Where does the money for Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Go?
Comments
-
dondare wrote: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.
The costs to the motorist - certainly, they are easily calculated. The benefits to the motorist and non-motorist? Agreed, hard to value. The costs of motoring? Very hard to to value - noise pollution? Air pollution? Water pollution? Very hard (impossible, in my view) to accurately value, even harder to accurately attribute to a specific source.0 -
Headhuunter wrote: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.
I have consistently said that the benefits are very hard, if not impossible to value. There may be people who have tried to, but I'm not sure how you place a monetary value on personal transport. The "costs" of motoring are "valued" on very dubious grounds - equally impossible to conclude upon. Please read what I have consistently written.
So, I'll say it again, just in case it wasn't clear. The costs and benefits are impossible to value accurately in monetary terms. Therefore concluding who subsidises who, in reality taking everything into account, is impossible to determine.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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote: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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?
Ha, I thought that might have been the case....0 -
The effects on health of air pollution can be estimated very closely indeed.
We know what comes out of exhaust pipes and what it does to the health of those who are exposed to it. We know how much air pollution can be ascribed to transport and what the levels are. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and hospital admissions. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and the death rate. The cost to society can be calculated from these.
It is certainly hard to estimate the benefit of driving an unfit child half a mile to school, or of being able to shop at an out-of-town retail park instead of using the High Street.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
W1 wrote:spen666 wrote: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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?
I thought it was from the style of posting - ie the posting of quotes not using the quote function so it is hard to tell what is a quote and what isn't, but the straw men reference was a give away
Ha, I thought that might have been the case....Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
W1 wrote: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.
Apologies.
What was your point, since I haven't seen anyone proposing a ban on ambulances?0 -
dondare wrote:The effects on health of air pollution can be estimated very closely indeed.
We know what comes out of exhaust pipes and what it does to the health of those who are exposed to it. We know how much air pollution can be ascribed to transport and what the levels are. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and hospital admissions. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and the death rate. The cost to society can be calculated from these.
It is certainly hard to estimate the benefit of driving an unfit child half a mile to school, or of being able to shop at an out-of-town retail park instead of using the High Street.
I'm not convinced that any of that is true. They are all guestimates built on guestimates and even then how is the "cost" concluded?
If we're talking strawmen (any why not?!) do you really think those are the benefits I mean?0 -
spen666 wrote:W1 wrote:spen666 wrote: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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?
I thought it was from the style of posting - ie the posting of quotes not using the quote function so it is hard to tell what is a quote and what isn't, but the straw men reference was a give away
Ha, I thought that might have been the case....
...and the constant copying and pasting, use of dubious references, bombardment of long posts, constant plucking of one issue whilst ignoring other valid (but awkward) points....0 -
W1 wrote:spen666 wrote:W1 wrote:spen666 wrote: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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?
I thought it was from the style of posting - ie the posting of quotes not using the quote function so it is hard to tell what is a quote and what isn't, but the straw men reference was a give away
Ha, I thought that might have been the case....
...and the constant copying and pasting, use of dubious references, bombardment of long posts, constant plucking of one issue whilst ignoring other valid (but awkward) points....
Apologies again, what have I ignored please?0 -
W1 wrote:spen666 wrote:W1 wrote:spen666 wrote: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.
Welcome back - I presume that the moderators know you have re registered since you were banned a few months ago.
If they don't know you are back, then may I suggest you stop your calling everyone a straw man - it is a giveaway that it is you.
How many user names have you had on here and the predecessor C+ forum now?
I thought it was from the style of posting - ie the posting of quotes not using the quote function so it is hard to tell what is a quote and what isn't, but the straw men reference was a give away
Ha, I thought that might have been the case....
...and the constant copying and pasting, use of dubious references, bombardment of long posts, constant plucking of one issue whilst ignoring other valid (but awkward) points....
+1
I thought the same. Very selective replies and lack of understanding what constitutes evidence0 -
W1 wrote:dondare wrote:The effects on health of air pollution can be estimated very closely indeed.
We know what comes out of exhaust pipes and what it does to the health of those who are exposed to it. We know how much air pollution can be ascribed to transport and what the levels are. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and hospital admissions. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and the death rate. The cost to society can be calculated from these.
