PDA

View Full Version : VOT! Would you pay up to $3.00 for every mile you drive on the road?



Mysticpuma2003
03-09-2007, 06:04 AM
I would love to hear what the World thinks of the latest initiative for the drivers of the UK.

At the moment Tony Blair, even with 2,000,000 people signing a petition against it, wants to create a pay-as-you-drive system, so that for every mile you travel on the road (on top of your fuel and insurance costs), you will pay a set fee, per-mile, and depending on the Time of Day and location you travel.

Can you see how it's already looking logistically a nightmare?

So a person who works in the city centre and travels a 40 mile round trip, and in the period 8.00am until 10.00am would pay up to $3.00 per mile, per day!

Each day you could effectively pay $120 for the privilege of going to work!

The reason. They want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport.

Now while that's commendable, they haven't invested anything in the transport system for all the years they have been in power, so they want people to pay their car insurance and then leave it at home and pay to go on a bus/train that at the moment don't turn up, don't run on time, are overcrowded and have frequent robberies and other crimes.

They say that the money they get from taxing motorists will go to improving the transport system????? Hang on! They are admitting that it needs improvement, but they want to introduce the tax BEFORE they improve the transport, meaning that motorists have to go on the substandard and antiquated public transport we have now. Well thanks very much!

But how can this work? If all the motorists go onto public transport, the Government can't raise money from the motorists traveling on the road, because there wont be any, so there wont be any money to invest on the public transport!

Why am I ranting.

I live near Birmingham in the UK, and we are to be one of the first city's to trial the system.

Plans are for every motorist to buy a car tracking device (out of their own pockets) so the Government can see how many miles and what your location was when you traveled. It will be seen as an offense if you do not have one fitted.

How they can regulate that, heaven only knows, as there will be drivers entering the city from all over the country!

So would you pay $3.00 per-mile, per-day for the privilege of going to work?

They don't allow either for the fact that an average worker takes home $30,000 per-annum, and yet, working 22 day per month a worker could end up paying $2,640 per month to get to work.Multiply that by 12 and you have $31,680.

So, workers wont go to the city's the economy will suffer, businesses will close.....etc,etc.,

Man, who ever called it 'GREAT' Britain!

Mysticpuma2003
03-09-2007, 06:04 AM
I would love to hear what the World thinks of the latest initiative for the drivers of the UK.

At the moment Tony Blair, even with 2,000,000 people signing a petition against it, wants to create a pay-as-you-drive system, so that for every mile you travel on the road (on top of your fuel and insurance costs), you will pay a set fee, per-mile, and depending on the Time of Day and location you travel.

Can you see how it's already looking logistically a nightmare?

So a person who works in the city centre and travels a 40 mile round trip, and in the period 8.00am until 10.00am would pay up to $3.00 per mile, per day!

Each day you could effectively pay $120 for the privilege of going to work!

The reason. They want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport.

Now while that's commendable, they haven't invested anything in the transport system for all the years they have been in power, so they want people to pay their car insurance and then leave it at home and pay to go on a bus/train that at the moment don't turn up, don't run on time, are overcrowded and have frequent robberies and other crimes.

They say that the money they get from taxing motorists will go to improving the transport system????? Hang on! They are admitting that it needs improvement, but they want to introduce the tax BEFORE they improve the transport, meaning that motorists have to go on the substandard and antiquated public transport we have now. Well thanks very much!

But how can this work? If all the motorists go onto public transport, the Government can't raise money from the motorists traveling on the road, because there wont be any, so there wont be any money to invest on the public transport!

Why am I ranting.

I live near Birmingham in the UK, and we are to be one of the first city's to trial the system.

Plans are for every motorist to buy a car tracking device (out of their own pockets) so the Government can see how many miles and what your location was when you traveled. It will be seen as an offense if you do not have one fitted.

How they can regulate that, heaven only knows, as there will be drivers entering the city from all over the country!

So would you pay $3.00 per-mile, per-day for the privilege of going to work?

They don't allow either for the fact that an average worker takes home $30,000 per-annum, and yet, working 22 day per month a worker could end up paying $2,640 per month to get to work.Multiply that by 12 and you have $31,680.

So, workers wont go to the city's the economy will suffer, businesses will close.....etc,etc.,

Man, who ever called it 'GREAT' Britain!

Mysticpuma2003
03-09-2007, 06:07 AM
BTW, it is NOT an April the 1st spoof!

More info:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/congestion/story/0,,1878594,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,...tml#article_continue (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2012405,00.html#article_continue)

Geez!

FritzGryphon
03-09-2007, 06:15 AM
Sounds like a good idea. Initially it would be painful, but people would find a better way of doing things as a result.

As for having to improve the public transport system, it makes total sense. Public transport sucks because so many people choose to use their own vehicles.

Imagine a world where no one has a car. The buses would run 24/7, to everywhere. Or even better, some kind of comprehensive rail system, where personal cars are available on demand. It'd be a panacea of efficiency, and cheaper.

And it'll happen first in some overcrowded place, where cars aren't practical. I understand some of Britain is getting this way.

The costs of an inefficient personal transport system are the real ripoff. Huge tracts of land wasted for roads and parking. Vehicles left idle 95% of the time. Fuel inefficient. This can't continue into the future with growing population density.

bazzaah2
03-09-2007, 06:18 AM
well, something has to be done. I don't know where you live but the South East is a traffic nightmare.

I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about addressing the problem of car usage and tend to think it's more a way of getting the roads to be self-funding than reducing CO2 emissions.

