Another petition

[NT]

But I am concerned that those of us in the less busy areas will become 'tax victims' when trying to solve the congestion problem elsewhere.

The trouble is it doesnt solve the problem, it makes it worse. The trouble with congestion is it makes transport slower. If instead you're financially forced to wait an hour before going out, it'll b even longer before you get there, and the loss in person hours is even greater.

This governments policies arent about solving problems, theyre about pretending to solve problems while taking ever more of your money.


NT

 

[rogerh]

This governments policies arent about solving problems, theyre about pretending to solve problems while taking ever more of your money.

What would be the point of that? It's not as if they get to keep the money themselves. You may disagree with how they raise money and on what it's spend it but the idea that the only motive is to collect as much money as possible is ludicrous. As is the idea that there isn't a problem that needs addressing one way or another.

 

[Gervase]

From yesterday's Guardian, re the fellow who started the petition:
...One always suspected that there was more to fuel protest leader Andrew Spence than his selfless hatred of expensive petrol, so it comes as no surprise that the 39-year old Co Durham farmer has waded into party politics: he aims to stand in local elections as the BNP candidate. It is "the only party I have found," he says, "which has a commonsense approach to tackling issues which I believe matter to most people". The BNP's transport policy (fuel tax cut, speed cameras abolished, speed limits raised) is perhaps less well known than other sections of their manifesto...
Oh dear.

 

[Flyfisher]

But I am concerned that those of us in the less busy areas will become 'tax victims' when trying to solve the congestion problem elsewhere.

Er, that was bower1's quote not mine.

This governments policies arent about solving problems, theyre about pretending to solve problems while taking ever more of your money.

I think there's a lot of truth in that. Trouble is, trying to change behaviours by taxing certain activities can never be 'revenue neutral' because if they actually worked there would be a tax shortfall that would need to be made up elsewhere.

If people choose to spend £4000 per year on a train ticket so they can stand up in a crush for two hours per day (or more) then I can only assume it is the best option they have - if they have a better option then why do it? Likewise for people who spend two hours commuting in their cars. People are choosing to join the congestion, so why is it deemed to be a problem?

I don't think the government should tax behaviour at all. Scrap everything except income tax (surely the only true way to fairly raise taxes) and let people live their own lives. The way to control behaviour that is detrimental to society is to implement appropriate laws, not taxes.

 

[rogerh]

People are choosing to join the congestion, so why is it deemed to be a problem?

Because there are consequences for other people, of course. How self-centred can you get?

 

[Flyfisher]

It's not a case of being self-centred - or maybe it is, but not in the sense I think you you meant.

What exactly are the 'consequences for other people' if too many people try to crowd into a train carriage during the rush hour and end up standing for the next hour? Sure, it's not comfortable for the people concerned, but it's their choice! Surely it's self-centred for those people to expect other taxpayers to pay for more trains just to make their commute more comfortable?

 

[rogerh]

From their point of view, perhaps, but I wouldn't think someone's personal discomfort sufficient reason to spend more money on railways - there are wider issues including pollution, cost of accidents, maintenance of infrastructure, use of tax revenues, economic benefits, even aesthetic considerations. Neither the car driver nor the rail passenger can expect policy to be determined simply by what suits them.

 

[Penners]

Neither the car driver nor the rail passenger can expect policy to be determined simply by what suits them.

What an extraordinary statement. The whole democratic system is predicated on the idea that each of us will vote for the party whose policies most suit us.

It's worst political system in the world - except for all the others. (With acknowledgements to W S Churchill).

 

[Flyfisher]

From their point of view, perhaps, but I wouldn't think someone's personal discomfort sufficient reason to spend more money on railways

Good, given that they are making a free choice to travel in such discomfort.

- there are wider issues including pollution, cost of accidents, maintenance of infrastructure, use of tax revenues, economic benefits, even aesthetic considerations.

Perhaps, but how will road pricing actually help with any of these? Car and journey growth has continued to grow in the face of ever rising costs, which suggests that further increases won't help congestion either.

Why do people drive into known congested areas? Should we conclude they are just stupid and need to be taxed out of this behaviour, or should we perhaps take a deeper look at the circumstances by which they make such decisions?

 

[NT]

This governments policies arent about solving problems, theyre about pretending to solve problems while taking ever more of your money.

What would be the point of that? It's not as if they get to keep the money themselves.

The point is to syphon ever more money from the general public into the coffers of businesses that vote for and fund the party, thus helping keep labour in power. All main parties do this, but blair has taken it to extremes, to the extent of plainly ripping us off.

You may disagree with how they raise money and on what it's spend it but the idea that the only motive is to collect as much money as possible is ludicrous.

lol, ok. Its not the only motive but it sure is the big one.

As is the idea that there isn't a problem that needs addressing one way or another.

thats 2 concepts there, not one.


NT