Where does the money for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Go?
Comments
-
OK, three pages no real answer - I think this is a good example of why more transparancy and clarity should be demanded of taxation: what, why, where and who.
But seriously, where does the money from VED go and what is it spent on? Apart from being legally able to drive my car on public roads do I benefit from the money generated by VED?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:OK, three pages no real answer - I think this is a good example of why more transparancy and clarity should be demanded of taxation: what, why, where and who.
But seriously, where does the money from VED go and what is it spent on? Apart from being legally able to drive my car on public roads do I benefit from the money generated by VED?
Nothing more or less obvious than what benefit you get from paying income tax.0 -
It's funny how arguing for lower speed limits leads to howls of
"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!!1111eleven"
And pointing that the hidden, external costs of motoring massively outweigh all tax revenue from motorists leads to shrill cries of:
"Do you want us to go and live in CAVES!!!!!
Germany has a similar car ownership rate to the UK, yet their cars are used far less. Cycling and walking rates are much higher, and it is safer to walk or cycle in Germany.
The car culture is so dominant and powerful that sensible changes that encourage cycling and make it safer are met with the media comparing cyclists to terrorists.
Nobody is saying we need to go back to the dark ages, that;s shrill hysteria.
Alternatives to the current Car Is King Culture exist and would make travelling by road more pleasant for everyone.
Our tendency to use the car more than any other group of Europeans, is actually the cause of low investment in public transport, and not vice versa.
This says it better than I ever could, intersting stuff:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009 ... lture.html
There are some signs that the car culture runs deep within our justice system, which arguably lags Parliament’s and Governments’ (central and local) efforts to restore a balance between motorised and alternative modes of personal transport.
The bicycle is not only an inspired individual response to the difficulties of getting around but also a solution to the general problem of traffic congestion.
The individual cyclist who leaves the car at home is freeing up road-space, reducing risk for all other road users and benefiting the environment for all.
Even the cyclist who makes a trip that would not otherwise be made by car presents a negligible risk to others.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is similar to the number killed by golf balls; in each case too small to register on statistics, but on the few occasions per decade that it does occur accompanied by much publicity.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:OK, three pages no real answer - I think this is a good example of why more transparancy and clarity should be demanded of taxation: what, why, where and who.
But seriously, where does the money from VED go and what is it spent on? Apart from being legally able to drive my car on public roads do I benefit from the money generated by VED?
Where does the money go?
It goes into the Treasury general funds
What benefits do you get from it?
Police, fire service, NHS, roads, defence, civil service, unemployment/ sickness benefits. Child benefit, to name just a few
I was going to list education as a benefit, but some posts on here would suggest some posters have not had the benefits of an educationWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Of course, the externality equation doesn’t factor in the many societal and financial benefits of motoring (I have a car, it’s dead useful for many journeys) but costs are costs and if motorists had to pay the full costs of motoring, they’d be paying an awful lot more than they do now.
But you've just completely contradicted yourself. How can you say "costs are costs" when you admit that takes no account of the benefits?!
Because the benefits of being able to get in a car, drive a mile, buy a pint of milk and some fags and then drive home are illusory, there is always a cost, often borne by others who may not even own a car.
For the rest of that day the car is stuck outside the house, going nowhere, doing nothing, but taking up road space (or pavement space if the drivers are too lazy too find a space to park legally).
The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.
The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.
Again, who are the "road lobby"?!
See them in action:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/22059/Motor ... guerrillas
To deny a powerful road lobby exists is dishonest, it's big business, politicians can look forward to a pampered retirement by having their ear bent by the road lobby, haulage firms, motoring lobby groups.
Ever heard of the oil lobby using dishonest and illegal methods of protecting their trade?
I don't own a tin foil hat, but it's naive to believe that powerful vested interests aren't prepared to oppose any and every measure designed to curb the reliance on the motor car or the reckless behaviour of drivers.
Hang on, you've just copied and pasted from a pro-bike website! Again, hardly balanced.
I've not looked in depth at this proposal, but on it's face it's absurd for the position to be taken with regards to blame for an accident to be assumed simply by whom the participants in the accident are - that simply reverses the burden of proof, a very dangerous precedent. It is true that many many cyclists run red lights, ignore traffic signs and aggravate pedestrians and other road users.
