Reply to: New tax about to be introduced

[TheMonkey]

So obvious, yet no-one must mention it on pain of being called a racist.

Left wing wimpoids.

Ironically I got a REAL bollocking for being racist and naughty for reading Mein Kampf on the tube a few months ago. This is rediculous!!! It has to stop!!!

[wendigo100]

"And as we travel more, because we live on a crowded island, congestion is set to grow, so if we do nothing we simply face eternal gridlock," he told BBC News.


There's an obvious area of policy we need to address in that case to avoid exacerbating the problem.

So obvious, yet no-one must mention it on pain of being called a racist.

[Board Game Geek]

There's an obvious area of policy we need to address in that case to avoid exacerbating the problem

Indeed there is, Xog.

*** The Great Land Reclamation Project *** (copyright BGG 2006)

1. Build a big wall from the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, westwards, to Ballycastle in Northern Ireland.

2. Build a big wall from the Ramsey in Wales, north westwards, to Wexford in Southern Ireland.

3. Pump out all the water.

4. Voila ! Lots of new land to play with !

Thank you very much :-)

[xoggoth]

"And as we travel more, because we live on a crowded island, congestion is set to grow, so if we do nothing we simply face eternal gridlock," he told BBC News.


There's an obvious area of policy we need to address in that case to avoid exacerbating the problem.

[bfg]

Sure I have posted this before but here goes again:

Divide and Rule Strategy applies.

First Stage: Scumverment says "It will only be charged on the 5% of 'congested roads' and we will drop fuel duty". As a result loads of people will think 'IT IS GOOD' and they think they will save money. Now it is introduced as 80% of people think they want it, with attendant drop in fuel duty.

Second Stage: It is applied to all motorways and main roues into cities.

Third Stage: Lots of people think, sh1t I'm paying a fortune and move off the motorways and main routes onto A roads and side streets. These are now congested and hey-presto become chargeable.

Fourth Stage: Climate change levy super extra tax is added to fuel, about the same as current fuel duty or more. Scumvernemnt claims this is to save the world and is enforced by some international treaty or other and anway the Tories did it and ran away.

Woo-Hoo now you pay loads more every day to get to work and do you think the buses and trains will get cheaper? NO Climate change levy super extra tax and congestion charges will apply to them too! Kerching, Gordon's bungfund for the chavs gets big enough to buy yet another election with extra benefits.

[IR35 Avoider]

When I said there were two things that need to be charged for, I of course meant 3. (I realised this at the time but decided not to complicate things by including the third.)

The three are
1.) "Negative Externalities" of fossil fuel use
2.) Congestion
3.) Cost of roads


Fossil fuel use is best charged for by a tax on fuel, for the reasons I gave.

surely "congestion" implies occupation of road that impedes others and therefore applies on some routes not others.

Yes. If congestion charge is done properly, there should be no congestion charge for times and places where traffic is able to travel at a reasonable speed.

The cost of roads is what I left out. I gather the government is thinking of replacing road tax with tax collected via the same mechanism as the congestion charge. Actually I think this is quite sensible, assuming they do it in the way I think they should. What they should do is divide the cost of every bit of road among those that use it. It means that heavily used roads will cost bugger all to use because the costs are spread between so many. On the other hand, roads in the remotest parts of Scotland that only see one car an hour will cost a lot more per mile in road cost.

So the bill per mile will have two completely separate charges built into it. Travelling on the M4 into London during the morning rush-hour will cost you bugger-all in road cost but a fortune in congestion charge. That hypothetical Scottish road will cost you nothing in congestion charges but hundreds or thousands of times as much in road cost. (e.g. 50p a mile road cost in Scotland versus 0.1p for M4, to make up an example.)

The beauty of this is that everyone pays for what they use, and one part of the country isn't subsidising the other.

Once this is all in place, planners only have to look where congestion charge is high to know where they should (if possible) be doing more roadbuilding (e.g. bypasses, widen roads, etc.) The program of road building need in no way be constrained by government finances because the users of the new roads will pay for them.

I imagine there will be places where the congestion charge will be so high that it will be clear there is economic justification for buying up properties and demolishing them to make more room for roads.

[xoggoth]

Bum. Posted twice. I blame the government.

[xoggoth]

Hmm, sort of sensible first point IR35avoider, except that surely "congestion" implies occupation of road that impedes others and therefore applies on some routes not others.

Agree with last. The only real cost that applies to the whole road network is maintenance. Total wear increases with speed, load and distance, just as fuel consumption does. Tax paid on fuel for any vehicle (which could also be levied on electricity to charge a vehicle) is going to correlate pretty well to the vehicle's cost to the exchequer. Emissions, given a reasonably modern efficient engine, will correlate similarly.

Given that they already have a near perfect mechanism for charging a vehicle according to its cost and impact on the environment, you have to ask what the real reason for this idea is. It is about nothing but exerting more control over the populace.

[Joe Black]

"Why do that when fuel tax would take all of that into account without all the bureaucracy?"

Cause that would be too simple wouldn't it, and wouldn't give El Gordo the chance to implement yet another system of tax credits (fuel credits) for the hard working families.

[IR35 Avoider]

I assume that as they are charging us by the mile travelled they will be abolishing road tax and the duty on fuel?

They should not abolish the duty on fuel. There are two things that need to be charged for, therefore you need two different charges.

Consider two cars making the same journey at the same time, a Hummer and an electric car that's been charged with electricity generated from wind.

They both take up the same amount of roadspace (well, in the sense that counts) therefore they should face the same congestion charge. The Hummer needs to be charged for the "negative externalities" of its fossil fuel use.

The only way to have a single tax would be for the price-per-mile system to have a very bureaucratic structure that charged different kinds of cars a different premium per mile. That wouldn't take account of how different owners of the same model maintained, drove or modified their vehicles however. Why do that when fuel tax would take all of that into account without all the bureaucracy?

[Joe Black]

Even better DP, as no-one would have to be told about it until it's too late.

With ideas like that you should be working for the gov't...

[DimPrawn]

With an RFID chip in your ID card, there would be no need to track cars, just track people.

[Joe Black]

Interesting article bfg.

Still, by my quick back of an envelope calculation that would require circa 1m cameras if you were to cover every road in the UK. Would be more cost effective for the gov't to simply insert a tracking chip in everyone when they pick up their new ID card...

[bfg]

On every single road in the UK?

Now I know there's lots and lots of cameras in the UK - and I should know since I once wrote traffic enforcement software for them - but certainly not enough for a per mile charging scheme.

Yep
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...869818,00.html

[DimPrawn]

No it'll be more like speeding fines.

You get a letter saying you have been using a certain road and here's the fine, and you have to prove it wasn't you.