|
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars. Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of creating a separate zone for the western extension? If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight incentive for them to use lighter vehicles. Colin McKenzie -- On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking a mile than cycling it. So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:44:04 +0100, Colin McKenzie
wrote: Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most polluting cars. Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing matters. Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of creating a separate zone for the western extension? Unlikely. If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight incentive for them to use lighter vehicles. Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone, are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest. -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Greg Hennessy wrote:
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most polluting cars. Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing matters. Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare. Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of creating a separate zone for the western extension? Unlikely. Agreed. If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight incentive for them to use lighter vehicles. Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone, are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest. True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
John B wrote: Greg Hennessy wrote: Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most polluting cars. Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing matters. Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare. Is he now acknowledging the folly of extending the zone instead of creating a separate zone for the western extension? Unlikely. Agreed. If zone inhabitants pay 10%, the £2.50 a day charge might be a slight incentive for them to use lighter vehicles. Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone, are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest. True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes, something our Deputy Prime Minister does adequately for all of us put together, I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the following reasons: 1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results in (a) road-hogging and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others; 2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is so often totally unnecessary 3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution But, I also agree that £600-odd will be unlikely to be much felt by those who can afford to drive such monstrosities in the first place. Marc. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Kev wrote:
It seems a bit hypocritical of mayor Ken to do this. If he is so anti pollution why is he bringing the Olympics to London. Does anybody know how much extra carbon the construction and the games will pump into the atmosphere or is he working on the basis that whether the games went to Paris or London the same amount of carbon is produced. Some interesting stuff here may help answer your question: http://www.london2012.com/en/ourvision/greengames/ Quote: "An unprecedented agreement between London 2012, conservation group WWF and sustainable development experts BioRegional publically states that London will host a zero-waste, low carbon Games which deliver long-term social and environmental benefits to the city." The strong environment and regeneration focus was one way in which London's bid outscored the other cities. Here's the relevant section of the bidding document (PDF): http://www.london2012.com/NR/rdonlyr...nvironment.pdf -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
John B wrote:
True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than those in lower bands. If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that said. Neil |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Neil Williams wrote: John B wrote: True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than those in lower bands. If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that said. Neil Neil, your argument against banding is intellectually correct: a Band A property does not inherently require less Council services than a Band H property. That being so, why should there be any distinction based on property value? Moreover, why should there be a distinction based upon earnings either? Does a high-earner necessarily use more Council services than a low-earner? Marc. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
|
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Richard J. wrote: wrote: Neil Williams wrote: John B wrote: True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than those in lower bands. If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that said. Neil Neil, your argument against banding is intellectually correct: a Band A property does not inherently require less Council services than a Band H property. That being so, why should there be any distinction based on property value? Moreover, why should there be a distinction based upon earnings either? Does a high-earner necessarily use more Council services than a low-earner? Not necessarily, but he has a greater ability to pay, the same principle of progressive taxation that we are used to with income tax. Are you against this principle? Of course high earnings and high current house value don't necessarily go together. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) But there are so many anomalies, especially for those of us who live in London. How many London properties would EVER fall into one of the lower bands, despite the fact that an equivalent property in, say, Hull, would do so? In other words, someone of modest means living in London is almost bound to own a high-value house or flat because of the generally higher property prices in London. The person who complained that in London bands ended at H had a valid point: someone living in a small house in, say Fulham (like I do) has a property worth around half a million Pounds, and would pay the same (or more) Council tax than someone living in a mansion in, say, North Yorkshire. Why? Moreover, someone living in a, say £10 million property in London would not have to pay 20 times the amount that the Fulham resident pays. Why, if the system is related to property value, should someone living in a property worth 20 times the value not have to pay 20 times the Council tax? I am not advocating any particular scheme, but merely highlighting anomalies and inconsistencies. As in so many things, the very rich are okay (as they usually are), and so are the very poor (who don't have to pay or get rebates etc.) Those of us in the middle, for whom relatively small amounts of money make a lot of difference, are the ones most disadvantaged by "broad brush" schemes which take no account of small variations in circumstances. Marc. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 13 Jul 2006 02:36:05 -0700, "John B" wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote: Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most polluting cars. Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing matters. Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare. It's neither voluntary or progressive. Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone, are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest. True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... A ridiculous premise. -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 13 Jul 2006 08:45:04 -0700, "Kev" wrote:
It seems a bit hypocritical of mayor Ken to do this. If he is so anti pollution why is he bringing the Olympics to London. Quite. Does anybody know how much extra carbon the construction and the games will pump into the atmosphere Far less than the 300 odd coal fired power stations the Chinese are building. Something which demonstrates the thinly disguised lie behind UK efforts to allegedly reduce global warming. -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 13 Jul 2006 14:39:39 -0700, " wrote:
Greg Hennessy wrote: On 13 Jul 2006 02:36:05 -0700, "John B" wrote: Greg Hennessy wrote: Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most polluting cars. Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing matters. Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare. It's neither voluntary or progressive. Of course it's voluntary: if you don' want to pay the higher charge, get a smaller car. About as practical as telling someone to get a smaller house if they don't want to end up paying more council tax. "Progressive", I admit, is a matter of debate. Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone, are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest. True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... A ridiculous premise. Why? Because what is being compared is not even remotely connected. You cannot claim that most if not all 4x4 drivers live in band H houses and are allegedly underpaying council tax as a consequence. Why should someone driving a small 4x4 pay more to use the road than someone driving a heavier conventional car taking up more road space. greg -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Greg Hennessy ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Of course it's voluntary: if you don' want to pay the higher charge, get a smaller car. About as practical as telling someone to get a smaller house if they don't want to end up paying more council tax. And just as true. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Greg Hennessy ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Why should someone driving a small 4x4 pay more to use the road than someone driving a heavier conventional car taking up more road space. sigh You don't quite get it, do you? It's not "4x4" - that's just lazy journalism. It's based on the CO2 emissions. So if the "conventional car" is over the threshold and the 4x4 under, then the "conventional car" driver will pay the higher rate and the 4x4 driver won't. Happy? Quite what the hell Ken proposes to do for vehicles without an official CO2 figure, I know not... |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 13 Jul 2006 22:35:16 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Greg Hennessy ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Why should someone driving a small 4x4 pay more to use the road than someone driving a heavier conventional car taking up more road space. sigh You don't quite get it, do you? It's not "4x4" - that's just lazy journalism. It's based on the CO2 emissions. So if the "conventional car" is over the threshold and the 4x4 under, then the "conventional car" driver will pay the higher rate and the 4x4 driver won't. Happy? Quite what the hell Ken proposes to do for vehicles without an official CO2 figure, I know not... Charge them £50. -- James Farrar . @gmail.com |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
wrote:
Neil Williams wrote: John B wrote: True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than those in lower bands. If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that said. Neil, your argument against banding is intellectually correct: a Band A property does not inherently require less Council services than a Band H property. That being so, why should there be any distinction based on property value? Taxing land value is desirable because otherwise the price of land would just increase more. I can't think of a good reason to tax the value of the buildings, but ISTR council tax assessment for houses in London is based on footprint rather than value. Moreover, why should there be a distinction based upon earnings either? Does a high-earner necessarily use more Council services than a low-earner? No. Of course, when a question includes "necessarily", the answer is nearly always "no", but in this case I doubt there's even a correlation. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
James Farrar ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : Quite what the hell Ken proposes to do for vehicles without an official CO2 figure, I know not... Charge them £50. So an economical, lower-than-average emission vehicle should be charged far more? Why? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Neil Williams wrote:
True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H... Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than those in lower bands. If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that said. Disagree. Income and wealth are both measures of 'richness', and all forms of wealth accumulation other than housing are already taxed[*]. Ideally, I'd levy CGT on house value increases in the same way that it applies to all other investments, but assuming that that's politically unacceptable then having some kind of housing wealth-based taxation system is a reasonable substitute. And given that the system currently works in a tiered fashion, as Marc says elsewhere, the fact that in London the very rich have to pay the same as the moderately well-off is silly. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
John B ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : Ideally, I'd levy CGT on house value increases in the same way that it applies to all other investments wince I can certainly see - and don't necessarily disagree with - the concept, but... ouch... £8,800/year tax free, 20% on anything above that or 40% for higher rate tax payers. So - a not completely atypical example... You bought your house 10 years ago for £150,000. It's now worth £400,000. That's £250,000 gain in value over 10 years, so £88,000 allowance. £162,000 taxable gain. You currently earn £35,000/year, so you're a higher rate taxpayer. You come to sell your house. But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40% of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Adrian wrote:
Ideally, I'd levy CGT on house value increases in the same way that it applies to all other investments wince I can certainly see - and don't necessarily disagree with - the concept, but... ouch... £8,800/year tax free, 20% on anything above that or 40% for higher rate tax payers. So - a not completely atypical example... You bought your house 10 years ago for £150,000. It's now worth £400,000. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
John B ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40% of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them. Imposing it retrospectively would be unfair as well as politically impossible - I don't think even I'd choose that route. OK, so you introduce it on any property bought after say 1st Jan 2007. The end of December is going to be ****ing *chaos* in the housing market, as everybody tries to complete any sale that they're even *contemplating*. What then? Prices utterly collapse, massive negative equity. However, imposing it ongoing would be a different story: a large part of the reason that house prices have shown the kind of insane rises that they have is because they're seen as a tax-free investment. Do people buy houses as "investments"? Or because they need to live somewhere and don't want to fund somebody else's retirement by paying 'em rent on their nice tax-free investment. Don't forget that any house that isn't your primary residence - any holiday home, any buy-to-let - is already subject to CGT. |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 14 Jul 2006 03:48:57 -0700, "John B" wrote:
But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40% of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them. Imposing it retrospectively would be unfair as well as politically impossible - I don't think even I'd choose that route. However, imposing it ongoing would be a different story: a large part of the reason that house prices have shown the kind of insane rises that they have is because they're seen as a tax-free investment. Um no, it's entirely down to our nationalised planning system restricting supply since the 1947 T&C planning act and other pieces of insane central planning, such as English Nature having the power to object to development within 5km of sites of alleged scientific interest. Sort out the supply problem and the market will take of the rest. greg -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 14 Jul 2006 09:24:13 GMT, Adrian wrote:
But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40% of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them. Quite, it would also do wonders for labour mobility. The CPRE (Council for the Protection of Residential Estates) and it's land owning bankrollers are pushing hard for capital gains tax on home sales ATM. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../01/do0102.xml Personally I could be persuaded of the merits of say an annual £1000/sq ft levy on all members and funders of the CPRE who live in properties than the median size of average residential property built since 1970. I am sure Max Hastings living in a 3500+ sq ft manor in Berkshire wont mind at all. greg -- If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness, and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look Do you go to the top or to the bottom? |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
On 13 Jul 2006 08:11:15 -0700, "
wrote: Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes [...] I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the following reasons: 1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results in (a) road-hogging and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others; 2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is so often totally unnecessary 3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax specifies so high and so wide. It just aien't so: the proposed hate tax is based on the g/km figure. As poster Adrian correctly said, plenty CTs come below the 225g/km while enough smaller vehicles exceed it. Issue here is that one target of hate (CT) is being used to slip in tax rises. Issue 2 is how the media don't bother/are too dim to explain this. Issue 3 is incitement: I'm no fan of CTs but the bile being spewed against them is not nice to see. First they came for the Tractors, then they came for the cyclists, ... This is not intelligent politics but barrow boy stuff. I've sent another missive, this time to politics.guardian.co.uk on this. My previous to the BBC web site elicited a zero response. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Colum Mylod ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the following reasons: You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax specifies so high and so wide. groan Don't go there. Just don't. Really. Trust me on this. DO NOT GO THERE. marks thread ignore |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Taxing land value is desirable because otherwise the price of land would just increase more. I can't think of a good reason to tax the value of the buildings, but ISTR council tax assessment for houses in London is based on footprint rather than value. The council tax bands are defined by London boroughs (or at least the ones I found on a Google search for "council tax bands London") as based on value, like everywhere else in England. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
|
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
|
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
|
Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
Greg Hennessy wrote:
It's neither voluntary or progressive. Of course it's voluntary: if you don' want to pay the higher charge, get a smaller car. About as practical as telling someone to get a smaller house if they don't want to end up paying more council tax. Not really. They don't have to get a smaller car - just a more efficient one. It more like saying - "if you don't like your heating bills, get more insulation - not neccessarily a smaller house. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk