I refer to the letter Allow fuel prices to float for a better future.

I agree that subsidising the price of oil is expensive and benefits only the rich. Most commercial vehicles do run on diesel thus it is logical to only subsidise diesel which would mean a huge reduction in government expenditure.

However, higher petrol costs need to be matched with lower priced cars especially in the 1.0 - 1.3 litre range. Cars are a necessity especially for families with babies and small children. The old practice of having children as pillion passengers on motorcycles or doing the delicate balancing act of sandwiching a baby between mother and father on the motorcycle is dangerous and irresponsible.

Driving your own car is the safest way to travel which is why import duties on small family cars should be abolished.

However I disagree with the writer's suggestion to reduce personal income tax and corporate tax. Most income tax is paid by the rich individuals of society. Reducing income tax will only boost the consumption of luxury goods - such as gold - causing the price of gold to rise and become unaffordable to women from the lower and middle-class income groups.

The writer must be jesting in suggesting that lowering corporate tax will translate into higher salaries for employees. Take for example households that employ maids. An increase in household income will not mean more pay for the maid but will instead mean that the household will now be able to afford two maids.

The whole idea is to reduce unnecessary government spending so that more money can be spent for the critical areas of health, education and for the eradication of poverty. An example of wastage would be buying submarines and sending an astronaut into outer space.

Also, the idea of charging toll to use roads is a good one provided that the goal of the venture is to break even. If toll companies start projecting profits, then it is time to lower the toll rate or to stop charging toll altogether.