Owain wrote

On Jun 20, 6:32*pm, CJB wrote:
.... But Lib-Dem Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon said: ...
They need to be looking at what changes
are needed to minimise the chances of these penalties, for example by
installing more barriers at stations.”

.. But the extra money raised would pay: "for more than 260 new buses
on
London’s streets, or fund the significant expansion of the cycle hire
scheme, or alternatively reduce fare rises.”

.. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?

.. She seemed quite keen when it came to embassies paying the
congestion
charge.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/unpaid-co...nd-fines-by-em
bassies-set-to-break-50m-barrier-22939.html


Which is a fine example of "I don't have any principle, they are
foreigners and we want their money".

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

I recall a Tory who argued that the Community charge aka "Poll Tax"
should be removed from the RPI "because, like income tax and unlike VAT
and rates, it was a direct tax,".

Which was a reasoned argument, if weird.

--
Mike D

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

Neil

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

Neil

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
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)

Peter wrote
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 07:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

On Jun 21, 4:12*pm, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:

A reasoned argument that the congestion charge isn't a tax would
be
interesting (Embassies don't have to pay taxes).

The one being used, which is debatable, is that it is a road toll,
which is a fee for using a road or roads, and not a tax.

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

Interesting.

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

--
Mike D

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?
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:12:49PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear 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.

That's OK, there are exceptions to the "there's another way round"
argument, such as the Skye bridge, before it was nationalised.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
but that's no reason not to give it -- Agatha Christie

"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.)

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

"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

"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.