Is taxation always a good deterrent?

think things like congestion charge are v. regressive, even speaking as a non-driver. also taxes on booze and fags. rich people can afford this stuff, proportionately they pay less tax out of their income.

Yeh, i must admit the congestion charge and fag/booze tax is kind of pointless because people will still drive/drink/smoke and unless given a better alternative they'll continue to do so.

Very often I see local councils making their high streets narrower BECAUSE of the fact they have a parking problem. The idea is people will park their cars somewhere else or leave them at home. The only thing is there is nowhere else to park other than a dingy, expensive and neglected multi-storey carpark that no-one ever uses. Plus the amount of people living within walking distance to the town centre already do walk there. But it's this mindset of putting up barriers in front of people who are going to do what they want or have to do anyway.

If it is someone's job to drive into inner london, they're not going to not turn up to work because it's too expensive - they still have to do it. The only difference is now they have to pay a fiver to do it.

So what's the alternative? Perhaps instead of placing barriers in front of people in the hope they'll go away, why not remove them and add some walkways while they're at it.

A few weeks back I posted a rather unsubscribed thread about Michael Meacher, a wannabe contender for the Labour leadership with a left leaning policy. I guess what interested me about him was that renationalisation of the railway was one of his main plans to help with congestion and climate change.

Despite not being aware that this was possible - the government being able to reclaim something they've basically neglected and left to fatcats to run for the last 15 years or more - it makes for an exciting gateway if they can pull it off. So long as things are done properly we could forget about congestion charges and toll booths and instead rebuild a much better rail network reaching more places, more regularly and more punctually, as well as reducing traffic jams etc.

Another guy, Monbiot, has suggested that we build depots on each major junction where fleets of coaches would take groups of commuters to their destinations and back, from where they would continue their journeys home as normal. I like this idea a little less as it's only half a solution, but at least it's thinking a bit further than "yeh let's just put the tax up, that'll stop people wanting to go to work".

Taxes are a really good way to depress demand for something, but unless they're somehow proportional, they just make life shitter for poor people and virtually unchanged for the rich.

well, you'd have to be insane to drive to work in london unless your job was driving something in london -- but the principle just seems off to me, a flat tax on everyone. as with vat or council tax really.

If it is someone's job to drive into inner london, they're not going to not turn up to work because it's too expensive - they still have to do it. The only difference is now they have to pay a fiver to do it.

The only short-term difference, I suppose. The idea would be to stop people going into inner London. So either they get sick of the charge and find work elsewhere, or they come upon a different transport idea, or their employers move out of inner London under staff pressure, or they telework or something. Yes, there's going to be a certain set of people who must work in that geo-location, and must drive, but this isn't going to be true for a huge majority, and the tax is designed to hit them.

a flat tax on everyone. as with vat or council tax really
Yep. Council tax is supposed to be proportional, in that bigger houses cost more, but the bandings are all fucked up. VAT isn't graded on ability to pay, but if you buy a cheap shitty version of something you'll pay less in real money in tax than if you buy the super-expensive version.

Okay... What should those people do instead though?

xpost

"Taxes are a really good way to depress demand for something"

.stet. on Monday, 12 March 2007 19:30 (5 minutes ago)"

uh? demand for booze seems pretty brisk!

plus congestion charge is meant to stop people *driving* into london, not working there! the london council doesn't want employers moving away from london cos of all the lovely revenue.

Yep. Council tax is supposed to be proportional, in that bigger houses cost more, but the bandings are all fucked up.

the current govt. has lived in fear of revaluing and rebanding.

Okay... What should those people do instead though?
Mump about being in the minority? What should single young men with no kids do about the fact that none of the tax concessions apply to them, and a good chunk of their taxes goes on stuff they don't directly benefit from, like schools and roads etc (they indirectly benefit from a better country, but still)?

uh? demand for booze seems pretty brisk!
Do you think it's the same as it would be untaxed? That demand is incredibly high doesn't mean it isn't depressed from its natural state!

Congestion charge would really only drive people away from working in London if it didn't have a reasonable transport system. But I'm told the Tube is pretty good for commuters despite its many flaws, so only Tube-aversion combined with bus-aversion and refusal to car-share is actually going to drive people to seek other work.

