Has Labour forgotten the poor?

From Telegraph 6:51PM BST 10/07/2008

More than nine million motorists will face road tax increases of up to £245 under Government reforms of Vehicle Excise Duty, the Treasury has admitted.

Treasury figures show that 43 per cent of motorists will be worse off in 2010/11 when the new measures take effect, despite Gordon Brown’s assurances that “the majority of drivers will benefit from it”.

The news comes as many Britons are struggling to cope with high fuel prices, record grocery bills and rising council tax, and just three months after Gordon Brown was forced to spend £2.6 billion on compensating those hit by the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

How will the reform of VED affect you? Will you be forced to give up your car if it becomes more expensive to tax?

Should the Government abandon environmental taxes in the current economic climate? Or are green taxes fair?

What can Labour do to help people cope with the economic downturn? Has Labour forgotten the poor?

COMMENTS - 27
1. Posted by Edward Michaels on July 10, 2008 09:07 PM

Labour havent forgotten the poor - in other countires - they have never ever had any real interest in the UK.
Their interests, work (?))joking) has always been abroad few years ago they wanted to be in the USSR (or us there) - they tried to assist poor people in Africa spent (wasted) millions - remember the peanuts?
Now of course they are trying to enforce us into the Eu and ensure that their incompetant types (eg. the Welsh geezer and mandelson make money) get jobs.
Plenty more total failures and waste of mony to come - just wait and see!
labourites are just an expensive (money making) incompetant wasters.
Report this comment
2. Posted by karen walker on July 10, 2008 09:07 PM

First the petrol, now the tax, It is alright for the big wigs with plenty of money, but what about us, surviving on less than 20k a year, and daring to buy a car that is 1600, and a 2002 plate ????? !! Get out brown, and let someone do the job that cares about GREAT BRITAIN HA HA what a laugh
Report this comment
3. Posted by Phil Kean on July 10, 2008 08:58 PM

.
To forget,
------------

one has to be cognisant and competent.

This Labour regime are neither. Any pretence that they are worthy of government has all but vanished.

There is no place for outdated and corrupt Labour socialism in 21st century Britain.

Roll on 2010 and the welcome eradication of this Labour regime!
.
Report this comment
4. Posted by keith manton on July 10, 2008 08:52 PM

Of course not, in fact they are creating more every day!
Report this comment
5. Posted by Paul on July 10, 2008 08:50 PM

Stop bombing other countries and bring the money back to England, what a load of politics, this makes me sick but then again who cares for us.
Report this comment
6. Posted by John on July 10, 2008 08:49 PM

"Should the Government abandon environmental taxes?"

LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT.

This is NOT an environmental tax. It's a tax scam to fill the government's coffers. If it were an environmental tax then they would only be raising taxes on purchases of NEW gas guzzlers.

As it stands this is a anti-enviromental tax - since the only thing people caught by it can do is dump their cars either selling them at cut price (since nobody wants them anymore) or literally dumping them. In either case they will buy a new car. These actions will FAR outweigh the CO2 that they would've emitted had they carried on driving the same vehicle.

So stop calling this an environmental or green tax. It just isn't.
Report this comment
7. Posted by Gerard Francomb on July 10, 2008 08:46 PM

VED is not a 'Green Tax'. Petrol duty is. Cars with bigger engines do not necessarily produce more pollution, it depends on how and how far they are driven.

My round trip to work is 5 miles and I would need to be driving a tank to produce as much pollution as a small car doing a round trip of 40 or 50 miles.

The amount of CO2 and other pollutants produced is directly proportional to the amount of fuel used and related to nothing else.

The only cars that should be hit with a high VED are electric ones. Their pollution is produced at the power station and they do not pay any 'Green Tax' on it.
Report this comment
8. Posted by Gil Harding on July 10, 2008 08:45 PM

You can call the whole scurvy bunch all of the worst names you can think of, but they, metaphorically speaking, just reply with that old child's jibe; 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Just don't touch my pension or my expense account'...

No accoutability, no responsibilty, no integrity, but strong on self-interest!
Report this comment
9. Posted by The Trainer on July 10, 2008 08:45 PM

My pensioner father in law drives a car he bought 3 years ago. He manages about 1,500 miles per year. Brown will be charging him approximately �300 per year - whether he drives 1 mile or 50,000. How green is this tax? The eco sin my father in law committed was three years ago, when future VED rates were unknown.

