Petrol price - the pin to pop the bubble?

Well why don't you go out and pick up some of those 'sticks' you are out in and use them for heating? Why waste a precious resource? :Rollseyes.

Oh and have you not heard of coal? It provides jobs for british people and it far cheaper when you take everything into account (the cost of 911 and the iraq war for starters).

I hope the price quadruples to teach u a lesson .

You only pay tax on NI is you are lower paid. The top earners pay zero NI above about 30,000 or whatever it is.

You've obviously been out of the country ;-) NI continues at 1% above the upper earnings limit, all the way to infinity. Even before it changed,

"aris" wrote

... and ask yourself: how much do *we* pay for the NHS?!!! :-((

We don't pay tax on NI. We pay both NI and income tax on our gross earnings. In truth NI *is* an income tax, and so, in the normal range, we pay 22% nominal income tax plus 11% NI, equals 33% real income tax.

Were we to "pay tax on NI", we'd pay an extra 22% on the 11%, bringing the total to 35.42%. As that clearly isn't what in fact happens, your sensationalist claim is manifestly untrue.

I can't vouch for its veracity, but there is some truth in it. An SUV uses what twice ... three times what a standard family car uses in petrol?

I heard it report on a R4 documentary about US politics and oil so I'd doubt if there wasn't _some_ truth to the rest.

Thom

No true (they've refused to comment) but if it were ... so what. No undemocratic pressure group should be able to force a change in taxation by threats. The truth is they just want to start a confrontation with the government ... if they wanted to get duty increase postponed they should have lobbied the government without threats.

Untrue. There is an indirect benefit via VAT and tax on oil and oil company profits. There are probably also indirect costs (e.g., reductions in profit and therefore tax on companies that use oil).

Thom

How can you make this proposterous claim. They are obviously completely different beasts.

For starters, IT is a tax on your gross pay and NI is a tax on your gross... umm..errr.. But the limits are compeltely different. The basic rate of IT goes up to 31401, whereas the basic rate of Class 1 NI goes up to a completely different basic limit (the Upper Earning Limit) of .. let me check.... 31700.. oh...errmmm

Anyway, the governement says NI is not IT, so it is obviously not!

:-)

Pete

So, do you think UK governments are democratically elected?

Bitstring , from the idiot half_pint said

Because of the lack of hypothecation, all government income is effectively "tax".

The typical ignorance of a selfish bastard.

There is the wealthy only pay 10% of the NI of a man on average earnings.

Where did you make that nonsense figure up from?

Actually, the seriously wealthy pay no NI at all, because they arrange their affairs so as not to have any earned income.

Still arrogance. Raising the tax may or may not be economically sensible, but it is not just boisterous, undemocratic demonstrators who have strong feelings.

Since I drove only 6,500 miles last year, it makes little direct difference to me. But farmers and rural residents will suffer.

North Sea oil prices are based directly on world market prices. Unlike in the USA, private landowners do not get the profit in royalties from oil taken from their land. The value of the oil is reflected, of course, in auction prices for offshore blocks. The system of imposition is more complex than the DTI's simplified explanation suggests:

I *know* you need to provide sources.

And here's one way such a myth could get started;

Switch of topic! I think we have a democratic system (albeit a flawed one).* I certainly think that the fuel protestors are being undemocratic in their methods.

Thom

• I'd give us about 6.5/10.

Fine, I'm happy for people to lobby, peacefully protest and so forth. I don't think that threatening illegal disruption is a sensible or democratic approach.

Farmers? People in rural communities that don't get cheap fuel will suffer (though I'd attribute that more to the running down of local public transport, and closure of local facilities over the last 30 years). In real terms public transport costs have doubled over the last

I was arguing with the term "direct". The increase in oil does boost government revenue, but that means more money available for tax decreases or improved services.

Thom

Okay, I'll accept that, but would you mind explaining what exactly is "sensationalist" about...

... and how I might have expressed it in more neutral language ?