Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
What taxes are you paying that are being spent on the roads?
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
You probably use it indirectly. Deliveries to your house, to the supermarket where you buy food, etc.
Don't use schools, can I have a reduction for those please
I assume you used one in the past?
How is that relevant? I'm still paying for schools now.
Did you use the BBC in the past? You must keep paying your license fee forever
Many things are paid out over a period of time. They couldn't exactly tax you while you were at school, could they?
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
What taxes are you paying that are being spent on the roads?
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
Any tax you pay is being spent on all number of things. It all goes into a pot and is used where the Government wants to use it.
So, I'd like a reduction for any of my money spent on roads, schools, hospitals please, as I don't use any of them
Like I said above, privatising it is different to just abolishing the license fee.
I think Philip supports remove license fee + privatise it. I most certainly don't support privatising it
I never said that.
If it was up to me I'd make the BBC Trust a wholly independent Charity like the National Trust. It could then choose to raise revenues however it pleases, whether it be through fundraising drives like PBS, or subscription fees, or charitable donations, or however else it chooses to do it. It would be the BBC's choice not mine.
The Trust might choose to become a business instead of a charity in which case so be it, but it'd be more tax advantageous to be a charity.
But that is privatising it?
The BBC should remain owned by the Government in my view, even if we abolish the license fee.
I thought by privatising it you'd mean selling it off to private owners. Making something a charity isn't really privatising it in my eyes.
But if you include charities as privatised then sure yes, it shouldn't be ran by or for the government.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
I support removal of the criminal element.
But then my question is the same as above, if you fund out of general taxation that's fine but if you don't, there is no way to ensure with the current system, that people have a right to watch TV. So therefore the logical conclusion of decriminalisation is abolishing the fee altogether
Like I said above, privatising it is different to just abolishing the license fee.
I think Philip supports remove license fee + privatise it. I most certainly don't support privatising it
I never said that.
If it was up to me I'd make the BBC Trust a wholly independent Charity like the National Trust. It could then choose to raise revenues however it pleases, whether it be through fundraising drives like PBS, or subscription fees, or charitable donations, or however else it chooses to do it. It would be the BBC's choice not mine.
The Trust might choose to become a business instead of a charity in which case so be it, but it'd be more tax advantageous to be a charity.
But that is privatising it?
The BBC should remain owned by the Government in my view, even if we abolish the license fee.
I thought by privatising it you'd mean selling it off to private owners. Making something a charity isn't really privatising it in my eyes.
But if you include charities as privatised then sure yes, it shouldn't be ran by or for the government.
I believe it should be ran much as it is now, even if we abolish the fee.
I wonder how well your idea polls, or less specifically privatisation, any polling done on that?
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
What taxes are you paying that are being spent on the roads?
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
Any tax you pay is being spent on all number of things. It all goes into a pot and is used where the Government wants to use it.
So, I'd like a reduction for any of my money spent on roads, schools, hospitals please, as I don't use any of them
Again if you're not using roads, your taxes are being reduced by their existing. The government makes a profit on roads.
You're not good with this whole economics thing are you? If roads vanished overnight then so would VED, so would Fuel Duty and you'd have less money to spend on hospitals and schools not more.
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
You probably use it indirectly. Deliveries to your house, to the supermarket where you buy food, etc.
Don't use schools, can I have a reduction for those please
I assume you used one in the past?
How is that relevant? I'm still paying for schools now.
Did you use the BBC in the past? You must keep paying your license fee forever
Many things are paid out over a period of time. They couldn't exactly tax you while you were at school, could they?
So why can people stop paying the license fee? Don't use it anymore, yet you can just stop paying, that is the suggestion being made. Funny how the goalposts now get moved.
I don't drive, I don't want any of my money being spent on roads thank you very much (hypothetical).
Don't use the train, want all the money back that is being spent on public subsidies for those too.
It sounds nuts when you start to think about it, hence why I support the current approach
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
I support removal of the criminal element.