It is certainly hard to estimate the benefit of driving an unfit child half a mile to school, or of being able to shop at an out-of-town retail park instead of using the High Street.
I'm not convinced that any of that is true. They are all guestimates built on guestimates and even then how is the "cost" concluded?
If we're talking strawmen (any why not?!) do you really think those are the benefits I mean?
Air pollution levels can be (and are) accurately measured. The composition of the pollution will indicate the proportion that is motor-traffic generated. The short and long-term damage that these do to the body are known.
The number of cars on the road is counted throughout the day at numerous locations. Hospital admission rates are recorded as are death rates and causes of death.
Lifespans and levels off illness in different communities can be matched directly to the levels of air pollution that they are exposed to and other variables accounted for.
The financial cost to society of illness can be calculated. The cost to society of incapacity and death can be calculated.
Correllations can be made between pollution levels and illness and pollution levels and death rates.
The financial cost of illness and death is perhaps the least of the reasons for not allowing toxic waste to be pumped directly into the air that we all breathe, but it certainly can be calculated very accurately.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
dondare wrote:W1 wrote:dondare wrote:The effects on health of air pollution can be estimated very closely indeed.
We know what comes out of exhaust pipes and what it does to the health of those who are exposed to it. We know how much air pollution can be ascribed to transport and what the levels are. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and hospital admissions. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and the death rate. The cost to society can be calculated from these.
It is certainly hard to estimate the benefit of driving an unfit child half a mile to school, or of being able to shop at an out-of-town retail park instead of using the High Street.
I'm not convinced that any of that is true. They are all guestimates built on guestimates and even then how is the "cost" concluded?
If we're talking strawmen (any why not?!) do you really think those are the benefits I mean?
Air pollution levels can be (and are) accurately measured. The composition of the pollution will indicate the proportion that is motor-traffic generated. The short and long-term damage that these do to the body are known.
The number of cars on the road is counted throughout the day at numerous locations. Hospital admission rates are recorded as are death rates and causes of death.
Lifespans and levels off illness in different communities can be matched directly to the levels of air pollution that they are exposed to and other variables accounted for.
The financial cost to society of illness can be calculated. The cost to society of incapacity and death can be calculated.
Correllations can be made between pollution levels and illness and pollution levels and death rates.
The financial cost of illness and death is perhaps the least of the reasons for not allowing toxic waste to be pumped directly into the air that we all breathe, but it certainly can be calculated very accurately.
This may be your specialist subject (it's obviously not mine) but you haven't really added much to your original post.
I'd love to have more time to research this properly, but perhaps you can link me to some idiot proof, unbiased and unargued sources if this is so easily calculated?0 -
dondare wrote:
Air pollution levels can be (and are) accurately measured. The composition of the pollution will indicate the proportion that is motor-traffic generated. The short and long-term damage that these do to the body are known.
The number of cars on the road is counted throughout the day at numerous locations. Hospital admission rates are recorded as are death rates and causes of death.
Lifespans and levels off illness in different communities can be matched directly to the levels of air pollution that they are exposed to and other variables accounted for.
The financial cost to society of illness can be calculated. The cost to society of incapacity and death can be calculated.
Correllations can be made between pollution levels and illness and pollution levels and death rates.
The financial cost of illness and death is perhaps the least of the reasons for not allowing toxic waste to be pumped directly into the air that we all breathe, but it certainly can be calculated very accurately.
that's not true. Stating something as clear fact does not make it clear fact.
Causes of death are often very vague and because something has to be stated then a category is chosen. Cause of death is not precise.
As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. As is the idea of comparing communities wihout lots of obvious biases like housing or job.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?
Me too.
The non-dom tax efficient will have drivers to drive for them, but it will keep the peasants out of the way.
It won;t keep this peasant out of your way - I pays my taxes m'deario0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?
Me too.
The non-dom tax efficient will have drivers to drive for them, but it will keep the peasants out of the way.
It won;t keep this peasant out of your way - I pays my taxes m'deario
Ah, but do you pay as much as me darling?
(This, for the avoidance of doubt, is intended to be humorous).0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?
Me too.
The non-dom tax efficient will have drivers to drive for them, but it will keep the peasants out of the way.
