Bruce wrote: > Agreed the road pricing proposals have their downsides, but on balance, > why shouldn't people pay by use? It builds in rural compensation, as > minor rural roads will have the lowest pricing, it encourages multi > occupancy of vehicles and use of public transport, it solves our > problem with fuel duty.
I have some opinions on this and you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with you to some extent. 1. We, the taxpayers (who are also motorists) already pay huge amounts of money into the system to pay for our roads, far more than the road network costs. 2. Why introduce a system that involves huge expenditure into the system when it could be done through increasing fuel duties? ( I have to say though that as an ex-countryside living person I can see that this would not be entirely equitable for country dwellers. It needs some more thought to overcome that unfairness). This government's record on introducing new IT systems effectively and on-budget isn't good at all. 3. We know that this government's record on creating fiscally neutral additional taxes is non-existent so, whatever measures they bring in under whatever green excuse, will only result in higher taxation. That is a fact. The only promise they have kept on taxation was the one 'not to increase the basic rate', all other taxation that could be increased, or at least not kept up with the rate of inflation, has been increased. The words 'Stealth taxes' were not invented by me but they are certainly true. 4. If, truly, the extra revenue raised were to be seen to be ploughed into public transport to replace the need for a car then most people would reluctantly go along with the principle. But, as usual, it's stick first with the promise of carrot tomorrow...........yeah, right!!! Just how much do you really trust politicians? Have we got one single politician with *real* integrity these days? 5. I suspect that as a live-aboard you don't have a car ;-) 6. You are not *required* to *travel* to work or *for work*. 7. At a time of reduced service in the National Health Service (tried getting a National Health dentist lately?), do we see a reduction in our National Insurance contributions? Just give me a nano-second to think that one out! And this is the party that introduced the National Health system. 8. Riding on green credentials and always blaming motorists for every future scenario is not fair when: a. Individual vehicles emit less pollution now than they ever have, and are set to emit even less as ever more stringent legislation is enacted. It is the growth in vehicle ownership that has negated the emission benefits...........So everyone, other than me, should give up their cars tomorrow, OK????!!!!! ;-) b. Growth in affluence and mobility have been encouraged for years by governments of all colours as it has benefited the country by bringing in additional tax revenue and a much more flexible labour force. c. Some car emission legislation has increased greenhouse gas (Co2, for example). Catalytic converters increase Co2 to rid the atmosphere of other pollutants, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Some manufacturers were going down the lean-burn route but had to give up this research when EC legislation rushed in catalytic converter levels of emissions. snipped: > Puts flak jacket and tin hat on Not at all, no-one minds debating with persons who are willing to debate, not dictate (even you ;-)))). Roger