But if it reduces car use and reduces the miles driven then so much the better, tbh. Whether it will I can't say but the debate is a worthwhile one. It's about time we started figuring the external costs of our lifestyles.

BadA1m
03-09-2007, 06:42 AM
Poor, poor nieve utopianites. They still think that government can solve anything. One day they will realize that the "experts" are as dumb as they are, but by then they will have sold their freedom, property and future for an unatainable dream. Only then will they have the slavery for which they strive so diligently.

ViktorViktor
03-09-2007, 06:52 AM
What is the answer then, BadA1M ?

x6BL_Brando
03-09-2007, 06:55 AM
I had the sense that this was being done in an effort to reduce the number of car journeys that people make, in an effort to reduce congestion in our major cities. It comes as no surprise that this is being done by hitting people in their pockets rather than by putting forward sensible, logical arguments which just get totally ignored by the motoring public.

We have seen many schemes like car-sharing and Park 'n Ride that have failed because of their dependence on voluntary cooperation from the public. So now the big stick is out and I guess we had it coming. The rapacious, union-bashing exploits of a former Government were responsible for the failure of our State-controlled railways by splitting the network between various private companies - while making tax cuts to give credence to their actions and to keep votes rolling in. Did they seriously think that giving away 8% of state income (and that's just for lower-paid workers) would be a good policy in the long run? I don't think they cared much. The agenda was to destroy the power of the Union movement and to create extra tiers of management - 'jobs for the white-collar boys' in an already over-bureaucratised country.

The Tories did much the same when they trimmed the admittedly over-complex railway system back in the Sixties. They didn't only close many thousands of miles of railways that might now be useful, they also embarked on a policy of bridge demolition that ensured that the 'permanent way' could never be used again. The whole operation was directed to ensure that road-building would rule - and now look where we are. It was little wonder when the Transport Minister was one Ernest Marple, who had conveniently handed all his shares in Marple-Ridgway (one of Britain's biggest road-building firms) to his wife so that he could appear to show no partiality. The whole responsibility was pushed onto the accountant who created the plan to decimate the railway network, so we now think of the Beeching Report rather than the Marple stitch-up if we think of it at all. That too was an exercise in the Union-bashing that is so much a part that odious party's agenda.

It's lamentable that the present government has gone down the same track to manage the country's affairs - but I think that's the problem with demolishing institutions rather than making a real effort to bring them up-to-date.

B

ploughman
03-09-2007, 06:55 AM
I like the idea of having to pay 240 everytime we visit her mum and dad. Should mean we can only afford it once every three years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Chris0382
03-09-2007, 07:05 AM
Lets see a car may avg 20 miles/gallon at $3/mile thats $60/ gal of gas.

People must then be given a payout for not using the car all bus service must be free.

Viper2005_
03-09-2007, 07:35 AM
Make driving sufficiently expensive and the awful public transport system in this country may start to look attractive.

But surely it would be more sensible to invest in public transport, improving it sufficiently that it can compete with private transport on a level playing field?

If we <span class="ev_code_red">really</span> want people to use public transport, why not make it free at the point of receipt? Think of the money that could be saved getting rid of ticket collectors, ticket printing machines etc..

Of course, then we'd have to invest in increased capacity. But that would be no bad thing.

Infrastructure benefits everybody.

hop2002
03-09-2007, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Tories did much the same when they trimmed the admittedly over-complex railway system back in the Sixties. They didn't only close many thousands of miles of railways that might now be useful, they also embarked on a policy of bridge demolition that ensured that the 'permanent way' could never be used again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can't all afford to go by train.

The railway system in the UK currently gets something over 5 billion a year in subsidies from the government. That despite the fact only about 5% of UK passenger miles are travelled in trains. 5 billion is over 200 per household per year.

Get trains up to 50% of British passenger travel, and the subsidy multiplies to more than 50 billion a year.

Meanwhile, government taxes on motoring raise 42 billion a year, over and above what it costs to build and maintain the roads.

Add those two figures up. If half of car journeys switch to trains, the government gets 21 billion less revenue and has to increase spending by 45 billion. That's about the cost of the NHS.

The simple fact is, the real cost of motoring is very cheap. Taxes make it expensive.

The real cost of public transport is very high. Subsidies make it cheaper.

Public transport has a large role in heavily populated cities, but elsewhere it's a niche at best. We cannot afford to pay for far more expensive public transport when cars are so much cheaper.

The problem with transport in Britain is that the government has a: stopped building new roads. They use the silly argument that traffic will always increase to fill new roads, but as the UK has a finite population, with a finite amount of time, this is impossible. If the road network doubled, people are not going to drive twice as much.

b: National and local government have deliberately created congestion in cities to try to force people on to public transport.

Get rid of the mentality that traffic should be restricted, and instead try to get traffic flowing. Then you won't need as much costly public transport, and perhaps our taxes won't be quite so high.

Banger2004
03-09-2007, 02:25 PM
Living in the country as I do I have to smile when I hear people say 'you must use public transport'.

If we had some it would be nice, and to be honest there is a bus service of sorts in my area. It used to be quite comprehensive until most of the routes were stopped because the council could not afford to subsidise it any more, because central Government lowered the level of funding.

If the service was greatly improved I would love to use public transport, except I would object to having to travel in dirty vehicles, associate with/feel threatened by hooded youths (yes, we have them out in the sticks too), druggies (my local town is known as the centre of drug trafficing/use in Cornwall), possibly have to stand for the entire journey, and when I get to my destination be late for an appointment because the worn out vehicle I was riding in clapped out in a narrow lane!