As to the "motoring lobby" - if you mean Clarkson et al then it's no surprise it's not very powerful. What has the "motoring lobby" achieved? Decreased fuel prices? No. Increased real investment in road infrastrucute? No. Decreased taxation for motorists? No. The motorist is an easy target becaue people rely on their cars - motoring has a highly inelastic demand curve.
As to the oil lobby - oil is used in a global and widespread form, not just to power your car to get your milk and fags. But don't forget it also gets your milk and fags to the shop in the first place.
There is an equally and more vocal environmental lobby who also have large scale resources and the ear of politicians. It's equally dishonest and naiive to presume they do not exist.
What about car manufacturers? They successfully got the government to pour billions into motoring through the car scrappage scheme. And then there are all the associated industries, repair, road maintanence and construction etc. If the figures cited by W1 are correct than the motoring lobby has very, very successfully managed to negotiated itself into a heavily subsidised position with "road tax" not even coming close to covering the costs of motoring.
Yes there are benefits to motoring and motor transport but only with the world economy as it is currently set up with motoring, motorways and the extensive road network facilitating road haulage on a massive scale with massive logistics centres near motorways etc and the construction of massive out of town shopping centres and supermarkets with acres of parking. If these can be considered benefits. The reason our national economy functions as it does is largely down to cheap fuel and motoring.
If all subsidisation of motoring was removed and motorists were left to free market economics (as rail travel is almost forced to) then the economy would change and most likely become more locally based with food and goods supplied from local producers. Or we would see a return to transport of goods and people to rail and public transport which the government would be forced to adderss properly, rather than pretending to do so as it does now.
This would also massively reduce emmissions, pollution and environmental damage...
All fair points HH, but I would differentiate between industry lobbies and motorist lobbies. We are afterall talking about VED in this thread. Suffice to say, for the reasons I mention, the motoring lobby (as such) has done a pretty shoddy job for the motorist.
Put simply, the government bailed out the UK motor industry via the scrappage scheme (which, as an aide is a terrible idea in my opinion) not because the government are pro-motorist but because it's cheaper to bail out large scale industry than pay people to be on the dole - that's why the US did it.
Whether you like it or not, we do now live in a car-centric society. That will not change, although the form of power used in cars will.
And we can't determine the "cost" of motoring, because as outlined above the "benefits" of motoring are unquantifiable. So it's a rather circular argument.
We could always try and go back to the dark ages, but I'm not so sure that would be "better" than the status quo.
I consider the industry lobby the same as any other lobby which supports motoring. Just like the farmer's lobby has managed to negotiate itself enormous subsidies largely through the EU.
Whether the government bailed out the motor industry for reasons of employment or to because of pressure from the motor lobby and whether we live in a car centric society or not (of course we do) is irrelevant. Evidence indicates that, although not entirely quantifiable, motoring is a net financial and social cost to society and therefore idiots who shout at cyclists "you don't pay road tax" are talking out of their @rses. In fact I not only pay for roads but subsidise their use of it too (I don't own a car).
Changing world economies to a more locally based model is not a return to the "dark ages", it's a logical step in the face of man made environmental destruction. Of course it's all vey nice to maintain the status quo and continue blithely as before but science indicates that the way we live is completely unsustainable in the long term with human populations expanding exponentially. Unfotunately politicians and industry leaders are unable/unwilling to make wholesale changes which are necessary to the way the global economy operates, so if predictions made by certain scientists are true then mankind is well and truly f*cked in a few decades. Thank god I haven't got kids, lets hope NASA finds another planet for us all to move to....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
W1 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:OK, three pages no real answer - I think this is a good example of why more transparancy and clarity should be demanded of taxation: what, why, where and who.
But seriously, where does the money from VED go and what is it spent on? Apart from being legally able to drive my car on public roads do I benefit from the money generated by VED?
Nothing more or less obvious than what benefit you get from paying income tax.
Exactly VED goes into the pot to pay for anything from nuclear weapons to nurses' salaries. To try to specificaly extricate which VED quid went to which cause would be an exercise in futility....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's funny how arguing for lower speed limits leads to howls of
"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!!1111eleven"
And pointing that the hidden, external costs of motoring massively outweigh all tax revenue from motorists leads to shrill cries of:
"Do you want us to go and live in CAVES!!!!!
