"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

snipped


Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer.

Usage-based

taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax
reform
would probably be the right direction. (See
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system
could
naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in

the

transport system.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7


We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax
system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all,
varied
by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished.
Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of
government, and vote accordingly.

The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the
existing
ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the
environment.

I'd like to believe that. However, I still think we need to start
back at square 1 with taxation based on income, to the exclusion of
all others. Non income based taxation puts a disproportionate load on
those with lower incomes, and are therefore unfair. Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence
people
to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting
the
environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy
and
emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit
non-aggressively).

A free market for transport is impossible under the current system
where
modes are treated separately by the government when proposing new
schemes, and where the current cost-benefit analysis model is
extremely
flawed, since many of the values used in them are applied to things
which are essentially "not for sale". The current market is biased
in
favour of car travel so naturally a modal shift is occurring in that
direction.

Targets are a rather blunt instrument to apply directly to the
industry;
rather by using taxation to achieve targets, the true cost of
environmental damage can be compensated for.

If fuel consumption/economy targets were legislated for, then
everyone would be driving more fuel efficient cars, instead of the
current system where well-off people simply shrug and pay the extra
tax money to run their gas guzzlers. Overall fuel consumption would go
down if all cars had to achieve, say, an average 40 miles per gallon.


I would also venture that the USA is hardly the best model for an
environmentally sound system.

I'd venture that the USA, the richest country in the world, got
there by promoting economic growth through cheap transportation of
goods and people; not by strangling free trade with punitive taxation.
Apart from slavery and cheap immigrant labour.....


I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved
by
government intervention.

Reforming the tax system to be fully environmentally-based would
(theoretically of course) shift sustainability in the right
direction by
market forces alone, without any further government intervention.
It's
only sensible to tax the use of resources which affect everyone.

It's only sensible to get off the taxation band wagon and start
legislating limits for emissions and fuel consumption at the
manufacturing level. We don't need to punish those on lower incomes
with a disproportionately greater tax burden than everyone else. The
man in the street is the driving force behind the economy.



--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7