Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Residents back higher parking fees for 'gas guzzlers'
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Jonnyboy



Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 07 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

The stick can't be a carrot. That's having your cake and eating it, so to speak.

This is a negative approach to altering behaviour, which often creates resentment and obstinance. Which means people may keep their cars and pay the tax. the environment doesn't get any better but the coffers get nice and full.

Cynical indeed, eh?

sean
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42207
Location: North Devon
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 07 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Jonnyboy wrote:
The stick can't be a carrot.


Why not? All those things are incentives to drive a smaller car.

tahir



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45389
Location: Essex
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 07 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Have to say I'm with Sean on this one

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

If you actually read the details the aim of the scheme is to raise more tax. I would hardly call a 1.6 Audi A4 a gas guzzler but owners will pay 50% more tax. That'll be nice for the owner especially if they have any neighbours who drive huge inefficient cars that are parked off road.

As it doesn't take into account miles travelled by the vehicle it doesn't mean the tax is always greener. Can the council assure people that a pre 2001 car driven for a few miles a year should be scrapped and is it more environmentally friendly to buy a new one? Perhaps they should take mileage into account or would that mean having to think about something for a change?

I would also like to know if the council has looked at itself to raise the necessary cash. Perhaps it could cut the amount of money and CO2 spent on street lighting for example?

In any case it will go ahead because it's always easier to attack minorities than to bring in something fair.

Behemoth



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

But a 'fair' scheme would 'penalise' the poor with unavoidable medium to high milage.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

In what way? The current scheme will penalise the poor regardless of mileage. If you're claiming the scheme is green then surely mileage should be taken into account. After all a parked car doesn't emit CO2.

monkey1973



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Here's an option.
New cars have a CO2 rating when they are introduced. Older cars, which are MOT'd (ie over 3 years old) have emission tests carried out. Surely these emission figures could be multiplied with the mileage and a suitable cost factor to give an annual tax bill. The worst cars doing the highest mileage would be penalised more. Sounds fair to me.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Yep Monkey, seems much fairer. Realistically though tax on fuel seems the simplest solution.

Behemoth



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

If the tax is based on mileage not ability to pay it is 'unfair'. The tax burden of 25k miles for a person who can afford a house with off road parking in Richmond would be proportionally far less than that on average Joe Public with a 100 year old terrace house doing the same mileage.

As pointed out the nonsense is to link a parking tax to the type of vehicle and it's potential impact not its actual. It's better to exercise those controls through road tax and fuel duty.

I'm just stirring a bit I'm not advocating fueld duty rates proportional to your income. The world is unfair and there is no perfectly fair form of taxation that keeps everybody happy.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator


Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Behemoth wrote:
If the tax is based on mileage not ability to pay it is 'unfair'.


Are you suggesting we should subsides people's car transport?

Behemoth



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Behemoth wrote:
I'm just stirring a bit I'm not advocating fueld duty rates proportional to your income. The world is unfair and there is no perfectly fair form of taxation that keeps everybody happy.


No

monkey1973



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Behemoth wrote:
If the tax is based on mileage not ability to pay it is 'unfair'. The tax burden of 25k miles for a person who can afford a house with off road parking in Richmond would be proportionally far less than that on average Joe Public with a 100 year old terrace house doing the same mileage.

But surely that is still the case with increased fuel duty, say. The well-off are always going to be proportionally better off.

Behemoth wrote:
As pointed out the nonsense is to link a parking tax to the type of vehicle and it's potential impact not its actual. It's better to exercise those controls through road tax and fuel duty.

I agree, it does seem ridiculous

Behemoth wrote:
The world is unfair and there is no perfectly fair form of taxation that keeps everybody happy.

How very true

Behemoth



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

monkey1973 wrote:
The well-off are always going to be proportionally better off.


Until the revolution and my benevolent environmental dictatorship!

monkey1973



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

Behemoth wrote:
Until the revolution and my benevolent environmental dictatorship!


Sign me up master!

monkey1973



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 683
Location: Bonnie scotland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 07 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
    

I found this quite interesting

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright © 2004 marsjupiter.com