nick22abdn

Sorry to burst your bubble here. If I take a bit of artistic licence here and say that most people driving high powered Porsche's will be older (lets say 50 for the sake of argument) and a large number of smaller cars (Renault Clio for instance) will be younger drivers who have only just passed their test, the insurance argument doesn't stack up. Will probably costs a 50year old £600 a year to insure the porsche and £2000 for the 18 year old to insure the Clio. Granted that you are less likely to have an accident as an 18 year old in a clio as opposed to a porsche but reality is tha young people don't normally have such cars. I think you'll find the most dangerous cars to be accelerating the bo11ox off will be small cars. Boy racers behind the wheel want to think they are in a sports car and drive them as such. Problem is they have narrow, cheap tyres on them, soft suspension, poor brakes and handle like sh1t. This casues accidents. I have never seen a properly high performance vehicle give it its all away from the lights, they are normally taken round a track if the driver wants to go fast - either that of they are just used for posing in which case they wont be travelling fast to begin with. As for higher premiums, this takes into account probability of it being stolen or vandalised. Also if in an accident,the cost of repairs. Car such as a Lotus Elise will cost £2500 in parts just for a new rear clam + fitting and paint if it gets damaged (and being made of fibreglass a small knock will require the whole thing to be replaced) verses a few hundred quid to repair a mark on the bumper of the clio if it suffers the same accident. I know which car I fell less safe driving near - a 50 year old woman in her Nissan Micra, moving slower than the rest of the traffic, sitting right up against the steering wheel and having no clue what is going on around her or a 50 year old car enthusiast behind the wheel of a Porsche.

You still haven't answered my question though. You say that a £5000 a year tax should be levied on all cars that have engines larger than 2L. Which of my two cars, or both should have this tax levied? And what are you going to do about stripping your own car out of all luxuries in order to help save this precious resource? Or do you wish this penalty to be levied on those who can afford a porsche?

You have a slightly interesting line of argument here! How exactly is the government generating extra revenue from someone driving a porsche going to save the world's resources. The amount of fuel used in this country by gas guzzlers when compared to the amount used worldwide (look at USA for example) is pretty much non existant. The only thing that increasing tax would do is line the governments pockets. If you are worried about the lack of money for them to spend look at a hugely immoral act - people who have never worked a day in their entire lives. Stop giving them money and the government wont need as much. As for your arguments about cars, it would appear that you really don't know much about them. I currently have 2 cars so please let me know which should be taxed heavily, or in your mind should it be both. One is a 10 year old 2.5l Volvo estate (over your magical 2l mark). It is used as a load lugger and I think I actually have the smallest engine. It is used for business and I need to have an estate of this size to move stuff around. A 1.8l Mondeo estate would not be big enough -try finding a small engined large estate car. If this was taxed heavily, my prices would have to increase, thereby contributing to inflation. Either that or I could buy a large van which I am sure would be exempt in your mind but worse for the environment. My other car is a 2.2l. However, as it's fitted into a VX220 that only weighs 850kg it returns about 35-40mpg. I would be impressed if you got that out of the mondeo. So, which should be taxed, the car required for business or the sports car that is actually more economical than most run of the mill, sub 2l ones. Also, the VX doesn't have air con. Using air con decreases mpg by 2-3. Therefore lets ban air con from all cars. Whilst we are at it lets take the VX's lead and make all cars more efficient - lets remove all carpets from cars, electric windows, large amounts of padding from seats, aluminium bonded chassis, fibreglass body etc as these all add weight and therefore increase consumption. Or would you be unhappy if someone started telling you what you can and cant have in your repmobile. All cars can be more efficient and it has bugger all to do with engine size. I personally hate 4x4's as they stop other road users from being able to see what they are doing and never go off road. However, your argument that people who can afford more than you can should be taxed to limit them to having what you deem as acceptable and affordable is ridiculous. Just a quick mention of your figures - please research better. 5 year olf BMW 525 with 70k on the clock will have depreciated from circa 26k to 8.5k not 5k. Where did you get those figures for insurance - im 23 and only pay £600 a year for a VX, and just got a quote of £800 for a Porsche 911, which I am seriously considering at the moment. It would be worth getting just to irritate the hell out of you if nothing else. Please learn something about cars before preaching about them.

Surely for additional width the empty end of the car park would provide plenty? As you are able bodied and your daughter is in a wheelchair it would be perfectly possible to park further away from the door, hence disabled space not required.

I think lots of people on here seem to be bitter about something!

It never ceases to amaze me how many jealous people are on here. Stop trying to put everyone down who has done ok for themselves and go out and improve your own situation if you feel so aggrieved. I believe the technical name for your affliction is small man sydrome!

