Congestion Charging

[MisterGoof]

Re: Convinced

I think the government has just got what they wanted.

Until this potential legislation was announced PEOPLE MOANED ABOUT FUEL TAX in the country.

but now the crowds are urging the government to INCREASE FUEL TAX.

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[wendigo100]

Re: Convinced

Hmm, not quite grasped economics yet, have we Wendigo?

I know enough to vote at elections.

[DodgyAgent]

Re: Free PT

Nope, Government Agency!

Nationalise it!

You know it makes sense!

Buy back all the buses and depots!

Build new buses and trains in the UK!

Feck me, it's brilliant!

It is not brilliant spod and you should know better. You are suggesting that a monopoly be created, which is one thing. Worse is that the monopoly will be created and run by the state. Now you tell me what happened to mining, car building, telecomms, health service, post office etc etc.
Such organisations soon start to run services for the benefit of themselves rather than for the benefit of the consumer.
Such power bestowed upon a single organisation removes responsibility from the deliverer of the service and removes choice from the consumer.

Need I go on?

[DodgyAgent]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

And why should people on the other 99% of the road network also have to pay that amount per mile?

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas. The more you drive in congested areas the more fuel you use. Simple

[wendigo100]

State monopoly

Spod's idea is for all buses to be free, like schools and hospitals, so we'd all use them and save money on petrol, buying a new car, and congestion charges.

They could bring back bus conductors, and then people could relate to repeats of On The Buses, where they get off with the clippies, get lost, and other great things.

I'm going home.

[expat]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas.

Not that much more. If you drive on empty A and B roads in the country, there is no congestion there, so why then should you have to pay a punitive petrol tax, punitive no matter how good (realistically) your mpg?

[DodgyAgent]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Not that much more. If you drive on empty A and B roads in the country, there is no congestion there, so why then should you have to pay a punitive petrol tax, punitive no matter how good (realistically) your mpg?

Horse and carts would of course be taxed on the number of "piles" the horse dumped on the road
Of course someone would need to provide the technology that would measure this. Step forward Rob Aldridge of Capita to don the rubber gloves and insert the "N0 of dumps counting mechanism" up the horses Jacksie

Of course the horse turds would need to be linked by satellite to the nerve centre, so plenty of money to waste on favourite contractors.. Everyone is happy

[IR35 Avoider]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas. The more you drive in congested areas the more fuel you use. Simple

I've no doubt that raising fuel tax to (my guess) £8 a litre to sort out the most congested roads would decongest all other roads as well (!!!) And I agree it is simpler than congestion charging. But wouldn't there also be massive damage to the economy from journeys now no longer viable on the 99% of less congested roads? I didn't have you pegged as a green who wants to ban the majority of vehicle journeys...

I did a quick calc of what you're proposal would mean for me - the fuel costs for a weeks commuting to work 30 miles across London would rise from about £33 to £330. I would give up the client I've worked at since 1992, so your proposal would certainly force me off the roads.

People here are complaining about the cost of congestion charging as currently proposed - and you are proposing something much more extreme?

I'm all the more surprised because I thought you believed in market forces - application of these would imply we should have a fuel tax set at an appropriate level to reflect the costs ("externalities") motorists impose on society per litre of fuel burnt, and a separate congestion charge to reflect the congestion cost they impose as a result of where and when drive. (Motorists are imposing two kinds of burdens on others, so two kinds of taxes are needed to regulate them.)

Surely I've misunderstood your point of view?

[allfinished]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas. The more you drive in congested areas the more fuel you use. Simple

Too simple I'm afraid and completely misses what they're trying to achieve. They want more money from travel, they want to use a black box to calculate your speed and automatically send you speeding fines and most of all they want to know everywhere you've been.

This is another facet of the mistakeless society the socalist/liberal scum in power are creating to penalise those that aren't too hard to catch. Inadvertantly do 31 in a 30 its not dangerous but its an opportunity to charge so they will. The litter police will be worse, they are creating a society that no one will want to live in except those above the law i.e. police, politicians, criminals (is there much difference between these? I suspect just a matter of degree) etc.

It always makes me laugh on crimewatch when they show the stolen car busting through speed cameras do you think the driver will pay his fine ;-) ? How is it that cameras are better than the old bill, whats even sicker is when they show the abducter driving off presumeably with his victim in the car?

If anyone thinks cameras make roads safer they are insane!!!!

[threaded]

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

IR35 Avoider: Oh dear, so if it was an increase in fuel tax it would be too expensive, but if they invent a new tax it is not too much? Suspect you've fallen fare square into the stealth tax modus operandi...