Ian Smith wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

"Frank X" wrote in message

...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed

traffic

lights, etc?



Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve

roads,

but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased

little...

it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another

excuse

to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a

number

of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been

transferred

to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.


I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and

contributing

to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to

get

to work to pay our huge tax bills?



It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes

like income

tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay

like Poll

Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a

big

difference between them stealing money from you through your

employer,

and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly

annoying

than having to physically pay them money... and money that's

already

been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what

resources

need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing

more

to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.


'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use

any

excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists

will

actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer.

Usage-based

taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform
would probably be the right direction. (See
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could
naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in

the

transport system.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7


We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax
system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied
by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished.
Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of
government, and vote accordingly.

The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the existing
ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the
environment.

If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people
to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the
environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and
emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit
non-aggressively).

A free market for transport is impossible under the current system where
modes are treated separately by the government when proposing new
schemes, and where the current cost-benefit analysis model is extremely
flawed, since many of the values used in them are applied to things
which are essentially "not for sale". The current market is biased in
favour of car travel so naturally a modal shift is occurring in that
direction.

Targets are a rather blunt instrument to apply directly to the industry;
rather by using taxation to achieve targets, the true cost of
environmental damage can be compensated for.

I would also venture that the USA is hardly the best model for an
environmentally sound system.

I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by
government intervention.

Reforming the tax system to be fully environmentally-based would
(theoretically of course) shift sustainability in the right direction by
market forces alone, without any further government intervention. It's
only sensible to tax the use of resources which affect everyone.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7