UK Politics

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
the snail
Posts: 416
Joined: 5 Aug 2011, 3:11pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by the snail »

gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read today. So you think anyone who loses their job should have to give up their license and sell their car, thus making it harder to get to interviews, and limiting the jobs they can apply for? I've been asked how I will get to work at interviews before - if an employer thinks you will struggle to get to work, you won't get the job.
pete75
Posts: 16659
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by pete75 »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:01pm
pete75 wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 6:40pm
roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 5:54pm

Why benefit fraudsters? Why not all fraudsters?
Most fraudsters, con men, teaming an dlading merchants, OAP rip off builders etc are dealt with through the criminal justice system.
If you're referiing to income tax fraudsters, they're totally diffeent to benefit fraudsters. Benefit fraud involves you taking others peoples money, income tax fraud involves stopping the state taking away your own money.
I don't agree with the distinctions at all. I do agree with the implication that sanctions should be asked via the justice system.
You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
jgurney
Posts: 1257
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: UK Politics

Post by jgurney »

pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 5:09am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:01pm
pete75 wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 6:40pm If you're referiing to income tax fraudsters, they're totally diffeent to benefit fraudsters. Benefit fraud involves you taking others peoples money, income tax fraud involves stopping the state taking away your own money.
I don't agree with the distinctions at all .....
You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
There is a distinction between stealing someone else's money and preventing someone else stealing yours.

That is irrelevant here. Failing to pay due tax is not preventing someone else stealing your money, it is you stealing money from the state. Benefit fraudsters do exactly the same.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20255
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 5:09am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:01pm
pete75 wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 6:40pm

Most fraudsters, con men, teaming an dlading merchants, OAP rip off builders etc are dealt with through the criminal justice system.
If you're referiing to income tax fraudsters, they're totally diffeent to benefit fraudsters. Benefit fraud involves you taking others peoples money, income tax fraud involves stopping the state taking away your own money.
I don't agree with the distinctions at all. I do agree with the implication that sanctions should be asked via the justice system.
You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
Tax isn't "other people taking your money" it's the price we pay to live in society.

If you aren't paying your fair share, which should increase as your ability to pay increases, then you are stealing the benefits of society - because you aren't paying for them.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
pete75
Posts: 16659
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by pete75 »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 9:05am
pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 5:09am
roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:01pm

I don't agree with the distinctions at all. I do agree with the implication that sanctions should be asked via the justice system.
You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
Tax isn't "other people taking your money" it's the price we pay to live in society.

If you aren't paying your fair share, which should increase as your ability to pay increases, then you are stealing the benefits of society - because you aren't paying for them.
Depends how much tax you do pay. If you're paying more than the benefits you receive from society actually cost them you ain't stealing anything. Presumably using your logic folk receiving more than they're paying for are stealing the benefits of society.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 6648
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by roubaixtuesday »

pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 9:34am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 9:05am
pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 5:09am

You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
Tax isn't "other people taking your money" it's the price we pay to live in society.

If you aren't paying your fair share, which should increase as your ability to pay increases, then you are stealing the benefits of society - because you aren't paying for them.
Depends how much tax you do pay. If you're paying more than the benefits you receive from society actually cost them you ain't stealing anything. Presumably using your logic folk receiving more than they're paying for are stealing the benefits of society.
By this logic, tax evasion by the rich should not be a crime.

However, it is a crime.

As is benefits fraud.
gbnz
Posts: 2848
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

the snail wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 10:37pm
gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read today. So you think anyone who loses their job should have to give up their license and sell their car, thus making it harder to get to interviews, and limiting the jobs they can apply for? I've been asked how I will get to work at interviews before - if an employer thinks you will struggle to get to work, you won't get the job.
Hmm....the true motorist

Suppose people who base their lives around driving, can't comprehend basing their life around life itself, rather than driving

Bit like the modern day smart phone user, screams of distress "i can't get online, can't get online, what will I do........."
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20255
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 9:34am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 9:05am
pete75 wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 5:09am You don't think there's a distinction between taking other's money and stopping other's taking your own? Bizarre.
Tax isn't "other people taking your money" it's the price we pay to live in society.

If you aren't paying your fair share, which should increase as your ability to pay increases, then you are stealing the benefits of society - because you aren't paying for them.
Depends how much tax you do pay. If you're paying more than the benefits you receive from society actually cost them you ain't stealing anything. Presumably using your logic folk receiving more than they're paying for are stealing the benefits of society.
No, because if you only receive the benefit from society that you pay for then you aren't engaging in society - you want a capitalist anarchy.

