You lot should pay road tax!

Mr Sworld

Yeah, I know it's not true but under the 'road privatization' plan it could be...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/mar/19/privatising-roads-tax-motorists-cyclists?CMP=twt_fd

cyclingprop

Must be a quiet news day.

eede

Why don't they just rename the 20% vat levied on all cycling goods to cycle road tax? We can show the world we pay a tax and get bog all for it then.

sketchley

What a pointless article, considering they are considering private investment to build (toll) roads you would kind of expect the money raised from the tolls to go to the up keep of the road and payment for the investment. It would be a bit odd to ask for private investment to build a toll road then take the money for the tolls and use it elsewhere. Alsothese roads are likely to be multilane motorways in order to generate the traffic volume need to pay for the road via tolls so are unlikely to be available for or used by cyclists even if the "tolls" are ring fenced. Or am I missing something?

keyser__soze

Yes, they're talking about companies taking over existing roads, not just getting the right to build new ones.

asprilla

Sketchley wrote:

What a pointless article, considering they are considering private investment to build (toll) roads you would kind of expect the money raised from the tolls to go to the up keep of the road and payment for the investment. It would be a bit odd to ask for private investment to build a toll road then take the money for the tolls and use it elsewhere. Alsothese roads are likely to be multilane motorways in order to generate the traffic volume need to pay for the road via tolls so are unlikely to be available for or used by cyclists even if the "tolls" are ring fenced. Or am I missing something?

I read it that the investors would be leasing existing roads which had no toll revenue and making improvements in return for a slice of the VED.

rolf_f

I think the idea is that we drive on the 'privatised' roads and the government gets charged for each journey we make.

Obviously a genius idea which isn't yet another of those schemes where somehow money is generated from nowhere and all the ensuing beaurocracy and pointless expense is amply covered by the revenue gained.......

mudcow007

So hang on...UK roads are all sold to the Chinese who then fix all the issues and then wont put tolls every 2miles?

Why would the government do this as surely they are losing the revenue from VED or am i totally off here?

daviesee

mudcow007 wrote:

So hang on...UK roads are all sold to the Chinese who then fix all the issues and then wont put tolls every 2miles?

Why would the government do this as surely they are losing the revenue from VED or am i totally off here?

1. Roads are sold - Government gets money up front.
2. Chinese fix the roads.
3. No tolls.

That I am sure is the good news thinking.

Now list the flaws.............

1. Chinese will get more money in the long run.
2. That part would be good if only there wasn't the downsides.
3. There will be tolls.
4.....
5....

TheStone

Total non story.
Might get a couple more M6 Toll type roads over the next 50 year.

Pufftmw

Heard one chap this morning on LBC saying that "tax exempt" vehicles (ie vintage cars and low emissions vehicles) should be taxed as they are using the road. I could just imagine that particular chap expanding that theory onto bicycles :roll:

sfichele

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

cyclingprop

sfichele wrote:

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

I'm pretty sure that the story was not about mass rape.

ads2k

Already do ...3 times exactly as we have 3 cars in the household. BUT when I'm not using my car, I'm on my bike so people who say cyclist don't pay for using the roads can go and take a long jump of a short pier..

sfichele

cyclingprop wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

I'm pretty sure that the story was not about mass rape.

Perhaps not, but the slow eventual trickle of privatisation by the last four governments imo has been with regard to the tax payer. Take a look at the trains. Under BR 1.5 billion tax subsidy, now, the trains are a massive screw-up and receive over 4.5 billion input from the tax-payer.

Privatisation is nothing more than a cash-cow for rich "friends" of the government

TheStone

sfichele wrote:

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

I don't think any of it is that clever.
They've simply got no ideas. This one is up there with the 'big society' nonsense. It would be better is they just kept quiet.

The mansion tax could just be a few more bands on the council tax .... but oh no, the politicians have to make a big deal about it.

