You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's an interesting mutually exclusive double-think in Popular attitudes to the UK's place in the world, isn't there?
We're somehow expected to believe both that we are both succeeding as the fifth biggest economy but also utterly helpless when it comes to economic direction: both Britain and Bhutan. We're also expected to believe both that we are technical leaders and vital operators in the knowledge economy and human progress, but that any attempt to invest in technological advancement (for example in green tech) would be a waste of resouces better spent on incentives to the fossil fuel industry. It's almost always there in the view of Britain we are presented with: a duality of simultaneous triumphalism and hopeless dismalism.
I am reminded of W.B. Yeats' September 1913, written in the aftermath of the Dublin Lock-out. What is Britain good for if it keeps counting pennies on behalf of vested interests while the world burns?
Everyone who pays an electricity bill is already funding substantial subsidies for “green” electricity production.
Which is barking mad as the gas they want you to switch from is not only cheaper, but doesn't have a green levy attached!
The green levy should be attached to fossil fuels...
The difference being if we don’t drop litter in the UK we are litter free. We could cut our CO2 to zero and world CO2 would still go up.
If we went CO2 neutral in the UK we would export the enabling technology to the whole world. The alternative is that we import it after it has been developed elsewhere. We know it is going to happen anyway because the alternative is more expensive.
Yes, an extra 10p per litre of diesel or petrol sounds good to me.
That's slightly less than £5 billion.
That’s slightly less than £5 billion.
Pretty good then.
Yeah, let’s build a 5m concrete wall around the country and rebuild our entire water, energy and transport infrastructure. Easy peasy! It’s not like we don’t have a proven track record of building infrastructure quickly and on the cheap is it? Look at HS2 and Hinkley Point for instance, two amazing examples of how great we are at this sort of thing! 🙄
The Dutch did and it seems to be working.
We could do something’s for free but wwe aren’t. We could stop building on flood plains. We could mandate water companies to build more reservoirs that could capture more storm run off and make use of it rather than it just going into the sea via property. We could stop building on low lying or rapidly eroding parts of the coast. We could invest in tidal energy rather than covering the country with very inefficient solar panels.
Therre is plenty we could do, some of wouldn’t even cost anything just don’t give out the planning consent for example.
Context for today's £28bn kerfuffle
And from another perspective - the Covid-19 pandemic cost the UK government between £310 billion to £410 billion.
Anthropogenic climate change is far more serious and is, and will have, potentially devastating consequences for all species.
There is no issue more important.
Which is barking mad as the gas they want you to switch from is not only cheaper, but doesn’t have a green levy attached!
I did some consulting for a significant ground source heating company. Historically a large percentage of their order book came from the public sector. However that dried up because budgets became tight and many of them didn't really stack up financially. I was raising money for a particular project which we sorted but in my spare time I developed a simple financial evaluation model for them. They didn't enjoy the irony that high electricity price partly attributable to green subsidies was making ground source very difficult to sell. They have since gone bust.
They didn’t enjoy the irony that high electricity price partly attributable to green subsidies was making ground source very difficult to sell.
Yep a financial incentive not to go green....
Interesting to see how binary some of these responses are. In my household we do our best to live a relatively low carbon/impact life. We can afford to. It makes us feel like we’re doing our bit, blah blah, but why would it mean we also wouldn’t pay more tax to help the whole country use less carbon? I’d gladly pay an extra 5p in the pound if it went to insulating less well off people’s houses and replacing gas with zero carbon alternatives for instance. It’s just like any other socially progressive taxation - I benefit when everyone else does.
I suspect, and do hope, that the world will sort itself out soon. We all know that the only way to fix it is to remove most of the people. We are the problem. If Covid had been Ebola a start would have been made.
Thing is bol, many people are not happy to do that when the said people are making no efforts to help themselves. I know plenty of people with poorly insulated house who fly to Spain annually . Simple but it points to a unsolvable problem. Priorities.
The idea that 'there are too many people' has been categorically disproven for a long time. There are very few in environmental movements that support that view these days. Overconsumption by the few is the problem.
Mother Nature will decide if there are too many of one species. When she reaches her verdict however she can be very brutal and remorseless.
In principle I would pay if everyone has to pay, but in practice I don't think I'd be happy as even if the money was spent well it'd make next to no difference to this single atmosphere we share the the other 8 billion people.
Also where the money comes from aside, I guess there's only a certain amount of work that we can collectively do, so it's going to change by some (small in the scheme of things?) amount what work people do. They'll work on this instead of something else, e.g. some electricians do this now instead of wiring up new houses or coming round to fix your problem. So there will be negative side effects to this that might be felt more first-hand right now by people more than climate change.
