Petition

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit, could
conceivably be devised.

How about a rationing system? Everyone gets a number of miles to spend
each year. It could be weighted so driving in congested areas counts
double miles. Perhaps you could even sell your unused miles to pay for
a better bike?

But then they'd have to find the revenue from somewhere else.

cupra said the following on 10/01/2007 14:46:

Quoted message said:

That's my view - if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road and use
an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to a more
efficient motor vehicle.

Yes, but that's too simple. Why simply increase an existing tax which
will have much the same effect when instead you can waste billions of
pounds inventing a new tax along with all the notoriously unreliable
government IT databases? :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the civil liberty issue,
could conceivably be devised.

Make the in-vehicle device activate only when a "sim" card is inserted,
a la mobile phones. The card carries the identity of the driver, rather
than the fixed part of the system. Perhaps the driving license could be
issued with a chip embedded to avoid having to carry two bits of plastic.

This would mean that people with >1 car could transfer their card
between vehicles, that charging is done appropriately for shared
vehicles, and also opens the way for anonymous prepaid cards which could
be discarded when empty (or recharged, in the same way as oyster prepay)

Still not fully anonymous, but given that it's sometimes actually a
/good/ thing that police can find out who was driving a given car at a
given time (when it's been used to commit a crime, e.g.) we probably
don't want a fully anonymous system anyway.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Anthony Jones said:

cupra said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll
happen IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Not if it reduces congestion. Anyway, money that goes to the Treasury
should benefit all of us.

Anthony

'should' being the oeprative word - I'm deeply suspicious of anything that
raises revenue in the name of the environment.

Paul Boyd said:

cupra said the following on 10/01/2007 14:46:

Quoted message said:

That's my view - if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road
and use an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to
a more efficient motor vehicle.

Yes, but that's too simple. Why simply increase an existing tax which
will have much the same effect when instead you can waste billions of
pounds inventing a new tax along with all the notoriously unreliable
government IT databases? :-)

lol - you know it!

POHB said:

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit,
could conceivably be devised.

How about a rationing system? Everyone gets a number of miles to
spend each year. It could be weighted so driving in congested areas
counts double miles. Perhaps you could even sell your unused miles
to pay for a better bike?

But then they'd have to find the revenue from somewhere else.

Another take on carbon trading... interesting

POHB said:

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit, could
conceivably be devised.

How about a rationing system? Everyone gets a number of miles to spend
each year. It could be weighted so driving in congested areas counts
double miles. Perhaps you could even sell your unused miles to pay for
a better bike?

Like the 'carbon trading' scheme they claim to be very much in favour of!

I prefer the system we deserve, which is a system where demand is met
rather than stifled, though.

Quoted message said:

But then they'd have to find the revenue from somewhere else.

They could do what other, more forward looking, nations do, and start
devising a proportional tax system, where we all pay the same as a
proportion of what we can afford.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

cupra said:

Matt B said:

AP wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Even if you could support the notion that car ownership is a major
polluter, how does that support a road charging scheme, which is not
proportional to emissions (fuel duty actually is), but to time of
day travelled and which is intended to actually tackle congestion? You
think it's OK to pollute when the roads are quiet? It is crazy.

<snip>

That's my view

I think that most people who have thought it through would arrive at
the same conclusion.

Quoted message said:

- if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road
and use an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to
a more efficient motor vehicle.

Increase it? If it was reduced to one fifth of the current amount it
would adequately cover what Stern calculated as a high estimate figure
for the cost of CO2 emissions.

The problem is even though the tax is 'high' at the moment, it hasn't
detered people from driving.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's
what'll happen IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Exactly. Revenue is a more important factor in this than congestion,
otherwise they would have selected a policy which was primarily aimed
at reducing congestion.

Paul Boyd said:

I think
I'd better do some more reading up, but I'm still opposed to the idea of
Big Brother monitoring my movements!

