To think there should be a ULEZ concessions scheme?

[declutteringAgain]

For those on very low incomes affected by this ?
Either a reduced rate or a certain number of ‘free’ trips per UC assessment period or similar?

Responses about avoiding trains just makes me think that the per day cost of ULEZ is way, way too low

We have the most expensive trains in Europe by far already. Public transport needs to be made much cheaper. Commutes into London for example cost 4-5 times as much in many cases as the same distance into other European capitals.

You don't have to be a whole lifespan net contributor object to being characterised wrongly as a non-tax payer.

I didn't characterise anybody as a non-taxpayer".

I corrected an incorrect statement that people who are earning minimal amounts are funding the services they use because that is simply not the case.

You then responded saying this was a "classic error" and that many such people are net contributors over their entire lives. That is even less true: many people are net contributors at some point but a far smaller proportion are net contributors as a whole over their lifetimes. So I pointed this out.

These are simply facts.

There are many structural reasons this is the case, and it's not necessarily even a problem, except that now the extent of it makes things very unstable because the UK tax base is so narrow and reliant on a very small proportion of people.

My points were not moral but factual, correcting inaccuracies in assertions being made. It seems many people don't grasp the huge gap between what they pay in tax and the cost of the services they receive and it's not possible to have a sensible discussion on policy options if factual inaccuracies are being asserted.

No I don’t think so. There are plenty of people not on UC who are in equal financial difficulty, what do you suggest for them? Who should in fact pay for the air pollution and deaths caused by people on UC??

Everyone in receipt of child benefit is eligible for the scrappage scheme. That will cover a compliant car.

So how does a family on UC with no car bring their child to A&E?

THIS @PassTheSnacks is where you initially responded to a "the recipients pay tax too" point with a slide into whether any of those people were net contributors.

It doesn't matter whether they're net contributors. In any given year or over a life time. In monetary terms, citizens contribute what they owe and take any perks they're granted.

More importantly the "ragged trouser philanthropist" class has grown hugely over recent decades. So many people providing absolutely essential labour and services on barely survivable or sub-survivable wages. That used to mean porters, cleaners, refuse workers. Now the description also applies to teachers, nurses, police and so on.

And the reason vast swathes of the populace now struggle is largely because of the psychotic housing economics that have dramatically enriched many of the "net contributors". So let's just shut up about net contributors eh? It's not a helpful way of measuring contribution.

You misread the post or failed to understand it. I didn't say they were net tax contributors (because very, very few people are). I said they paid tax. Because the usual snotty comments that come along the lines of 'But it's taxpayers' money' and even people with no recourse to public funds pay tax.

Nobody buying full price school dinners subsidises the cost of meals for the children entitled to receive a free school meal. Which means the entire whine about free school meals was incorrect from the first word typed.

It was you who started talking about "net contributors". I only used the term when responding to your post about it which was also factually wrong.

If you had read my posts you'd also have noted that I stated quite clearly that there are structural reasons why this is the case, and that this is what the tax system is for so it is not necessarily a problem that some people do not cover their own costs. My objection was to the false claims that most people do, because this is factually wrong.

Of course most people pay some tax. The issue is people throwing out "I've paid for it!" comments when demanding ever more services when they seemingly don't comprehend that simply paying some tax does not mean you are funding the services you are receiving. Few people do. Like I said, it's not really possible to have a rational discussion on how to improve the structure of the UK economy with evidence-based and economically feasible policies if many people won't engage in a factual discussion and continually make politically motivated posts that are factually wrong.

So how does a family on UC with no car bring their child to A&E?

TBF, when I had two preschoolers and was living on a PG stipend, (early) tax credits and child benefit twenty years ago, and had no car, I had an emergency tin. The way I worked out how much had to be in the tin at any given time, was "cost of return taxi fare to A&E + cost of cheapest weeks shopping possible".

People have always had coffee tins or friends they exchange favours with. I used to accept lifts from one friend sometimes and would do her form filling in return. When you're right up against it you don't just shrug and fail to plan.

But it would be nice if widening the scrappage scheme to all child benefit recipients does enable everyone to get a compliant car. They'd probably have to put the grant up a bit though.

Nobody buying full price school dinners subsidises the cost of meals for the children entitled to receive a free school meal

Who do you think is paying for it then? If not the other people above the eligibility threshold because they earn more and pay more tax?

Well let's not pretend London is a city that runs on an economically - can't think of the word - rational(?) basis. The economics of London stopped making sense some time ago. But as a city it requires underpaid serfs that increasingly can't even afford housing, so if it wants to tackle its issues, it needs to consider everyone.