Okay... What should those people do instead though?
Mump about being in the minority? What should single young men with no kids do about the fact that none of the tax concessions apply to them, and a good chunk of their taxes goes on stuff they don't directly benefit from, like schools and roads etc (they indirectly benefit from a better country, but still)?

.stet. on Monday, 12 March 2007 16:38 (9 minutes ago)

Hang on... how is the whole of commuterdom a minority? I don't think we're barking up the same tree.

I thought you meant the people who have to drive into inner London for work. Who must be in a minority compared to the folks who could get the Tube/Bus/car share.

Do you think it's the same as it would be untaxed? That demand is incredibly high doesn't mean it isn't depressed from its natural state!

By this reasoning you're saying that people who can afford to buy limitless amount of booze and fags because they're rich enough not to care about the tax, will buy tons of booze and fags - which isn't true unless you're Robbie Williams.

Congestion charge would really only drive people away from working in London if it didn't have a reasonable transport system. But I'm told the Tube is pretty good for commuters despite its many flaws, so only Tube-aversion combined with bus-aversion and refusal to car-share is actually going to drive people to seek other work.

The tube and bus is how to get around the inner city yes, but getting there in the first place (ie not everyone lives in London) is a different kettle.

y this reasoning you're saying that people who can afford to buy limitless amount of booze and fags because they're rich enough not to care about the tax, will buy tons of booze and fags - which isn't true unless you're Robbie Williams.
Uh, no. What it's saying is that people rich enough not to care about the tax will buy as much booze as they choose to. Whereas people of limited means must either buy less booze than they desire, or buy cheaper booze to get their desired quantity. Would superlager be as popular as it is if it cost the same as Stella -- or would they all drink Stella if it cost what superlager does?

getting there in the first place (ie not everyone lives in London) is a different kettle
And presumably a kettle unaffected by the CC? Are there no commuter trains/park and rides for the tube?

Grozart, you know the C-charge is only the middle of London, right? It is possible to drive to a station in outer London and commute in on the train - indeed some stations aim at specifically this concept.

Also, financially, at least, the people who are coming into London from well outside London would be paying huge season ticket costs which may even be more expensive than £40 a week with the C-charge + petrol.

except i guess elderly people getting to hospital or whatever not that many people need to drive into the congestion charge zone, but the point isn't whether it's nice to get revenue or if global warming will be ended by this kind of thing: the point is it makes poor people change their behaviour while making no real impact on the rich.

the point is it makes poor people change their behaviour while making no real impact on the rich.
But if the key goal is fewer cars that's sort-of OK, as there are plenty more poor people than rich. If you get hundreds of thousands of poor people to stop zooming about in cars every day, that's a win compared to getting 100 rich folk to stop. It's "unfair" that poor people HAVE to change their behaviour while the rich can only be persuaded, but this is different from anything else how?

it isn't. i'm generally against rich people.

I'm generally against people.

Also, financially, at least, the people who are coming into London from well outside London would be paying huge season ticket costs which may even be more expensive than £40 a week with the C-charge + petrol.

I getcha, but this means there's a fundamental flaw somewhere along the line if it's actually cheaper to drive to central London and incur C-Charge than spending upwards of £3000 a year on tickets for a manky slow old train with pee on the seats.

Well yes there is :) I personally find that trains are mostly in pretty good nick these days, but maybe that's just SWT.

Would superlager be as popular as it is if it cost the same as Stella -- or would they all drink Stella if it cost what superlager does?

Superlager costs the same as Stella -- the difference is the strength, which is offset by the shitty taste. Cost is an issue, but superlagers don't actually offer the best deal. Large bottles of cider work out cheaper than the more common cans of White Lightning, and round my way off-licences sell three bottles of 'Italian wine' for a fiver (assuming they're 12%, that works out at 54ml of alcohol per pound compared with Tennents Super's 45ml -- a significant difference over the course of a morning). Convenience also is a factor that tends to outweigh value, both with regards to cans' tranportability and the opportunity they offer to pay for a session in instalments.

Haha ok. Compare drink X to drink Y where both come in cans and have the same strength except X is cheap and tastes like pish and Y is expensive but tastes great.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6448327.stm

Government to introduce 1000 new rail carriages to Britain's trains... but not till 2014.

Cameron's shot himself in the foot with the "green" air tax - i.e. use the echt-environmental stick to ensure that nobody can afford to fly except rich bastards - but then again, isn't that the essence of all Tory policies?