Brown is a simple cheat. He is despised by all. Including pensioners on limited incomes.
Report this comment
10. Posted by J B on July 10, 2008 08:44 PM

Politicians care for politicians. Labour politicians pretend to care for the poor but clearly, by their actions (removal of 10% tax threshold, one of many extra taxes), couldn't care less for them.
Report this comment
11. Posted by Kenneth Armitage on July 10, 2008 08:44 PM

Has Labour forgotten the poor? Of course they have, if indeed they ever thought about the poorest levels in society anyway! As soon as any political party achieves power they forget entirely the poorest quintile in society and that is why the number of people living in poverty, real and relative, remains at or about 25 to 30 per cent of the population even after a decade of a Labour government.

The reason - pay has increased for the highest paid, in the top quintile and possible the second quintile, at a rate much higher and quicker than the lowest one or two quintiles in society. In addition, Gordon Brown has steadfastly refused to raise the personal allowance to a sensible level to take the poorest and lowest paid out of income taxation to reduce the need for various and nefarious schemes of means-tested form-filling to claim back what they have already pain in taxation, and has consistently refused to restore the link between pensions and pay.

In 2007, almost 13 million people in the UK were living in households below the low income threshold and this equates to approximately more than one fifth (22%) of the population. The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) household income in that year. According to the most recent survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a single person, the poverty income level is now estimated at �11,000 a year; for a pensioner couple the poverty income level is estimated at �13,900; and, for a married couple with two children the sum jumps to �32,500.

The sums of money referred to for poverty and relative poverty are measured before income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment. The UK has a higher proportion of its population in relative low income than most other EU countries: of the 27 EU countries, only 5 have a higher rate than the UK, they are, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece and Spain; and. the proportion of people living in relative low income in the UK is twice that of the Netherlands, and one-and-half times that of both France and Germany. For the 5th wealthiest nation in the world they are appalling statistics and a national disgrace.

Just to put the figures into perspective, people paid the minimum wage for a 40-hour week are in receipt of �11,208 before income tax and national insurance contributions which reduces to �8,500 once income tax and NI has been deducted, meaning those on the minimum wage are �3,000 a year short of the poverty income level. That is why it is paramount to raise the personal allowance to �11,000 a year.

So, whilst Labour may have partially addressed the subject of poverty among couples with children by increasing the child allowance, raising the child tax credit scheme, increasing the tax credit scheme and introducing the sure start programme they have, deliberately it would seem, ignored the pensioners and the elderly by not restoring the link between pay and pensions and increasing the basic state pension to the poverty income level and ignored all those on low and poor incomes and the minimum wage by not increasing the personal allowance to �11,000 per annum.

Report this comment
12. Posted by RAGE_715 on July 10, 2008 08:44 PM

The more tax the governments put on cars, the higher the fuel prices, the more and more ridiculous the insurance.. the less of us will have the freedom of our own vehicles. That way, we are more easily tracked, traced and watched, and have less freedom of movement. If we all then end up using public transport, then we're more easily "watched".
Report this comment
13. Posted by andre on July 10, 2008 08:31 PM

I gave up owning a car 6 months ago because it doesn't make sense to keep lining the treasury's pockets. I knew labour would finish this country off, I am just surprised it took them so long. I don't know anybody who says they able to afford to go out or go on holiday, most people are saying they are going to lose their house or business or both, the rest have moved abroad to escape the ever growing taxes. We pay much more for a much worse service, I wish they would just throw the towel in and call a snap election because I am at the end of my tether, I intend to emigrate as soon as I can find the right position abroad and I suggest your readers do the same.
Report this comment
14. Posted by Alex on July 10, 2008 08:30 PM

Labour hate the poor - always have done. Well we now hate Labour. I'm voting SNP on the 24th. Join me if you have always been a Labour voter. Lets do whatever we can to get rid of this corrupt, wasteful and useless Government.
Report this comment
15. Posted by Strix on July 10, 2008 08:13 PM

Socialists/communists always make people poor and suffering.
I have had the creeps on my skin for almost 65 years.
Report this comment
16. Posted by Diana Davies on July 10, 2008 08:11 PM