Public transport is great for the cities where you get good, frequent service. In the countryside, forget it. It will never be made to be as everyone would like it to be, because the Government (any Government) will screw up any investment like they always do, no matter how much they hit the motorist for taxes.

oFZo
03-09-2007, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
...The reason. They want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport.

Now while that's commendable, they haven't invested anything in the transport system for all the years they have been in power,...
...on a bus/train that at the moment don't turn up, don't run on time, are overcrowded and have frequent robberies and other crimes...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This whole thing seems awfully similar to the situation here in the Netherlands. I'm not completely up-to-date on the whole paying per distance thing but there's been a lot of talk about it and I expect "them" to want to try it out soon.
Trying to force motorists to use the train has been / is the trend here as well, while public transportation (esp. trains) is getting worse and worse. I feel like a sardine in the morning.

faustnik
03-09-2007, 03:12 PM
Ummm...wow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

There is still a little space left here in Merrika if you crumpit eaters hurry. I think it is a BYOT situation though, so come prepared.

Airmail109
03-09-2007, 03:15 PM
Everyone should get motorbikes

Tricycles for the ******s

ploughman
03-09-2007, 03:28 PM
Unicycles for the graduates.

Really smart folk can just fly.

x6BL_Brando
03-09-2007, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tricycles for the ******s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shame on you sonny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif and you left out us cripples too.

B

Stackhouse25th
03-09-2007, 05:16 PM
thats not the only thing wrong with the UK at the moment. lots more pressing issues

ImpStarDuece
03-09-2007, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Tories did much the same when they trimmed the admittedly over-complex railway system back in the Sixties. They didn't only close many thousands of miles of railways that might now be useful, they also embarked on a policy of bridge demolition that ensured that the 'permanent way' could never be used again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can't all afford to go by train.

The railway system in the UK currently gets something over 5 billion a year in subsidies from the government. That despite the fact only about 5% of UK passenger miles are travelled in trains. 5 billion is over 200 per household per year.

Get trains up to 50% of British passenger travel, and the subsidy multiplies to more than 50 billion a year.

Meanwhile, government taxes on motoring raise 42 billion a year, over and above what it costs to build and maintain the roads.

Add those two figures up. If half of car journeys switch to trains, the government gets 21 billion less revenue and has to increase spending by 45 billion. That's about the cost of the NHS.

The simple fact is, the real cost of motoring is very cheap. Taxes make it expensive.

The real cost of public transport is very high. Subsidies make it cheaper.

Public transport has a large role in heavily populated cities, but elsewhere it's a niche at best. We cannot afford to pay for far more expensive public transport when cars are so much cheaper.

The problem with transport in Britain is that the government has a: stopped building new roads. They use the silly argument that traffic will always increase to fill new roads, but as the UK has a finite population, with a finite amount of time, this is impossible. If the road network doubled, people are not going to drive twice as much.

b: National and local government have deliberately created congestion in cities to try to force people on to public transport.

Get rid of the mentality that traffic should be restricted, and instead try to get traffic flowing. Then you won't need as much costly public transport, and perhaps our taxes won't be quite so high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its doubtful that getting 10 times the passengers on any public transport system will result in ten times the costs.

As passenger numbers increase, you generate increasing return to scale. As numbers of Revenue Passenger Miles increase unit costs drop, even as absolute costs increase.

For example, AirAsia increased its passenger traffic by 65% last year, but its cost per passenger decreased by 10% (despite a 17% rise in per unit fuel costs).

A similar situation would be apparent with public rail and bus traffic. In fact, it would be significantly more pronnounced, as both systems generally have large amounts of excess capacity, that can be quickly shifted to where it is needed (peak hours and peak locations) to relieve increasing traffic.

Per capita, in a major city, it is relatively more efficient to spend money on public transport than on road infrastructure. In non-urban areas, busses are relatively less efficient, while trains offer higher levels of efficiency, based on longer overall distance travelled.

I can get around 90% of Sydney (Australia) on AUD33 a week on public transport (bus, ferry, train and tram lines). When I lived in Tokyo, privately run mass transport was the only sensible option (particularly the rail system), the same with Kumamoto and ***uoka.

BadA1m
03-09-2007, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
What is the answer then, BadA1M ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the question again?

Esel1964
03-09-2007, 08:00 PM
The only road I'd pay $3 a mile to drive on,would be the Nrburgring. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bo_Nidle
03-09-2007, 08:22 PM
Its also on top of the road tax that we already pay. It would also make for an excellent way for Blairs Stalinist junta to keep track of the populations movements as well as make for another nice little earner for them. (Although how they are going to enforce every car in the UK having one of the tracking devices is something of a mystery-I suppose another govt dept will be invented for one of his cronies to run and then he'll sell him a peerage).

Blairs little cadre are very much into the infringement of personal liberties. I supported the ID card issue until I learned that there would be a chip in it recording your movements. The fact that his lot brought in that if you are arrested, not convicted mind-just arrested, that you have your fingerprints,photograph and DNA taken and logged on a permanent database. So if it turned out that you had done nothing wrong the state still has you in its databanks.

The UK is the most closely monitored society outside of Communist China!!!!!

Of course to divert people minds away from this whittling away of freedoms he embroilled the country in an unwinable war on a lie, (An idea that was very much to the forefront of Orwells "1984") and scares the population with tales of doom and destruction from global warming that we apparently cause. Another lie. (And before I get attacked for heresy- I do believe the Earth is getting warmer but I do not believe we are the cause of it and if people examine the scientific evidence and not the government sponsored propaganda disguised as science then I guarantee you will be very surprised) but it will be the UK's "contribution to combating climate change" that is the tired old horse this latest policy is saddled to no doubt.

Chillingly scarey times!!!!!!!

Its time to get the Hell out of here!

Will the last person to leave the Peoples Republic of Britain please turn out the lights?

sub1_359
03-09-2007, 09:00 PM
それに同意する誰でも精神的なもの あることで漆に私のアドバイス動き 望んでいます http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

BadA1m
03-09-2007, 09:04 PM
I really feel for my brethren across the pond, I have never understood why socialism must always end in the stripping away of personal freedom but there it is. A friend of mine once observed that comunism is an example of socialism gone so far left that its come back around to the right. Seems more and more valid every day. It's the natural progression of government.

fordfan25
03-09-2007, 09:39 PM
what thay need to do is make a law that limits the number of offspring a persone can have. i dont know about how it is in other places but hear it seems every wellfair crack who** and truck stop chain smokeing meth addict has 5+ kids by 3 deffernt fathers. starting at the age of ..... well the first drop off blood.

as far as that law of charging by the mile. if every one gets togather,stops going to and working ect it will grind the goverment to a halt and thay would rethink there passing of such a thing. remember the people makeing those laws are not hurt by it. thay are rich.

TAW_Oilburner
03-09-2007, 09:40 PM
I really sympathize with ya'll. I know it's all relative to how things have progressed but what you describe is just un-imaginable over here...except the same ideas have been floating around for a while. Just remember, while Europe and the US are seperated by a large ocean, they (and the rest of the world) share at least one commonality: politicians are criminals whose only job is to get re-elected. Hopefully with enough social-political pressure from the people something can be done.

TAW_Oilburner
03-09-2007, 09:52 PM
Fordfan, there is a movie describing exactly what your talking about..it's called idiocracy. It's set as a comedy but after watching it it's not quite as funny...because it is definately believable. Watch the intro...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw

M_Gunz
03-09-2007, 10:24 PM
Not that the fee as stated has any chance of becoming law, does it?
Doesn't Parliment have a say?
It really looks to me like an unreal solution to an unreal (by current standards) situation.
Just be glad that food is not in as short supply as petrol, you might be paying per bite!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
But how can this work? If all the motorists go onto public transport, the Government can't raise money from the motorists traveling on the road, because there wont be any, so there wont be any money to invest on the public transport! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the bus ride would be free then? That's a change.

"Tuppence and sixpence each day. Too much! The Magic Bus! Just to ride to my ba-bay!"

Ride the bus and sit with Chavs? (sorry, I just had to....)

Well if you have a TV then you have to pay some kind of BBC license, right?
In the US and for free you can watch in 30 minutes; 20 minutes of show and 10 of commercials
all set to condition your attention span to no more than 5 minutes and stimulates spending at
all levels, esp by the government.

So anyway they are not happy with you have a car, license that?

We have pay to ride roads here. They are called Toll Roads. But the cost per mile is less
and there are public roads that I think part of fuel taxes pay for. I read that British
roads are usually superior, it depends on what US State the road is in. Where I am you might
say the quality of the public roads is abysmal. Do you get potholes big enough to damage
your suspension and/or blow tires out? We do. Keeps you on your toes when driving!

heywooood
03-09-2007, 11:02 PM
adding rediculous sales taxes to cigarettes in the US has hardly touched tobacco sales or reduced the number of new smokers...they have a strong lobby in government but no where near big oil and phamaceuticals here in the US.

Mysticpuma2003
03-10-2007, 04:27 AM
At the moment (I don't know about other countries), we have to buy a tax disc to travel on any road. The costs of which can be found here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/How...rVehicle/DG_10012524 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524)

but roughly for a car over 1594cc it's $300 per-year.

The road tax is supposed to be spent on improving roads.
Last year the government raised $82 Billion dollars in car taxation. They spent, last year $14 Billion on road improvements...the rest? No idea, just another profit making scam for the Government. Maybe if they invested it in public transport, we would use it!

The TV License has to be bought so that you can watch any broadcast of a TV signal. The fee is only given to the BBC, so if you have your set converted so it doesn't receive a BBC signal......you still have to pay it! The cost is approx. $270 per year.

What about if you want satellite and cable only and no terrestrial? You still have to buy the license!

How about car fuel (Diesel or petrol)? If you put $20 of fuel in your car, $15 of the cost is tax only, you effectively get $5 of fuel for every $20 you put in.

A Gallon of Diesel, now more expensive that petrol because more people switched over to it because the Government told us it was a clean and 'good' fuel works out at around $8.00, while petrol is approx. $7.70 (including the tax), approx. $1.90 without tax.

There is so-much mismanagement of the money in our Government it's worrying. In Staffordshire (the home of Bo_Nidle), the councils are so underfunded that they have told workers that they will be restructuring there pay, the pay they have been earning for years of loyal employment, and now some are set to lose $16,000 of pay. These guys aren't the $100,000 earners, these are the $50,000, who all have motgages and bills linked to their earnings, and who will now have to worry for their future.

In the same area, 30, yes 30, care homes for the elderly are being closed, because the council say they will not be able to afford them. People who live in them, are there for a reason.

A choice quote from their website in a Q&A form:

Q."Will the independent sector have enough places for all the residents who have to move?"

A."We believe it will."

Note the fact that they don't say "Yes"

So my question for them is, "Does the Easter Bunny exist?"

Their answer "We believe it does", that's not an answer of fact, it's an opinion!

Anyway, as you can see, times are not looking promising at the moment, it's not fun here anymore.....

M_Gunz
03-10-2007, 06:35 AM
Point at anyone around you and tell me will they be alive next week.
What will be in even the near future is always a matter of opinion.

What better they could have said was "we have made arrangements for the housing with the
private sector". That would have showed a more responsible attitude and at the same time
would launch protests about government control of the elderly.

It's like a vacuum cleaner, it sucks at one end and blows at the other while the ones in
the middle control the power.

Blutarski2004
03-10-2007, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
I would love to hear what the World thinks of the latest initiative for the drivers of the UK.

At the moment Tony Blair, even with 2,000,000 people signing a petition against it, wants to create a pay-as-you-drive system, so that for every mile you travel on the road (on top of your fuel and insurance costs), you will pay a set fee, per-mile, and depending on the Time of Day and location you travel.

Can you see how it's already looking logistically a nightmare?

So a person who works in the city centre and travels a 40 mile round trip, and in the period 8.00am until 10.00am would pay up to $3.00 per mile, per day!

Each day you could effectively pay $120 for the privilege of going to work!

The reason. They want to get people out of their cars and onto public transport.

Now while that's commendable, they haven't invested anything in the transport system for all the years they have been in power, so they want people to pay their car insurance and then leave it at home and pay to go on a bus/train that at the moment don't turn up, don't run on time, are overcrowded and have frequent robberies and other crimes.

They say that the money they get from taxing motorists will go to improving the transport system????? Hang on! They are admitting that it needs improvement, but they want to introduce the tax BEFORE they improve the transport, meaning that motorists have to go on the substandard and antiquated public transport we have now. Well thanks very much!

But how can this work? If all the motorists go onto public transport, the Government can't raise money from the motorists traveling on the road, because there wont be any, so there wont be any money to invest on the public transport!

Why am I ranting.

I live near Birmingham in the UK, and we are to be one of the first city's to trial the system.

Plans are for every motorist to buy a car tracking device (out of their own pockets) so the Government can see how many miles and what your location was when you traveled. It will be seen as an offense if you do not have one fitted.

How they can regulate that, heaven only knows, as there will be drivers entering the city from all over the country!

So would you pay $3.00 per-mile, per-day for the privilege of going to work?

They don't allow either for the fact that an average worker takes home $30,000 per-annum, and yet, working 22 day per month a worker could end up paying $2,640 per month to get to work.Multiply that by 12 and you have $31,680.

So, workers wont go to the city's the economy will suffer, businesses will close.....etc,etc.,

Man, who ever called it 'GREAT' Britain! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Remember! Government is your friend.

First it was ubiquitous surveillance cameras on every lightpole in Great Britain. Now this, which I consider the first step to a revival of true serfdom. What utter insanity. I can understand such craziness from a certified nutcase like Ken Livingstone, but I thought that Blair was made of better stuff.

But take heart, the feasibility test will show this proposed program to be totally unfeasible in its original form. Its terms will then be reduced in severity until it merely poses a crippling burden.

George Orwell must be rolling in his grave.

MEGILE
03-10-2007, 07:59 AM
I play the governemnt at their own game.

No TV, and no Car, no tax.
I have no use for either, but ofcourse the Government wants me to have both so they can charge me.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAW_Oilburner:
Fordfan, there is a movie describing exactly what your talking about..it's called idiocracy. It's set as a comedy but after watching it it's not quite as funny...because it is definately believable. Watch the intro...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea i have been looking for the movie at local rent. have not been able to find it. i swear Thats like nearly any family tree in this town im in lol

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 11:26 AM
guys I'll tell you what when i finaly build my compound ...... er i mean my town on a small island off the coast of ....well thats a secret ,you may all live there with me tax free. only thing is i researve all breeding rights with all the hot females for my self http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif .

Blutarski2004
03-10-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I play the governemnt at their own game.

No TV, and no Car, no tax.
I have no use for either, but ofcourse the Government wants me to have both so they can charge me.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I have a good friend who has a home up in the Scarborough area. He has no TV. The "TV Police" periodically knock on his door demanding to inspect for the presence of a taxable television in the household. He refuses to let them in, just to wind them up.

zoinks_
03-10-2007, 01:38 PM
if you live in america, would you pay an income tax if there was no law?

trailer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5755767598909426732)
full movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198)
jury foreman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234)

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 01:47 PM
sure. i would send them 3 chickens and a fat pig every year.

fordfan25
03-10-2007, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zoinks_:
if you live in america, would you pay an income tax if there was no law?

trailer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5755767598909426732)
full movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198)
jury foreman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that is extreemly disturbing

like i have always said there is no bigger crook's than the goverments.

hop2002
03-10-2007, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its doubtful that getting 10 times the passengers on any public transport system will result in ten times the costs.

As passenger numbers increase, you generate increasing return to scale. As numbers of Revenue Passenger Miles increase unit costs drop, even as absolute costs increase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would likely be more than 10 times cost for 10 times the passengers. The rail network in the UK is already close to capacity. There's been an increase of 50% in passenger numbers in the last 10 years.

The problem is, of course, that most people want to travel at the same time, so the trains that are packed at rush hour are almost empty for the rest of the day.

There's also the problem that the 5% of passengers using the railways now are likely the most suitable passengers, they want to travel from close to one station to close to another. Getting the people who live further from stations, or who want to travel to somewhere far from a station, means new tracks, new stations, on what are likely to be less busy routes. That needs a lot more subsidy than peak time mass transit between major cities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as far as that law of charging by the mile. if every one gets togather,stops going to and working ect it will grind the goverment to a halt and thay would rethink there passing of such a thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's one of the reasons I'm not very concerned about this plan. In 2000, there were widespread protests against the cost of fuel, and traffic fell by about 40%. The government climbed down on their plan to carry on increasing fuel taxes, and they haven't risen much in recent years (although the price of oil has, of course)

The other reasons I'm not very worried by this plan are

A: This Labour government is so incompetent it could not implement a plan as complex as this, no matter how much it might want to.

B: They are likely to be voted out before they can even try to implement it.

joeap
03-10-2007, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I play the governemnt at their own game.

No TV, and no Car, no tax.
I have no use for either, but ofcourse the Government wants me to have both so they can charge me.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No car here either, no use in Geneva, no need to pay the rich Swiss any more.

I am drinking a beer though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

MEGILE
03-10-2007, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:


No car here either, no use in Geneva, no need to pay the rich Swiss any more.

I am drinking a beer though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only drink H20 and milk.. they'll be taxing water next http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

M_Gunz
03-11-2007, 01:34 AM
Was John Lennon a descendant of Nostradamus?

Beatles "Taxman"

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street.
And if you walk, I'll tax your feet.

scottmal1
03-11-2007, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
At the moment (I don't know about other countries), we have to buy a tax disc to travel on any road. The costs of which can be found here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/How...rVehicle/DG_10012524 (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524)

but roughly for a car over 1594cc it's $300 per-year.

The road tax is supposed to be spent on improving roads.
Last year the government raised $82 Billion dollars in car taxation. They spent, last year $14 Billion on road improvements...the rest? No idea, just another profit making scam for the Government. Maybe if they invested it in public transport, we would use it!

The TV License has to be bought so that you can watch any broadcast of a TV signal. The fee is only given to the BBC, so if you have your set converted so it doesn't receive a BBC signal......you still have to pay it! The cost is approx. $270 per year.

What about if you want satellite and cable only and no terrestrial? You still have to buy the license!

How about car fuel (Diesel or petrol)? If you put $20 of fuel in your car, $15 of the cost is tax only, you effectively get $5 of fuel for every $20 you put in.

A Gallon of Diesel, now more expensive that petrol because more people switched over to it because the Government told us it was a clean and 'good' fuel works out at around $8.00, while petrol is approx. $7.70 (including the tax), approx. $1.90 without tax.

There is so-much mismanagement of the money in our Government it's worrying. In Staffordshire (the home of Bo_Nidle), the councils are so underfunded that they have told workers that they will be restructuring there pay, the pay they have been earning for years of loyal employment, and now some are set to lose $16,000 of pay. These guys aren't the $100,000 earners, these are the $50,000, who all have motgages and bills linked to their earnings, and who will now have to worry for their future.

In the same area, 30, yes 30, care homes for the elderly are being closed, because the council say they will not be able to afford them. People who live in them, are there for a reason.

A choice quote from their website in a Q&A form:

Q."Will the independent sector have enough places for all the residents who have to move?"

A."We believe it will."

Note the fact that they don't say "Yes"

So my question for them is, "Does the Easter Bunny exist?"

Their answer "We believe it does", that's not an answer of fact, it's an opinion!

Anyway, as you can see, times are not looking promising at the moment, it's not fun here anymore..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just the sort of stuff going on that makes me not enjoy living in the country i was born and bred in. I live on my own, i pay a mortgage because i want to have equity in a house to leave to my daughter when i die, she lives with her mother. I am in a low income job and i work between 50 - 60 hours a week, i barely make ends meet, i get no help from the govt, i tax, mot, insure and fuel a car i really only use to get me to work as i cannot use public transport as i live in rural devon and i work unsociable hours, i pay a tv licence because i watch Al murray amd Harry Hills TV burp on a saturday night and top gear on sundays when they are on, thats it!
I spend my working days dealing with chavs who get everything subsidised and paid for because they have 5 kids, with their latest mobile phones, 2 year old cars eating pre-packed food from a shop because they are too busy texting or drug dealing to go home and actually make a sandwich! Something is definately wrong here including the flood of immigrants here that are already on income support but i'm not going into that as i don't want to be labelled a racist which i am not, i just feel that by working hard and struggling to pay my way my country treats me as a second rate citizen, rant over!

StellarRat
03-11-2007, 12:04 PM
A lot of people could ride bikes to work if the roads were setup to safely accomodate them. I tried, but was hit twice by cars that crossed the bike lane without looking, so I gave up. A three to five mile ride to work is easy if the terrain is not too hilly.

StellarRat
03-11-2007, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by scottmal1:

The TV License has to be bought so that you can watch any broadcast of a TV signal. The fee is only given to the BBC, so if you have your set converted so it doesn't receive a BBC signal......you still have to pay it! The cost is approx. $270 per year.

What about if you want satellite and cable only and no terrestrial? You still have to buy the license!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>How would they know you have a TV? BTW, there is a lot of TV available on the internet now.

ploughman
03-11-2007, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
A lot of people could ride bikes to work if the roads were setup to safely accomodate them. I tried, but was hit twice by cars that crossed the bike lane without looking, so I gave up. A three to five mile ride to work is easy if the terrain is not too hilly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not to mention very healthy too,I was Adonis himself. I used to cycle to work and can attest that motorists are borderline psychopaths when it comes to cyclists. In addition, here in the UK our normally excellent approach to road design goes right out the of window when it comes to creating cycle lanes that don't leave you dead at a round-a-bout or weaving between push-chairs on a narrow pavement that you're supposed to share with pedestrians, trees, and street furniture.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41425000/jpg/_41425762_richarddlewis.jpg

StellarRat
03-11-2007, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:

Not to mention very healthy too,I was Adonis himself. I used to cycle to work and can attest that motorists are borderline psychopaths when it comes to cyclists. In addition, here in the UK our normally excellent approach to road design goes right out the of window when it comes to creating cycle lanes that don't leave you dead at a round-a-bout or weaving between push-chairs on a narrow pavement that you're supposed to share with pedestrians, trees, and street furniture.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41425000/jpg/_41425762_richarddlewis.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL. It's not quite that bad here, but really where I live the "bike lane" is just the shoulder of the road marked "bike lane", they really need to be physically seperated from the cars to be safe. Apparently half the idiots out there don't bother to look to the right rear and see if a bike is coming before make a right turn across the bike lane to go into a parking lot. That's how I was hit. You'd think after passing a bike on your way into the store you'd at least think about checking where the bike is before making your turn! Anyway, until something is done about this around here I'm only going to ride in large groups out in the country.

Bearcat99
03-11-2007, 06:17 PM
They tax your telivision!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ... and they can actually have the nuts to knock on your door to inspect for illegal TVs..!!! That is insane....

Bearcat99
03-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Wow..... incredible... I did some research this whole TV tax thing intrigued me so much. So I see that it has always been this way... just now the fees are going through the roof... incredible.

For my fellow Americans who have never been to The U.K. ''
BBC TV license... what & why (http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/international/bbc.html)

The "official" skinny (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/index.jsp).

More info (http://www.tvlicensing.biz/)

Looking at this and the whole VOT thing makes me realize even more that we are all basically screwed. We are all just at different stages across the world... but none of us will get dinner & a movie by the end of the night.

MEGILE
03-11-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
How would they know you have a TV? BTW, there is a lot of TV available on the internet now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When someone sells you a TV, IIRC the company are obliged to tell the officials they have done so.

I find this particularly interesting, as it is not against the law to own a TV without a licence.
Further, the TVLA request that the public notifies them if they have a TV but DON'T use it to receive broadcats.
haha haha.. the TVLA can whistle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Apart from this, the TVLA have a habit of parking their white van outside "offender's" homes, and scan for signals.

The TVLA lackies have no authority... when they come to your door, ask for a warrent. When they say they don't have one... shut the door http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just for clarification...

You need the lisence if you recieve broadcasts..
you don't if you use the TV for watching videos.

Sufficient proof is to leave the TV set de-tuned.

zoinks_
03-11-2007, 06:43 PM
BC, look what they get for their tax dollars
link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html)

StellarRat
03-11-2007, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
When someone sells you a TV, IIRC the company are obliged to tell the officials they have done so.

I find this particularly interesting, as it is not against the law to own a TV without a licence.
Further, the TVLA request that the public notifies them if they have a TV but DON'T use it to receive broadcats.
haha haha.. the TVLA can whistle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Apart from this, the TVLA have a habit of parking their white van outside "offender's" homes, and scan for signals.

The TVLA lackies have no authority... when they come to your door, ask for a warrent. When they say they don't have one... shut the door http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just for clarification...

You need the lisence if you recieve broadcasts..
you don't if you use the TV for watching videos.

Sufficient proof is to leave the TV set de-tuned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For all my British friends...you can build a Faraday cage around your TV effectively blocking all signals from being detected. It's just a wire mesh that is grounded. Unfortunately, I don't know all the details about building one yourself, but I think it is a fairly simple piece of equipment. You would have allow an opening for your antenna wire.

Bearcat99
03-11-2007, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
How would they know you have a TV? BTW, there is a lot of TV available on the internet now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the links I supplied above.... very interesting stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zoinks_:
BC, look what they get for their tax dollars
link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah all that stuff is such BS anyway.. I live in Northern Va. I am just down 395 from The Pentagon.. not only do I know a few folks who were stuck in our legendary traffic that day... (Believe me... between 7 & 10 A.M. Mon-Fri there are hundreds if not thousands of people.... on the roadways alone within 5 miles of the Pentagon in either direction.. if there wee no plane someone would have come forward by 9/13) See thumb below:
http://star.walagata.com/thumbs/bearcat_Pentagontop.gif (http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/Pentagontop.gif)
The plane came in over Washington Blvd... all the roads in yellow? Bumper to bumper with cars.. for miles... I have a friend whose office was right on the corner the plane hit.. his bladder saved his life that day..so that theory is total BS... and if this is the kind stuff they have to pay for... shame shame shame.. I had a guy swear up and down this conspiracy stuff was "the truth" showed me the website and everything... good lookin stuff.. I fell out of my chair laughing at the part about the B-52 that crashed into the Empire State Building in the 40s... so much for getting the facts right. I don't want to hijack the thread so.... as for the other stuff in the link you posted ... yeah man.. it is a shame... but the people will keep on taking it... I saw a thing a while back where they had to install cameras to watch the traffic cameras.. because people were getting fed up with tickets in the mail.... and trashing them.

