Safe Speed Forums

( I did not see this subject in the first index page so I thought that I might raise it here as it is a pet subject of mine on my own forum ! ).

Few here will disagree that the motorist and the transport companies are paying through the nose for their use of Britain's awful -and dangerous - roads, and few would disagree that it is patently unfair to tax such a specific human demographic so severely and then NOT to spend the revenues raised on building better roads and more roads and maintaining the ones we already have.

Not only that but after all of these revenues have been raised via fuel-tax, car-tax, VAT, excise revenue tax, ( road-fund licence....HAH! ), not to mention all of the dosh raised by the automated fines equipment and the overzealous traffic wardens and road tolls and city tolls and bridge tolls ad-infinitum.

When the government want us all to use our cars less and the public transport more they expect us to just do this out of the kindness of our hearts and they make no effort to spend these monies in any directly-connected area from whence they came !

( Public transport...thats another story I might raise later on ! ).

Maybe they SHOULD ring-fence this cash and then they would not have so many disgruntled motorists who feel that they are mugs to be ripped-off as cash-cows for the treasury.

I think that ring-fencing could be used more often....don't you ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

It's a lovely theory, but a tad unrealistic! Even if this ring fence extended right round the entire transport infrastructure and encompassed all modes of transport, it would result in a massive glut of cash, as the government continued to collect in all the revenue and spend next to nothing in this area. Meanwhile there would be an equally massive deficit elsewhere in the treasury resulting, no doubt, in an increased tax burden elsewhere.

But nonetheless the idea serves an interesting use, in demonstrating just how twisted and perverse Government taxation policy is.

What we really need is a shake-up at a lower level, and a move away from "stealth taxation" in general. I for one find it both patronising and insulting. If we need a service then tell us about it and reveal the true cost, before collecting the revenue to fund it in an appropriate way.

If, for instance there is a genuine need for heavier investment in - say - the NHS, then the Government should tell us all about it and then set up a taxation scheme to collect it fairly. If we don't agree with this then we vote against it at the next election - surely that's how democracy is supposed to work?

But to slap heavy taxes on (say) vehicle fuel, and use the revenue to cross-subsidise something completely unrelated to transport is basically dishonest!

Two other points that arise....

How can the Govt claim to be trying to "tax us off the roads" when every tax they impose makes them ever more reliant on motorists to make up their treasury deficit. Every additional tax burden they place on motorists makes them a step more committed to keeping that revenue stream firmly in place.

Why should motorists cross-subsidise cheap air fares? Especially given that any (arguable) environmental impact in burning fossil fuels has far more effect when it takes place at 40000 ft! Discuss...

JT....you said....



After saying that my idea of ring-fencing is unrealistic you then go on to explain how it could be done !

You mention the massive amounts of cash that the government raise via the beleaguered motoring demographic and then you go on to say that the chancellor would be short of readies for spending on non motoring issues. I say that if the motorist is paying up the motorist's cash should come back to him/her in a reasonable way pro-rata to the tax burdern that he/she carries.

The Chancellor has many and varied ways to queeze money out of us and using the road-user as a cash-cow to fund all of his other expenses seems to me to be grossly unreasonable.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Indeed I did! My point about "unrealistic" being that it was unrealistic to expect the Government to do it - or even to consider it!

As I said originally, every additional "cross-subsidising" tax that is imposed backs the Government into the corner of supporting the very thing they are apparently trying to discourage. It's the perfect paradox!

Smoking is a good example. Even allowing for the NHS burden HM Govt makes a massive profit from tobacco tax. So every time they increase this tax it makes them more committed to needing it, and less inclined to introduce any real measures to reduce tobacco consumption. If they genuinely wanted to eradicate smoking then the first step along the way would have to be to remove their own addiction to the revenue it generates, ie by reducing the rate of tobacco taxation.

As a good (but cynical) rule of thumb, I would say it is safe to assume that if anything is heavily taxed by the Govt, then the underlying policy is to increase it's consumption.

Is this what happens when the worlds of Capitalism and Democracy collide?

It would be lovely to think that the whole £40bn or whatever it is could be thrown at the roads, railways, real cycle paths (instead of nabbing a yard of main road and painting it a daft colour), and so on. I just can't imagine any government ever doing it. . In reality I'd settle for a bit more of our contributions to come back into the system rather than the miserly amount of return we see now.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

JT & Gatsobait......

I must say that I strongly agree with that last statement about the paradox in taxation policy.

Here is another one:

They...The Tories....introduced the fuel-tax escalator so that via the punishing taxes on fuel we would use our cars less...HAH ! After the fuel protests the New-Labour chancellor FINALLY removed this silly idea because it was obvious that the high cost of fuel does not reduce it's useage. Fair enough....Then they offer derisory pennies back for the use of "green" fuel and they again give a few pence back for small engines so as to prove their "green-ness"........

Here comes the paradox.....After all of this nonsense and after it has been proved that Autogas, ( LPG ), is much cleaner than petrol or diesel what do they do ?.....They wait to see the increasing number of the population going for duel-fuel engines and converting to burn Autogas then THEY BANG UP THE REVENUE CHARGE for these fuels !

How "green" or duplicitous is THAT ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

<shrugs> Well, it's not like there's a hell of a lot to choose between them all now. I might just roll dice to decide who to vote for next time. 1-Con, 2-Lab, 3-LibDem, and 4, 5 and 6-scrawl "they're all bloody useless" across the ballot paper.
Seem to remember quite a few people, Bogush might have been one, predicting that this would happen. So it seems that revenue is a bigger motivation in Westminster than the environment. Perhaps it's a bigger motivation than road safety too.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Gatsobait....It looks like you, me, and Bogush at least are on the same wavelength here !

I don't know about Safespeed though ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558