"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

No one's forcing the Americans to drive. (OK, well apart from the friendly
folks at Al Qaeda.)

"Peter" wrote:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let his
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

I don't recall this, and a quick search didn't find a reference to it
online - can anyone provide a source for this?

More recently, Boris certainly let his mouth run away from him and referred
to it as a tax when discussing the future of the now-defunct Western
Extension of the zone.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Mizter T wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote:

In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth run
away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll. Wouldn't
they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

No one's forcing the Americans to drive. (OK, well apart from the friendly
folks at Al Qaeda.)

Yet another reason they should not have declined by design for an armoured
space hopper.

tom

--
The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right. -- Lord Hailsham

Roland Perry wrote

at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Michael R Dolbear me@ remarked:

The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston
that the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he
let
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between
a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's
normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being
inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford
Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I googled [tolls taxes distinction diplomat extdf]

And got a US law review discussion about a 2007 New York congestion
charge proposal - Tax or user fee.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/j...3.1/Powell.pdf

Lots of footnotes, though the proposition that classification as tax or
not is that of the local legal system rather than autonomous to the
Vienna Conventions is ill supported.

But the argument that fire brigade services can be charged for even if
only available, not used and that the reduction in congestion is a
similar general benefit seems a fair one.


--
Mike D

In message
, at
13:05:45 on Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Owain
remarked:
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

Not if they're resident in the Embassy - it's on US territory.

Does that matter in this case? They are resident in London, even if that
bit of London isn't (for some purposes) GB.

Or is the resident's discount a misnomer, and really something like a
"Council tax payer's discount"?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

--
DAS

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:14:55 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
, at
13:05:45 on Sat, 2 Jul 2011, Owain
remarked:
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

Not if they're resident in the Embassy - it's on US territory.

It isn't, many embassies are actually on Crown land. The privileges
enjoyed by diplomats and consequentially their "offices" etc. derive
from article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
1961:-
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the
receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the
head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate
steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or
damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or
impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property
thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from
search, requisition, attachment or execution.

A U.S. lawyer's view
[http://law.jrank.org/pages/20420/ext...oriality.html]
re "extraterritoriaity":-

"A theory in international law explaining diplomatic immunity on the
basis that the premises of a foreign mission form a part of the
territory of the sending state. This theory is not accepted in English
law (thus a divorce granted in a foreign embassy in England is not
obtained outside the British Isles for purposes of the Recognition of
Divorces Act 1971). Diplomatic immunity is based either on the theory
that the diplomatic mission personifies—and is entitled to the
immunities of—the sending state or on the practical necessity of such
immunity for the functioning of diplomacy."

Does that matter in this case? They are resident in London, even if that
bit of London isn't (for some purposes) GB.

Or is the resident's discount a misnomer, and really something like a
"Council tax payer's discount"?

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".

In message , at 22:22:41 on Sat, 2 Jul
2011, D A Stocks remarked:
Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's
normally a "long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy,
being inside the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the
Dartford Toll. Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction
and upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen
Elizabeth II Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough
money had been collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge
and tunnels and to accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing
Dartford River Crossing Ltd company was liquidated and a new company
took control of the crossing on behalf of the Highways Agancy and they
collect a crossing *charge* which goes to the government in full for
redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so
quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the
roads).
--
Roland Perry

On 2011\07\03 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the roads).

When you consider what the traffic jams are like when the tube is on
strike, spending the congestion charge on public transport is every bit
as logical as spending the Dartford toll money on paying off the debt
from building the crossing.