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

In message , at 15:06:26
on Wed, 29 Jun 2011, David Cantrell 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.

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

That's one of the exceptions I had in mind when I typed 'normally'.

Although there was a "long way round" using ferries (eg from Mallaig).
I'm not sure ferries count as toll roads.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 03:30:02PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:26
on Wed, 29 Jun 2011, David Cantrell 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.
That's OK, there are exceptions to the "there's another way round"
argument, such as the Skye bridge, before it was nationalised.
That's one of the exceptions I had in mind when I typed 'normally'.
Although there was a "long way round" using ferries (eg from Mallaig).
I'm not sure ferries count as toll roads.

Well, you certainly have to pay for it, so it's still a charge to get
from A to B. And it's bloody expensive too - current fares are GBP21.20
for a car one way, *plus* GBP4.05 per person.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Seven o'clock in the morning is something that
happens to those less fortunate than me

"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.)

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

"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 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".

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
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".


Schedule 6 of The Act defines the period for which said tolls can be
collected, which ended as described above.

--
DAS