On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear 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 believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".