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

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

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

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

snipped


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.

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. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on
those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair. Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


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.

If fuel consumption/economy targets were legislated for, then
everyone would be driving more fuel efficient cars, instead of the
current system where well-off people simply shrug and pay the extra
tax money to run their gas guzzlers. Overall fuel consumption would go
down if all cars had to achieve, say, an average 40 miles per gallon.


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

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.
Apart from slavery and cheap immigrant labour.....


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.

It's only sensible to get off the taxation band wagon and start
legislating limits for emissions and fuel consumption at the
manufacturing level. We don't need to punish those on lower incomes
with a disproportionately greater tax burden than everyone else. The
man in the street is the driving force behind the economy.



--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

"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)