On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.


It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Local government therefore adopted a missionary zeal to get as many
cameras as possible installed at no cost to themselves while raking in
the fines which could be used for almost any purpose they wanted, as
ring-fencing isn't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. ;-)

So yes, calling it a stealth tax was probably quite accurate; cameras
were paid for out of general taxation, only for the fines to be used
as a means of raising money locally. A double whammy.

What was noticeable is that when the fines started to be clawed back
by the Treasury, rather than retained by the councils, all the
councils' so-called "good intentions" regarding "road safety" were
suddenly consigned to the dustbin. What humbug!

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

In message , Bruce
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?

All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

They never have had such an income stream. Money from speeding fines has
always gone to central government. All that local authorities (or,
strictly, groups of local authorities) got was the cost of processing
the fines, for which they had to apply to the DfT.

What local authorities are currently bleating about is the change
introduced in 2007, which means that they now can't even claim the cost
of processing fines. Instead they were given a Road Safety Grant, to
spend as they wished on a range of road safety measures, and which has
just been halved in value.
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from
fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from
fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?


Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities
who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you
appear to be implying they never had. ;-)

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras
were paid for by central government while the income from fines
(formerly) went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?

Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities
who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you
appear to be implying they never had. ;-)

You have been told elsewhere in this thread that was in the form of
government grants, not receiving the fines.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
amogles wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

Dog Licence for a start.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 27/07/2010 13:49, amogles wrote:
On 27 Jul., 13:35, wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

This is why the dog licence was abolished - it was costing more to
administrate it brought in. Perhaps also the radio licence as well - not
quite so sure about that.

Its quite possible for things like speed cameras to cost a lot but also
bring in a lot of money. So motorists who claim them to be a cash cow
may be right, but people who say they will save lots of money by
abolishing them may also be right.

--
John Wright

Blasphemy - a victimless crime.