Germany has a similar car ownership rate to the UK, yet their cars are used far less. Cycling and walking rates are much higher, and it is safer to walk or cycle in Germany.
The car culture is so dominant and powerful that sensible changes that encourage cycling and make it safer are met with the media comparing cyclists to terrorists.
Nobody is saying we need to go back to the dark ages, that;s shrill hysteria.
Alternatives to the current Car Is King Culture exist and would make travelling by road more pleasant for everyone.
Our tendency to use the car more than any other group of Europeans, is actually the cause of low investment in public transport, and not vice versa.
This says it better than I ever could, intersting stuff:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009 ... lture.html
There are some signs that the car culture runs deep within our justice system, which arguably lags Parliament’s and Governments’ (central and local) efforts to restore a balance between motorised and alternative modes of personal transport.
The bicycle is not only an inspired individual response to the difficulties of getting around but also a solution to the general problem of traffic congestion.
The individual cyclist who leaves the car at home is freeing up road-space, reducing risk for all other road users and benefiting the environment for all.
Even the cyclist who makes a trip that would not otherwise be made by car presents a negligible risk to others.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is similar to the number killed by golf balls; in each case too small to register on statistics, but on the few occasions per decade that it does occur accompanied by much publicity.
Ha, ha!
I agree with you - but forgetting to consider the benefits that are achieved through having cars and motorised transport undermines all the equally shrill and hyperbolic anti-car arguments (EDIT - as HH so well shows above).
I support reducing unnecessary car usage becuase it's just hat - unnecessary. I'm also pro-cycling because I do it (more than driving), enjoy it and those who I've encouraged to start cycling immediately see the benefits. I don't, however, see being pro-cyclist as being anti-car. In fact I don't see why there has to be animosity between the groups, because we all suffer from reduced investment in roads and facilities. I'm not sure why you've particularly raised this point in this thread, therefore.0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's funny how arguing for lower speed limits leads to howls of
"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!!1111eleven"
And pointing that the hidden, external costs of motoring massively outweigh all tax revenue from motorists leads to shrill cries of:
"Do you want us to go and live in CAVES!!!!!
Germany has a similar car ownership rate to the UK, yet their cars are used far less. Cycling and walking rates are much higher, and it is safer to walk or cycle in Germany.
The car culture is so dominant and powerful that sensible changes that encourage cycling and make it safer are met with the media comparing cyclists to terrorists.
Nobody is saying we need to go back to the dark ages, that;s shrill hysteria.
Alternatives to the current Car Is King Culture exist and would make travelling by road more pleasant for everyone.
Our tendency to use the car more than any other group of Europeans, is actually the cause of low investment in public transport, and not vice versa.
This says it better than I ever could, intersting stuff:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009 ... lture.html
There are some signs that the car culture runs deep within our justice system, which arguably lags Parliament’s and Governments’ (central and local) efforts to restore a balance between motorised and alternative modes of personal transport.
The bicycle is not only an inspired individual response to the difficulties of getting around but also a solution to the general problem of traffic congestion.
The individual cyclist who leaves the car at home is freeing up road-space, reducing risk for all other road users and benefiting the environment for all.
Even the cyclist who makes a trip that would not otherwise be made by car presents a negligible risk to others.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is similar to the number killed by golf balls; in each case too small to register on statistics, but on the few occasions per decade that it does occur accompanied by much publicity.
Ha, ha!
I agree with you - but forgetting to consider the benefits that are achieved through having cars and motorised transport undermines all the equally shrill and hyperbolic anti-car arguments.
I support reducing unnecessary car usage becuase it's just hat - unnecessary. I'm also pro-cycling because I do it (more than driving), enjoy it and those who I've encouraged to start cycling immediately see the benefits. I don't, however, see being pro-cyclist as being anti-car. In fact I don't see why there has to be animosity between the groups, because we all suffer from reduced investment in roads and facilities. I'm not sure why you've particularly raised this point in this thread, therefore.
But so called "benefits" of motoring at current levels are only benefits because of the way the economy and society is currently set up. If by benefits you include the ability to transport goods over many miles buy lorry and the ability of anyone to jump in their car and drive to Blue Water for a day of shopping, then are these really benefits? Or are they just maintanence of an unsustainable economic and societal model? If motoring was exposed to true market forces and forced to pay for itself then these "benefits" would disappear.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
I consider the industry lobby the same as any other lobby which supports motoring. Just like the farmer's lobby has managed to negotiate itself enormous subsidies largely through the EU.
Whether the government bailed out the motor industry for reasons of employment or to because of pressure from the motor lobby and whether we live in a car centric society or not (of course we do) is irrelevant. Evidence indicates that, although not entirely quantifiable, motoring is a net financial and social cost to society and therefore idiots who shout at cyclists "you don't pay road tax" are talking out of their @rses. In fact I not only pay for roads but subsidise their use of it too (I don't own a car).
Changing world economies to a more locally based model is not a return to the "dark ages", it's a logical step in the face of man made environmental destruction. Of course it's all vey nice to maintain the status quo and continue blithely as before but science indicates that the way we live is completely unsustainable in the long term with human populations expanding exponentially. Unfotunately politicians and industry leaders are unable/unwilling to make wholesale changes which are necessary to the way the global economy operates, so if predictions made by certain scientists are true then mankind is well and truly f*cked in a few decades. Thank god I haven't got kids, lets hope NASA finds another planet for us all to move to....
You are arguing that the scrappage scheme was pro-motorist - therefore it is fundamentally relevant as to why the bail out occurred, because my understanding is that it was predominantly pro-industry. You can't just ignore that and label it as pro-motorist.
"Evidence" can also indicate that the benefits outweigh the costs - but as those benefits (and many of those costs) are unquantifiable it's impossible to conclude either way.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's funny how arguing for lower speed limits leads to howls of
"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!!1111eleven"
And pointing that the hidden, external costs of motoring massively outweigh all tax revenue from motorists leads to shrill cries of:
"Do you want us to go and live in CAVES!!!!!
Germany has a similar car ownership rate to the UK, yet their cars are used far less. Cycling and walking rates are much higher, and it is safer to walk or cycle in Germany.
The car culture is so dominant and powerful that sensible changes that encourage cycling and make it safer are met with the media comparing cyclists to terrorists.
Nobody is saying we need to go back to the dark ages, that;s shrill hysteria.
Alternatives to the current Car Is King Culture exist and would make travelling by road more pleasant for everyone.
Our tendency to use the car more than any other group of Europeans, is actually the cause of low investment in public transport, and not vice versa.
This says it better than I ever could, intersting stuff:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009 ... lture.html
There are some signs that the car culture runs deep within our justice system, which arguably lags Parliament’s and Governments’ (central and local) efforts to restore a balance between motorised and alternative modes of personal transport.
The bicycle is not only an inspired individual response to the difficulties of getting around but also a solution to the general problem of traffic congestion.
The individual cyclist who leaves the car at home is freeing up road-space, reducing risk for all other road users and benefiting the environment for all.
Even the cyclist who makes a trip that would not otherwise be made by car presents a negligible risk to others.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is similar to the number killed by golf balls; in each case too small to register on statistics, but on the few occasions per decade that it does occur accompanied by much publicity.
Ha, ha!
I agree with you - but forgetting to consider the benefits that are achieved through having cars and motorised transport undermines all the equally shrill and hyperbolic anti-car arguments.
I support reducing unnecessary car usage becuase it's just hat - unnecessary. I'm also pro-cycling because I do it (more than driving), enjoy it and those who I've encouraged to start cycling immediately see the benefits. I don't, however, see being pro-cyclist as being anti-car. In fact I don't see why there has to be animosity between the groups, because we all suffer from reduced investment in roads and facilities. I'm not sure why you've particularly raised this point in this thread, therefore.
But so called "benefits" of motoring at current levels are only benefits because of the way the economy and society is currently set up. If by benefits you include the ability to transport goods over many miles buy lorry and the ability of anyone to jump in their car and drive to Blue Water for a day of shopping, then are these really benefits? Or are they just maintanence of an unsustainable economic and societal model? If motoring was exposed to true market forces and forced to pay for itself then these "benefits" would disappear.
They are benefits none-the-less. If you wish to opt out, please do - there are remote car-less islands available to live on. Of course you'd need to opt out of importing any goods from the mainland too, but that's presumably fine. It doesn't take long to think of any number of everyday things that you do (and benefit from) which rely on having motorised transport.