Ob.Emann
03-11-2007, 11:19 PM
Man, if the American and British soldiers in Normandy in 1944 could see what their respective countries would be like 60 years in the future, I don't think they would have bothered to advance another 10 feet up the beach. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You Brits have so many CCTV cameras watching every square foot of your island, watching "Big Brother" on Channel 4 is a bit superflous at this point. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Whirlin_merlin
03-12-2007, 04:06 AM
Not wanting to be all captain serious but a few things to concider.

The TV licence goes to the BBC so we get a channel with no advertising (hurrah) and a responsibility not just to produce lowest common denominator telly. So we end up with stuff like David Attenbouroughouugh. You may feel this isn't worth it but it's not just a tax.

There will be no 'black boxes' in our cars following our every move nor will road pricing be so exorbitant that ordinary folk need to sell a kidney to afford to commute. There is alot of media hype going on.

Now duty on beer that's serious damm the government!

ploughman
03-12-2007, 04:28 AM
What Whirlin says it on the money BC. Our of all the tax we get to pay the 135/year that goes to the BBC is probably the one I mind the least. In principle the idea's pretty difficult to fathom but the outcome's been quite a happy one.

Mysticpuma2003
03-12-2007, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There will be no 'black boxes' in our cars following our every move nor will road pricing be so exorbitant that ordinary folk need to sell a kidney to afford to commute. There is alot of media hype going on.! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The black box is one proposal, however the latest brainwave is that all the traffic monitoring cameras will log all the number plates of cars traveling the roads, and then bill them.

Strangely this is even worse, as anyone can change the number plate of a car to clone another. They will travel for free, and I bet that it will be down to the innocent driver to prove it wasn't him rather than the Government to prove it was.

I have a feeling that a situation could develop akin to the Poll Tax Riots of 1990, and that is certainly not what we want to see!

It just frustrates the life out of me that, as a trial area, this could wreck my job and lifestyle (which is livable) and I can't use public transport as a photographer I need to be in different locations on deadlines, and saying "sorry Mr. Blair, I couldn't make the appointment as the bus was late!", may strike home a point, but my Editor wouldn't see it that way!

My favourite quote today was David Cammeron, leader of the Tory Party saying he wants to tax airlines now for having too many planes to short flight locations. He said that people should use the trains instead of the planes to cut CO2 immisions.

While agreeing something has to be done, we can't all travel first class on the six carriages on the front of the train, with two people sitting in them, while the rest of the carriages are overcrowded, standing room only, and stupid prices in Rush Hour.

It's a circle of the Chicken and Egg variety, and no-one seems to be getting the idea that the public want a transport infrastructure that works, is cheap and that is safe, but with no incentive to get out of a car that I have paid to tax and insure to drive on the road for a year, when and where I want, what are the men in expensive souites doing about the problem?

Sweet FA!

ploughman
03-12-2007, 05:30 AM
As far as I know, and I'm often wrong, the UK guvernmunt can't unitlatererly increase tax on air fuel as its governed by international convention and would require an international consensus, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Mind you, that might not be the same as taxing individuals but I'm betting trying to limit air travel by taxing travellers is going to prove unworkable at this time as it would probably run up against freedom of movement legislation and get binned by the European Court of Human Rights or the European Supreme Court. I watch with interest.

MEGILE
03-12-2007, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
What Whirlin says it on the money BC. Our of all the tax we get to pay the 135/year that goes to the BBC is probably the one I mind the least. In principle the idea's pretty difficult to fathom but the outcome's been quite a happy one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed.
I don't have a problem with the BBC on principal. When I used to have a TV I liked the shows which they put on, and I think their news services are pretty neutral politcally.. although others would surely disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However... I disagree in having to pay for a service which I could choose not to watch.

I propose that I won't watch the BBC, and I won't pay for the Lisence to watch the BBC.

The problem is that the government DEMANDS that we fund their television service... the result of having a socialist government. A nanny-state if you will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Most anti-TV lisencing sites are made on the premise that the BBC is subversive... a government big brother type organisation out to brain wash us.. Orwellian in nature.
I think this is fanciful... the over imagination of conspiracy theorists.


I just choose not to pay for a service which I don't use. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interestinly enough.. the BBC broadcasts to millions around the world, who don't have to pay for it's services. Sacr bleu!
Do you think anyone in America would pay if the BBC kindly requested they did to view their broadcasts?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Blutarski2004
03-12-2007, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Interestingly enough.. the BBC broadcasts to millions around the world, who don't have to pay for it's services. Sacr bleu!
Do you think anyone in America would pay if the BBC kindly requested they did to view their broadcasts?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... BBC productions are principally aired in the US via PBS (Public Broadcasting System), which is funded by government subsidy and private donations. Before every show, we are informed that "this show has been made possible by viewers like you". I think an addendum should be added, i.e.: "...and by millions of British TV viewers forced to pay a tax for the privilege of viewing this production in their own home".

StellarRat
03-12-2007, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... BBC productions are principally aired in the US via PBS (Public Broadcasting System), which is funded by government subsidy and private donations. Before every show, we are informed that "this show has been made possible by viewers like you". I think an addendum should be added, i.e.: "...and by millions of British TV viewers forced to pay a tax for the privilege of viewing this production in their own home". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think it's completely fair that we get "free" British news and such, after all we paid for it with the Tea Tax, Stamp Tax, etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My suggestion is that your Britisher's get a bunch of guys together and throw ship load of TV's in the harbor...er...well maybe that's not a good idea... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif