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?

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?

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

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.

wrote:
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.

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.

Kevin

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

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 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.

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)

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.