zippo

Reply to David West- of course there is nothing "inherently wrong with cars".
There is obviously something wrong with demanding tax increases all round so you can live however far you want to from your work.
Its a question of choice.If AR chooses, he can pay for this.
He can live 100 miles away & go to work on a truck if he wants to.
Just don't ask me to pay for it.
Tell me why do you guys think it so bad to pay for this yourselves?
Any rational thoughts out there, or is it all just schoolboy namecalling?
Any justification for making others pay?

david_west

Zippo;

I’m sorry you’ve lost me. Where is anyone saying that taxes should go up to allow people to drive wherever they want?

The point that AR, and I, was making is that there often isn’t an alternative. Public transport is patchy in places and the car is the only real way of getting to and from school, work, whatever.

I agree that in an ideal world one would live near one’s work – no one likes commuting after all, but it simply isn’t realistic for a lot of us. Take me. I am a public sector consultant (aka glorified temp). That means that I work in any one place for no longer than about six months. Should I move every time I get a new post?

If you are saying that what’s required is better public transport then the next question is who pays for it? If you charge the realistic costs then people will stay in their cars. If you subsidise it then you really are raising everyone’s taxes to pay for the convenience of a few. That’s what I’m confused about.

As for the namecalling – it’s like swearing: it IS big and it IS clever!

Neil_Oz

I don't know much about Gordon Brown other than that he's the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a post which we label with the somewhat less glam tag of "treasurer". But anyone who can do such a good job of upsetting Tories (including the language-mangling faux-English import m_kingdom2) is my man.

david_west

The Tory that Gordon Brown (texture like sun) most upsets is our own dear Prime Minister (you probably call this position something like "Top Ocker".)

AR

To answer you sensibly, Zippo - I listened to Radio Five Live this morning, and this point was put to the lead protester (only protester, I think!). He was asked if he'd rather taxes cut, and have worse schools and hospitals, just to make the motorists happy. His answer was that of course he didn't want less money for schools and hospitals but why should the motorist be the one to fund them almost exclusively (yes, I know that this is somewhat simplified).
I pay my council tax but don't make use of my local swimming pool or library, therefore why should I subsidise them? The answer is hardly alturistic as I'd far rather pay less tax than have a library I don't use, but others do - and that's democracy.
If you want my honest solution to this then it is to scrap the car tax and much of the fuel duty and replace them with road charging. When I go to France, I pay to travel on their roads. When they come here - they don't. Every foreign lorry and car would then contribute to the upkeep of the roads and raise taxation for the government. Little old ladies who use the car for church on Sundays only wouldn't pay that much (but then they don't use the roads) whilst haulage, foreign vehicles and reps would.
Oh, and of course, essential users including very important NHS employees would have a 10% rebate.