Congestion Charge

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:42:46 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I think the rich pay it with a shrug, but the poor struggle to arrange alternatives. Some of the
>> poor switched to motorbikes which have 20 to 30 times the fatality rate of cars. How many of them
>> will die as a clearly connected secondary effect of the congestion charge?

>Now there's a convoluted way of thinking. I'm proud of you.

What on earth makes you think it's convoluted?

TfL are scared as hell of it to judge by the cinema motorcyclist death playlet they ran. (as
reported hereabouts).
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
intelligent road safety

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:59:52 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Have you encountered Intrastats? Compared to them, VAT is vibrant and fascinating!

Never a truer word spoken :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:57:21 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>I really really really don't want to get bogged down into a conversation about VAT,

Another discussion you regret starting. Getting to be a habit, isn't it?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:54:05 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Would you not have any form of purchase taxation, and put it all on income?

I would certainly do away with most purchase taxation - stamp duty would go, too

>What about excise duty on alcohol, tobacco and road fuel?

Tough call. I would probably keep the duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, as these are
intended to influence behaviour. VAT doesn't do that as there are few legal alternatives to
clothes, for example.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:58:45 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>The blame is not attached "arbitrarily"

And the dates fit perfectly. With the rise of mobile phone use. See later post.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:09:46 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>The answer is simple - don't introduce vindictive policies designed to extract even more money
>>>from the most over-taxed groups in UK society, and don't follow policies designed only to
>>>exasperate them.

>>No problem with London congestion charging then, as it affects mostly the under-taxed rich and
>>they don't seem to care much judging by the miserable showing of the protest demonstrations.

>I think the rich pay it with a shrug, but the poor struggle to arrange alternatives. Some of the
>poor switched to motorbikes which have 20 to 30 times the fatality rate of cars. How many of them
>will die as a clearly connected secondary effect of the congestion charge?

The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car. They can't afford to park.
Almost everybody I've met who works in a clerical or other non-executive position in an office in
the City travels to work on foot, by bicycle, or by public transport. I have come across a small
number who use motorbikes. The majority of cars on the roads in the City - well, the majority seem
to be taxis these days, but the overwhelming majority of private cars *in the City* are (and have
been in recent times) "executive" models.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On 22 Feb 2003 19:20:13 +0000, Sherilyn <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The govt. won't pay for the cameras. The costs would have to be covered from the revenue. And if
>> there's no congestion it won't be.

>I don't agree on this. Congestion is interrupted traffic flow. If you take a city like Newcastle,
>which has very little in the way of congestion but a lot of fast roads in and near the city center,
>you'd raise a lot of money simply because of the amount of traffic that travels through. Newcastle
>does have an excellent public transport infrastructure, however.

I wonder how long the council in Newcastle would last if they imposed a "congestion charge" on
manifestly uncongested roads, though?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:54:05 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Would you not have any form of purchase taxation, and put it all on
income?
>
>I would certainly do away with most purchase taxation - stamp duty would go, too
>
>>What about excise duty on alcohol, tobacco and road fuel?
>
>Tough call. I would probably keep the duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, as these are
>intended to influence behaviour. VAT doesn't do that as there are few legal alternatives to
>clothes, for example.

So you'd end up having income tax of 55-60% to make up the lost revenues from VAT?

Trouble with income tax is that it's so susceptible to manipulation and gives a blatant
encouragement to the black economy. When the 1970s Labour government set the top rate at 98%
nobody paid it.

Ideally I'd prefer to do away with income tax altogether and raise all revenue through VAT or a
similar form of tax.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>On 22 Feb 2003 19:20:13 +0000, Sherilyn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I don't agree on this. Congestion is interrupted traffic flow. If you take a city like Newcastle,
>>which has very little in the way of congestion but a lot of fast roads in and near the city
>>center, you'd raise a lot of money simply because of the amount of traffic that travels through.
>>Newcastle does have an excellent public transport infrastructure, however.
>
>I wonder how long the council in Newcastle would last if they imposed a "congestion charge" on
>manifestly uncongested roads, though?

Omigod, a vaguely sensible post from Guy.

The council might last, but the drivers would go elsewhere onto other uncongested roads
(remember that Newcastle has bypasses to both east and west) and the local economy would go
further down the pan.

Likewise Manchester.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:20:57 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>The answer is simple - don't introduce vindictive policies designed to extract even more money
>>>>from the most over-taxed groups in UK society, and don't follow policies designed only to
>>>>exasperate them.

>>>No problem with London congestion charging then, as it affects mostly the under-taxed rich and
>>>they don't seem to care much judging by the miserable showing of the protest demonstrations.
>
>>I think the rich pay it with a shrug, but the poor struggle to arrange alternatives. Some of the
>>poor switched to motorbikes which have 20 to 30 times the fatality rate of cars. How many of them
>>will die as a clearly connected secondary effect of the congestion charge?

>The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car.

And what about the minority?

And "poor" is relative. You snipped that bit.

>They can't afford to park. Almost everybody I've met who works in a clerical or other non-executive
>position in an office in the City travels to work on foot, by bicycle, or by public transport. I
>have come across a small number who use motorbikes. The majority of cars on the roads in the City -
>well, the majority seem to be taxis these days, but the overwhelming majority of private cars *in
>the City* are (and have been in recent times) "executive" models.

Oh, good.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
intelligent road safety

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:30:56 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>So you'd end up having income tax of 55-60% to make up the lost revenues from VAT?

Probably. At least poeple would know where they stood.

>Ideally I'd prefer to do away with income tax altogether and raise all revenue through VAT or a
>similar form of tax.