But then my question is the same as above, if you fund out of general taxation that's fine but if you don't, there is no way to ensure with the current system, that people have a right to watch TV. So therefore the logical conclusion of decriminalisation is abolishing the fee altogether
So what?
If its optional people who want to pay for it can do so. If the BBC is beloved people will choose to pay for it.
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
What taxes are you paying that are being spent on the roads?
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
Any tax you pay is being spent on all number of things. It all goes into a pot and is used where the Government wants to use it.
So, I'd like a reduction for any of my money spent on roads, schools, hospitals please, as I don't use any of them
Again if you're not using roads, your taxes are being reduced by their existing. The government makes a profit on roads.
You're not good with this whole economics thing are you? If roads vanished overnight then so would VED, so would Fuel Duty and you'd have less money to spend on hospitals and schools not more.
If I don't pay VED or Fuel Duty, I am still paying for the roads even out of general taxation. I want a reduction on my normal tax rate, don't use the roads, don't want any of my money spent.
No need to be rude Philip, I'm only using your BBC example for everything else. Wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would we?
“Public good” is just whatever @Philip_Thompson thinks the Government should be subsidizing for him. Otherwise everyone else can get stuffed.
A “public good” is a technical term in economics:
“ In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.”
In that sense the BBC as it is currently constituted is a public good as it is broadcast in a way that everyone can get it and my using it does not stop you using it.
Mind you, I think Covid-19 also meets the definition so I’m not sure how helpful it is...
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
You probably use it indirectly. Deliveries to your house, to the supermarket where you buy food, etc.
Don't use schools, can I have a reduction for those please
I assume you used one in the past?
How is that relevant? I'm still paying for schools now.
Did you use the BBC in the past? You must keep paying your license fee forever
Many things are paid out over a period of time. They couldn't exactly tax you while you were at school, could they?
So why can people stop paying the license fee? Don't use it anymore, yet you can just stop paying, that is the suggestion being made. Funny how the goalposts now get moved.
I don't drive, I don't want any of my money being spent on roads thank you very much (hypothetical).
Don't use the train, want all the money back that is being spent on public subsidies for those too.
It sounds nuts when you start to think about it, hence why I support the current approach
That's what I get for interrupting mid argument. People are completely at liberty to stop paying at any time they want, aren't they?
BBC should be funded via a tax on utility bills so no one can avoid it.
Probably also should provide some level of local media as local democracy has almost no media to hold it to account any more.
Really, really good point about local media. Most are now run by either large media companies with no local presence, or groups pushing a political agenda.
"Local" newspapers are typically national conglomerates more interested in pestering local businesses into advertising with them than actually providing any local news.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
I support removal of the criminal element.
But then my question is the same as above, if you fund out of general taxation that's fine but if you don't, there is no way to ensure with the current system, that people have a right to watch TV. So therefore the logical conclusion of decriminalisation is abolishing the fee altogether
Yes.
It's a regressive tax that results in tens of thousands of poor people being needlessly criminalised every year, in many cases destroying their future job opportunities thanks to their criminal record.
Have the government fund directly the essential media programming that the market won't provide, but let the rest of the BBC stand on its own two feet in the commercial market.
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
What taxes are you paying that are being spent on the roads?
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
Any tax you pay is being spent on all number of things. It all goes into a pot and is used where the Government wants to use it.
So, I'd like a reduction for any of my money spent on roads, schools, hospitals please, as I don't use any of them
Again if you're not using roads, your taxes are being reduced by their existing. The government makes a profit on roads.
You're not good with this whole economics thing are you? If roads vanished overnight then so would VED, so would Fuel Duty and you'd have less money to spend on hospitals and schools not more.
If I don't pay VED or Fuel Duty, I am still paying for the roads even out of general taxation. I want a reduction on my normal tax rate, don't use the roads, don't want any of my money spent.
No need to be rude Philip, I'm only using your BBC example for everything else. Wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would we?
