Re: Council Tax Regs (OT)

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:34:32 +0000, Hugh Allen <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>>> Surely a tax on fuel must be more efficient - the more you
>>>use, the more you pay.
>>
>>No, highly inefficient. Two cars the same size, but with engines of
>>differing fuel consumption, will pay different amounts of tax although
>>the amounts should be the same for road pricing purposes. Conversely,
>>the same car driving on two different roads or the same road at
>>different times pays the same amount of tax in each case, when the
>>amounts should vary depending on the amount of congestion, the capital
>>cost of the road, etc. etc.
>>
>Larger vehicles cause more wear, pollute the atmosphere more and
>therefore should pay more. They use more fuel. A simple mileage
>calculation is not as fair as taxing fuel.

You need a better tool for that job, such as a carbon levy which would
increase the price of fuel. That way, those with inefficient cars pay
more, as they should if we want to encourage them to get less thirsty
ones. The proceeds of road pricing are intended to maintain/provide
the roads, and applying the charges is intended to provide a
disincentive to use the roads at congested times and in congested
places.

>>>Road tax does ensure that the vast majority
>>>of road users are driving cars in fair condition and are insured.
>>
>>Nope. It is the requirement for an up-to-date MOT that does that.
>
>What about the insurance? More important in my view and conveniently
>forgotten by you.

Not understood. There is already a requirement that all cars be
insured. That isn't a tax, though.
>
>>> GPS
>>>monitoring on every car? Who pays for the installation of the
>>>necessary systems?
>>
>
>>They are already in many cars, and within a couple of years will
>>surely be included in every new car. They also are getting cheaper
>>all the time, and soon will cost only a few quid.
>
>A couple of years? Cars these days last a lot longer than that. In a
>couple of years there will be plenty of 15 year old cars still on the
>road. A few quid? I doubt it. Present day GPS systems will not do
>the job. They need to transmit an identity.
>The police/government will of course be able to ascertain the position
>of every car at all times which may improve crime figures briefly
>until car theives find a method of disabling GPS systems but how does
>this fit in your ' small government' ideal?

GPS function will all be on one chip before long. At that point, the
cost will be negligible in the price of a car. Remember when pocket
calculators cost hundreds of pounds, while now they are a giveaway
item?

Actually, I think GPS-based charging is not the best way to go. Far
fewer roadside readers (vehicle identifiers) would be needed than
there are cars.

>>>This all comes down to voluntary versus compulsory payment. If we
>>>were all responsible for paying our own rubbish disposal for instance
>>>I suspect that you'd be really unhappy if your next door neighbour
>>>couldn't or wouldn't pay for his collection and left it all outside in
>>>an ever increasing heap. There would soon be a cry for refuse
>>>collection payments to be made compulsory which has the same effect as
>>>a tax.
>>
>>Where I lived in Canada, all rubbish disposal was by private
>>contractor. There were three competing ones in the community, and boy
>>was the service good (and inexpensive). E.g. you could save money by
>>having your bins emptied only once every two weeks, or by reducing the
>>number of bins you used (as I did, since I created little garbage), or
>>having it picked up at the curb instead of at the house, etc. An
>>excellent system. People who kept their yards untidy soon got a visit
>>from the building inspector, with the warning of a fine. That usually
>>did the trick.
>>
>So the building inspectorate, paid for by taxes, forces citizens to
>pay a licenced private company and its shareholders for refuse
>collection. Small government?

I seem to explained it badly. There is no compulsion to use a
garbage-collection service at all. I could have taken my rubbish to
the dump myself (quite a few of my neighbours did this). The
government is not involved either way.

>You've missed out the taxes you paid for the building inspector, the
>system which licences each contractor and those you paid in order to
>provide a monitoring system which must exist to make sure that the
>waste is disposed of legally etc.

There is no licensing of the contractors. There is no need of such.
Anyone can set up in the business.

The building inspector is used to deliver the notices because he is
the local government employee who most travels about in the community,
and so is the most efficient to use for this function.

>If you contract out a service to private industry, you have to provide
>contracting services and a watchdog to monitor its actions. You pay
>much the same in the end.
>I'd rather pay for inefficiencies in an accountable system than
>private profits.

The government does not contract out the service, because it does not
provide the service. The private sector provides the service directly
to each household/customer, as a business.

>>However, I guess I'll have to await the creation of a new private
>>enterprise party in UK now, what with David Lightweight having
>>embraced statism for the Tories. Sigh. If I wanted New Labour, I
>>would vote for Blair, not a copycat. Maybe Charlie's imminent
>>replacement will be a small-government person, but I can't say I'm
>>hopeful. I feel I'm being given the choice of being drilled, punched,
>>or bored.
>>
>Possibly because you are part of a small extremist minority. I'm sure
>many communists, animal rights campaigners and facists feel the same.

I'm flattered. I didn't realise that many communists, fascists, etc.
even know me.

Adrian


Adrian Stott
adrian@xxxxxxxxxx
07956-299966
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well, at last theyve given up with the lies...
    ... "Congestion Charge". ... charge" to make polluters pay. ... admitting that it's a simple money-raising tax. ... and quite often go to places that are inaccessible to 'normal' cars. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Well, at last theyve given up with the lies...
    ... "Congestion Charge". ... charge" to make polluters pay. ... admitting that it's a simple money-raising tax. ... I drive a 21 year old Range Rover because I often tow heavy trailers and car transporter trailers, and quite often go to places that are inaccessible to 'normal' cars. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: Well, at last theyve given up with the lies...
    ... "Congestion Charge". ... charge" to make polluters pay. ... admitting that it's a simple money-raising tax. ... that quite simply can't be easily carried by 'normal' cars. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: NC to help test road mileage tax
    ... SP Cook wrote: ... than to simply pay more at the pump. ... require an expensive computer be installed in all cars. ... say NC has a higher tax than SC. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: 10 Worst Places to Live in the U.S.
    ... If their factories are here, they pay taxes here. ... I think the tit-for-tat started back in the late 50's or early 60's when the American car companies complained about the competitive low costs of foreign cars. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)