I'd equally say that failing to account for these benefits means you can't determine the "true market" force. Maybe if you could you'd find that actuallly (taking everything into account, which is not possible in monetary terms) the motorists are actually subsidising the non-car owners...0 -
Saying "If you like it so much why don't you go and live there!" is not really an argument.
Motorists are a net drain on resources however you look at it, they are massively subsidised and the cost of private motoring is kept artificially low.
Alternatives to the motor car that bestow the exact same benefits as private motoring exist, but remain unexplored in the UK.
For example, we take it for granted that the Dutch, Germans and Danes have always been more enthusiastic about cycling than the British and that’s why hopping on a bike is an integral part of their culture.
Not so.
In Holland, for example, as in Britain, cycling began to decline in the 1960s, a decade in which the number of cyclists halved.
The difference is that the Dutch government decided to do something about it, spending large sums in retro-fitting city streets to accommodate cycle lanes and ensuring that cycle parking was available at train stations.
In Denmark, they made every school accessible safely for pupils cycling to them.
Therefore it is not good enough for the British government or the road lobby simply to argue that we cycle less in Britain because of cultural differences.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
I consider the industry lobby the same as any other lobby which supports motoring. Just like the farmer's lobby has managed to negotiate itself enormous subsidies largely through the EU.
Whether the government bailed out the motor industry for reasons of employment or to because of pressure from the motor lobby and whether we live in a car centric society or not (of course we do) is irrelevant. Evidence indicates that, although not entirely quantifiable, motoring is a net financial and social cost to society and therefore idiots who shout at cyclists "you don't pay road tax" are talking out of their @rses. In fact I not only pay for roads but subsidise their use of it too (I don't own a car).
Changing world economies to a more locally based model is not a return to the "dark ages", it's a logical step in the face of man made environmental destruction. Of course it's all vey nice to maintain the status quo and continue blithely as before but science indicates that the way we live is completely unsustainable in the long term with human populations expanding exponentially. Unfotunately politicians and industry leaders are unable/unwilling to make wholesale changes which are necessary to the way the global economy operates, so if predictions made by certain scientists are true then mankind is well and truly f*cked in a few decades. Thank god I haven't got kids, lets hope NASA finds another planet for us all to move to....
You are arguing that the scrappage scheme was pro-motorist - therefore it is fundamentally relevant as to why the bail out occurred, because my understanding is that it was predominantly pro-industry. You can't just ignore that and label it as pro-motorist.
"Evidence" can also indicate that the benefits outweigh the costs - but as those benefits (and many of those costs) are unquantifiable it's impossible to conclude either way.
Scrappage was pro industry and therefore pro motorist. Individual motorists benefited too. OK, the costs are debatable and hard to quantify but as yet, no one here has posted any financial benefits at all so in the face of zero evidence of financial benefit I'm more swayed by figures that have actually been posted...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's funny how arguing for lower speed limits leads to howls of
"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!!1111eleven"
And pointing that the hidden, external costs of motoring massively outweigh all tax revenue from motorists leads to shrill cries of:
"Do you want us to go and live in CAVES!!!!!
Germany has a similar car ownership rate to the UK, yet their cars are used far less. Cycling and walking rates are much higher, and it is safer to walk or cycle in Germany.
The car culture is so dominant and powerful that sensible changes that encourage cycling and make it safer are met with the media comparing cyclists to terrorists.
Nobody is saying we need to go back to the dark ages, that;s shrill hysteria.
Alternatives to the current Car Is King Culture exist and would make travelling by road more pleasant for everyone.
Our tendency to use the car more than any other group of Europeans, is actually the cause of low investment in public transport, and not vice versa.
This says it better than I ever could, intersting stuff:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009 ... lture.html
There are some signs that the car culture runs deep within our justice system, which arguably lags Parliament’s and Governments’ (central and local) efforts to restore a balance between motorised and alternative modes of personal transport.
The bicycle is not only an inspired individual response to the difficulties of getting around but also a solution to the general problem of traffic congestion.
The individual cyclist who leaves the car at home is freeing up road-space, reducing risk for all other road users and benefiting the environment for all.
Even the cyclist who makes a trip that would not otherwise be made by car presents a negligible risk to others.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists is similar to the number killed by golf balls; in each case too small to register on statistics, but on the few occasions per decade that it does occur accompanied by much publicity.
Ha, ha!
I agree with you - but forgetting to consider the benefits that are achieved through having cars and motorised transport undermines all the equally shrill and hyperbolic anti-car arguments.
I support reducing unnecessary car usage becuase it's just hat - unnecessary. I'm also pro-cycling because I do it (more than driving), enjoy it and those who I've encouraged to start cycling immediately see the benefits. I don't, however, see being pro-cyclist as being anti-car. In fact I don't see why there has to be animosity between the groups, because we all suffer from reduced investment in roads and facilities. I'm not sure why you've particularly raised this point in this thread, therefore.
But so called "benefits" of motoring at current levels are only benefits because of the way the economy and society is currently set up. If by benefits you include the ability to transport goods over many miles buy lorry and the ability of anyone to jump in their car and drive to Blue Water for a day of shopping, then are these really benefits? Or are they just maintanence of an unsustainable economic and societal model? If motoring was exposed to true market forces and forced to pay for itself then these "benefits" would disappear.
They are benefits none-the-less. If you wish to opt out, please do - there are remote car-less islands available to live on. Of course you'd need to opt out of importing any goods from the mainland too, but that's presumably fine. It doesn't take long to think of any number of everyday things that you do (and benefit from) which rely on having motorised transport.
I'd equally say that failing to account for these benefits means you can't determine the "true market" force. Maybe if you could you'd find that actuallly (taking everything into account, which is not possible in monetary terms) the motorists are actually subsidising the non-car owners...
What I'm saying is that these so called "benefits" are actually assisting in the cause irreversible climate damage. Therefore how are they "benefits" if in the long term we all suffer. Of course climate change is not purely down to motor transport, but it plays an effective part in it! I don't want to "opt out", I simply wish to see environmental destruction reversed.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
'Why isn’t beer tax used to build better pubs, or tobacco tax used to tart up newsagents?'
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=4330 -
iPayRoadTax.com wrote:'Why isn’t beer tax used to build better pubs, or tobacco tax used to tart up newsagents?'
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=433
Another damn good point!Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:iPayRoadTax.com wrote:'Why isn’t beer tax used to build better pubs, or tobacco tax used to tart up newsagents?'
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=433
Another damn good point!
How interesting that the comments section on that article exactly mirrorrs the comments' I have made on this thread.
There's quite a lot of selective copying and pasting going on....0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:iPayRoadTax.com wrote:'Why isn’t beer tax used to build better pubs, or tobacco tax used to tart up newsagents?'
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=433
Another damn good point!
How interesting that the comments section on that article exactly mirrorrs the comments' I have made on this thread.
There's quite a lot of selective copying and pasting going on....
Well, no, because the comments repeat your myth that motoring taxes have risen.
They haven't.
They've decreased by any yardstick you use.
Meanwhile the real cost of public transport has risen over the same period.
You have to find the money from somewhere, so the whole of society, including people who don't even own cars, end up paying to subsidise motorists.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:iPayRoadTax.com wrote:'Why isn’t beer tax used to build better pubs, or tobacco tax used to tart up newsagents?'
http://ipayroadtax.com/?p=433
Another damn good point!
How interesting that the comments section on that article exactly mirrorrs the comments' I have made on this thread.
There's quite a lot of selective copying and pasting going on....
Well, no, because the comments repeat your myth that motoring taxes have risen.
They haven't.
They've decreased by any yardstick you use.
Meanwhile the real cost of public transport has risen over the same period.
You have to find the money from somewhere, so the whole of society, including people who don't even own cars, end up paying to subsidise motorists.
But they also point out the severe problem of only looking at costs and not benefits.
Any yardstick? Really? So there hasn't been an increase in tax on fuel, or VED?
One last time - it's impossible to measure the costs and benefits of motorised transport. So it's impossible to say who subsidises who.0 -
Even if monetary calculation is the best way of considering this issue, public health costs could be considered:
The British Medical Association publication "Road Transport & Health", Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic "could lead to a broad range of health benefits".
The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents".
Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for £2000 to above the £2,000 per year deficit of the average motorist.
Even more unquantifiable, but none the les real, costs such as the restriction on childrens' mobility by motor traffic danger could be added on.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Even if monetary calculation is the best way of considering this issue, public health costs could be considered:
The British Medical Association publication "Road Transport & Health", Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic "could lead to a broad range of health benefits".
The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents".
Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for £2000 to above the £2,000 per year deficit of the average motorist.
Even more unquantifiable, but none the les real, costs such as the restriction on childrens' mobility by motor traffic danger could be added on.
I wonder how many people would die without being able to get to hospital in an ambulance?0 -
A reduction in motor traffic need not include a ban on ambulances, but well done for posting three straw men in a row.0
-
I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:A reduction in motor traffic need not include a ban on ambulances, but well done for posting three straw men in a row.
Well done for missing the point entirely.0 -
I have to say mybreakfastconsisted that I admire the keeness by which you post in references, but you are undermining your own case by using illogical figures at times (e.g. saying that congestion costs business x per year, and therefore that should be added to the externalities figure when the people sitting in the jam are the ones that bear that cost (which is notional anyway)).
Also you are stacking figure upon figure that were created by very nebulous assumptions like "noise", not to mention quotes by other lobby groups that use disclaimers like "could".
It appears that to get a 'cost' figure big enough to counter the undisbuted numbers raised in tax you are having to add notional number upon notional number.
Stick to figures that are clear and known and you might start convincing people or if the numbers don't add then argue against cars using other grounds.0 -
W1 wrote:dondare wrote:I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.
Balanced of course against access to medical help, medicines, decent sanitation etc etc? Do you think any of that is doable without transport?
I don't think anybody here is suggesting we'd all be better off without any motorised transport at all, merely that the 'car is king' culture we currently have needs to change.0 -
MrChuck wrote:W1 wrote:dondare wrote:I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.
Balanced of course against access to medical help, medicines, decent sanitation etc etc? Do you think any of that is doable without transport?
I don't think anybody here is suggesting we'd all be better off without any motorised transport at all, merely that the 'car is king' culture we currently have needs to change.
Those who fail to consider the balance to the points they are making undermine themselves and their cause. It's no good saying "here are the costs" whilst failing to say "but here are the benefits". The fact is that neither the costs nor the benefits are measurable in an accurate and agreed form, meaning that there can be no conclusion as to who, in reality, subsidises who.0 -
W1 wrote:dondare wrote:I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.
Balanced of course against access to medical help, medicines, decent sanitation etc etc? Do you think any of that is doable without transport?
Transport doesn't have to be motor transport. Fresh water arrives and sewerage gets away from my bathroom without needing to drive. Some medicines (and some sick people) need to be moved quickly but it doen't help when the ambulance (a word that actually means "walker") gets snarled up in the school run traffic because neither parents nor children can be bothered to walk a mile these days.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
W1 wrote:MrChuck wrote:W1 wrote:dondare wrote:I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.
Balanced of course against access to medical help, medicines, decent sanitation etc etc? Do you think any of that is doable without transport?
I don't think anybody here is suggesting we'd all be better off without any motorised transport at all, merely that the 'car is king' culture we currently have needs to change.
Those who fail to consider the balance to the points they are making undermine themselves and their cause. It's no good saying "here are the costs" whilst failing to say "but here are the benefits". The fact is that neither the costs nor the benefits are measurable in an accurate and agreed form, meaning that there can be no conclusion as to who, in reality, subsidises who.
Many costs can be very accurately assessed indeed. The benefits less so.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
W1 wrote:MrChuck wrote:W1 wrote:dondare wrote:I wonder how many people would live a lot longer if they enjoyed clean air, natural daylight and regular exercise.
Balanced of course against access to medical help, medicines, decent sanitation etc etc? Do you think any of that is doable without transport?
I don't think anybody here is suggesting we'd all be better off without any motorised transport at all, merely that the 'car is king' culture we currently have needs to change.
Those who fail to consider the balance to the points they are making undermine themselves and their cause. It's no good saying "here are the costs" whilst failing to say "but here are the benefits". The fact is that neither the costs nor the benefits are measurable in an accurate and agreed form, meaning that there can be no conclusion as to who, in reality, subsidises who.
OK then, what are the "benefits" and what financial value do they have? You keep telling us that the costs of motor transport listed previously are spurious but you haven't come up with anythnig quantifiable with regard to benefits.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
