M
Matt B
Guest
raisethe wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 19:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Should the extra added to rail fares for peek-time travel be put into
>> the same pot?
>
> To the extent that the fare includes taxation, yes it should.
Why tax road congestion but not train congestion? It is all caused by
the same thing - lack of appropriate investment by the government.
> To the
> extent that it is paying the train company for the service provided,
> no it shouldn't.
Eh?
>>>>> The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
>>>> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.
>>> Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
>>> on the ability to pay.
>> It does.
>
> It doesn't. To take a neutral example; the single occupancy discount
> on Council Tax
Council tax isn't fair either. It's not based on ability to pay, but on
the value your house would have been back in 1980-something.
> has its rationale on the fact that a single occupant of
> a house will on average use fewer Council Services that a multi-
> occupant household.
How is it fair then, that 2 occupants pay the same as 10?
> This is fair, but has nothing to do with the
> householders ability to pay.
No, it isn't fair - it is a political ruse to give an illusion of fairness.
>>> It can be based on other things, such as
>>> polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.
>> It can be, but they are /unfair/ taxes. The fair way to control those
>> things is by rationing,
>
> Agreed, and the best way to ration is by price, via taxation.
That's not what I mean by rationing. I mean allocating equal amounts to
each individual, regardless of ability to pay.
>> The country's smog problem
>> wasn't solved by allowing the rich to emit as much smoke as they liked,
>> so long as they paid tax on it. It was solved by banning smoky fuel.
>
> We are not talking about banning fossil fuels, only restricting their
> use.
So have an annual allowance per person then. You can use it to heat
your house, have a bicycle made, run a car, run your air conditioning,
or whatever. What could be fairer?
> Similarly with congestion.
No. That's caused by lack of supply, not by the necessity to cut-back
on usage. Those affected, by being caught in congestion, should be
compensated, they are on the trains and on the planes.
>> Tewksbury didn't solve their recent drinking water shortage problem by
>> allowing only those who could afford it to have it, the army distributed
>> it equally amongst the population.
>
> A different scenario, as it was a catastrophe. Not relevant here.
No, there was a need to share a limited resource - it is an identical
scenario - spun differently.
>> Remember that the equation has two sides. On the one side are the costs
>> to society, such as those of maintaining the roads, etc. On the other
>> side are the benefits to society, such as tax revenue and the huge
>> revenues from motoring fines, personal mobility, flexible public
>> transport & transport of goods, employment in vehicle manufacture,
>> maintenance and servicing (petrol stations etc.), export duties on
>> exported vehicles, the cost of replacing motor vehicle use with whatever
>> would replace it, etc.
>
>> Remember too that the cost of congestion is
>> borne, not /caused/ by motorists
>
> Incorrect. It is caused by motorists,
Do patients cause a shortage of beds? Do train passengers cause
carriages to be overcrowded in the rush-hour?
> and borne by both motorists and
> non motorists.
So non-motorists should pay congestion charge too?
> - and so is a benefit to society as
>> they don't have to provide the system necessary to eliminate it. Also
>> the health costs and compensation costs caused by liable motorists are
>> paid from motor insurance, giving the additional benefit of 1000s of
>> jobs in the insurance, health, and repair businesses. Don't forget the
>> jobs created for countless 1000s of bureaucrats and administrators in
>> maintaining the vehicle and driver registers, and in dealing with car
>> parks, MOTs, tax and fine collection, police, magistrates, etc.
>
> The benefits of motoring are not in dispute here.
They would be expensive to replace.
> All I say is that fuel taxes should be raised to such a level that
> consumption is reduced to a level deemed acceptable given the limited
> resources and the polution caused by its use,
And all I say is that that isn't a fair way to ration a resource in
short supply. It means the poor have to sacrifice their use of it,
whilst the rich are unaffected.
> and congestion charges
> should be implemented and increased to the rate necessary to pretty
> much eliminate that congestion.
And I say that that unfairly discriminates against the poor too. Not
only that, but it encourages the supplier to restrict the supply
further. The incentives should be to ease congestion, not to increase
it. Targets should be set, and penalties paid, by those not satisfying
the reasonable demand for a decent and uncongested road network.
--
Matt B
> On 31 Aug, 19:01, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Should the extra added to rail fares for peek-time travel be put into
>> the same pot?