I would question why someone who is partially sighted, badly enough to get a disabled badge, would be behind the wheel of a car in the first place. Secondly, why should such a person need to park closer to the entrance of a supermarket?! My old boss used to use have a badge because of his wifes 'disabilities'. It meant that he could park for free anywhere he liked when he went to work whilst the wife was at home. As his wife only has arthritis is the hands it was questionable why they were entitled to a badge in the first place. They also got a motabilty car. (Meanwhile the wife painted and sold these paintings to supplement their income - arthritis couldn't have been that bad!) The problem is most have no respect for disabled badges and parking spaces as badges are given out too easily (note the cars such as lotus elises which sometimes have them - if you can get in and out of one of them you are definitely not disabled!) There are also a disproportionate number of disabled spaces of which 75% are normally empty. I would also question how much of an advantage disable spaces adjacent to the entrance of a supermarket/shopping centre really are? If someone walks up and down every aisle in the supermarket, proportionatly how much does 100m to the entrance really add?! I normally park as far away from the entrance as possible in the hope that some retard won't be next to me and as such will not open their car door into me. However, if I am in a rush I will park in a disabled space as they are wider and will reduce the probability of a 4x4 driving mother damaging my car. If disabled spaces were reserved for people with genuine disabilities that impaired their mobility I would not do this. However, as there are so many people who are undeserving of such badges or utilise a family members badge I have no issue doing this. I have a stupidly impractical sports car and it is obvious to all that I am not disabled. Occasionally I get a look or two but whilst there are 5 empty spaces next to me and loads of people with badges who don't require them, I really couldn't care less.

I wouldn't have an issue with a pay rise if they were more productive with their time. If they were to catch the junkie who broke into my car rather than targetting motorists for exeeding the speed limit by 5mph I think they would have far more support.

I dont personally think that NR should have been supported and certainly not the the extent that it has been. However, the counter argument is that it is in the best interests of the country and will delay/stop more bank runs hence delaying/preventing a depression. I fail to see the uspide of giving money to those who havent had a job for 20 years. If they dont want to do anything to support themselves thats fine - but they shouldn't be given any of our money either.

Becuase why should it be anyone elses job to pay for their medical services, military, street lighting etc. Most people on minumim wage will also be living in subsidised property, once again paid for by others. Everyone has one life - they should at least be able to support themselves through it without expecting others to pay for them. If they wish to earn more, maybe investing their time in college rather than the pub would be more productive.

Noone is being forced to do anything here. These people all have a choice. If theirs isn't to work then two options are there - clean up the streets or stop taking hard working taxpayers money. Why should the majority of the population have to work for their money whilst others feel it is their right to just be given it. Good on the tories.

What you haven't pointed out is that Tata are buying the company primarily so that Alfa romeo and Maserati are able to use their technology to improve their cars and by doing this, reduce Jaguar's costs. By doing this they will be able to return to being profitable again. Tata is part fo the same group. Also, these companies haven't exactly been British owned for quite some time so it is hardly a change in that sense, ust new owners from another new country.

If Trump gets his way with the new golf course I think prices in Grampian will likely fall slightly and then stagnate. A large amount of jobs will be created. Whilst the slowdown in the housing market will make times hard for people in the construction industry in other areas hard, the scale of his proposals could quite easily occupy half of the tradesmen in Grampian for a while to come. A large number of other specialists will also need to move to the area for a temporary period of time (say 2-3 years) inreasing demand for rental properties, thus increasing rents. I could be wrong but I think that if Trump gets his way Aberdeen and Grampian will likely be one of the least badly hit areas

My view is that there should be no such thing as a state pension ..... or benefits (expect for those genuinely completely disabled) or council housing or the NHS etc. As far as i'm concerned we should all be able to support ourselves. I have a good 40 years left before I retire - why should I not be able to save money myself for my pension. I detest the idea of paying into a big pot and it being given away to those too intellectually challenged or lazy to have a job. There are a few posters on here who have payed into the system for years, only to lose their job and find they get the same benefits allowance as someone who has never done a days work in their life. If we abolished benefits althogether these hard working people would have paid a lot less in tax over the years and as such would have their own sizeable rainy day fund to support themselves in times like this. No doubt plenty of people will start attacking this idea as being a right wing, tory mentality and therefore I am deserving of being shot! At the end of the day we all have only one life to live - how pathetic does it make us if we are not even capable of supporting ourself through it? (assuming that the government haven't stolen 40% of our money for years on end) However, my point still stands. The older generation were told that by paying in to the system they would be supported in old age. We can't really now turn round and say tough, cheers for the money in the past but you're on your own. But for the sake of future generations we should stop this moronic system now. If anyone fancies petitioning the government for a complete abolishment of state pensions let me know (although I think most will argue that they now deserve one as they have been paying NI for the last 10 years or so and there in lies the problem) As for me being pathetic I would suggest that anyone who has actually attained a world class education over the course of 6 years and still earns less than an HGV driver is actually the pathetic one. That is assuming you mean a red brick uni like Cambridge as opposed to a world class poly (a contradiction in terms). If someone has studied for 6 years I would assume they would be a doctor, fully qualified accountant, surveyor, architect etc and not really on a low paid job. As for those who studied media studies at Anglia Polytechnic, more fool them - they evidently should have undertaken training to become an HGV driver. What doormats!!

No, the problem with my generation is that they can only buy tat because they prioritise these things first, and once bought they have no money left. And what do you mean, money is impossible - it isn't if you work hard but to be fair it unfortunately doesn't grow on trees! My point was that older generations worked harder than we do now and the only things they could afford to buy were food and a house. IF we went back to that mentality then the majority could afford to buy a house. But people like yourself and ellie seem to feel that it is only fair to expect all of the latest gadgets, have a good lifestyle, go out of dinner and on foreign holidays, buy whatever food you want and own a nice big house. And all for 7 hours work a day. Why does this generation expect all of this and more to the point think that they are entitled to this lifestyle? What have you done to deserve this?!