"Frank X" wrote in message ...
Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?

Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic
lights, etc?

Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.

Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads,
but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little...
it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse
to levy another tax on us.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing
to the economy

No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get
to work to pay our huge tax bills?

It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income
tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll
Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.

We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big
difference between them stealing money from you through your employer,
and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying
than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already
been taxed at 40%, at that.

'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any
excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will
actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

Mark wrote:
"Frank X" wrote in message ...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic
lights, etc?


Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads,
but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little...
it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse
to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a number
of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been transferred
to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing
to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get
to work to pay our huge tax bills?


It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income
tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll
Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big
difference between them stealing money from you through your employer,
and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying
than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already
been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what resources
need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing more
to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.

'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any
excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will
actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
"Frank X" wrote in message
...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed
traffic
lights, etc?


Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve
roads,
but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased
little...
it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another
excuse
to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a
number
of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been
transferred
to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and
contributing
to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to
get
to work to pay our huge tax bills?


It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes
like income
tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay
like Poll
Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a
big
difference between them stealing money from you through your
employer,
and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly
annoying
than having to physically pay them money... and money that's
already
been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what
resources
need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing
more
to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.

'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use
any
excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists
will
actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

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

Ian Smith wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

"Frank X" wrote in message

...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed

traffic

lights, etc?



Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve

roads,

but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased

little...

it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another

excuse

to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a

number

of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been

transferred

to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.


I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and

contributing

to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to

get

to work to pay our huge tax bills?



It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes

like income

tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay

like Poll

Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a

big

difference between them stealing money from you through your

employer,

and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly

annoying

than having to physically pay them money... and money that's

already

been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what

resources

need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing

more

to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.


'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use

any

excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists

will

actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

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.

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.

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

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.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

"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

"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in:

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.

And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car
from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't
walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap
transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment'
mentality.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

"Robin May" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in:

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.

And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car
from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people
won't
walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap
transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment'
mentality.

Which is why I suggested regulations on car fuel economy figures,
somewhat more stringently than they do in the US; and not a difficult
thing to achieve. Gone are the gas guzzlers, regardless of how cheap
fuel becomes. Result is everyone uses less fuel, since the rich can't
then simply buy their way out and pollute more. And, by removing the
fuel tax, money gets freed up for other economic activities.


--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Then and than are different words!

Robin May wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote the following
in:

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.

And in America cheap transportation seems to mean everyone has a car
from virtually the age of 16 and petrol is so cheap that people won't
walk 5 minutes down the road to their friend's house. It's cheap
transportation achieved as a result of a 'sod the environment'
mentality.

....and the problem here is?

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:45:04 -0000, "Ian Smith"
wrote:


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.

What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent
system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor
people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services?

Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle
us, won't happen then will it?

DG

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:34:12 +0000, derek wrote:



What's the point of going to all the trouble of having a consistent
system of *money* and guarding the value of the currency, if poor
people then pay less than the rich for the same goods and services?


One can hijack the electoral system and buy their votes.

Council tax is a
prominent example of this.


It has one advantage that the government wouldn't be able to bezzle
us, won't happen then will it?


Not a hope in hell.



greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.