness costs it seems one way or another.

BTW we don't touch our kid's child benefits payment. It goes into a savings account in his name as well as both parent's names. It won't be touched until he turns 18 then he gets the lot to do with as he sees fit. We are not going to tell him about his money until his 18th birthday or just before it.....

Is this the same person who complained about me claiming winter fuel allowance?