On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:25:46 +0000, Wanderer wrote:


If the govt didn't steal so much of our road tax money and local councils
weren't so obsessed with purposely causing congestion we'd have perfect
roads and wouldn't need to build any new ones.

Ah, tunnel vision is a wonderful means to avoid the realities of
life.....

Is there a toll on tunnel vision? ;-)

Cast_Iron wrote:

By logical extension why should any of my taxes go on educating other
people kids?

Think of it more as paying retrospectively for your own education.

D'you feel you got your money's worth?

And cut back on the NHS, and teaching and the welfare state
and the police, and .....

What difference would it make? Labour have supposedly spent billions extra
on the NHS in the last few years, no improvement. Eliminate the waste, the
thousands of unnecessary admin staff - and spend the savings on new roads.

Besides, the recently announce widening of 25 miles of the M1 is costing the
same as the M6 Toll road cost to build. Why the government constantly
fritters its money away on widening existing roads rather than building new
ones is beyond me.

It was due to disappear next year. and indeed it will. To be replaced
with another toll, exactly the same price the next day.

It has already happened, in fact. There is now a cheaper rate between 10pm
and 6am, to encourage traffic to use it during the off peak hours.

But yes, it was supposed to be scrapped completely.

"Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White"
wrote in message
...
I totally agree! on TalkRadio this morning there was a debate about this
new
toll road and most callers supported it! I thought you bunch of morons!
Only
a small amount of the road tax we pay gets spent on the roads, the rest is
stolen and wasted by other government departments. There lies the ****ing
problem! why on earth anybody thinks we should have to pay an extra tax to
use a new road that should ALREADY be funded by our road tax I do not
know.

But it hasn't been funded by road tax. It has been funded privately, and
ultimately by the people who use it. What is wrong with the user pays
principle?

"tarquinlinbin" wrote in message
...
http://www.m6toll.co.uk/

The new Midlands M6 toll road has opened.

Inevitably the great British gullible public will happliy pour onto it
and pay their fees (twice).

I say dont use it and prove to government what a folly this is. Sure
there will be pain if you continue to use the "public" M6 but its a no
pain no gain situation.

Who gave the Government and the private company the right to cut
another swathe through the English countryside?. I am a freeman of
this country and no one asked me,did they ask you?.

The current toll fees are loss leaders becuase the Government and the
private comany know that this is very much an experiment,an experimnet
to see if the British mugs really will bite.

As soon as they feel its safe to do so,they;ll crank the tolls up and
wind down on investment/maintenance of the "public" M6.

You the motorist already pay enough in tax,dont be so foolish as to
let them fleece you again!.

If you do then you will be setting a precedent for univeraal tolling
AND road tax AND fuel tax

The British are their own worst enemy,it takes an age to rouse them to
action and by the time they do,its way too late.

But it hasn't been funded by road tax. It has been funded privately,
and ultimately by the people who use it. What is wrong with the user
pays principle?

That's fine. However, it doesn't change the fact that the government should
still build a publicly-funded alternative to the M6 - we shouldn't be in the
situation where congestion is so bad that we have to use a private pay-extra
option. It's like giving up on the NHS and telling everyone to get private
health care.

And if that's the route they want to take, then they can damn well abolish
road tax.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
But it hasn't been funded by road tax. It has been funded privately,
and ultimately by the people who use it. What is wrong with the user
pays principle?

That's fine. However, it doesn't change the fact that the government
should
still build a publicly-funded alternative to the M6 - we shouldn't be in
the
situation where congestion is so bad that we have to use a private
pay-extra
option. It's like giving up on the NHS and telling everyone to get private
health care.

And if that's the route they want to take, then they can damn well abolish
road tax.



The thing is, if you build the M6 bypass from general taxation, then you are
effectively subsidising those who use it. You might argue that motorists at
large will pay for it, and motorists at large will benefit from it, but in
reality it is only a small group of people who will benefit from it, yet if
it were paid for through general taxation, a large group of people would be
paying for it.

The Government should not be subsidising things that bring a high benefit
(and have a high cost) to a small number of people.

Besides, if it weren't going to be a toll road, it would fill up with
traffic and be no better than the normal M6, and we would be back to square
one despite having spent £900 million.

Chris Jones wrote:
And cut back on the NHS, and teaching and the welfare state
and the police, and .....

What difference would it make? Labour have supposedly spent
billions extra on the NHS in the last few years, no
improvement. Eliminate the waste, the thousands of
unnecessary admin staff - and spend the savings on new
roads.

Who says there are thousands of unnecessary admin staff ?

The thing is, if you build the M6 bypass from general taxation, then you
are effectively subsidising those who use it. You might argue that
motorists
at large will pay for it, and motorists at large will benefit from it, but
in
reality it is only a small group of people who will benefit from it, yet
if
it were paid for through general taxation, a large group of people would
be paying for it.

That's the whole point of the state paying for things. The point is that
overall everyone gains equally. The BNRR in the Midlands, M25 widening in
London, M74 in Scotland, etc.

The Government should not be subsidising things that bring a high
benefit (and have a high cost) to a small number of people.

In that case we should adopt the American model of very low taxes but
nothing provided by the state. Why should I be subsidising the NHS when I
haven't used it in 10 years? Same argument.
The answer being that I might need to use the NHS tomorrow, and you might
need to use the M6 Toll tomorrow.
It benefits everybody and the economy as a whole. If a lorry carrying goods
from Felixstowe to Manchester gets stuck in M6 traffic jams for hours,
businesses in Manchester lose out. It has a national impact.

Besides, if it weren't going to be a toll road, it would fill up with
traffic and be no better than the normal M6, and we would be back
to square one despite having spent £900 million.

It would fill up as-is, yes. What they should have done would be to build it
with no local junctions - just access from the M6 and M42 at either end.
That way, only long-distance traffic uses it, there are no new business
parks or shopping centres built next to it, and it serves its purpose as a
long-distance strategic route.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...

Besides, if it weren't going to be a toll road, it would fill up with
traffic and be no better than the normal M6, and we would be back
to square one despite having spent £900 million.

It would fill up as-is, yes. What they should have done would be to build
it
with no local junctions - just access from the M6 and M42 at either end.
That way, only long-distance traffic uses it, there are no new business
parks or shopping centres built next to it, and it serves its purpose as a
long-distance strategic route.

Ideally, yes. But no-one (e.g. county council, etc) would allow that to go
through their region without some benefit for local traffic to offset the
impact of the new route, i.e. extra junctions. Same applies for new
railways - look at the case of the CTRL domestic trains and Ebbsfleet as
sweeteners for the line being built through Kent.

Angus