In article ,
wrote:

I like the idea of that. Let the mugs pay and the rest of us drive over
the bridge that was paid for by tolls in 2003 after which Lying Labour
said the tolls would be removed. Naturally, being a cash cow they
weren't.

Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we had a change of government
quite some time ago. And they don't appear to intend scrapping the charge
either, by the changes being proposed.


[snip]

I doubt the government cares so long as they can screw citizens over
here for even more tax money.

Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

Dave Plowman London SW 12

In message , at 13:22:41 on Mon, 8 Oct
2012, d remarked:
So who did pay for them in 1963?

The two county councils.

Still government, not a private company.

Sure, local government. The bridge was built by a private company
though.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/10/2012 11:29, d wrote:

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:52:05 +0100
"tim....." wrote:
entirely satisfactory. Most seem to work on a pre-payment "honesty" basis

I like the idea of that. Let the mugs pay and the rest of us drive over
the bridge that was paid for by tolls in 2003 after which Lying Labour said
the tolls would be removed. Naturally, being a cash cow they weren't.
And the tunnel was paid for by central government as per the rest of the road
system and should never have had tolls in the first place.

Actually, the first tunnel (and later, the second one) was paid for by the
ratepayers of Essex and Kent, with the tolls offsetting some of that (in the
early days, there was nowhere near the traffic there is nowadays).

The crossing (then consisting only of the tunnels) was peremptorily taken
over by the government and leased to Trafalgar House, who had promised to
build the bridge and improve the A282 access road, in return for the right to
collect a formula-calculated amount in tolls (which has now been collected,
with the crossing reverting to the government.

It *ought* to have reverted to Essex and Kent, and those counties should be
able to either abolish the tolls, or set the charges and use the proceeds to
offset council tax.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:18:42 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but we had a change of government
quite some time ago. And they don't appear to intend scrapping the charge
either, by the changes being proposed.

True, but then they never promised they would unlike Labour.

I doubt the government cares so long as they can screw citizens over
here for even more tax money.

Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?

B2003

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:10:37 +0100
JNugent wrote:
It *ought* to have reverted to Essex and Kent, and those counties should be
able to either abolish the tolls, or set the charges and use the proceeds to
offset council tax.

Given how councils use any excuse to collect fines these days, I doubt they'd
get rid of the tolls so we wouldn't be any better off if it was in council
hands. Like most politicians they wouldn't see the big picture of how the
queues and tolls affects the wider economy.

B2003

In article ,
wrote:
Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy.

Envy?

You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?

I'm happy to pay my fair share of the cost of running the country. If only
it wasn't wasted on scroungers like you.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW 12

wrote in message
...
I heard on LBC this morning that apparently the toll gates will be gone by
2014
and a "free flow" system will be implemented. How does this work? Is
everyone
who every uses the bridge going to have to by an electronic tag or will
they
just do it by number plate recognition and send you a bill for 2 quid in
the
post? Or will they use ANPR to send you a fine of 100 quid if you don't
buy a tag (no doubt expensive) and just drive through?

However it works, I'm sure it will be easy for people who drive the route
regularly, but no doubt awkward and complicated for people who go that route
once a year!

In message , d
writes
Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?
This is a mere squabble in a sweet shop. In the 60s supertax was 98p
in the pound.
--
Clive

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 17:58:11 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Apart from those on the highest income tax band, of course.

Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy.

Envy?

You do seem to have an irrational hatred for anyone with more money than you.

You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?

I'm happy to pay my fair share of the cost of running the country. If only
it wasn't wasted on scroungers like you.

Scrounger? So exactly what benefits am I claiming then?

B2003

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 02:50:08 +0100
Clive wrote:
In message , d
writes
Oh dear, here comes the politics of envy. You just can't help yourself can
you. So is that top end tax rise to 50% a myth then?
This is a mere squabble in a sweet shop. In the 60s supertax was 98p
in the pound.

Sounds like the idea of some left wing idiot in france who was proposing
a 100% tax on earnings above 100K euros or something. Presumably it never
occured to his lonely braincell that if all the money above a certain rate
goes in tax then companies simply won't bother paying above that rate.
I suspect the same happened with a 98% tax which is why they ditched it.

B2003