No you're not paying for the roads out of general taxation since the amount of money the government is making from VED and Fuel Duty exceeds the amount the government is paying on roads.
If the government raises spends £x on roads and raises £10x in taxes on roads then non-road users are not paying for roads.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Right now they're desperately defending themselves over a movie called Cuties, that portrays pubescent girls in an overtly sexual manner.
Isn't the point of Cuties exactly the opposite - that society increasing portrays pubescent girls in an overtly sexual manner.
Yes, they're trying to be über-woke, but end up with video that overtly sexualises teenage girls and would generate applause from the likes of Roman Polanski. It's basically woke kiddie porn.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
“Public good” is just whatever @Philip_Thompson thinks the Government should be subsidizing for him. Otherwise everyone else can get stuffed.
A “public good” is a technical term in economics:
“ In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.”
In that sense the BBC as it is currently constituted is a public good as it is broadcast in a way that everyone can get it and my using it does not stop you using it.
Mind you, I think Covid-19 also meets the definition so I’m not sure how helpful it is...
A public good is a good that is available to all members of society. The BBC is not that since it is only available to those that pay the licence fee, it is not non-excludable* and therefore it is not a public good by definition.
* Technically those who haven't paid the licence fee can watch it anyway, but if they do so then they are criminals and can go to prison for non-payment ultimately, so I think its safe to say they're excluded under the law.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
Sorry but the nitpicker in me insists upon asking:
If you signed a contract saying that you can't sell it, how has it gone up in value?
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
They're about 20% up on the original list price over here, but most of that is probably options. Nice car to keep its value for a few years though. The one to have got as an investment was the LaFerrari, but Maranello were very discerning as to where those ended up, so they're $3m now. The other was the Ford GT, where they had an application process. The lucky buyers doubled their money after two years, when they were finally allowed the title to the car they'd bought.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
(Technically that's not quite true: people have gone to prison for pirating Sky cards in the past.)
True. An acquaintance out here makes good money on the TV boxes, it's a real cat and mouse game now.
Does he use a Dreambox, or is he messing around with something different?
Android box with a custom app he did himself, basically multicasting from a UK farm of NowTV and Sky boxes into the ME region. He's selling them for $300 a year, the boxes cost $30.
Hold on, vehicle excise duty doesn't pay for roads, you surely must know this, it goes into the same pot as everything else
You're right VED and Fuel Duty pay much more than just the roads. If they were hypothecated then the roads would be getting a lot more money or those taxes would be a lot lower.
It's a simple yes or no, if I don't use the roads nor own a car, please can I have a lower tax rate as I don't want any of my taxes going to something I don't use?
Yes.
If you don't use the roads, nor own a car, then you have lower taxes as you're not paying fuel duty and you're not paying vehicle excise duty.
Now if I don't want to watch the BBC, but do want to watch other live channels, then can I not pay the Licence Fee?
Why is my tax money still being spent on the roads then?
You probably use it indirectly. Deliveries to your house, to the supermarket where you buy food, etc.
Don't use schools, can I have a reduction for those please
I assume you used one in the past?
Kids should pay for it, they’re just sponging off the state.
Set up a loan scheme, then they can start paying their way, the lazy shysters.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
Sorry but the nitpicker in me insists upon asking:
If you signed a contract saying that you can't sell it, how has it gone up in value?
With Porsche, you get blacklisted from the nice cars if you buy one and immediately sell it for over the list price. There's always 10x demand for the GT cars, the dealers can choose to whom they sell their meagre allocations. You're not going to get a 911 GT3 if you don't have a Cayenne and a Panamera on your drive already.
With the Ford GT, they has a lease program where you'd pay 99.9% up front, and 0.1% in two years' time. You could only buy the car on their lease, designed to stop them being immediately flipped for profit.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
Porsche have a habit of killing the value of cars that become speculatively inflated. They brought out the GT3 Touring specifically to deflate the prices of the 911 R. The 918 is another Carrera GT due to the very low volumes. One might go for 1m+ at auction but that doesn't mean the market in them is liquid and there are people queuing up to buy them for 1m+ every day.
