Subsidising motorists

[CREPELLO]

Isn't 100% fuel tax the best way to go? With limited concessions/rebates for those defined as vulnerable. For those living in rural areas, a change over period could be allowed to ensure that those heavily dependent on car use could modify their behaviour ahead of the tax change over.

I'm not clear what you mean about 100% fuel tax. The tax on fuel is already over 100% of the cost of the fuel.

http://www.petrolprices.com/price-of-petrol.html

If you mean abolishing as many fixed taxes as possible, like excise duty, purchase duty on vehicles, insursance premium tax etc and placing an equivelent amount on fuel so that the use of a car is taxed more than the ownership of a car then I agree it is the way forward..

Sorry. Badly worded. Yes to your definition above.

[CREPELLO]

*But somehow not let the taxi's/mini cabs become the default car-less travel option.

Actually, even that would be preferable to the status quo. In the US more land is occupied by parking than by roads. Parked cars are a blight second only to moving ones.

In the event of minicabs becoming the default car-free option, what would be needed, though, would be increased traffic policing and better regulation. There is too great an incentive for minicabs in particular to drive faster in order to get the next fare more quickly. The Hansom cabs here are generally driven OK, but the private hires are often among the worst on the road.

Any measure which made all costs of motoring marginal would be the greatest discouragement to unnecessary journeys. Fact is, once you've bought, taxed, and insured a car the marginal cost of use is almost always less than the bus or train fare.

When I got rid of my car I made a calculation of how many taxis I could afford with the savings, envisaged signing up to one of those car-share schemes (there's two cars 400 yards from my door), and thought I would hire a car whenever needed, while still saving thousands. In the event I have made five taxi journeys and rented a car for two days in total in seven months, largely because the purely marginal cost is so dissuasive.

Graham

Considering the shear number of taxis in central London contributing towards pollution and congestion, they are not the best way forward for a modal shift away from cars. They also compete too directly with cycle use in more than one way.

[irc]

In your case you're obviously delusional.

I don't think being insulting advances your argument.

In the west money and status go hand in hand, being social creatures means we're well aware of our social standing and in this society most are well aware that they barely register and that a lack of status means no voice and having no voice is what makes people unhappy, once you feel you have no control over your life it's hard to feel any other way.

Lack of status? We all get one vote. In my local council the last lot lost something like 3/4 of their councilors at the election after pushing an unpopular policy. This was because locals (not politicians) without the "status" of councilors campaigned against them. If you believe that "a man's a man for a that" then the fact people in some postions have more power matters not. We can't all be leaders. At the end of the day if politicians don't keep the electorate happy then they get kicked out. They are only in their position with our consent.

As for social standing? I don't buy that. As Burns said "The man o' independent mind, He looks an' laughs at a' that. " You only have lower social standing if you believe it when others tell you that you have.

[Malaconotus]

Your argument would imply that if the majority of the population earned (for example) £100'000 a year power they would be still unhappy if this left them below average earnings. I think that is their problem. If your happiness depends on perceiving yourself as wealthier or in some other way better or of higher status than the average of the population that is a character flaw IMO.

If it is a character flaw then it is one that a vast number of studies have shown the vast majority of people to have. Psychologists and Economists are generally agreed that people on the whole would prefer to earn £60,000 in a society with an average wage of £50,000 than earn £80,000 in a society where the average wage is £100,000.

Of course you may be one of these exceptions to this population-level rule. And that is a very good exception to be, because those whose happiness is not wealth or status-dependant are generally happier. The old saying that one should count one's blessings is one of the wisest. But you are in a minority to which the majority can never belong. It is human nature, and structuring a society which denies this nature is not going to make people happy. As the rich get richer, the poor get miserable.

As a society, our subjective happiness peaked in the 1970s just as the US did in the 1950s. Beyond what has become a modest level of income, people's subjective well-being is dependent of relative, and not absolute, wealth.

Graham

[kwackers]

I don't think being insulting advances your argument.

You can't be insulting with fact. If you believe against all the evidence that we all have equal say then you're kidding yourself - hence delusional.
As for "one man, one vote". In a country where the government is picked on the results of a handful of marginal seats, where entire sections of the voting community have no say whatsoever it's so painful as to not even be funny.

As for social standing? I don't buy that. As Burns said "The man o' independent mind, He looks an' laughs at a' that. " You only have lower social standing if you believe it when others tell you that you have.

Of course the reason that people approach celebs and folk of power to advertise or further their cause is because celebs and important people don't have social standing... Recommendations by celebs are roundly ignored, business leaders don't have more say than you or I.
A couple of words from the right person can hinder or help a cause beyond what 10's of thousands of 'ordinary' folk could do - that's all to do with social standing. It's no small wonder that we live in a celebrity obsessed world.

Of course you can deny this as much as you like, the effect is real, is continually monitored and has a large amount of work done to try and study the why's and wherefores. It also has a marked effect on society since powerless people kick back, usually in crap and pathetic ways but those millions of small kicks make somewhere just a bit less pleasant to live in.

[hubgearfreak]

As for "one man, one vote". In a country where the government is picked on the results of a handful of marginal seats, where entire sections of the voting community have no say whatsoever it's so painful as to not even be funny.

it's worse than that kwackers.
of those few floating voters, in a few marginal seats - most are making their decisions based on incomplete knowledge - or a pack of lies from a foreign billionaire madia tycoon via The Sun.

[Vorpal]

Social standing? Who runs the country?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12282505

[irc]

I don't think being insulting advances your argument.

You can't be insulting with fact. If you believe against all the evidence that we all have equal say then you're kidding yourself - hence delusional.
As for "one man, one vote". In a country where the government is picked on the results of a handful of marginal seats, where entire sections of the voting community have no say whatsoever it's so painful as to not even be funny.