That is another alternative, and equally supportable - as you say, may be harder to avoid. The
problem with the current system is that nobody actually knows how much tax they pay. Unless they sit
down and work it out, at which point they are either very surprised or an accountant ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:54:05 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Would you not have any form of purchase taxation, and put it all on
income?
>
>I would certainly do away with most purchase taxation - stamp duty would go, too
>
>>What about excise duty on alcohol, tobacco and road fuel?
>
>Tough call. I would probably keep the duties on alcohol, tobacco and fuel, as these are
>intended to influence behaviour. VAT doesn't do that as there are few legal alternatives to
>clothes, for example.

So you'd end up having income tax of 55-60% to make up the lost revenues from VAT?

Trouble with income tax is that it's so susceptible to manipulation and gives a blatant
encouragement to the black economy. When the 1970s Labour government set the top rate at 98%
nobody paid it.

Ideally I'd prefer to do away with income tax altogether and raise all revenue through VAT or a
similar form of tax.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>
>The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car. They can't afford to park.
>Almost everybody I've met who works in a clerical or other non-executive position in an office in
>the City travels to work on foot, by bicycle, or by public transport. I have come across a small
>number who use motorbikes. The majority of cars on the roads in the City - well, the majority seem
>to be taxis these days, but the overwhelming majority of private cars *in the City* are (and have
>been in recent times) "executive" models.

As you know, the CC area extends well beyond the "City".

OK, the majority of low paid workers in that area don't travel by car. But some do - for example the
Smithfield meat porters and plenty of nurses and teachers. It is those people who really will
suffer. The City executive who has a private parking space or already pays £20 a day for parking
will brush it off as a minor irritation.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:35:15 -0000 someone who may be "PeterE" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>Also apparently one is safer as a bus passenger than as a train passenger.

Yes. On stage carriage services, measuring by journey km.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:14:30 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The number of passengers killed on the railways in an average year is barely in double figures.

For train crashes the figure for the number of passengers killed is often zero. From memory the
first such year was 1901.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:13:03 -0000 someone who may be "PeterE" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>OK, the majority of low paid workers in that area don't travel by car. But some do - for example
>the Smithfield meat porters

I haven't followed their claims in detail. However, from what little I have heard of the times they
work it appears that they could come in on the "last" underground trains, which actually run in the
first hour of the morning. Going home would be no problem. Buses run all night and one can also walk
or cycle 24 hours a day.

>and plenty of nurses

What are their shift times?

>and teachers.

How many teachers are travelling to or from school at 03:00? A rough figure will do.

Note that a small rucksack will hold the books of several classes for marking. I have known teachers
who used this method to transport books, there are also small trolleys.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:53:10 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car.
>And what about the minority?

They are the ones using motorbikes. The number who use cars, cannot reclaim the congestion charge,
and cannot switch to an exempt mode is sufficiently small as to be negligible. If you search hard
enough you'll usually find someone who suffers genuine hardship from any new regulation or law, but
in this case the numbers are much smaller than the numbers who will benefit. Many more low-paid
workers will benefit from increased investment in TfL through money raised by congestion charging
than will ever be disadvantaged by having to pay it.

>And "poor" is relative. You snipped that bit.

Because it's irrelevant in context, and was in any case fully covered by the substantive point.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:13:03 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car.
>As you know, the CC area extends well beyond the "City".

Granted. I wouldn't say "well beyond" - it's not a very big zone - but it is larger than the City.

>OK, the majority of low paid workers in that area don't travel by car. But some do

Indeed. I am not without sympathy for them. Ultimately more lower-paid workers will benefit from the
increased investment in public transport infrastructure than will be disadvantaged by congestion
charging, though.

The scandalously low pay of nurses is a separate issue - you might as well criticise the hospitals
who sold off the nurses' accommodation to a private contractor who then put the rent up to the point
that nurses could no longer afford to live there and moved further out, and being also unable to
afford cars or car parking were thereby placed at significant personal risk when travelling to and
from work in the small hours.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:56:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

[important context unsnipped:]

>>I think the rich pay it with a shrug, but the poor struggle to arrange alternatives. Some of the
>>poor switched to motorbikes which have 20 to 30 times the fatality rate of cars. How many of them
>>will die as a clearly connected secondary effect of the congestion charge?

>>>The majority of low paid workers in central London don't go by car.
>>And what about the minority?

>They are the ones using motorbikes. The number who use cars, cannot reclaim the congestion charge,
>and cannot switch to an exempt mode is sufficiently small as to be negligible. If you search hard
>enough you'll usually find someone who suffers genuine hardship from any new regulation or law, but
>in this case the numbers are much smaller than the numbers who will benefit. Many more low-paid
>workers will benefit from increased investment in TfL through money raised by congestion charging
>than will ever be disadvantaged by having to pay it.

>>And "poor" is relative. You snipped that bit.

>Because it's irrelevant in context, and was in any case fully covered by the substantive point.

We were talking about the *substantial* number who switch to motorbikes and increase their risk of
death. How very decent of you to dismiss them so carelessly and callously.

See this:

http://www.bmf.co.uk/press/2002/press233.html

Which appears to be evidence of serious concern at both TfL and the BMF.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
intelligent road safety

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:31:05 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I wonder how long the council in Newcastle would last if they imposed a "congestion charge" on
>>manifestly uncongested roads, though?

>Omigod, a vaguely sensible post from Guy.

Thank you very little. I await with interest vaguely sensible post from Mr. Safety, obviously

>The council might last, but the drivers would go elsewhere onto other uncongested roads
>(remember that Newcastle has bypasses to both east and west) and the local economy would go
>further down the pan.

Sure - it would be futile. Drivers would simply avoid the charging zone, which would then raise no
revenue. And however venal and stupid councillors may be, their paid officers will usually have
sufficient brains to point this obvious fallacy out to them.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.