On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:44:15 -0000, "Robin Mayes"
wrote:


"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.

I suppose you support the idea that the National Insurance contribution
should only fund social security / pensions and the health service too?

Of COURSE - if its supposed to fund 'other' things, then lets have it
correctly labeled so we all know where OUR money is being wasted
(sorry, do I mean spent ??)

John.dat

"Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White"
wrote in message
news:eAmBb.871$jO5.14038071@news-

you maroon.

How dare you! Most of us here are green or blue!

Ian

Yup they have done it deliberatly round here, created congestion spots
at
certain junctions and choke points, reset traffic lights to favour empty
feeder roads against roads that have the traffic etc.
--
Jonathan Bratt

Morning Jonny, It is to try to drive folk onto buses and trains ( not necc a
bad thing if the ran on time and went where folk wanted them to go) IE round
here they have made the communter routes and the school run routes as slow
and difficult as poss by resetting the traffic lights , altering junctions
etc, but then they offset this by crerating fast clean empty bus only routes
into the town etc.

you maroon.

How dare you! Most of us here are green or blue!

Ian


Jonny is pink.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
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.

Clearly Europeans believe something different, that constructing motorways
is rather like handing dollops of money over to a select few. This is
considered unnacceptable, and hence their roads are tolled.

Our motorways weren't tolled from the start as it was believed that if you
have a road, you may as well let as many people use it as they want, as
there is (was) zero marginal cost of extra cars. This isn't really the case
anymore due to congestion.

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.

The thing is it is about choices. Individuals choose whether or not to
drive, whether or not to use the M6toll or the old M6. With things like
healthcare, there is no choice involved, you either need it or you don't. If
you are ill you do want to consume healthcare - this is almost universal. So
if the Government subsidises healthcare like mad, it isn't actually causing
any market distortion.

This is the heart of the problem, any Government subsidy or tax effectively
takes choice away from individuals, and distorts the market. In most cases
this leads to a sub-optimal allocation of resources.

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.


And this is an interesting notion - long distance traffic is more important
than local traffic? The nice thing about tolls is that it automatically
takes account of this, if the people making their local journeys consider
their journey "unimportant" they will be unwilling to pay £2-3. If they long
distance traffic considers its journey important then they will pay for it.

Everyone considers their journey to be "important" or even "essential". But
the proof of the pudding is whether they are prepared to pay for it.

"Angus Bryant" wrote in message
...
"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.

The CTRL is one of the biggest farces of this century. Unable to build it
with private finance, the Government comes in and subsidises it like mad,
despite having almost no social benefit (or at least other schemes have a
much higher benefit:cost ratio, eg Thameslink 2000).

The domestic services through Kent may be the only thing that could actually
make the CTRL worthwhile.

Angus

In article ,
says...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:
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.


I suppose you advocate everyone ****ting in the garden because the local
water authority isn't spending enough on the sewers?


Bad example.

The local authority aren't spending enough on the sewers, _even though_
we're paying through the nose for it, and it's not working, causing the
toilets to block up.

They then come up with the idea of a new fast-track service, of ****ting in
a barrel next to the front door, and it's emptied once a month by a bloke in
a pickup, at 4 times the price per dump of the normal sewers, on top of your
existing sewerage charge.

I think that's a bit more like it.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

"Pete Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:
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.


I suppose you advocate everyone ****ting in the garden because the local
water authority isn't spending enough on the sewers?


Bad example.

The local authority aren't spending enough on the sewers, _even though_
we're paying through the nose for it, and it's not working, causing the
toilets to block up.

[enough said about hypothecation... thats money going into a general pot]

Ah, alternatively you could leave ****ting 'till after 9am and it'll be ok.

They then come up with the idea of a new fast-track service, of ****ting
in
a barrel next to the front door, and it's emptied once a month by a bloke
in
a pickup, at 4 times the price per dump of the normal sewers, on top of
your
existing sewerage charge.

That analogy makes the new alternative sound worse than the old one.
Its likely to be much better, esp as "I'd pay much more than _that_ to avoid
birmingham".

In article , says...
In message , The Rifleman
writes

what country are you living in whereby local councils do not purposely
create congestion, because they certainly do in London. And are you also
denying the govt doesn't steal a large percentage of road tax that it uses
on non-road issues? tunnel vision and non-reality, looks like you suffer
both, you maroon.

Yup they have done it deliberatly round here, created congestion spots at
certain junctions and choke points, reset traffic lights to favour empty
feeder roads against roads that have the traffic etc.


For what purpose?


So they can be seen to be doing something, so they can say "Look, traffic is
really bad, something must be done to control it".

IMO, anyone who willingly goes into any form of politics - local council up
to the Government, and possibly even the UN (complete with its reptilian
shadow government!) do it because they are control freaks. They like to
control people.

Causing congestion controls people. It forces people to do what _they_ want
them to do. The congestion causes problems, so something must be done about
it (congestion charge in London), giving _more_ control.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

In message , Pete Smith
writes
IMO, anyone who willingly goes into any form of politics - local
council up to the Government, and possibly even the UN (complete with
its reptilian shadow government!) do it because they are control
freaks. They like to control people.

And maybe you are projecting.

--
Jonathan Bratt