Jeff York wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote:


"Jeff York" wrote in message
news
"Brimstone" wrote:

NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:


You've been shown, you're already getting it. Unlike other
industries, road haulage is so cossetted it doesn't even have to
apply for subsidy, it gets it without having to ask.



So in fact there is no evidence, merely your groundless opinion
that trucks don't pay their way.

Taxation on lorries in particular and road vehicles in general has
been significantly reduced in recent years. That's subsidy by any
measure.

No. You've fallen into the "politician speak" trap where a "reduced
increase" == "a cut". Even *if* road vehicle taxation has reduced,
which is hasn't as far as I'm aware, it is still massively in excess
of the total road expenditure.

And you're confusing the total amount taken in tax revenue with the
amount of costs imposed on the system by any one vehicle and the
amount spent on highway maintenance and build.

The total tax revenue fluctuates according to the number of licenced
vehicles in use. That number can go down as well as up. We've been
told a number of time by Conor and possibly others that there are
now very many fewer lorries on the road than in the past.

It makes no difference. In terms of tax-take v expenditure on roads
and transport infrastructure, road transport gets back around 25% of
what it pays.

So what? This is about the income and expenditure derived from lorries. As I
said, the tax-take can go down as well as up .

Why should there be any relationship between the overall tax take for road
vehicles and the amount spen on road maintenance and building?

All the other "environmental costs" that are used in
order to "demonstrate" that road transport is subsidised are (a)
pulled out of someone's arse and (b) not balanced by the benefit side
of the cost/benefit equation.

No one has mentioned "environmental costs".