"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sacold" wrote in message
...
The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to
hear.

"A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already
brittle
public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With
rural bus
services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban
train
lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point."

See:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html

Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged
to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more
taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and
which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord.
Funny thing, free market forces.

But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.

--
"Transport is the life blood of the economy."

Oliver Keating wrote:

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sacold" wrote in message
...

The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to

hear.

"A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already

brittle

public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With

rural bus

services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban

train

lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point."

See:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html

Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged
to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more
taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and
which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord.
Funny thing, free market forces.


But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.


--
"Transport is the life blood of the economy."





Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go
anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my
Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less
car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is.
Free? Absolutely no way.

Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage
was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway.



--
Nick H (UK)

"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message
...
Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go
anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my
Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less
car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is.
Free? Absolutely no way.

Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage
was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway.


Yep, fuel tax is pretty sensible as it does tax usage, however it doesn't
charge for using congested roads at times of congestion. Hence someone
driving down a country road is charged the same as someone trying to use a
city road in the rush hour. Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.

I also think people should distinguish between Labour raising additional
taxes (extra tax burden) and a government trying to redistribute how those
taxes are raised.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing
to the economy as opposed to taxing someone for using up a limited valuable
public resource?

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.










--
Nick H (UK)

In article , Frank X
wrote:
Yep, fuel tax is pretty sensible as it does tax usage, however
it doesn't charge for using congested roads at times of
congestion.

It does, in that you use far more petrol when driving in congested
traffic: my Honda Jazz has a mpg meter which although not 100%
accurate shows that I am get around 50mpg driving back from the
all-night Tesco at past midnight when there is next to no traffic,
and only just over half that in stop-start traffic.

But I doubt whether anyone (except perhaps some hauliers) chooses
to travel at a less busy time to save money - time perhaps.

--
Tony Bryer

"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.

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.

'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

"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sacold" wrote in message
...
See:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html

Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged
to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more
taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and
which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord.
Funny thing, free market forces.


But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably
crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.


--
"Transport is the life blood of the economy."





Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go
anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my
Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less
car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is.
Free? Absolutely no way.

Fiar enough, but isn't that why such a congestion tax would be "revenue
neutral"?

Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage
was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway.

Fuel tax though depends on the efficiency of cars - diesel cars pay less but
cause just as much congestion, and arguably more pollution (but that is
another debate).

Also, people who commute 3 miles in highly congested traffic will pay far,
far less than people who commute 30 miles on the motorway, and that isn't
necessirly good.

Also, fuel duty is not time-discriminative.



--
Nick H (UK)

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.
...

Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks
and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads
back to the wealthy!

Matt B.
--

In article ,
says...

Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks
and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads
back to the wealthy!

You'll be driving those lorries yourself then as the drivers won't be
able to get to work?


--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

"Matt Bourke" wrote in message
om...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably
crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.
...

Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks
and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads
back to the wealthy!

Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a
percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with
company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.

Matt B.
--

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
"Matt Bourke" wrote in message
om...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably
crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.
...

Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks
and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads
back to the wealthy!

Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a
percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with
company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.

Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor. The
wealthy will not be affected. If road rationing is required do it
fairly - give each person an annual mileage quota.

Matt B
--