Jon Senior wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
(oops I hope I managed to pull, in time, the previous incomplete version
of this reply which I posted due to pressing the wrong key sequence
)
>> Yes, from proper progressive taxes (flat rate income tax), like it
>> always should have been.
>
> I believe that your understanding of progressive / regressive /
> proportional taxation has been shown to be different from the norm, but
> I think I know where you're going.
You are so kind
By "progressive", of course, I meant
non-regressive, and you're right, I _do_ really mean /neutral/ or
/proportional/.
>> They already claw that back (unjustly in my view) through motor
>> insurance.
>
> You make a choice to increase the risk to yourself and others, it seems
> only fair that you pay the difference. (You being "one" in this case)
>
>> Again, as, everyone here continues to remind me, public roads are not
>> the property of motorists. All have access, so _all_ should pay.
>
> But motorways are (I'll give you a clue: MOTORway!) so they should be
> exclusively paid for by motorists.
Like the NHS is for the sick. The healthy don't need it so why should
they pay? Or the education system?
> This will have knock-on effects into
> general transportation costs which will either be borne by the
> consumers, or will force alternative transportation methods to be
> explored for goods haulage.
I'm not saying, and never have, that commercial use should be free. No,
no, no. Any commercial use should be paid for at a commercial rate.
>> Hehe. As it happens I think all VED and fuel tax should be scrapped
>> and the motorways we all _need_, whether we actually drive on them or
>> not, should be paid for by all.
>
> But in the same breath you are disparaging of regressive taxation?
Yes, like fuel duty, excise duty, council tax, road tolls, ...
> It
> appears that you believe that the fairness of taxation and provision
> should apply to all things and people except drivers and motorways.
How is it fair for all public amenities except roads to be publicly
funded, and for motorists to then have to pay for roads, from which the
whole community benefits, too?
> We
> do not _all_ need motorways.
Like we don't all need the education service, or public parks, or
swimming baths.
> There are other ways of moving goods that
> don't involve the laying and relaying of fragile road structures. We
> have come to depend upon them, but an infrastructure shake up in the
> order of magnitude that you are proposing could take many forms.
We *want* them.
>> We need the motorway network (yes _network_) to eliminate congestion
>> and return the roads between urban centres to the people. Motor
>> vehicles need motor-ways for inter urban journies.
>
> This is where the fallacy lies. We have built an economy and society
> around motorised long-haul travel and we are now trapped by it.
It's flexible, economical and scalable.
> The
> level of change required to solve our current transport problems by
> building a comprehensive motorway network of the scale you propose,
> could equally be employed to approach the problem from the other end.
>
> Problem: Too many cars / mile of road.
> Solution 1: More road.
> Solution 2: Fewer cars.
What do we want? We want independence, flexibility, freedom. I don't
want to queue for a bus, queue for a train, sit next to the passenger
from hell, hear someone else's music, inhale someone else's body odour,
stop only at prescribed stops. I am an individual.
> One of these requires greater funding and commitment with no guarantee
> of return (See past performance on road construction). Which one it is,
> is left as an exercise for the reader.
Hehe.
>> _All_ accidents involving motor vehicles on these roads would then be
>> zero.
>
> Presumably in your world there has never been a motorway pile-up?
Yes. They don't happen on traffic free roads, where the motorways have
removed _all_ traffic.
>> Roads shared by motor and non-motor traffic should be designed to give
>> _all_ users equal priority (no kerbs, lines, traffic lights...).
>
> Agreed. This is not just a matter of reconstruction though, it is a
> matter of social re-engineering. It'll take more than the removal of a
> few lights for that one to happen.
We're halfway there then ;-)
> And with regard to your acceptance of a significant tax increase as the
> price for saving a few thousand lives per year, how many traffic police
> can we employ for £30,000m / year?
Increase? Motorists may get a decrease if the burden is /shared/. We
don't need police we need design and education.
--
Matt B