The break from the public sector nation wage levels is really just a tweak to the London weighting ... but again, made into a big deal ... by both sides.

sfichele

TheStone wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

I don't think any of it is that clever.
They've simply got no ideas. This one is up there with the 'big society' nonsense. It would be better is they just kept quiet.

+1

TheStone wrote:

The mansion tax could just be a few more bands on the council tax .... but oh no, the politicians have to make a big deal about it.

The break from the public sector nation wage levels is really just a tweak to the London weighting ... but again, made into a big deal ... by both sides.

+1

But you really would be naive to think that privatisation/PFI isn't driven by rich companies lobbying politicians, who can't wait to get their grubby hands on public assets

cyclingprop

sfichele wrote:

cyclingprop wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Am I right in thinking that's it either a smoke-screen for the NHS cluster-f@ck, or the old adage, that the Tories have lots of rich friend and they love selling them cheap assets so they can rape the tax payer. On the plus side the government hates having to manage anything important and therefore loves privatising anything it can't be @arsed to run anymore

I'm pretty sure that the story was not about mass rape.

Perhaps not, *snip*

Lol

CiB

sfichele wrote:

Under BR 1.5 billion tax subsidy, now, the trains are a massive screw-up and receive over 4.5 billion input from the tax-payer.

Privatisation is nothing more than a cash-cow for rich "friends" of the government

Yet when fares are allowed to rise above the rate of inflation with the specific intent of pushing more of the cost of running a 21st century railway onto the customer and away from the tax-payer [a specific stated intent of the govt's], everyone is up in arms about how it discourages use of PT, is unfair, Mussolini kept the trains running on time why can't Cameron etc etc.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's fun to see the leftists come out with weak & feeble arguments with which to attack the govt.

TheStone

sfichele wrote:

But you really would be naive to think that privatisation/PFI isn't driven by rich companies lobbying politicians, who can't wait to get their grubby hands on public assets

A lot of people have made a lot of money, but the decision to do it was still based on political greed. I want to give people everything they want now, but make it look like it doesn't cost anything. The next government or even next generation picks up the over inflated cost.

Nothing should be allowed to move off balance sheet. And I'd include the NPV of public sector pensions within that.

sfichele

CiB wrote:

sfichele wrote:

Under BR 1.5 billion tax subsidy, now, the trains are a massive screw-up and receive over 4.5 billion input from the tax-payer.

Privatisation is nothing more than a cash-cow for rich "friends" of the government

Yet when fares are allowed to rise above the rate of inflation with the specific intent of pushing more of the cost of running a 21st century railway onto the customer and away from the tax-payer [a specific stated intent of the govt's], everyone is up in arms about how it discourages use of PT, is unfair, Mussolini kept the trains running on time why can't Cameron etc etc.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's fun to see the leftists come out with weak & feeble arguments with which to attack the govt.

Rubbish! Privatisation was meant to streamline the railways and REDUCE the subsidy, instead it did the exact opposite. Privatisation = profiteering

CiB

Rubbish? Which bit? It's an absolute fact that the govt wishes to reduce the tax-payer contribution to the railways and move it to the paying customers. In what way is that 'rubbish'?

cyclingprop

TheStone wrote:

sfichele wrote:

But you really would be naive to think that privatisation/PFI isn't driven by rich companies lobbying politicians, who can't wait to get their grubby hands on public assets

A lot of people have made a lot of money, but the decision to do it was still based on political greed. I want to give people everything they want now, but make it look like it doesn't cost anything. The next government or even next generation picks up the over inflated cost.

Nothing should be allowed to move off balance sheet. And I'd include the NPV of public sector pensions within that.

Down with change!

sfichele

CiB wrote:

Rubbish? Which bit? It's an absolute fact that the govt wishes to reduce the tax-payer contribution to the railways and move it to the paying customers. In what way is that 'rubbish'?

That it's feeble a argument.

If BR had been subsidised to the same level as the current system, we WOULD have a 21st century train system, instead of the profiteering cluster-f@ck we have now.