I think you miss the point. We are all of equal worth. Some people are in positions where they have more power or influence. I still don't see why that should affect my happiness. I live in a nice area with nice neighbours. My family have no serious problems of any kind. I have sufficient money. I can within reason do anything and go anywhere I want . Why on earth would I be unhappy because someone was more powerful than me. I feel no less worthy because I am not powerful or influential. I don't need other people's approval to be happy.

IME ambitious people are often less happy as they are so focussed on getting up the next step on the ladder they can not enjoy the place they are.

But if being happy despite not being powerful or influential is delusional then so be it.

[[XAP]Bob]

But if being happy despite not being powerful or influential is delusional then so be it.

Better to be delusional and happy than not delusional and unhappy

[kwackers]

I think you miss the point. We are all of equal worth.

Not at all. Your point is a theory that is easily disproved. We're not all of equal worth at all, we weren't when we were born and we'll spend the rest of our lives not being equal either.

Some people are in positions where they have more power or influence.

And someone with more power or influence is equal to someone with none? I think you'll find society doesn't work like that.

I still don't see why that should affect my happiness. I live in a nice area with nice neighbours. My family have no serious problems of any kind. I have sufficient money. I can within reason do anything and go anywhere I want . Why on earth would I be unhappy because someone was more powerful than me. I feel no less worthy because I am not powerful or influential. I don't need other people's approval to be happy.

And this is where you miss the point, you're continually talking about *you*, it's not about you or me. It's about society in general. Your description of your life equally applies to mine the only difference between us is I'm prepared to accept that a large percentage of society isn't happy and rather than dismiss that as some form of mental illness I want to know why and how I (preferably we) can change it. Unhappy societies are broken societies, mine and your little oasis of happiness doesn't change that.

[Nutsey]

As for "one man, one vote". In a country where the government is picked on the results of a handful of marginal seats, where entire sections of the voting community have no say whatsoever it's so painful as to not even be funny.

it's worse than that kwackers.
of those few floating voters, in a few marginal seats - most are making their decisions based on incomplete knowledge - or a pack of lies from a foreign billionaire madia tycoon via The Sun.

Did you complain like this when those papers backed Labour? Serious question.

[meic]

We are all of equal worth?

I am worth half of a teacher or nurse
or a fifth of a headteacher
or a tenth of a Judge, GP or Dentist
or a twentieth of a cabinet minister (ignoring private income)
or a hundredth of a lower CEO
or a five-hundredth of a head banker
or a thousandth of a footballer.

Our modes of transport (and energy consumption) tend to reflect our worth as you go up that scale. Not my original idea, I think Ivan Illich started it.

[irc]

I think you miss the point. We are all of equal worth.

Not at all. Your point is a theory that is easily disproved. We're not all of equal worth at all, we weren't when we were born and we'll spend the rest of our lives not being equal either.

I disagree. Some people may think they are worth more but they are not. I judge people by their values and behaviour not their place in society. I don't consider anyone better or worse than anyone else until they prove it by their behaviour. We don't have equal money or power but those things are not important to me.If you think someone is worth more than you because they are richer or more powerful that is your problem.

And this is where you miss the point, you're continually talking about *you*, it's not about you or me. It's about society in general. Your description of your life equally applies to mine the only difference between us is I'm prepared to accept that a large percentage of society isn't happy and rather than dismiss that as some form of mental illness I want to know why and how I (preferably we) can change it. Unhappy societies are broken societies, mine and your little oasis of happiness doesn't change that.

I've talked about me as an example. I don't live in any oasis. Most people in this country have a decent standard of living. If there is a large percentage of people who are unhappy I don 't blame that on their position in society. It is their mental attitude. Almost everyone in this country has won the lottery in life. They weren't born 150 years ago before proper healthcare and sanitation when a substantial percentage died in childhood. They live in one of the richest countries in the world. People can change national or local govts by voting. But if people are going to measure their happiness by comparing what they have in terms of possessions and power with what other people have then theree is always going to be unhappy people because you will never get a society that is equal in those terms.

Anyway I'd be interested to see how happy or unhappy you think the population is. Any references?

I think the problem is people's attitude.

" Lord Layard has suggested that unhappiness results from society viewing how it is developing in terms of a zero sum game. What he means by this is that we might increasingly view the scramble to gain money and status in terms of a competitive game that has a winner and a loser. If I get a high ranking job with a large salary and lots of status, it means that you somehow lose out - either by not being able to get that same job or in some sort of psychological way. Such a perception of life being a zero sum game is, Layard suggests, the source of much unhappiness. "

http://www.bized.co.uk/current/mind/2006_7/080107.htm

I'm actually find it hard to understand why anyone let's comparisons with other people's position affect their happiness but obviously some do. How to change those attitudes? Who knows.

[irc]

We are all of equal worth?

I am worth half of a teacher or nurse
or a fifth of a headteacher
or a tenth of a Judge, GP or Dentist
or a twentieth of a cabinet minister (ignoring private income)
or a hundredth of a lower CEO
or a five-hundredth of a head banker
or a thousandth of a footballer.

Our modes of transport (and energy consumption) tend to reflect our worth as you go up that scale. Not my original idea, I think Ivan Illich started it.

They are not worth more they just earn more.

[Nutsey]

Happiness and health go hand in hand, as proved by studies into the area of the world where people are most likely to live to over 100 years. Does correlate with wealth, but not as much as you think. its more about social structure and how we treat old people - or more importantly how old people treat themselves. Booze, nuts, and light exercise helps too, oh and believing in god.