On 27/07/2010 13:49, amogles wrote:
On 27 Jul., 13:35, wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

This is why the dog licence was abolished - it was costing more to
administrate it brought in. Perhaps also the radio licence as well - not
quite so sure about that.

Its quite possible for things like speed cameras to cost a lot but also
bring in a lot of money. So motorists who claim them to be a cash cow
may be right, but people who say they will save lots of money by
abolishing them may also be right.

--
John Wright

Blasphemy - a victimless crime.