I'm hopeful that Labour removing the 28bn promise is simply to make them more electable in the short term. Once they are in power they can return to it (with a different name to avoid accusations of flip-flopping).
But I had the same hopes for their stance on Brexit and I'm feeling much less confident that this is their plan. They may just end up being a slightly less nasty Tory party who achieve nothing and are replaced after one term.
It’s a no from me - I pay a ridiculous amount of tax already and draw nothing from the system. I’m nonplussed about climate change - anything I do to mitigate is a drop in the ocean until there is a wider global shift.
It’s a no from me – I pay a ridiculous amount of tax already and draw nothing from the system. I’m nonplussed about climate change – anything I do to mitigate is a drop in the ocean until there is a wider global shift.
So, in short, you don’t currently do anything and don’t want to do anything. It’s not your problem?
^^ even his text is on the right!
I’m nonplussed about climate change
What does that actually mean?
Are you saying you don't believe in climate change or that you don't care or that you don't like it? Seems like an odd use of the phrase 'nonplussed'...
I pay a ridiculous amount of tax already and draw nothing from the system
We all 'draw something from the system' simply by dint of living in the UK unless either you don't or you never use any sort of roads of other state-funded infrastructure, the NHS, the education system, take advantage of the existence of the police by not existing against a backdrop of genuine lawless anarchy - as opposed to the Daily Mail version - have your bins emptied etc.
Overconsumption by the few is the problem.
The few have become the many. And even before low consumption countries became high consumption countries we were over consuming and producing too much CO2 for the planet to absorb. 3 billion wasn't sustainable, 8 billion even less so.
We're not going to put a dent in it whilst we have the industrial machine going up and up in the likes of China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc, the US rarely change either, in the UK we are getting better at renewables, we are improving reduction of CO2, either by accident (steel industry demise) or on purpose (legislation and policy).
C an we improve, yes, will it mean much if the world still requires the same amount (or more) of materials and goods from elsewhere, and wars are still raging in Ukraine, Gaza, etc.
The problem with the situation is, we all live in one sphere, but we all work from different rules
In the ideal utopia of earth as a whole, we'd be overseen by our lizard overlords and every person on earth would have access to the same lifestyle etc
a doc i watched the other days stated that there is enough food on earth produced to feed every person 2000 odd calories a day, yet to our selfish human nature, parts of our world die from hunger, while others eat to excess and discard produce willy nilly.
It's most likely these same people that are starving that are also not the worst contributors to environmental damage.
Someone needs to take the reigns and lead by example, the more that do this the more will follow. If they don't then at least you are in a stronger position potentially when the world does go to complete pot. I'm a big believer that my children or maybe grand children will live in some sort of mad max type world, and i don't want that, it's my job as a father to help secure the future of my descendants.
Footflaps said that insulating on the inside would cost £35 000 and be distruptive. I did my house one room at a time for about a tenth of that, maybe a fifth in today's money. I'm building an extension at present and applying all I've learned. I took this pic of yesterday's work last night but it wouldn't post due to glitches which seem to have been fixed. The wall is insulating bricks then I add a wooden frame, fill all the gaps with insulation to reach the R number I want then finish with 21mm floor boards or plasterboard. Wood fibre on th eleft and cotton/lin/hemp on the right.
Properly insualted houses are lovely to live in. EVs are lovely to drive. Both cheaper in the long run IME. Energy isn't going to get cheaper.
Problem is that we as a world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we don't get our own house in order, we can't hold others to account, and frankly if everyone goes 'there's no point because China' then we are doomed.
I don't understand why Lab has abandoned its plans to insulate houses - this is an easy win as it saves CO2, saves money, and we have a lot of poorly insulated housing stock. As above energy isn't going to get cheaper.
. I know plenty of people with poorly insulated house who fly to Spain annually . Simple but it points to a unsolvable problem. Priorities.
It's not priorities, it's cost.
Retrofitting a poorly insulated house to modern standards costs £10ks, whereas you can fly to Spain for £50 return with RyanAir.
The payback on improving insulation is also pretty poor as gas is very cheap, eg we pay £800 a year to heat a 130 year old house with solid walls and massive underfloor cavities. And we're flying to the Canaries soon to go gravel biking (which is costing us less than a year's gas bill).
It's also not just the cost, if we retrofitted our house to be very energy efficient, the energy consumption of that work would take decades to pay back in terms of reduced CO2 from heating bills.