Full time workers can get UC if that was the criteria for a concession

Are you thick, it not just cars pre 2006, our 2015 diesel is not ULEZ compliant, fortunately we can afford to scrap it and buy a new one but it's a bit of a waste.

Well let's not pretend London is a city that runs on an economically - can't think of the word - rational(?) basis. The economics of London stopped making sense some time ago.

I don't disagree. Have I said I support the status quo? You appear almost to be having an argument with yourself: tagging my posts but then responding to things I have not said or even insinuated.

But as a city it requires underpaid serfs that increasingly can't even afford housing, so if it wants to tackle its issues, it needs to consider everyone.

"It" is a city, it doesn't consider anybody. Again, I will reiterate that in order to have a sensible discussion about the structural issues in the UK economy and feasible policy options to change it, it is vital to discuss facts not conjectures or assign viewpoints or opinions to others that they have not given any indication of holding. Policy making needs to be evidence-based to be effective.

And that means that if you want change you have to engage with the facts as they stand and have an accurate picture of where we are and why, where we want to be (and build consensus on that, with evidence regarding why it will be better) and then - again using evidence - determine the steps to move from the former to the latter.

That may seem boring to you and if you prefer to be hyperbolic and try to start arguments with people for no reason and make false assertions that don't match the facts of reality then we will get nowhere with anything in the UK improving. Slogans and rage are no substitute for rational thought.

It would only cover a much worse car than I currently own.

I'm lucky. I can afford to trade mine in (for more than the scrappage scheme!) and buy a new car.

This is a great idea!

This was my initial thought too

As older cars fall into repair and stop being used they will be replaced with new ones anyway, there is no need to charge people £12 a day, it's outrageous.

Explain to my why you think lifetime net contribution is so important to the issue of how poorer Londoners are treated in the ULEZ rollout? Why are you even analysing life time net contribution?

And it's a perfectly legitimate to rhetorical device to discuss the complete disaster that is current t London as if it is sentient. Societies are organisms of sorts. They make demands and have outputs. The way London has evolved as a society in the last four decades is dysfunctional.

@GasPanic the problem with that is that the aim of the scheme is to reduce the level of certain pollutants. Many older cars with smaller engines create more of said pollution than newer ones with larger engines. Therefore doing what you suggest would mean the scheme would be unlikely to achieve its aims. Those older cars would hang around longer churning out a disproportionate amount of air pollutants for their size, while the "fat cats" as you call them would simply pay the higher charge. Therefore minimal reduction in air pollution.

Again, I'm not saying the scheme is correct before anybody again assigns views to me that I've not expressed. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤣 Just explaining why I think it's not been done that way. And obviously that's not to say either that it isn't going to cause significant hardship and damage in how it has been designed, again, in case anybody decides to ascribe views to me that I've not stated.

Hard work on Mumsnet today. Is it a full moon?

Jesus Christ.

Explain to my why you think lifetime net contribution is so important to the issue of how poorer Londoners are treated in the ULEZ rollout?

Again, I have never expressed this view so I'm not sure why you would expect me to defend a view I do not have. 🤣

Why are you even analysing life time net contribution?

I am not. YOU responded to me saying I had made a "classic error" and that many people are "net contributors over the lives" even if they are not at a specific time in their life. I responded to you pointing out that this is wrong: quite a lot of people are at some point in life but only a much smaller proportion are over their entire lifetimes. I simply corrected YOUR factual error. It was not me who either introduced the term "net contributors" to the discussion OR started the discussion on how many people do this over a lifetime.

Hope that clears it up. Perhaps go back and read the posts again with fewer preconceptions and a bit less rage and read the words I actually wrote.

This is really tiresome now.

YOU responded to me saying I had made a "classic error" and that many people are "net contributors over the lives" even if they are not at a specific time in their life.

Nope that wasn't me. Someone else entirely.

Shall I join in with the juvenile 😂😂😂s now?

Hope that clears it up. Perhaps go back and read the posts again with fewer preconceptions and a bit less rage and read the words I actually wrote.

Maybe go back and read the posts again and work out how to tell which poster is which with a bit more literacy and read the words I actually wrote??

This is really tiresome now.

Yes it is.

Ok fine. My apologies. But it was - as you have admitted - another poster who started the discussion on that. Not me. So why are you asking me why I am "obsessed with it" when I was merely responding to their factually inaccurate comment about it and correcting the inaccuracy? Why have you then been attempting to put words in my mouth and ascribe views to me that I never expressed?