Thread: Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
View Single Post
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 13th 06, 08:32 PM posted to uk.transport.london
Richard J. Richard J. is offline
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,429
Default Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
John B wrote:

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish
each a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially
addresses the outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band
H...

Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away
substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services,
than those in lower bands.

If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that
said.

Neil

Neil, your argument against banding is intellectually correct: a
Band A property does not inherently require less Council services
than a Band H property. That being so, why should there be any
distinction based on property value?

Moreover, why should there be a distinction based upon earnings
either? Does a high-earner necessarily use more Council services
than a low-earner?

Not necessarily, but he has a greater ability to pay, the same principle
of progressive taxation that we are used to with income tax. Are you
against this principle?

Of course high earnings and high current house value don't necessarily
go together.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote