On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.


It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Local government therefore adopted a missionary zeal to get as many
cameras as possible installed at no cost to themselves while raking in
the fines which could be used for almost any purpose they wanted, as
ring-fencing isn't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. ;-)

So yes, calling it a stealth tax was probably quite accurate; cameras
were paid for out of general taxation, only for the fines to be used
as a means of raising money locally. A double whammy.

What was noticeable is that when the fines started to be clawed back
by the Treasury, rather than retained by the councils, all the
councils' so-called "good intentions" regarding "road safety" were
suddenly consigned to the dustbin. What humbug!