It won;t keep this peasant out of your way - I pays my taxes m'deario
Ah, but do you pay as much as me darling?
(This, for the avoidance of doubt, is intended to be humorous).
Yeah but I'm po-faced don;t you know!0 -
Luckily for us, the heriarchy of the roads is not related to the tax paid by the road user outside the fevered imagination of white van men.
And ambulances aren't banned, the man with the red flag isn't coming back and reducing car use wouldn't regress us to the dark ages.0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:rjsterry wrote:biondino wrote:Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (who don't won cars).
People who pay more tax contribute more to the roads (and everything else) so to follow the logic of the 'you don't pay road tax' brigade, rich people with big houses are more entitled to use the roads than poor people, and those on benefits shouldn't be allowed to use the roads or any other public service at all...
Of dear, I seem to be writing this stuff for them.
Actually I like that rule - it'll keep the non-Dom tax evaders locked up in their homes - maybe long enough so they starve?
Me too.
The non-dom tax efficient will have drivers to drive for them, but it will keep the peasants out of the way.
It won;t keep this peasant out of your way - I pays my taxes m'deario
Ah, but do you pay as much as me darling?
(This, for the avoidance of doubt, is intended to be humorous).
Yeah but I'm po-faced don;t you know!
Indeed, hence the disclaimer....!0 -
W1 wrote:dondare wrote:W1 wrote:dondare wrote:The effects on health of air pollution can be estimated very closely indeed.
We know what comes out of exhaust pipes and what it does to the health of those who are exposed to it. We know how much air pollution can be ascribed to transport and what the levels are. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and hospital admissions. We know exactly the correlation between pollution levels and the death rate. The cost to society can be calculated from these.
It is certainly hard to estimate the benefit of driving an unfit child half a mile to school, or of being able to shop at an out-of-town retail park instead of using the High Street.
I'm not convinced that any of that is true. They are all guestimates built on guestimates and even then how is the "cost" concluded?
If we're talking strawmen (any why not?!) do you really think those are the benefits I mean?
Air pollution levels can be (and are) accurately measured. The composition of the pollution will indicate the proportion that is motor-traffic generated. The short and long-term damage that these do to the body are known.
The number of cars on the road is counted throughout the day at numerous locations. Hospital admission rates are recorded as are death rates and causes of death.
Lifespans and levels off illness in different communities can be matched directly to the levels of air pollution that they are exposed to and other variables accounted for.
The financial cost to society of illness can be calculated. The cost to society of incapacity and death can be calculated.
Correllations can be made between pollution levels and illness and pollution levels and death rates.
The financial cost of illness and death is perhaps the least of the reasons for not allowing toxic waste to be pumped directly into the air that we all breathe, but it certainly can be calculated very accurately.
This may be your specialist subject (it's obviously not mine) but you haven't really added much to your original post.
I'd love to have more time to research this properly, but perhaps you can link me to some idiot proof, unbiased and unargued sources if this is so easily calculated?
Three weeks ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ion-europe
The City of London has been found to be one of the most polluted places in Europe after monitoring equipment recorded dangerous levels of minute particles for the 36th time this year. Under EU rules, Britain is allowed no more than 35 "bad air" days in the whole year, and now faces court cases and unlimited fines by Europe.
The breaching of the EU levels after just six months will embarrass the government, which was sent a final warning only three weeks ago from the European commission to improve air quality. Many other places in central London are close to the limit and can be expected to break the law within weeks.
The government has applied to Europe for a time extension until 2011 to comply with daily particulate pollution from traffic, but is not certain to be granted it because it has been flouting EU air quality laws since 2005 and is perceived by the environment commissioner Janez Potočnik to have done little to address the problem.
"Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions," he said.
The London Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford said: "This latest breach is yet another wake-up call for the mayor of London and the government. Research has shown that airborne pollution in London could be responsible for up to thousands of premature deaths a year: this is an invisible public health emergency."
