Anyway, cyclists should pay less for roads, not more. They don't need roads. A mud track is fine.
-
-
Steady, you have all those environmentalist ramblers on your case about erosion next...Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."Comment
-
No. I am a car driver, a cyclist, and a pedestrian. But when someone says, as BGG didOriginally posted by oracleslave View Postit's fairly clear that he is a car driver trying to make a contentious argument against other lower-paying road users appear self-evident, i.e. to beg the question rather than discuss it. That is the mark of a convinced partisan.What matters is the fact that you are using the road, and as such, a global tax on use seems more fairer than a tax based on height, weight, damage or colour of your paintwork.Comment
-
My take on it is that a fuel based system of taxation is the fairest. Bikes and pedestrians don't damage the roads or the environment. Cars do a little, trucks do more, since they are heavier, dirtier and drive more miles. So eitehr you have some exomplex expensive mileage-based road billing system with number plate recognition, or you pamp 1p more on fuel.Cooking doesn't get tougher than this.Comment
-
How much is VED for a truck? Equivalent to how many tanks of diesel?Originally posted by TheBigYinJames View Post"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."Comment
-
Not sure exactly, but it's a lot more than cars.Originally posted by Moscow Mule View PostCooking doesn't get tougher than this.Comment
-
Originally posted by dang65 View Post
The vast majority of council money still comes from central government. There is a formula which central government uses to allocate what it thinks each council should need to spend and how much it needs to allocate. To make ends meet the council raises the rest via the council tax. Road maintenance is not one of the big parts of the council tax, but the bulk of it will come from the central government coffers. This money comes from the same source that the road fund, duty on fuel and income tax etc build up. So road tax puts more into the pot where less is taken from. On that basis road tax does pay for road maintenance - and other things besides. Motorways etc are not the responsibility of the council in terms of maintenance and so have no effect on council tax.Last edited by BoredBloke; 16 July 2008, 08:43.Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1!Comment
-
OK, let's completely ignore Council Tax and assume, for the sake of argument, that all the money comes from central government coffers. These coffers are filled from any number of sources, including income tax. This is paid by everyone who works, unless they are on an incredibly low salary. I doubt it's possible to calculate exactly how much, say, a worker on 20 grand ends up actually paying towards road building and maintenance, but some of his income tax would end up there.Originally posted by TonyEnglish View Post
i.e. Everyone pays for the roads, including the motorways, whether they "use" them or not. They're a national asset. Even if you're housebound, the roads get used by the people that come to feed or nurse you. Even if you walk everywhere, the roads are used by lorries that bring goods to the shops for you to buy. Even if you just hug trees all day, roads are used by the Forestry Commission employees who maintain the forests. So, it's not an issue that everyone should pay for the roads, and everyone does.
The thing is that some road users cause more damage to the roads than others. Because they damage that national asset, they are expected to pay more. Indirect road users, like the people that walk everywhere, still pay extra in the form of higher prices in the shops to cover higher transport costs etc. And, presumably, you bill your clients more to help cover your drive to and from work. Round and round it goes.Comment
-
But it still comes back to the simple fact that more money is handed over by the motorist than is actually spent on the roads. The money goes into the big government pot but less comes out to be spent on the roads. I have no argument with cyclists using the roads for 'free' but my point is your assertion that the road fund pays for the NHS and the like while it's income tax which pays for the roads. I'd say the road fund pays for the roads and other things unrelated to motoring. You can't have one big pot of cash and sub divide it just to suit your argument.
That would be like me saying how only I pay our mortgage out of our joint account.
The simple fact is that motorists already give more to the treasury than is spent on our shambolic road network.Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1!Comment
-
Yes, I do understand that. The problem is that the government has to fund more things than actually raise money, so the few things that do specifically rake in cash - VED, tobacco and alcohol duties etc - go towards things that never bring in any cash at all - education, the NHS etc.
The original Road Fund Licence did go directly towards the building and maintenance of roads, but that was abolished in about 1936, by Winston Churchill, because they needed the cash for other things.
It's just the way that central government funding has to work in a welfare state. Everyone benefits, but at the same time no one really gets everything they need.
I'm sure more goes to the roads because VED is paid than would if it wasn't.Comment
Comment