Roland Perry wrote
at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Michael R Dolbear me@ remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston
that the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he
let
mouth run away when the tax was first introduced
Interesting.
Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between
a
tax and a toll ?
Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's
normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being
inside
the zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford
Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?
I googled [tolls taxes distinction diplomat ext
df]
And got a US law review discussion about a 2007 New York congestion
charge proposal - Tax or user fee.
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/j...3.1/Powell.pdf
Lots of footnotes, though the proposition that classification as tax or
not is that of the local legal system rather than autonomous to the
Vienna Conventions is ill supported.
But the argument that fire brigade services can be charged for even if
only available, not used and that the reduction in congestion is a
similar general benefit seems a fair one.
--
Mike D