I am a 62 year old pensioner and I am still working 16 hours a week part-time. Since the 10p tax band was removed I am �4.00 per week worse off. I drive an old car and will still have to use it to got to work, the emissions will be just the same whatever car tax I pay so how can this help the environment??? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy - they first drive mad and I think I am going crazy!
Report this comment
17. Posted by v on July 10, 2008 08:10 PM

Forgotten the poor? The Marxist scumbags want to steal all of our money and MAKE US POOR!
BRING ON THE REVOLUTION - STOP PAYING COUNCIL TAX NATIONWIDE - SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN
Report this comment
18. Posted by danfrom shelf on July 10, 2008 08:04 PM

Who are they
Report this comment
19. Posted by odin on July 10, 2008 07:57 PM

No, Labour has not forgotten the poor. Labour is making us all poor and the wet Tories will finish the job.
Report this comment
20. Posted by George on July 10, 2008 07:53 PM

Forgotten? Labour never remembered the poor in the fiorst place! To Labour, the poor are a convenient subhuman form of property that they treat as slaves. To Labour the poor, whose votes they feel entitled to by divine right, are a convenient way for labour to get away with spraying their vicious bigotry & intolerance across the political atmosphere.

It suits labour's purposes to keep their feet on the necks of the poor, all the time telling them it's "Vatcher's fault" that they are poor.
Report this comment
21. Posted by David Cage on July 10, 2008 07:49 PM

Many people like me will cut corners. I will now change my tyre at as close as possible to the legal limit instead of doing so at the 3mm which I used to do because it is the point where braking is impaired in the wet.
Report this comment
22. Posted by Edward Ashley-Smith on July 10, 2008 07:42 PM

Inaccurate reporting, warping media comments. -All rubbish. [Yes we are all very poor. Especially OAP's like me. Scrapped my TV & licence. Scrapped my car, which was as good as new]. The national press is gagged and just a propaganda machine. -No news! No Obituary column, nobody died in the last two weeks? Plus Matt is obviously on holiday! On the cammand 'Buck - Up!' -For goodness sake get this show on the road! The Telegraph on line is really poor at present. No intelligent comment. Too many typo's and words left out. It's like reading an article written by an illiterate. So, 'Buck UP!' I have friends in 'The Principality of Great Missenden and Prestwood,' who agree with me. So it is not just me?
Report this comment
23. Posted by mike on July 10, 2008 07:42 PM

Labour have totally forgot the working poor because they don't count. They have never cared about them. Mrs T did, right to buy the first choice with national sell offs freedom of choice, thrift. What as Labour or Nu-Lab ever done for the working poor? Tax, tax and more tax and hurt. What has Nu-Lab done for the workshy, lazy, cheats and so called asylum seeker! Nu-Lab have given more and more to free-loaders and taken more and more from the low paid who cannot hurt Nu-Lab even if it had a choice and boy do they know it.
Report this comment
24. Posted by Dave in Notts on July 10, 2008 07:38 PM

Posted by F. and U. Adenufyet on July 10, 2008 07:17 PM
"...and 43% from 100% is 57% so, according to the facts you have given me, he is actually right. "

Er...no

What if it's fiscally neutral for 50 percent and only 7 percent are better off?

Net result: Far more people worse off than better off.

Good job you didn't use a proper name, you'd have looked a right old berk wouldn't you?




Report this comment
25. Posted by Paul J. Weighell on July 10, 2008 07:27 PM

Math not too good at the Telegraph eh? If 43% per cent of motorists are worse off then the other 57% majority are not. For once then Brown was in fact correct. Unusual I grant but this time the numbers seem quite clear...
Report this comment
26. Posted by Tim on July 10, 2008 07:19 PM

This clown just hasn't got a clue has he? The sooner he goes, the better.
Report this comment
27. Posted by F. and U. Adenufyet on July 10, 2008 07:17 PM

Treasury figures show that 43 per cent of motorists will be worse off in 2010/11 when the new measures take effect, despite Gordon Brown�s assurances that �the majority of drivers will benefit from it�.

Hmmmm.

Now, let me get this straight. Brown trout says that the majority of drivers will benefit from it and 43 per cent of motorists will be worse off.
I've just checked my calculator and 43% from 100% is 57% so, according to the facts you have given me, he is actually right.
Surely there are far easier targets to snipe at like treason.