There are some models that are absolutely 100% one way bets though. Any RHD GT3 RS is a sure thing. Lasts and firsts are where the value is at in the 911 game (nothing but the 911 is worth spending money on IMO). The current gen 911 will be the last non-hybrid and the last manual so there is potential there if you know the market.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
Sorry but the nitpicker in me insists upon asking:
If you signed a contract saying that you can't sell it, how has it gone up in value?
You were allowed to sell it eventually, but they didn't want you immediately flippng it.
Also, that non resale agreement was the dealer trying it on. Porsche have never done that. To get a 918 the dealers had to sign a participation agreement and pay a lot of money so they were possibly trying to stop you from selling your slot to some flake who couldn't complete the deal.
VED is a tax on a very carefully defined version of emissions.
My favorite example of which is the £1m Porsche 918 Spyder, which pays no car tax and is exempt from the congestion charge, but does 217mph and 0-60 in under three seconds when it switches on the big V8.
The rules have changed now. Only zero emission (918 was never zero) cars that cost more than £40k are exempt.
Damn it, guess I'll have to return my 918.
Can I borrow it for an hour, before it goes back? I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
I don't really have one. I was invited to apply when it was first created, and Porsche made you sign a thing saying you wouldn't sell it. But my wife thought it would be a terrible waste of money, so I didn't.
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
Porsche have a habit of killing the value of cars that become speculatively inflated. They brought out the GT3 Touring specifically to deflate the prices of the 911 R. The 918 is another Carrera GT due to the very low volumes. One might go for 1m+ at auction but that doesn't mean the market in them is liquid and there are people queuing up to buy them for 1m+ every day.
There are some models that are absolutely 100% one way bets though. Any RHD GT3 RS is a sure thing. Lasts and firsts are where the value is at in the 911 game (nothing but the 911 is worth spending money on IMO). The current gen 911 will be the last non-hybrid and the last manual so there is potential there if you know the market.
You're not going to get a 911 GT3 if you don't have a Cayenne and a Panamera on your drive already.
This isn't true in LHD markets. I can buy a GT3 RS off the showroom floor in the Netherlands with no Porsche purchase history.
But not from a UK dealer, who have a habit of being total sh!ts.
I have a cordial relationship with mine. They let me a have a login on their SAP system to look for parts myself because I was taking up so much of their time. But as a generalisation you are correct... You get fucked around lied to much less if you deal with Porsche Finance directly and let them find the car and dealer.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
It used to be that the licence fee had nothing to do with the BBC and was all controlled by the Home Office. The BBC just received part of the revenue. Then in a government cost-cutting move its administration was shifted to the BBC itself and the government could announce that it had reduced the number of civil servants. So before it was the government that was pursuing dodgers like any other licence fee.
From 1979 to 1984 I ran the part of the BBC's PR machine that sought to secure and maintain public and political support for the TV licence fee. I was the lobbyist for it. The real issue is having public service broadcasting that isn't an arm of government which is a good aim but difficult politically to achieve.
So here's a question, if Netflix wants to be "woke" does it as a private company have the right to offer whatever programming it wants?
Of course.
Netflix is very woke, I am surprised so many here don't spend ages complaining about it
I watched films of my choice when I subscribed to it but did not watch 'woke' ones !!!
Can you not do that with other things, why does the BBC only get complained about for being woke?
If private companies want to be woke, surely that is up to them, save with whatever else, no?
Because the other media companies don't put people in prison.
It used to be that the licence fee had nothing to do with the BBC and was all controlled by the Home Office. The BBC just received part of the revenue. Then in a government cost-cutting move its administration was shifted to the BBC itself and the government could announce that it had reduced the number of civil servants. So before it was the government that was pursuing dodgers like any other licence fee.