I hope you don't leave your cellphone (if you have one) turned on when
you're not making calls on it, then. I think there's a real concern
over privacy here, but given the number of people that don't care
they're being tracked already, there's probably only a very few that
it's a genuine sticking point for, and a much larger number who've been
whipped into it.

Quoted message said:

The fundamental problem still remains that people need to get from A to
B, and this proposal won't change the fact that the same number of car
journeys will still be made.

On the contrary, given appropriate incentives people will change much of
their behaviour to suit. Look at the swing from rail to roads after
Hatfield, or from tube to cycling in London after 7/7.

There will still be essential journeys or journeys which are
uneconomical to make in other ways, but that's not every journey. Many
of the posters in this group make the point that car owners often find
it cheaper to drive than to take the train, because they've already paid
for the car and the marginal costs of an extra journey are small. If
this changes, we might well see more journeys conducted by PT.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

cupra said:

Matt B said:

cupra said:

Matt B wrote:
> AP wrote:
<snip>
> Even if you could support the notion that car ownership is a major
> polluter, how does that support a road charging scheme, which is not
> proportional to emissions (fuel duty actually is), but to time of
> day travelled and which is intended to actually tackle congestion? You
> think it's OK to pollute when the roads are quiet? It is crazy.
<snip>

That's my view

I think that most people who have thought it through would arrive at
the same conclusion.

Quoted message said:

- if we increase tax on fuel usage we'll penalise the
inefficient and give people an incentive to either get off the road
and use an alternative (where available), limit car use or change to
a more efficient motor vehicle.

Increase it? If it was reduced to one fifth of the current amount it
would adequately cover what Stern calculated as a high estimate figure
for the cost of CO2 emissions.

The problem is even though the tax is 'high' at the moment, it hasn't
detered people from driving.

There are many, many, ways of doing that without using a regressive tax
such as this.

They could start by providing some sort of viable alternative at the
time, place, price, and quality that people desire and deserve - to get
them to, and from, work, and school, for example.

--
Matt B

POHB said:

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit, could
conceivably be devised.

How about a rationing system?

If you have a rationing system, a black market will arise. Result:
everything gets more expensive anyway, and the additional revenue is
going into the hands of speculators where it's even /less/ likely to
be used for transport improvements or anything else useful.

(Look at pop festival tickets, for e.g. Officially sell out in a
matter of hours, but available on Ebay at 6x face value right up until
the day before. Cui bono?)

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow said:

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the civil liberty issue,
could conceivably be devised.

Make the in-vehicle device activate only when a "sim" card is inserted,
a la mobile phones. The card carries the identity of the driver, rather
than the fixed part of the system. Perhaps the driving license could be
issued with a chip embedded to avoid having to carry two bits of plastic.

This would mean that people with >1 car could transfer their card
between vehicles, that charging is done appropriately for shared
vehicles, and also opens the way for anonymous prepaid cards which could
be discarded when empty (or recharged, in the same way as oyster prepay)

Still not fully anonymous, but given that it's sometimes actually a
/good/ thing that police can find out who was driving a given car at a
given time (when it's been used to commit a crime, e.g.) we probably
don't want a fully anonymous system anyway.

Why do they need to know the identity of the driver, or even of the
vehicle? When I pay to use a toll bridge they don't ask my name, or
take my car details. All you need is an anonymous 'pay as you go' card.
Top it up and plug it into any vehicle.

Having said that though, I still prefer a solution which doesn't involve
paying again to use the roads.

--
Matt B

cupra said:

Anthony Jones said:

cupra said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll
happen IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

Not if it reduces congestion. Anyway, money that goes to the Treasury
should benefit all of us.

Anthony

'should' being the oeprative word - I'm deeply suspicious of anything that
raises revenue in the name of the environment.

This would be the same argument that suggests that the increased
spending on the NHS has been to our benefit, rather than just fueling
inefficiency.

Daniel Barlow said the following on 10/01/2007 15:28:

Quoted message said:

I hope you don't leave your cellphone (if you have one) turned on when
you're not making calls on it, then.

Er, no I don't, unless I'm expecting a call which isn't very often.

Quoted message said:

On the contrary, given appropriate incentives people will change much of
their behaviour to suit. Look at the swing from rail to roads after
Hatfield, or from tube to cycling in London after 7/7.

Is that swing still swung? I doubt it, although I might well be wrong.

Quoted message said:

There will still be essential journeys or journeys which are
uneconomical to make in other ways, but that's not every journey. Many
of the posters in this group make the point that car owners often find
it cheaper to drive than to take the train, because they've already paid
for the car and the marginal costs of an extra journey are small. If
this changes, we might well see more journeys conducted by PT.

I think this is something I was mildly hinting at in other posts.
Whilst driving continues to be the cheapest/easiest option, that's what
people will do. What I was also hinting at as that this new proposed
tax is being touted as a solution to congestion, and I haven't yet been
convinced about how it will do that - in other words it's being
disguised as helping to resolve the transport system. If they just came
out and said "we're going to increase fuel duty (for instance) to force
people off the roads" then at least there's a little honesty there.

I think really my main objection is that we are being asked to pay for
something that won't have the desired effect, will cost billions to run
judging by previous government IT contracts and will just end up with
drivers paying out more for no gain. It's not the extra cost itself I
object to in principle (well, not much!) - if they did increase fuel
duty to, say 800% instead of the current ca. 450% then they will
generate more income, there will be no additional running costs for the
system, and people might consider whether they really need to drive
little Jemima and Tarquin half a mile to skool.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Swingeing fuel taxes. 'Five times what Stern proposes'? So what. It's
clearly not working yet, so keep ramping up the taxes until it does. And it
makes it really really simple. The more you pollute (big engine, many miles)
the more you pay. Fair, practicable, inescapable - and with no civil
liberties implications whatsoever.
"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

POHB said:

Matt B said:

The test is whether a system which would be at least as efficient at
tackling congestion, but which doesn't have the revenue benefit, could
conceivably be devised.

How about a rationing system? Everyone gets a number of miles to spend
each year. It could be weighted so driving in congested areas counts
double miles. Perhaps you could even sell your unused miles to pay for
a better bike?

Like the 'carbon trading' scheme they claim to be very much in favour of!

I prefer the system we deserve, which is a system where demand is met
rather than stifled, though.

Quoted message said:

But then they'd have to find the revenue from somewhere else.

They could do what other, more forward looking, nations do, and start
devising a proportional tax system, where we all pay the same as a
proportion of what we can afford.

--
Matt B

AP said:

Swingeing fuel taxes. 'Five times what Stern proposes'? So what. It's
clearly not working yet, so keep ramping up the taxes until it does. And it
makes it really really simple. The more you pollute (big engine, many miles)
the more you pay. Fair, practicable, inescapable - and with no civil
liberties implications whatsoever.

And, of course, you will support similar measures in raising taxes on a
bigger cause of CO2 emissions - domestic heating and power. Make the
people who live in inefficiently insulated houses with their thermostats
turned up too high pay the price. And keep ramping up the taxes until
they learn to wear warm clothes inside the house and go to bed under
masses of blankets.
Fair, practicable, inescapable - and with no civil liberties
implications whatsoever.

AP said:

Swingeing fuel taxes. 'Five times what Stern proposes'? So what.

Would you welcome paying 5x the cost of, say your shopping, for - your
shopping?

Quoted message said:

It's
clearly not working yet,

How can it work - it isn't being used /to/ mitigate the effects of CO2
emission. It isn't even being used to pay for research into methods of
reducing CO2 emissions.

Quoted message said:

so keep ramping up the taxes until it does.

How will paying more make it work any better?

Quoted message said:

And it
makes it really really simple. The more you pollute (big engine, many miles)
the more you pay.