I don’t understand why Lab has abandoned its plans to insulate houses
Because the Tories can use the £28bn bill as a stick to beat them with - vote Labour, vote for higher taxes and woke green madness etc..
And also Starmer is completely spineless. Their poll lead is just enormous...
@argee - the idea that Russia, China and India are the problem is a fallacy. They produce more CO2 total than us but per capita the produce less than the UK, and crucially they're net exporters of their CO2 emissions. Meaning, most of the CO2 emissions they produce are used making stuff to export to us in the west. So it is our fault. If we consume less here, emissions in the east will go down.
If you look at CO2 adjusted for trade you can see that the UK is one of the worst countries in the world.
The problem is at our door, not another nation's. Action here, particularly on consumption of products and construction will lead to changes globally.
Disappointed this commitment is being dropped. It might be "unaffordable" (I think they mean painful) now but the way I see it, it just becomes more unaffordable or painful the longer we leave it. Labour seem to be subscribing to the idea that amazing, new and cheap tech will come rushing over the horizon on big white horses to save humanity. Hmm.
Footflaps said that insulating on the inside would cost £35 000 and be distruptive. I did my house one room at a time for about a tenth of that, maybe a fifth in today’s money.
So, where do we start.
1. I assumed you'd pay someone to do it, personally I just couldn't be arsed and don't have the time
2. I didn't say inside. We wouldn't be prepared to loose the space, plus we have a lot of bespoke furniture fitted to alcoves etc, all of which would need to removed, resized and refitted - that alone would be £1000s. Typical costs are just shy of £10k for external insulation in our area.
3. The main cost, for us, would be taking up all the floors, removing very expensive bespoke fitted furniture, insulating under the floor and refitting etc. We'd probably have to stay elsewhere when this took place.
4. We'd also need a heat pump and new HW tank, the latter would mean moving walls etc.
I've looked into it, it's far from cheap....
Yes, an extra 10p per litre of diesel or petrol sounds good to me.
Last year it was 20p+ a litre more expensive than it is currently.
That didn't stop me (or most people that aren't digging down the back of the sofa to put fuel in their car) from driving anywhere as it came to maybe an extra £20 a month.
In a less flippant and more relevant way, I already own, tax, insure a car - to then not use it because of a 5-10% increase fuel cost would be an idiotic financial decision. If I needed to forgo a luxury to afford the necessity in this case thats about 1 pub bought pint a week.
If I could replace every journey with bike/public transport etc then getting rid of the car would be good and cost effective. But if this journey will now cost £5.25 rather than £5 in the car sat waiting outside my house?
Also the irony of this comment on a thread "would you pay more" from someone (I beleive) with an EV which they got cheaply through a work scheme not available to the general population.
Their poll lead is just enormous…
But is pretty meaningless if every (more or less) news paper is going to run headlines about how Labour will cost you more money everyday until an election. Ever since Thatcher; every administration that has promised higher public spending has lost. May went from a pretty good majority to nearly losing an election in just 10 days when she suggested a plan to pay for adult social care...
We all ‘draw something from the system’ simply by dint of living in the UK
Yet we have a tax system that says the richer you are, once your not subject to PAYE, the less tax you have to pay as tax avoidance, offshoring and non dom status etc allow you to
Meaning, most of the CO2 emissions they produce are used making stuff to export to us in the west. So it is our fault.
So what shall we stop buying? How about mountain and gravel bikes as they are pure leisure items so just luxuries, would you be happy to see no more bikes made, no more components, so you can’t maintain your existing bikes. You can wave good bye to bike shops, magazines that rely on advertising for part of their revenue. Perhaps we should ban trail centres to discourage people travelling unnecessarily to just go and have fun.
perhaps we should start with EVs as it’s far from clear that they are green over thier lifetime. BMW announced they are ditching their development in favour of hydrogen as are Toyota so those EVs will be obsolete very soon. In any case it would be better if we all carried o using our existing cars rather than having new ones built.
Ever since Thatcher; every administration that has promised higher public spending has lost. May went from a pretty good majority to nearly losing an election in just 10 days when she suggested a plan to pay for adult social care…
Nearly lost an election to a party promising low public spending?
Btw May did lose an election, no party won the 2017 general election which is why the Tories were forced to form a minority government.
Meaning, most of the CO2 emissions they produce are used making stuff to export to us in the west. So it is our fault. If we consume less here, emissions in the east will go down.
@munrobiker That’s what I was saying 😁
yup, our luxury goods are big issues
as a westerner we expect cheap goods, cheap food, when realistically it's currently not sustainable
Im in my 40's, i remember my parents buying new tvs or video recorders, it was a big deal, in fact a lot of people would rent theirs, now we buy this kind of kit almost like a consumable item
So what shall we stop buying? How about mountain and gravel bikes as they are pure leisure items so just luxuries, would you be happy to see no more bikes made
@chrismac , your approach is a bit OTT but it's a good place to start. All those people stockpiling bargains from CRC, people who buy a new mountain bike every one, two, three or four years are part of the problem. Keep your bike going as long as possible and you'll minimise your environmental impact.
My new year's resolution this year, which I do every few years, is to not buy anything new unless there's no alternative. It's really easy. There's loads of secondhand stuff, and it focuses the mind on if you actually need something or not.
EVs are better than you make out but they're not good. Someone selling a five year old car and replacing it with a new EV is doing more environmental harm than good. So much of the emissions in cars are produced during manufacture. I think you have to do something like 60,000 miles in a Tesla to have a lower CO2 footprint than a small petrol car.
But cars aren't the answer. We have a problem and the car industry has answered with slightly different cars when the answer is actually moving away from cars and having great, cheap public transport and excellent bike routes. EVs are a sticking plaster, not the cure.
You have other priorities, Footflaps, that's fine. What isn't fine is justifications that simply don't hold up to examination, for example:
the energy consumption of that work would take decades to pay back in terms of reduced CO2 from heating bills.
The embeded energy in the recycled insulating materials available now is next to nowt.
On the space issue you are looking at 13cm/350cm minus the space your radiators occupy for a typcial room.
There is some honesty in your post though and for that I thank you, you are not alone in this:
personally I just couldn’t be arsed and don’t have the time
Someone selling a five year old car and replacing it with a new EV is doing more environmental harm than good
I agree with much of your post but the scenario seems a little bit more complex than that because the 5 year old car isn't destroyed. It is bought by someone selling a ten year old one etc etc until the one that eventually gets scrapped is 15 or 20 years old.
Now this becomes part of the problem because 15 year old cars still generally work pretty well and the surplus of them makes them cheap. And because they're cheap, people buy more of them. A lot of the households on my street have three or four cars. If they were expensive, this would not be affordable.
But again this is a complex issue because cars do actually help the economy by allowing people to get to places to work. My neighbour's eldest is studying aeronautical engineering at the airport, which isn't really accessible by public transport so they bought her a car. The solution of course is to run public transport to that location but that becomes expensive for a local authority to do.
There really is no solutino other than massive investment in public transport, but then, getting people to vote for that is the main challenge, and THAT is the problem that needs solving. "Getting people out of cars" isn't the answer, it's just the statement of the problem.
What isn’t fine is justifications that simply don’t hold up to examination
@edukator , when it comes to the environment, every bugger seems to have an excuse for why they aren't doing their bit and for almost everyone it's all fluff that means one of -
- "I can't be arsed"
-"I don't want to pay"
- "I don't understand the science so don't think climate change exists/I need to do anything "
But almost always, it's that they can't be arsed. And because of their laziness, the world will burn.
@molgrips - no one should be buying new cars. There are enough to go around. And if there were fewer secondhand cars available because people kept hold of their cars then they'd be forced to use alternatives.
personally I just couldn’t be arsed and don’t have the time
I'm happy to invest time and money in cost effective resolutions, but taking weeks off work (costing £10,000s) to spend my time gutting the house and living in a building site to save £600 a year on gas, just isn't one of them...
And if the expectation is that we all should takes weeks of unpaid leave to gut our own houses and renovate them, then I would suggest you might want to revisit that assumption....
The embeded energy in the recycled insulating materials available now is next to nowt.
Assuming you're paying someone to do it, the actual material costs of the insulation itself isn't significant in the overall cost. Things like a new Heat pump have quite a high embedded CO2 cost, which will takes a long time to pay back (if you only have a small gas bill in the first place).
no one should be buying new cars. There are enough to go around.
They do get crashed now and then, or rust away.
And if there were fewer secondhand cars available because people kept hold of their cars then they’d be forced to use alternatives
The alternatives need to be there first. You cannot simply wave your hand and ban new car sales. We just don't live in a society where that's possible, nor is it going to be possible.
And let's face it, new cars ARE expensive for most people. My old ones are costing me a fair whack to pay off and run, and that's money I'd much rather not be spending. And yet we still do spend it, because the alternatives aren't good enough. The only solution that stands a chance of working is much better PT.
The Welsh Government is trying this, they have put loads of money into rennovating train lines in SE Wales with new trains and more services. Driving down from the Valleys in the morning is a pain in the arse, so people are receptive to the idea - they just need to make it work. So we should al be watching this closely.
And let's not forget that there are benefits to newer cars. By all accounts the air quality in Havana is pretty bad because of all the old cars. So keeping old ones going indefinitely is probably not a good idea either.
or almost everyone it’s all fluff that means one of –
– “I can’t be arsed”
-“I don’t want to pay”
– “I don’t understand the science so don’t think climate change exists/I need to do anything ”
But almost always, it’s that they can’t be arsed.
No, in most cases they don't know how to actually solve it. My wife drives to work, she took the job because it's what she wanted to do with her life. There are jobs within walking distance, but they are either at a factory or a supermarket, either of which would be pretty grim; and not working would result in a much reduced standard of living if we could even afford it. People get trapped by society into taking the options that are available, which often involve car use. You can't just hand wave this all away. It is an extremely difficult problem to solve, and as I said before, the only thing we can really do right now is investment in public transport, and only the government can do that.
Someone selling a five year old car and replacing it with a new EV is doing more environmental harm than good.
It is very difficult to keep score on this though.
As you are selling your 5 year old car, someone is buying a five year old car. Especially in Britain where we are a closed system, all our near neighbours driving on the wrong side of the road.
Cars will eventually wear out and be beyond economic repair (improvements over the current set up are overdue, but a car will have a finite life whether in years or miles.). Therefore someone must buy new cars to replace them.
So to whom do you attribute the environmental cost of its construction?
The first owner fully? milking those rich enough for a new car for some more dosh, but everyones finances are limited to a point
split between the lifetime owners? basically and simplistically this what we do now with VED isnt it? everyone pays per year.
the person who throws in the towel and scraps it? overly harsh on poorer people with limited means hence driving an old banger in the first place
I'd like to see a tax imposed on people who write off a car (or cause one to be written off) prior to say 100k miles or 10 years as they are the ones being wasteful.
(And make sure it is paid out of pocket as a tax/fine not just tagged onto an insurance claim, or its just a new way for insurance companies to make more profit)
Cars will eventually wear out and be beyond economic repair
The only thing that determines wether it's beyond economic repair is the market value of the car. There's nothing stopping you replacing the gearbox on a 20 year old car, other than the fact you could buy something else for the money.
a car will have a finite life whether in years or miles
Not really - a car can technically be endlessly repaired one way or the other. We don't do this because of the availability of newer/better ones.
In terms of materials for insulating the walls which are the weakest link in many UK builds. For a 4mx4mx 5m box you have 16x5 = 80m2, say 70m2 without the windows and doors
120mm wood fiber panels 14e/m2
Wood, screws, all thread... to make and fix the wooden frame 10e/m2
Finishing - floor boards plus varnish/paint is around 20e/m2. Plasterboard is cheaper if you are not worried by the emebed energy in plasterboard.
So 44e/m2 x 70m2 = 3080e.
That will no doubt vary with your local prices and paying in pounds but given your gas bill a saving of 300e a year saving is realistic and would pay back in 10 years. Insulate well enough and you no longer need central heating, that means no more boiler, no more maintainance contract, even more space freed off. For that you'd need to insulate under the floor too and having done it it's a step too far for most DIYers unless there's an easy access sanitary space with room to move around.
Again, excluding any labour and any extra costs associated with having to move things like radiators / electrics. So totally unrealistic unless you're unemployed and have lots of spare time on your hands and all the tools etc...
What worked for you just doesn't scale....
Undoubtedly taking positive steps are positive steps, so where opportunties present themselves in our country we should take them to reduce out footprint per capita.
The reality is though that the impact on global climate change will be minimal - minor changes in our lives are mere baby steps in the right direction.
The only thing that determines wether it’s beyond economic repair is the market value of the car. There’s nothing stopping you replacing the gearbox on a 20 year old car, other than the fact you could buy something else for the money.
where are you finding a 20 year old gear box, is it NOS, or has it come out of another scrapped car?
Having your vehicle potentially spill its guts on the road, then being without it while you (or a garage) sources and installs a major component is about where I draw the line of "practical transportation".
I don't truly know how to define it but the principle is in 2024 I expect my car to work every time I get in it if I follow the manufacturer's service schedule; obey the car's computer when it flags up any faults; and apply a bit of mechanical sympathy to diagnosing any minor issues myself.
Beyond that it becomes impractical for the normal owner and only really tolerated by the hobby mechanic with more than one car; or if the car is particualrly special or valuable.
Time is funny thing, I find that if I want to achieve something I find/make the time. Someone on here related his father getting home from work and laying a couple of rows of bricks a day. I work like that. I find that when I'm active it's a virtuous circle, I'm more likely to find time to nip down the pool instead of taking a lunch break and eat on the walk back , fit in a jog before work... . (Edit: Madame's colleagues and students are often amused by her arriving at the last minute with wet hair and stuffing a sandwich in her mouth) And then there are days when I can't be arsed and I don't wory about it. Today is one, but an order is arriving at the DIY store at 13:45 so that'll get me back into action.
Radiators sell second hand and copper is always saleable, it'll help recover some of the cost.
Nope. I pay enough tax already to fund other people. In 30 years I’ll be dead, I’d rather keep the cash for myself.
maybe those that have more of a stake in the future of the planet should pay instead. Ie a tax on children. It’s their kids the planet needs saving for, and it’s their kids who’ll be a burden on our planet, both now and in the future.
I rarely drive, barely ever fly, recycle and live in an energy efficient home. I already do my bit.
Beyond that it becomes impractical for the normal owner
Only because we've become used to having the moon on a stick.
I pay enough tax already to fund other people.
Do you? How do you know what 'enough' is? Are you actually paying it, or is it just a number on a payslip?
As tpbiker isn't super rich I suspect he does pay enough tax to fund other people.
Calls to tax the little people to pay for whatever is like Bono or Bob telling audiences to "give us your ****ing money". Now how much of their own money have those two given? much less than they've made from the publicity I suspect. And how much tax for the benefit of all would they have paid with a fairer tax system and without tax evasion and tax havens. Quite apart from the scandalously low amount of the cash raised that reached poor Africans and sums that reached armed rebels.
I was sceptical about Baid Aid from the outset, didn't buy the record and got flak form mates over my synicism, unfortuneatly I was right. I'm equally sceptical about a tax to fund a green revolution and think people would be better doing something themselves, just as as suggested giving the local down and outs some cash rather than Band Aid..
no one should be buying new cars.
So lets think that through. So no new car sales in the Uk from a specified date. How many additional ones would be bought i the run up to that date? We are going to change our boiler early whilst we can still have another gas one.
we are then going to have thousands of unemployed people from the motor industry as all the factories shut as who would have a factory in the Uk if you can’t sell the product here? Production moves somewhere else and another factory is built to replace the one that is abandoned in the UK as the UK is a net exporter of cars.
So ow we have destroyed the sector, increased emissions globally moving production elsewhere and what is the net impact on global emissions in reality? The number of cars in circulation won’t drop meaningfully for at least a decade and as the vast majority still run on fossil fuels that wont go down as no one can buy an alternative.
Do you? How do you know what ‘enough’ is? Are you actually paying it, or is it just a number on a payslip?
of course I’m paying it, because if I wasn’t I’d be about £2000 quid better off a month in my account. And I’ll tell you how I know it’s enough… last month I managed to spend my entire pay check on bills and food. I have a good job and I work hard, yet I save nothing. And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..
im more than happy to pay tax, but I’m pretty sure when I find myself having to dip into my meager savings anytime I want to treat myself to something nice, despite earning a decent salary, that I’m probably paying enough already.
of course I’m paying it, because if I wasn’t I’d be about £2000 quid better off a month in my account
If tax were phased out, do you think everyone would be £2,000 richer? Or would employers simply start paying us less, because they knew we'd get more take-home? Your level of compensation is based on what your post-tax salary buys, so the pre-tax number is pretty irrelevant to you. It's how the government cools down the economy to stop it overheating. They could abolish income tax but make employer's NI the same amount, your employer would end up paying you the same amount as your after-tax salary but yay, no tax.
last month I managed to spend my entire pay check on bills and food
That's because the economy is ****ed up, it's not because you pay tax. It's not like public services are swimming in tax. The school my wife works at cannot buy any more PAPER for the rest of the year so now tell me that we (collectively) are taxed enough and there's plenty of money to fund things that are needed. Or is it just you personally that pays enough tax, and everyone else has to pay more?
And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work..
****'s sake, how ignorant and self-centred can you be? You benefit from other people's tax all the time. Those other people's kids you resent educating will grow up to contribute to the economy in which you may still work - or if not, they will pay your pension.
Sure, I don't support fighting other people's wars, unless they are the innocent victims of tyranny, perhaps, and need help - but those are political decisions, and we still need tax.
Nope. I pay enough tax already to fund other people.
(Here we go again!)
No you don't. You pay tax to maintain prices at roughly the level they're at now. I presume you don't want runaway inflation? Well the only way to avoid that is for everyone to pay taxes. Of course there's a debate to be had about the relative amounts of tax people should pay based on income and wealth. If you're saying that working people like us pay too much and the rich and corporations pay too little then I completely agree. The question though is would you vote for a political party which proposes higher taxes for the rich? Past elections have shown that people who think they pay too much tax generally vote for the party which supports lower taxes for the rich.
It gets a bit boring but it's worth repeating again because clearly ignorance of how govt finances work is entrenched. The taxes you pay do not fund anything. The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things. The only thing your taxes do is maintain the balance between money created by the Bank of England and the money which exists in the economy. Without taxes we'd have hyperinflation and the money system wouldn't work.
If tax were phased out, do you think everyone would be £2,000 richer?
If taxes were phased out the economy would collapse as money would have no value.
< delete post because dazh has covered it all >
The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things
Yes it does. Every month I do a back transfer to the government for employees income tax payments, national insurance, each quarter the VAT and annually the corporation tax. It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
"Beyond that it becomes impractical for the normal owner"
Only because we’ve become used to having the moon on a stick.
A reasonable assumption in a first world country in the modern era? not just cars, any transport. A commuter bike (electric or not) and public transport I would apply similar logic. It needs to be there, and work, 100% of the time to be considered fit for purpose.
Not averse to paying money for this, not averse to putting effort in in preventative maintainence for this, not averse to learning new skills to be able to acheive this.
Oh, alright then...
The government spends money and takes money back. Inflation and devaluation would be rife otherwise (and also money would become EVEN MORE concentrated in the hands of some). This is not the same as taxes paying for services... but it does mean that the balance between money in, money out, and money shifted/borrowed/giltbonded all needs managing to avoid decline and poverty even worse than that already endured by many in this country.
It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
FFS of course the govt has a bank account into which taxes go. The point is that money is not used to pay for things. The govt pays for things with new money, and then removes money from the economy later by collecting taxes. Sounds pedantic but the key point is that they do not have to raise money through tax before it is spent on public services.
If taxes were abolished overnight we'd all be richer temporarily, but our biggest outgoing is probably the most elastic. Rents and house prices are purely based on affordability i.e. what we can afford, and they would shoot up almost overnight be auae suddenly everyone's got more money. So you wouldn't be richer; landlord and landowners would.
It is real money going from the company bank account to the government bank account.
Government has a few bank accounts at the BoE (Collectively known as the Central Funds.)
The Consolidated Fund though is the government's main current account. It starts everyday at zero. It cannot accumulate money at the end of the day as it's a credit system for 'reserves' or base money delivered to the commerical banking system for payments into state services (Into the PMG account which makes the payments.)
There is an HMRC (tax receipts) account a the BoE. The HMRC acc is 'swept' at the end of the day to zero also. The HMRC Balance DOES NOT transfer to CF account to be spent or accumulated the next day for example but to simply offset the balance which can either be negative or positive. The spending position takes place from a zero balance.
"The end-of-day consolidation of all Exchequer accounts at the BoE is known as the Exchequer Pyramid sweep (or just Exchequer sweep) and results in all balances (positive or negative) being consolidated into the Central Funds and ultimately the NLF, which is used to assess the net Exchequer position and thus indicate how much liquidity the DMO should offset by selling/buying gilts with the private sector to neutralise the day’s fiscal impact on reserves in the banking system."
" in regard to the sequencing of public financing and liquidity risk, the analysis in Section 3 shows there is no requirement for a provisioning of money balances through taxation and ‘borrowing’ activities to occur before government spending can be undertaken. As such, there are no circumstances whereby it can be said that the government has ‘insufficient money’ for expenditure to be able to take place or that the government is at risk of ‘running out of money’. Indeed, one of the fundamental organising principles of the UK Exchequer is for the accumulation of cash balances to be minimised. Instead, all spending arises via the creation of new monetary assets and this process is independent of tax and securities dealing activities. The upshot, which HM Treasury (2020) acknowledges, is that there is no aspect of the government's banking arrangements which can prevent government expenditure from being realised once it has been authorised by Parliament."
Taxation first and foremost is to create a demand for your government's currency.
I.E You need to earn pounds to pay your taxes.
( and currency is a way for the government to provision itself.)
Rich people don't also understand (perhaps don't need to) without a reasonable taxation system the value of their wealth would decrease.
I spent a year doing an economics option entitled "The British tax system". The conclusion to the year was that is a fair tax sytem is a progressive one based on ability to pay and the British one has got it all arse about face because it is precisely the opposite. The richer you are the smaller the proportion of your income ulimately ends up as tax and tax on wealth is negligible. Earned income is taxed more than non-earned income etc. etc. Tpbiker is exactly the kind of person who is absolutely knobled by the British tax system, as everything he does beyond breathe is taxed.
I think people would have a more positive attitude to tax if the system was seen to be fair and genuinely progressive.
The insulating materials I've just picked up from the DIY store have 20%VAT on them, will that do for my green tax this month?
Your level of compensation is based on what your post-tax salary buys, so the pre-tax number is pretty irrelevant to you
well straight away why do I not get paid more than my colleagues in England then, given I pay more tax?
****’s sake, how ignorant and self-centred can you be? You benefit from other people’s tax all the time. Those other people’s kids you resent educating will grow up to contribute to the economy in which you may still work – or if not, they will pay your pension.
pipe down you judgemental fud. I never said I resent paying taxes, nor resent paying for educating your kids. I’m happy to pay tax. I never even claimed I was paying too much. All I said was I feel I’m paying enough already given I work my arse off and at the end of the month I’ve spent every penny I’ve earned, without having much to show for it. But because I express an opinion you feel brave enough to start calling me self centered and ignorant from behind your keyboard….
Past elections have shown that people who think they pay too much tax generally vote for the party which supports lower taxes for the rich.
perhaps in general, however I’ve only voted labour and snp so doesn’t really apply to me..
Always worth remembering that very few people pay so much tax that they are in deficit to what the government/councils et al pay for them. Roads, police , hospitals , pensions (hah!), benefits all cost money all the time and you only need to get one trip to the hospital and that's a big bill.
Call it a green revolution, or call it investment for the future.
I never said I resent paying taxes, nor resent paying for educating your kids.
It really sounded like it.
All I said was I feel I’m paying enough already given I work my arse off and at the end of the month I’ve spent every penny I’ve earned, without having much to show for it.
That's not because of the amount of tax you pay though.
I never said I resent paying taxes
"And what does my tax go on…funding wars, funding ridiculous government schemes, funding council amenities I never use, paying for schooling for other peoples kids, paying benefits for people who can’t or won’t work.."
🤔
Another exercise on that economics option was waorking out the true levels of taxation at different levels of income. Things have changed a bit but not much:
Taxes on income:
NI and income tax, don't forget things the employers pays on you behalf. If you do a job you need to include the tax on the the things that enable you to do the job that you wouldn't other wise do or need.
Taxes on where you live. TV license, council tax, the tax on standing charges, the tax part in your water and sewage, refuse taxes...
Taxes on spending which is where it gets interesting because apart from the VAT there's a considerable amount of tax embedded in most everything you buy. That insulation I bought, every stage in its production and transport was taxed and everyone who touched it was taxed, and then they added VAT which is hardly an incentive to insulate my home. If I paid a professional he'd get the VAT back but only if insulation were the only job (same in UK). If he repaired the roof and insulated at the same time he'd have to charge full rate VAT on all the job.
I can't remember the detail but for people who smoked, drank, ran a car and lived in rented accomodation something like 90% of the money they cost their employer ended up in tax.
An extra tax won't help the planet but a fairer tax system and a fairer use of it might.
It would be a lot easier off all people saw was their net income, that is what you really earn. The amount of tax of top of it is irrelevant, you are taking your net income from the system and some take more than others which is where the questions should be rather than what people give to the tax system.
FFS of course the govt has a bank account into which taxes go.
@dazh to quote your earlier post “The govt does not have a bank account into which taxes go and are then spent on things”
That money might well get swept in to central funds every night but it also gets spent as real money paying supplier and employees of the government. I’m sure and sortfall gets borrowed hence net receipts being published each month.
The mistake people like tpbiker make is associating the tax they pay with what the govt spends and does. The two things are completely independent. If people understood this simple point then the whole debate about what the govt does and the money it spends would be completely different. Instead of it being focused on whether we can afford it, it would be focused on whether it is worth it. Any objective and rational assessment of whether it's worth spending money on avoiding catastrophic climate change would conclude that it is indeed worth it. What have we got to lose?
What have we got to lose?
We spend a shit load of money and it makes absolutely no difference in the big global problem.
Yes, I would pay more. However as mentioned above there are many millions who wouldn't or can't.
Until something affects them personally, a wild fire, home flooding, not enough food on the shelves or prices being ridiculously high for everyday goods, then most people don't give a flying fig about climate change.