The Budget

If you don't use much fuel you shouldn't get ripped too badly as I understand it.

Large 4x4's are more worthy of tax that sports cars imo because:

a) they are far more dangerous if they hit pedestrians/other vehicles
b) their increased weight causes more road damage
c) their increased size causes more congestion and reduces parking space
d) there's a lot more of them that equivalently consuming sports cars - to get to X5/M class levels of fuel economy, you need a TVR or Porsche and you need to drive it like a wanker. Something like an Elise does 40mpg.

None of these really apply (except pedestrian safety) if you have a small economical 4x4 though

I hate Rory Bremner!

Suzuki Vitara. It's a 1.6, so not a mahoosive engine either.

A Mercedes SLK 230 does less than 25mpg.

That's my point! Quite a few 4x4s do significantly more than that, yet they receive a blanket condemnation (not necessarily in tax terms, just people having a go at them).

Brown WANTED this situation, there are many scenarios stemming from this budget, all of which allow Brown to point the finger at his successor, when he finally makes it into number 10.

But this one, in light of the way Brown has went about this "tax cut", has really made me think about who I will be giving my vote to at the next election.

is that not a result of the new £20 notes?

M4 is the money in circulation....

its got nothing to do with the expansion, the expansion is just how much money is in circultion - a propsering nation witnesses an expansion.

It only becomes an issue if money supply grows at a faster rate than GDP growth.... your putting up one half of the equation and assuming it means disaster for the economy.

if you want a real picture

velocity x m0 = GDP x measure of inflation

Your sum makes no sense

(youre also using the figures of two seperate years )

Don't flatter yourself

I think google/wiki is on the other side of the bill in that match though.