If privatisation was the utopia that politicians claim it is, then subsidies would have gone down. Instead they have gone up - but despite that its okay to massively increase fares is it? Which given the mess the government made, are massively unjustified. I'm paying around 3K a year for a pass, and am riding on run-down, knackered trains that are over 25 years old. Where's the updated rolling stock ????

Yet for the same season ticket I could use the entire German network.

Lefty? Both Labour and the Conservatives are suckers for privatisation - or making their "friends" rich

ddraver

Is cluster-f@ck your new word of the week sfichele?

CiB

sfichele wrote:

CiB wrote:

Rubbish? Which bit? It's an absolute fact that the govt wishes to reduce the tax-payer contribution to the railways and move it to the paying customers. In what way is that 'rubbish'?

That it's feeble a argument.

If BR had been subsidised to the same level as the current system, we WOULD have a 21st century train system, instead of the profiteering cluster-f@ck we have now.

If privatisation was the utopia that politicians claim it is, then subsidies would have gone down. Instead they have gone up - but despite that its okay to massively increase fares is it? Which given the mess the government made, are massively unjustified. I'm paying around 3K a year for a pass, and am riding on run-down, knackered trains that are over 25 years old. Where's the updated rolling stock ????

Yet for the same season ticket I could use the entire German network.

Lefty? Both Labour and the Conservatives are suckers for privatisation - or making their "friends" rich

Blimey. What an angry fellow. Every time I go on a train it seems to be a shiny new one and is well fitted out, smooth & comfy. So your experience doesn't match mine.

Congrats BTW on introducing a whole new cliché all on your own. It's become a bit boring now though. Duster-feck? Who'd have thought of that eh?

Greg T

I don't know why anyone thinks governments are very good at running large utilities and companies . .
\
If they were that good at it we'd have iPads made by the government of the USA, BMWs made by ze Germans.

Big State monopolies are bad at running thins, BR, Leyland, NCB, Trabant, France, NHS etc etc.

Thinking that just because a government runs it is therefore good and well organised is tosh. Governments are bad at running things. The private sector is also not good at running things it just has an inbuilt Darwinian selection process going that means the really bad at running things ones go bust.

Nationalised industry success story? In your own time make a list.

bails87

Greg T wrote:

Nationalised industry success story? In your own time make a list.

NHS?

Some of the best health outcomes in the world, for MUCH less than than the cost of the mostly private US healthcare sector.


But you're right, to assume that XXXXX is public/private therefore must be good/bad/ugly is foolish. Govt's do things badly, private sector do things badly (Southern Cross, PIP) and both do things well too.

DonDaddyD

I don't want to agree with Greg, I want to say Venezuela - don't know why.

Obviously I don't want to agree with Greg about the NHS... but... there are areas where private sector competitiveness has improved the NHS, it gives motivation to be successful see - it's the making profit out of care that I don't agree with from a ethical perspective.

ANYWAY, Greg T, you have a point. I think the fear is the assumption of having to pay additional costs to drive on the roads (toll gates) at a time where most are paying through gritted teeth to run a car and/or transport in general.

Cycloslalomeur

Greg T wrote:

I don't know why anyone thinks governments are very good at running large utilities and companies . .
\
If they were that good at it we'd have iPads made by the government of the USA, BMWs made by ze Germans.

Big State monopolies are bad at running thins, BR, Leyland, NCB, Trabant, France, NHS etc etc.

Thinking that just because a government runs it is therefore good and well organised is tosh. Governments are bad at running things. The private sector is also not good at running things it just has an inbuilt Darwinian selection process going that means the really bad at running things ones go bust.

Nationalised industry success story? In your own time make a list.

Staying with railways, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn spring to mind.

Cycloslalomeur

Here's some lefty propaganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhCPlQAxYms. Last time we took the TGV Est from Paris to Strasbourg the Lorraine countryside went by at a positively sluggish 320kph. The single fare was 25 euros. I believe they're improving the line to raise the service speed, having proven that 150 metres a second is safe.