Yes, it's simple. Pay the actual cost of your emissions. Motorists pay
5x the cost, yet other emitters pay zero. Domestic gas and electricity
emits the equivalent of 2.4 times that of the cars and taxis on our
roads - how much extra tax (duty) is added to the price of those? Zero.
Not only is there zero duty, but only 5% VAT, compared to 17.5% VAT
added not only to the cost of motor fuel but also to the duty on it!!!

Quoted message said:

Fair, practicable, inescapable - and with no civil
liberties implications whatsoever.

Other than it is worth 5x the damage caused, is a regressive tax and
isn't hypothecated for use on anything to do with motoring, or even on
anything to do with transport. The tax is a con. Does that fit in with
your view of "Fair and practicable"??

--
Matt B

Den 2007-01-10 15:46:25 skrev cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Making people pay more while sitting in a jam (because that's what'll
happen
IMO) only benefits the Treasury.

It seems the whole concept of congestion charging has passed you by.

By raising the price of sitting in jams, fewer people will do it, thus
dissolving the jam. That's the purpose of a congestion charge, it reduces
congestion.

The benefit to the Treasury can easily be offset by raising the basic
allowance (the amount of money anyone may earn, without paying income
tax). That also takes care of the regressiveness issue.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

AP said:

Swingeing fuel taxes. 'Five times what Stern proposes'? So what.

Would you welcome paying 5x the cost of, say your shopping, for - your
shopping?

No. Your point being...?

Quoted message said:

It's clearly not working yet,

How can it work - it isn't being used /to/ mitigate the effects of CO2
emission. It isn't even being used to pay for research into methods of
reducing CO2 emissions.

How? Classical economics. Supply and demand. If you crank up the price,
demand - thus consumption - will fall.

Quoted message said:

so keep ramping up the taxes until it does.

How will paying more make it work any better? See above.

Quoted message said:

And it makes it really really simple. The more you pollute (big engine,
many miles) the more you pay.

Yes, it's simple. Pay the actual cost of your emissions. Motorists pay
5x the cost, yet other emitters pay zero. Domestic gas and electricity
emits the equivalent of 2.4 times that of the cars and taxis on our
roads - how much extra tax (duty) is added to the price of those? Zero.
Not only is there zero duty, but only 5% VAT, compared to 17.5% VAT
added not only to the cost of motor fuel but also to the duty on it!!!

It's altogether possible/probable that other polluters should indeed pay
more. I said in my first post, 'airlines next'...

And yes, I would cheerfully include things like domestic energy; and yes, I
would indeed look to penalise people who run large homes inefficiently. Why
should they have the right to damage our environment to keep themselves
toasty? Buy a jumper, rich boy - or pay the price.

Quoted message said:

Fair, practicable, inescapable - and with no civil liberties implications
whatsoever.

Other than it is worth 5x the damage caused, is a regressive tax and
isn't hypothecated for use on anything to do with motoring, or even on
anything to do with transport. The tax is a con. Does that fit in with
your view of "Fair and practicable"??

I don't understand 'worth 5x the damage caused'. I don't agree that it's a
regressive tax (although like any expense it will tend to bear harder on the
poor, it 'disbenefits' purely and directly in proportion to driving
behaviour, not income or wealth). I don't care whether it's hypothecated or
not: it doesn't matter what's done with the money raised. The point is to
dissuade fuel consumption. And while I share your implicit instinct that the
existing proposals probably have as much to do with New Labour
control-freakery as with the environment - which could arguably make it 'a
con' - I still think a punitive tax high enough to rein in our suicidal
enthusiasm for driving is clearly the only way to go (or at least, the only
way I can think of that has zero implications for civil liberties). If you
want to reduce pollution, make the polluter pay. Period. As they say.

Alan

Den 2007-01-10 16:25:45 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I prefer the system we deserve, which is a system where demand is met
rather than stifled, though.

But people don't want more and wider roads. They are ugly, noisy, and
dangerous. If you could just buy roads like you can buy songs on iTunes,
fine; but each of the new roads runs through someone's back yard, and not
all back yards are for sale. So I don't think there will ever be enough
road space to make it free.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies