Cycling UK Forum

That is just the cost of extraction and refinement. The raw materials are communal property and a limited resource. There should be a price paid by a user for the valuable crude oil that was taken to start with.
That natural resource is seriously undervalued and all state governments should make users pay much more for it.

pete75 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:

Psamathe wrote:I was rather shocked/disappointed today when 1st time for ages I had to get a prescription from my local pharmacy (tooth abyss/anti-biotic) and I went to pay and they said "no, you get them free". I queried this as there is no way I justify getting free prescriptions but they said because I am over 60 they are now free! 60 is not even government retirement age and with an NHS more than struggling in need of money to give me free prescriptions seems ludicrous. 60 still 5 years short of state pension age!

Ian

Plus One, a novel complaint

I should like to complain about fuel being too cheap when I fill up my vehicle, maybe I could donate some cash to the Authorities

A jest surely. Fuel should be about 50 pence a litre. The price is mad artificially high by taxation.

Not a jest at all
It should be much more expensive so driving is less attractive
Bet a few on here agree with me

Cyril Haearn wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Plus One, a novel complaint

I should like to complain about fuel being too cheap when I fill up my vehicle, maybe I could donate some cash to the Authorities

A jest surely. Fuel should be about 50 pence a litre. The price is mad artificially high by taxation.

Not a jest at all
It should be much more expensive so driving is less attractive
Bet a few on here agree with me

It's a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. My preference is for a progressive taxation system. Your views obviously differ.

meic wrote:That is just the cost of extraction and refinement. The raw materials are communal property and a limited resource. There should be a price paid by a user for the valuable crude oil that was taken to start with.
That natural resource is seriously undervalued and all state governments should make users pay much more for it.

The raw materials belong to whoever owns the mineral rights where they are extracted. The business extracting pays the rights owner so much for each barrel extracted. This is payment for the oil and makes up part of the price paid by the consumer thus the user is paying for the oil extracted.

Which is why I used the word should.

pete75 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:

pete75 wrote:
A jest surely. Fuel should be about 50 pence a litre. The price is mad artificially high by taxation.

Not a jest at all
It should be much more expensive so driving is less attractive
Bet a few on here agree with me

It's a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. My preference is for a progressive taxation system. Your views obviously differ.

Some folk will say anything.
Removing fuel tax is not creating a progressive tax system as most of the poorest dont run a car.
You can easily have a progressive system with high fuel tax as an element of it. You provide the progressive part by gathering your taxes based on wealth (easing the burden on the poor) or even giving to the poor. So they can keep the money for themselves if they dont burn the fuel.

Hi,

meic wrote:They are free for everybody on the right side of the border.

BUT how are they coping with running their health costs over the border?

Many years ago Scotland had worst heart health in whole EU, probably still have?
IIRC 1000 drug deaths in one year, education IIRC is not good either.
Scotland currently have worse GDP deficit than Greece and they still think that re-joining EU.................well start from scratch if they attempt independence................

pete75 wrote:
A jest surely. Fuel should be about 50 pence a litre. The price is mad artificially high by taxation.

Taxation to pay for free prescriptions for the subsidised states of the UK ............

BUT how are they coping with running their health costs over the border?

No idea, have you any idea how the budget is allocated on your side of the border?
Since devolution we dont have to compare our method of expenditure. It isnt difficult to afford free prescriptions because they are not free in England. The money here is spent as our government decides, not by looking over the border and having to justify any differences between the systems.

meic wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Not a jest at all
It should be much more expensive so driving is less attractive
Bet a few on here agree with me

It's a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. My preference is for a progressive taxation system. Your views obviously differ.

Some folk will say anything.

As your many posts on the Brexit thread indicate.

Any sales tax is regressive taxation.

meic wrote:

BUT how are they coping with running their health costs over the border?

No idea, have you any idea how the budget is allocated on your side of the border?
Since devolution we dont have to compare our method of expenditure. It isnt difficult to afford free prescriptions because they are not free in England. The money here is spent as our government decides, not by looking over the border and having to justify any differences between the systems.

Public spending in Wales is almost £15 billion per annum than is raised in taxes there so yes quite a bit of money goes from England to subsidise Wales.The Welsh parliament should be given the power to raise all tax within Wales. Along with that their expenditure should be limited to what is raised there. If the Welsh government decides prescriptions should be free that's fair enough but let them raise the money within Wales to pay for them.

I agree with you but sadly devolution was limited to certain areas only.

Any sales tax is regressive taxation.

Like luxury goods sales tax?
A SYSTEM can be very progressive with some regressive elements in it. The more successful the tax is in its purpose the less social impact it will have.

Psamathe wrote:Everybody I know was kept well informed of the increase in pension age so no complaints from me about it.

I know you don't know us personally, but my wife was completely unaware, and it came as a shock that all her working life, and domestic life too, she was going to get a pension at 60. Later as the rules changed, ie 65. This was well known nationally and she knew too.

Maybe you need to have a look at the WASPI pages.
https://www.waspi.co.uk

Go back in time, and when I reached pension age, Mrs Mick F would get 60% of mine when she reached 60. That would mean as a married couple we together would receive 160% of my pension. Latterly, they changed the rules, and each person married couples or not, had to have their own pension. Then, they increased the pension age for women to be the same as men. This is before the raising of the pension ages to 66.

These facts have radically altered our later financial life together with very little notice, or no notice at all. They never even sent us a letter about all this.
Married 45 years this month. Me 65, she 62.

Mick F wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Everybody I know was kept well informed of the increase in pension age so no complaints from me about it.

I know you don't know us personally, but my wife was completely unaware, and it came as a shock that all her working life, and domestic life too, she was going to get a pension at 60. Later as the rules changed, ie 65. This was well known nationally and she knew too.

Maybe you need to have a look at the WASPI pages.
https://www.waspi.co.uk

Go back in time, and when I reached pension age, Mrs Mick F would get 60% of mine when she reached 60. That would mean as a married couple we together would receive 160% of my pension. Latterly, they changed the rules, and each person married couples or not, had to have their own pension. Then, they increased the pension age for women to be the same as men. This is before the raising of the pension ages to 66.

These facts have radically altered our later financial life together with very little notice, or no notice at all. They never even sent us a letter about all this.
Married 45 years this month. Me 65, she 62.

Why would I want to spend my time looking at that web site. My comment is completely true. I received letters from the government, I received information from my employer. I received information from my private pension company. When I make plans for my future I check on variables rather than make assumptions.

Ian