>
> To the extent that the fare includes taxation, yes it should.
Why tax road congestion but not train congestion? It is all caused by
the same thing - lack of appropriate investment by the government.
> To the
> extent that it is paying the train company for the service provided,
> no it shouldn't.
Eh?
>>>>> The government are required to generate tax in a fair way.
>>>> Exactly, based on ability to pay. Not based on choice of transport mode.
>>> Generating tax in a fair way does not mean it has to be based solely
>>> on the ability to pay.
>> It does.
>
> It doesn't. To take a neutral example; the single occupancy discount
> on Council Tax
Council tax isn't fair either. It's not based on ability to pay, but on
the value your house would have been back in 1980-something.
> has its rationale on the fact that a single occupant of
> a house will on average use fewer Council Services that a multi-
> occupant household.
How is it fair then, that 2 occupants pay the same as 10?
> This is fair, but has nothing to do with the
> householders ability to pay.
No, it isn't fair - it is a political ruse to give an illusion of fairness.
>>> It can be based on other things, such as
>>> polution, congestion, depletion of finite resources etc.
>> It can be, but they are /unfair/ taxes. The fair way to control those
>> things is by rationing,
>
> Agreed, and the best way to ration is by price, via taxation.
That's not what I mean by rationing. I mean allocating equal amounts to
each individual, regardless of ability to pay.
>> The country's smog problem
>> wasn't solved by allowing the rich to emit as much smoke as they liked,
>> so long as they paid tax on it. It was solved by banning smoky fuel.
>
> We are not talking about banning fossil fuels, only restricting their
> use.
So have an annual allowance per person then. You can use it to heat
your house, have a bicycle made, run a car, run your air conditioning,
or whatever. What could be fairer?
> Similarly with congestion.
No. That's caused by lack of supply, not by the necessity to cut-back
on usage. Those affected, by being caught in congestion, should be
compensated, they are on the trains and on the planes.
>> Tewksbury didn't solve their recent drinking water shortage problem by
>> allowing only those who could afford it to have it, the army distributed
>> it equally amongst the population.
>
> A different scenario, as it was a catastrophe. Not relevant here.
No, there was a need to share a limited resource - it is an identical
scenario - spun differently.
>> Remember that the equation has two sides. On the one side are the costs
>> to society, such as those of maintaining the roads, etc. On the other
>> side are the benefits to society, such as tax revenue and the huge
>> revenues from motoring fines, personal mobility, flexible public
>> transport & transport of goods, employment in vehicle manufacture,
>> maintenance and servicing (petrol stations etc.), export duties on
>> exported vehicles, the cost of replacing motor vehicle use with whatever
>> would replace it, etc.
>
>> Remember too that the cost of congestion is
>> borne, not /caused/ by motorists
>
> Incorrect. It is caused by motorists,
Do patients cause a shortage of beds? Do train passengers cause
carriages to be overcrowded in the rush-hour?
> and borne by both motorists and
> non motorists.
So non-motorists should pay congestion charge too?
> - and so is a benefit to society as
>> they don't have to provide the system necessary to eliminate it. Also
>> the health costs and compensation costs caused by liable motorists are
>> paid from motor insurance, giving the additional benefit of 1000s of
>> jobs in the insurance, health, and repair businesses. Don't forget the
>> jobs created for countless 1000s of bureaucrats and administrators in
>> maintaining the vehicle and driver registers, and in dealing with car
>> parks, MOTs, tax and fine collection, police, magistrates, etc.
>
> The benefits of motoring are not in dispute here.
They would be expensive to replace.
> All I say is that fuel taxes should be raised to such a level that
> consumption is reduced to a level deemed acceptable given the limited
> resources and the polution caused by its use,
And all I say is that that isn't a fair way to ration a resource in
short supply. It means the poor have to sacrifice their use of it,
whilst the rich are unaffected.
> and congestion charges
> should be implemented and increased to the rate necessary to pretty
> much eliminate that congestion.
And I say that that unfairly discriminates against the poor too. Not
only that, but it encourages the supplier to restrict the supply
further. The incentives should be to ease congestion, not to increase
it. Targets should be set, and penalties paid, by those not satisfying
the reasonable demand for a decent and uncongested road network.
--
Matt B