"Matt Bourke" wrote in message
om...
"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
--

Now you're talking sense.

"Robin May" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in:

I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got
there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of
goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive
taxation.

And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car
from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people
won't
walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap
transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment'
mentality.

Which is why I suggested regulations on car fuel economy figures,
somewhat more stringently than they do in the US; and not a difficult
thing to achieve. Gone are the gas guzzlers, regardless of how cheap
fuel becomes. Result is everyone uses less fuel, since the rich can't
then simply buy their way out and pollute more. And, by removing the
fuel tax, money gets freed up for other economic activities.


--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Ian Smith" writes:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

[31 lines snipped]

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.

I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to
start
back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of
all others.

Just so long as it's a flat rate. "Progressive" (I hate that word in
this
context) taxation is iniquitious.

Yes, that's what I meant, even though I didn't phrase it very
well. One % for all. I wonder what that figure would be, based on
current government income/expenditure, assuming all other taxes
removed (and corporate tax remained constant)?




--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

Robin May wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in:

I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got
there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of
goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive
taxation.

And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car
from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't
walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap
transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment'
mentality.

....and the problem here is?

Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor.

Bollox. The poor cannot afford a car - Congestion Charging makes bus
travel quicker, (and cheaper if the proceeds are used to subsidise public
transport), therefore the poor benefit.

In article , Richard
J. writes
It's a semantic issue. What does "There is no law against activity" mean?
(a) activity is lawful in all circumstances, or
(b) There is no law which prohibits activity in general, though specific
forms of activity may be unlawful.

(c) In the majority of circumstances activity is not prohibited,
though there may be cases where it is.

I suggest we agree
to differ.

Okay.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

"Philip Rudling" wrote in message
news


Even based on value and CO2 it discriminates against the poor.

Bollox.

So you think a tax based on car value and CO2 emmissions takes into account
ability yo pay? Explain?

The poor cannot afford a car

Because of artificial costs (VED, Fuel Duty, Insurance, MOT, Congestion
Charges) added by the government.

- Congestion Charging makes bus travel quicker,

There are no buses here.

(and cheaper if the proceeds are used to subsidise public transport),
therefore the poor benefit.

Not where there are no buses.

Matt B

Whereas you implied that all use of a mobile on a motorway was
illegal, which is arrant nonsense.

It's a semantic issue.

No it isn't. The new legislation outlaws /holding/ a mobile, not using
it.


--
Phil