From 1979 to 1984 I ran the part of the BBC's PR machine that sought to secure and maintain public and political support for the TV licence fee. I was the lobbyist for it. The real issue is having public service broadcasting that isn't an arm of government which is a good aim but difficult politically to achieve.
It would be good PR for the public service argument if they were able to go back to broadcasting Open University or similar content, but the internet probably makes that role redundant.
Yeah, I think Porsche now realise this is the car the GT4 should have been. That car was too impractical for daily use but compromised as a performance/track car by the lack of PDK. Ultimately though you're never going to get 911 resale value out of it so it's an expensive proposition unless you're going to keep it until you die of old age.
Comments
The government makes a profit on drivers. It raises far more from fuel duty and VED than it pays on the roads. If you're not paying either of those taxes you're getting the roads for free.
So, I'd like a reduction for any of my money spent on roads, schools, hospitals please, as I don't use any of them
But if you include charities as privatised then sure yes, it shouldn't be ran by or for the government.
But then my question is the same as above, if you fund out of general taxation that's fine but if you don't, there is no way to ensure with the current system, that people have a right to watch TV. So therefore the logical conclusion of decriminalisation is abolishing the fee altogether
I wonder how well your idea polls, or less specifically privatisation, any polling done on that?
You're not good with this whole economics thing are you? If roads vanished overnight then so would VED, so would Fuel Duty and you'd have less money to spend on hospitals and schools not more.
I don't drive, I don't want any of my money being spent on roads thank you very much (hypothetical).
Don't use the train, want all the money back that is being spent on public subsidies for those too.
It sounds nuts when you start to think about it, hence why I support the current approach
If its optional people who want to pay for it can do so. If the BBC is beloved people will choose to pay for it.
No need to be rude Philip, I'm only using your BBC example for everything else. Wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would we?
“ In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.”
In that sense the BBC as it is currently constituted is a public good as it is broadcast in a way that everyone can get it and my using it does not stop you using it.
Mind you, I think Covid-19 also meets the definition so I’m not sure how helpful it is...
It's a regressive tax that results in tens of thousands of poor people being needlessly criminalised every year, in many cases destroying their future job opportunities thanks to their criminal record.
Have the government fund directly the essential media programming that the market won't provide, but let the rest of the BBC stand on its own two feet in the commercial market.
If the government raises spends £x on roads and raises £10x in taxes on roads then non-road users are not paying for roads.
I've driven most nice cars, but not that one!
Which is a shame, because they've gone up massively in value.
* Technically those who haven't paid the licence fee can watch it anyway, but if they do so then they are criminals and can go to prison for non-payment ultimately, so I think its safe to say they're excluded under the law.
If you signed a contract saying that you can't sell it, how has it gone up in value?
Set up a loan scheme, then they can start paying their way, the lazy shysters.
With the Ford GT, they has a lease program where you'd pay 99.9% up front, and 0.1% in two years' time. You could only buy the car on their lease, designed to stop them being immediately flipped for profit.
There are some models that are absolutely 100% one way bets though. Any RHD GT3 RS is a sure thing. Lasts and firsts are where the value is at in the 911 game (nothing but the 911 is worth spending money on IMO). The current gen 911 will be the last non-hybrid and the last manual so there is potential there if you know the market.
New GT4RS looks interesting, by the way.
https://twitter.com/anneliesedodds/status/1299257646172835841?s=21
From 1979 to 1984 I ran the part of the BBC's PR machine that sought to secure and maintain public and political support for the TV licence fee. I was the lobbyist for it. The real issue is having public service broadcasting that isn't an arm of government which is a good aim but difficult politically to achieve.
If law and order are what this election is about, they will lose it.
Andrew Sullivan"
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-trap-the-democrats-walked-right
This is also worth reading, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-class-dave-grossman-killology.html
https://twitter.com/zekejmiller/status/1299438141292634112?s=21