A high earner will pay way more into the system than they take out, and that is beneficial to society - that's how it get's funded. There are those who can pay nothing into the system, and they obviously take more out than they pay in, and that is also beneficial to society. It is of benefit to the wealthy that people less fortunate are helped.

Paying your fair share doesn't mean paying for what you take out, but paying according to your means.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20255
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

gbnz wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 10:10am
the snail wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 10:37pm
gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read today. So you think anyone who loses their job should have to give up their license and sell their car, thus making it harder to get to interviews, and limiting the jobs they can apply for? I've been asked how I will get to work at interviews before - if an employer thinks you will struggle to get to work, you won't get the job.
Hmm....the true motorist

Suppose people who base their lives around driving, can't comprehend basing their life around life itself, rather than driving

Bit like the modern day smart phone user, screams of distress "i can't get online, can't get online, what will I do........."
The true evil dictator: "everyone must be able bodied and working 100+ hours a week", else you're not "productive" and can't be part of society.

You're digging deeper, and continuing to ignore the facts which have been presented to you.


Have you tried claiming universal credit without internet access?
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
gbnz
Posts: 2848
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 10:12am
gbnz wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 10:10am
the snail wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 10:37pm

Well, that's the stupidest thing I've read today. So you think anyone who loses their job should have to give up their license and sell their car, thus making it harder to get to interviews, and limiting the jobs they can apply for? I've been asked how I will get to work at interviews before - if an employer thinks you will struggle to get to work, you won't get the job.
Hmm....the true motorist

Suppose people who base their lives around driving, can't comprehend basing their life around life itself, rather than driving

Bit like the modern day smart phone user, screams of distress "i can't get online, can't get online, what will I do........."
The true evil dictator: "everyone must be able bodied and working 100+ hours a week", else you're not "productive" and can't be part of society.

You're digging deeper, and continuing to ignore the facts which have been presented to you.


Have you tried claiming universal credit without internet access?
Oh yes, had to submit claim in 2020 so called into the local DWP office (Nb. Was using a PAYGO internet access)

Do pensioners have to sign on? I had to "sign on" in 2020, will be horrible if I have to every few weeks as a pensioner. Cause I would walk or cycle it, not being a motorist
djnotts
Posts: 3582
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: UK Politics

Post by djnotts »

^
"Do pensioners have to sign on?"

I assume you know "no". Eligibility triggered by age and past work record. Thus cannot change.

I well recall signing at Leeds Labour Exchange every a.m. at 09.00 - NFA a pain!
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20746
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: UK Politics

Post by mjr »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:01pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 8:24pm From what I've heard about the current UK benefits system it isn't generous enough to finance a car.
Depends what car you're trying to pay for, and whether you already own it.
If you're just buying third party insurance, and VED, on a monthly basis - then there is the annual hit of an MOT (and the fear of any repair costs), but it's just fuel.
And that combination is often cheaper than public transport (which should be to the utter shame of government).
The above is not true where I live.

Insurance £20/month (third party on a 10 year old Ford Mondeo in an ex-council estate postcode near me), VED £19/month (band F, paid monthly), MOT £54.85/year so a bit under £5/month, servicing £250 with frequency depending on use so put £20/month by to try to cover this plus repairs which are probably a few hundred each hit, at random but more frequent as the vehicle ages.

So about £65/month plus fuel. And then there's any parking fees, depreciation, and much more.

An all-lines Lynx Bus adult pass is £83/month which would probably be cheaper, but in practice you'd probably buy a season ticket for your most-used line and occasionally area day passes as needed, which would be cheaper.

The problem with public transport is usually coverage and journey time, not cost. Too many lines start late, finish early and don't serve key destinations well. The bus operators know they're pricing against cars and are pretty sharp at competing on cost. A simple return to town is £1 more than the cheapest central parking, that will get blown away if you get sat in a jam burning fuel, and many would pay £1 for an extra 20 minutes each way not working on driving.

In a place with better transport such as Cambridge, passes cost more, but you'd also pay more for insurance, mechanics, fuel and parking. I expect London and Manchester and some others have big cost benefits to public transport if it serves your usual journeys.
Last edited by mjr on 24 Jan 2025, 10:47am, edited 1 time in total.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
mattheus
Posts: 5937
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: UK Politics

Post by mattheus »

cycle tramp wrote: 16 Jan 2025, 5:20pm People are concerned about the rise of the right... personally I seem it as a last gasp by angry white blokes, seeking to hold onto power before it is washed away from them by a tide of multicultural multifaith and otherwise diverse communities. Good. It is time, that our time is over before we utterly £*** everything up. Let's hit the 'evolve society' button move on with our lives and into something alot more equitable, colourful and exciting.
This seems a very strange post ... in the context of a country run by Patel, Sunak and Braverman.
gbnz
Posts: 2848
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

mjr wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 10:46am
The problem with public transport is usually coverage and journey time, not cost. Too many lines start late, finish early and don't serve key destinations well.
+ 1. Had to get to hospital back in September, couldn't risk the bicycle, so had a 25 mile walk to make the Sunday appointment. And it's always a nuisance, if on the bus stopping 11-12 miles away (Nb. Most stop just a 8 mile round walk away, so they're fairly convenient)

It's just a pity on renewing a bus pass in December, that a valid passport with 7 months left on, wasn't acceptable as ID, so had to replace the passport early, but , passport photographs taken professionally just 6 weeks back and declared acceptable and put on the new passport, aren't acceptable for a bus pass renewal, 2024 letter stating I'm on the electoral roll etc, etc, etc, isn't accepted as evidence of ID and or address, to renew a disabled bus pass,

Been without the pass since December, am hoping that I may have one before end of February / March, as can't always risk the bicycle (Nb. 44 mile round ride to the gym, far better than a bus ride c/w a disabled pass; bicycles far quicker, more reliable, one isn't left with a minimal 4 mile walk, 12 miles if the bus stops early (Nb. A1 dual carriageway will be far too windy today, a good 1.5 miles on a raised embankment. But if partially disabled, one has to travel (Nb. Was blocked from public sector gyms 2019 for being partially disabled, is a nuisance as that was just 0.75 mile a way, never mind, the 44 mile round ride to the private gym is pleasant, for anyone with a disability blocked from travelling in the UK. NB. Have finally stopped recycling orange juice containers, obviously was blocked from recycling such in the part of England I live in, for being partially disabled, 75 miles the most I was prepared to go, 90 miles or whatever, to Scotland, to recycle ? They now get binned)
pete75
Posts: 16659
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by pete75 »

mjr wrote: 24 Jan 2025, 10:46am
[XAP]Bob wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:01pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 8:24pm From what I've heard about the current UK benefits system it isn't generous enough to finance a car.
Depends what car you're trying to pay for, and whether you already own it.
If you're just buying third party insurance, and VED, on a monthly basis - then there is the annual hit of an MOT (and the fear of any repair costs), but it's just fuel.
And that combination is often cheaper than public transport (which should be to the utter shame of government).
The above is not true where I live.

Insurance £20/month (third party on a 10 year old Ford Mondeo in an ex-council estate postcode near me), VED £19/month (band F, paid monthly), MOT £54.85/year so a bit under £5/month, servicing £250 with frequency depending on use so put £20/month by to try to cover this plus repairs which are probably a few hundred each hit, at random but more frequent as the vehicle ages.

So about £65/month plus fuel. And then there's any parking fees, depreciation, and much more.

An all-lines Lynx Bus adult pass is £83/month which would probably be cheaper, but in practice you'd probably buy a season ticket for your most-used line and occasionally area day passes as needed, which would be cheaper.

The problem with public transport is usually coverage and journey time, not cost. Too many lines start late, finish early and don't serve key destinations well. The bus operators know they're pricing against cars and are pretty sharp at competing on cost. A simple return to town is £1 more than the cheapest central parking, that will get blown away if you get sat in a jam burning fuel, and many would pay £1 for an extra 20 minutes each way not working on driving.

In a place with better transport such as Cambridge, passes cost more, but you'd also pay more for insurance, mechanics, fuel and parking. I expect London and Manchester and some others have big cost benefits to public transport if it serves your usual journeys.
IME people without much money tend to service their cars themselves and do most repairs themselves often with scrapyard sourced parts, especially on something as basic as a Ford which probably still use points and coil ingnition and carburettors, except on the sporty models. Kept vehicles running for years like that when I was skintish.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Post Reply