Lib Dem's plans to tax motorists 651

Brimstone

...

Except that it won't. How has the existing heavy taxation on vehicle-use made "people avoid spending money on" it? The answer is that it hasn't, because transport is a necessity with a very inelastic demand curve - when the price goes up, people just have to grit their teeth. Or avoid the tax by the usual means (fake registration), which can't be in anyone's interest.

Because it's seen as a necessity. However, I do agree that for a control freak, other peoples' need for transport must be mystifying. After all, if they are prevented from travelling as efficiently as they'd like, he doesn't feel a thing (and only he matters).

Absolutely palpable nonsense.

There is probably less elasticity in the demand for transport than there is in the demand for tobacco or for Scotch. The fact that these three sectors are singled-out for heavy taxation should tell you something. As should the fact that the LibDims say that they'd reduce income tax to "compensate". They can't reduce income tax AND see a reduction in fuel tax paid, can they? They do not seriously expect a reduction in fuel use or vehicle use. And they cannot be in their right minds if they think it's fair to force the owners of older vehicles to prematurely scrap them and either replace them with newer vehicles or just go without. Hang on... I've just realised the answer.

?

"What is being said" by a politician (especially a LibDim) is not usually the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It isn't what they *say* that's important, it's what they *mean*. Some people apparently can't work that out.

Let's get this straight. Are you claiming that it is acceptable for a government in a democracy to impose sanctions (I was going to write "solutions", but the other word is better) on a population that does not agree to suffer them? And are you claiming that it's OK for the LibDims to lie because (in your view) the truth would be even more unpalatable?