|
Technically it's impossible to tax people off the road, because if the tax really does force people to not use the road, they therefore will cease paying said tax. Therefore the Treasury raises no money and has to pay out even more to support people who don't bother working anymore. Because of the tax. Yeah.
These think tanks and politicians get tunnel vision over this. It's the roads which need to change. The UK has had practically no road investment for 30 years, while at the same time the Government lets the population increase by 23 people every hour. Instead of doing anything to limit that influx or expand the road network, they instead take the cheap shot, easy way out of saying it's all our fault. We should stop using the road.
|
Technically it's impossible to tax people off the road, because if the tax really does force people to not use the road, they therefore will cease paying said tax. Therefore the Treasury raises no money and has to pay out even more to support people who don't bother working anymore.
That's a fairly innumerate suggestion, Jamie. We all know the roads could not be emptied by taxation. But if (for argument) a 50% tax increase caused a 10% drop in road use, the govt. would collect about 35% more. So worth doing, especially if it postpones the enlargement of the network [ which, by the way, I approve of. There's no reason why road use should be allowed to grow indefinitely. If drivers keep driving in congested conditions, let them. ]
|
|
If anything like this intrusive technology were to be introduced, a little black box made in china would be immediately available on ebay to neutralise the government's black box.
It's that simple-any technology always has a loophole.
It's like the recent microchip-in-the-number-plate nonsense - 15 seconds in an old microwave and the chip is toast-literally!
|
50% tax increase caused a 10% drop in road use, the govt. would collect about 35% more. So worth doing
Well it's obvious you're rich enough to be in the 90% then, because only such people would believe that's worth doing. You say it's worth doing, because it wouldn't affect you.
There's no reason why road use should be allowed to grow indefinitely
I'm sure there were sycophants saying such things when the Model T was toodling around on wooden wheels in a world with no tarmac. There's always somebody protesting that an extra lane here, bypass there will result in 100% of Britain being covered in concrete.
We've got nowhere near the amount of motorway-per-square-mile as Germany. Do you think Germany is covered in concrete with out of control road use? Like it or not, motoring powers everything. The Government wouldn't make a penny if nobody used their motor vehicle, which is why they always stop short of making the pips squeek loudly.
|
|
< Well it's obvious you're rich enough to be in the 90% then, because only such people would believe that's worth doing. You say it's worth doing, because it wouldn't affect you. >
Please, Jamie, try not to fly off the handle without considering what has been said. I meant 'worth doing' to the tax collectors. Then you start making presumptions about how well-off I may be, and whether 'such people' would be affected. You must be a Marxist :-)
Yes, of course motoring powers everything, as you put it. Maybe more important than how much tax is collected might be the increase in unemployment if for some hypothetical reason 'motoring' were to cease. Car factories, repair shops, petrol stations, traffic police, car-park officials, DVLA, insurance offices, .... you name it.
Not sure what Germany has to do with anything either. Tell us where you would build your first motorways to ease congestion.
|
|
|
|
If drivers keep driving in congested conditions, let them. ]
Often there is no choice though - I have to work and driving in congestion for 30 mins each way a day is better than taking the bus and taking 90 mins both ways (when it turns up)
|
|
< Often there is no choice though - I have to work and driving in congestion for 30 mins each way a day is better than taking the bus and taking 90 mins both ways (when it turns up) >
I am sure there is always some choice, but I realise that for many people those choices are no more acceptable than facing the congestion. Like changing job, moving house, public transport, etc.
|
< Often there is no choice though - I have to work and driving in congestion for 30 mins each way a day is better than taking the bus and taking 90 mins both ways (when it turns up) >
I am sure there is always some choice, but I realise that for many people those choices are no more acceptable than facing the congestion. Like changing job, moving house, public transport, etc.
Where we live now minimises congestion as much as possible but if one of us needs to wrk elsewhere then it may have more of an affect. And I know I don't want to be moving about all the time as I am happy where I am.
Public transport is a no go for me unless I workred in a town/city centre as it becomes too awkward and time consuming with connections etc. I did used to get a train and not a right pain - th ammount of times it was late or cancelled was quite unbelieveble and is what pushed me into getting my driving icence in the first place.
From my experience the only time public transports works well is in big cities - when i lived in Leeds it was fine - or for long distances to big cities.
|
|
|
|
So worth doing, especially if it postpones the enlargement of the network [ which, by the way, I approve of. There's no reason why road use should be allowed to grow indefinitely.
I agree they should not be allowed to grow indefinitely but am sure if the governemnt paid the money then the roads could be vastly improved.
|
|
Hold on they could be on to something there. Lets tax all the poor off the roads and leave them clearer for the rest of us. Oh wait they've been doing that progressively since 1973 with the fuel price theft thingy. As you were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1997 a party came into power who immediately canned the vast majority of major road building programmes – and then let another five million plus households into the country. They also mandated child car seats – forcing three-child families into larger cars, they then scrapped school catchment areas so mummy now drives her Land Rover Discovery 15 miles to drop Timmy, Tamara and Tarquin off at a “better” school rather than walking them to the local one as she would have done some years ago. Of course, to top things off, they immediately taxed larger cars (the ones they forced people into with their car seat laws) at exorbitant rates. They call this “joined up government” apparently...
|
In 1997 a party came into power who immediately canned the vast majority of major road building programmes – and then let another five million plus households into the country. They also mandated child car seats – forcing three-child families into larger cars, they then scrapped school catchment areas so mummy now drives her Land Rover Discovery 15 miles to drop Timmy, Tamara and Tarquin off at a “better” school rather than walking them to the local one as she would have done some years ago. Of course, to top things off, they immediately taxed larger cars (the ones they forced people into with their car seat laws) at exorbitant rates. They call this “joined up government” apparently...
No, its "we know what's best for you proles", or as its usually called, Socialism
|
|
<< No, its "we know what's best for you proles", or as its usually called, Socialism >>
We had another special pre-election dose of an updated version from Ed M on Radio-4 this morning.
|
|
I see my post did the trick.
As effective as chucking a hand grenade in a room then running away.
|
I see my post did the trick. Which one? What 'trick' ?
As effective as chucking a hand grenade in a room then running away. Have you tried that? And if that is your main reason for posting, why bother?
|
if that is your main reason for posting, why bother?
Life is very boring without pot stirers.
|
|
|
|
I see my post did the trick.
As effective as chucking a hand grenade in a room then running away.
An obviously thoughtful and intelligent post.. By someone as intelligent and thoughtful as the grenade thrower ..:-)
|
|
It's just road-charging dressed as poularist rabble-placating 'tax the rich' codswallop.
|
|
"Poularist rabble...." What a lovely word. From the French 'poulet' I presume.
Chickens of the world, unite! Leave your batteries and FLY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