Poor air quality is now considered one of the biggest public health issues now facing the UK. A recent report by the House of Commons environmental audit committee included evidence that air pollution could be contributing to 50,000 deaths in the UK a year. A study (pdf) commissioned by Boris Johnson, mayor of London, calculated that more than 4,300 deaths are caused by poor air quality in the city every year, costing around £2bn a year.0 -
davmaggs wrote:dondare wrote:
Air pollution levels can be (and are) accurately measured. The composition of the pollution will indicate the proportion that is motor-traffic generated. The short and long-term damage that these do to the body are known.
The number of cars on the road is counted throughout the day at numerous locations. Hospital admission rates are recorded as are death rates and causes of death.
Lifespans and levels off illness in different communities can be matched directly to the levels of air pollution that they are exposed to and other variables accounted for.
The financial cost to society of illness can be calculated. The cost to society of incapacity and death can be calculated.
Correllations can be made between pollution levels and illness and pollution levels and death rates.
The financial cost of illness and death is perhaps the least of the reasons for not allowing toxic waste to be pumped directly into the air that we all breathe, but it certainly can be calculated very accurately.
that's not true. Stating something as clear fact does not make it clear fact.
Causes of death are often very vague and because something has to be stated then a category is chosen. Cause of death is not precise.
As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. As is the idea of comparing communities wihout lots of obvious biases like housing or job.
Motor vehicles produce exhaust gases, vapours and particulates which are hazardous to health.
Traffic levels and pollution levels are both accurately monitored and have been for many years.
Hospital admissions and death rates are accurately recorded.
The correlation between motor traffic and the pollution it generates is clear from empirical observation and official measurements and is exactly what you'd expect it to be.
The correlation between air quality and hospital admissions and death rates is also exactly what you'd expect it to be.
Motor-vehicles make exhaust which makes people ill, shortens their lives and sometimes causes acute and fatal repiratory failure.
Which of these above statements is false?This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
davmaggs wrote:[As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. .
That's a convincing, well-argued and reasonable point.
We've got the resident racist and his paranoid delusions, your airy dismissals of anything you disagree with and W1 banging on about ambulances being banned. It's the unholy trinity of barking mad delusionsists.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?
WG Wharburton answered the question in the 3rd post to the thread“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:davmaggs wrote:[As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. .
That's a convincing, well-argued and reasonable point.
We've got the resident racist and his paranoid delusions, your airy dismissals of anything you disagree with and W1 banging on about ambulances being banned. It's the unholy trinity of barking mad delusionsists.
And we have your usual copy and paste diarrhoea to wade through.
Isn't it time you got banned again?0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:davmaggs wrote:[As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. .
That's a convincing, well-argued and reasonable point.
We've got the resident racist and his paranoid delusions, your airy dismissals of anything you disagree with and W1 banging on about ambulances being banned. It's the unholy trinity of barking mad delusionsists.
And we have your usual copy and paste diarrhoea to wade through.
Isn't it time you got banned again?
WTF are you talking about?
You don't have to wade through anything, I'm just curious why you can't explain why you think ambulances will be banned....
If you disagree with what I've written then say so and say why, otherwise stop pretending I'm someone else who's pointed out your dishonesty or you'll get banned again along with the banned ambulances.
BANNED0 -
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?
You did read page 1 didn't you? What more do you need to know? A full breakdown of all government spending is a bit beyond most of us, but I think the main points are there.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Your VED pays for everything the gov spend money on, even those chaps who don't want to work, God Bless them.0
-
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:davmaggs wrote:[As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. .
That's a convincing, well-argued and reasonable point.
We've got the resident racist and his paranoid delusions, your airy dismissals of anything you disagree with and W1 banging on about ambulances being banned. It's the unholy trinity of barking mad delusionsists.
And we have your usual copy and paste diarrhoea to wade through.
Isn't it time you got banned again?
For what?This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
dondare wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:davmaggs wrote:[As for the cost argument, well that's too obvious to waste time picking apart. .
That's a convincing, well-argued and reasonable point.
We've got the resident racist and his paranoid delusions, your airy dismissals of anything you disagree with and W1 banging on about ambulances being banned. It's the unholy trinity of barking mad delusionsists.
And we have your usual copy and paste diarrhoea to wade through.
Isn't it time you got banned again?
For what?
He's a well known troll who has been banned from a number of forums a number of times.0 -
Bans are bad.This post contains traces of nuts.0
