UK Road Tax vs. Road spending-ONE BIG CON -

Sony · 15-09-2005, 13:09

Did you all know, that since 1975, revenue from VAT, fuel duty and road tax has jumped by almost £24bn!!!!

So why are our roads like driving on corregated metal? i hear you cry! well i'll tell you why....

It is because since 1975, spending on transport (i.e. local roads n parking, national roads & public transport) has dropped by an astonishing £5.5bn!!! So at the moment, the government gets £37.7bn in revenue, yet only spend £7bn of that on our roads each year!

As a ratio of revenue:road spending, that works out as 5:1, compared to 2:1 in France, 1.3:1 in Germany, and get this.... 1:1 in the USA!!!

Where is the logic and justice for us, the public, in that little statistic?!?!

Cyclone · 15-09-2005, 13:11

there is no comittment from government to spend tax raised on any one area back into that area.

So who's to say that other countries haven't got the ratio's wrong... Or maybe they just don't have quite the same problem supporting their national health services.

tgigreeny · 15-09-2005, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Sony
Did you all know, that since 1975, revenue from VAT, fuel duty and road tax has jumped by almost £24bn!!!!

So why are our roads like driving on corregated metal? i hear you cry! well i'll tell you why....

It is because since 1975, spending on transport (i.e. local roads n parking, national roads & public transport) has dropped by an astonishing £5.5bn!!! So at the moment, the government gets £37.7bn in revenue, yet only spend £7bn of that on our roads each year!

As a ratio of revenue:road spending, that works out as 5:1, compared to 2:1 in France, 1.3:1 in Germany, and get this.... 1:1 in the USA!!!

Where is the logic and justice for us, the public, in that little statistic?!?!

Damn right. Its because motorists are Gordon Brown's whipping boys. He and Tony the talking muppet use the environment as a flimsy excuse for raping car users of their hard-earned.

Why airline fuel isn't taxed is a mystery to me! Couldn't we try a luxury car sales tax like in the US to take a bit of the burden off fuel futy too?

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 13:27

Other than, scaling down the NHS, or shutting state schools, I doubt that there is anyway of reversing this trend.

This is public money which is raised by taxing the motorists which goes into the general treasury budget.

I run two vehicles and am prepared to put up with it, if not I would live in another country.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sony
As a ratio of revenue:road spending, that works out as and get this.... 1:1 in the USA!!!

Where is the logic and justice for us, the public, in that little statistic?!?!

The reason for this is because USA is much much larger and much much less densely populated than the UK. And so there are many more miles of trunkroads and freeways per driver which have to be maintained and that is a much greater burden than it is here in the UK.

A similar story in germany and france. From what I have seen of the roads there, most of the motorways and main roads are generally very good, but still they are much larger countries by area than UK and they are also much less densley populated, and therefore more of the percentage of the revenue generated by drivers has to be spent on infrastructure and maintenence. Also these countries have vast railway networks, which they maintain and modernise, in the UK ours stood still and was partly dismantled for 30 years.

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 13:31

Quote:

Originally posted by tgigreeny
Why airline fuel isn't taxed is a mystery to me!

Ideally it would be but, no other country will tax it unilaterally, and if we did, the whole of our aircraft industry would go bankrupt overnight, loosing thousands of jobs in the uk

tgigreeny · 15-09-2005, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Ideally it would be but, no other country will tax it unilaterally, and if we did, the whole of our aircraft industry would go bankrupt overnight, loosing thousands of jobs in the uk

Time for the EU to act then? The French are considering a levy on airline tickets to help with international aid anyway.

Cyclone · 15-09-2005, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by tgigreeny
Time for the EU to act then? The French are considering a levy on airline tickets to help with international aid anyway.

so the entire EU industry can go bankrupt whilst the rest of the world takes over?

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 14:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyclone
so the entire EU industry can go bankrupt whilst the rest of the world takes over?

That's exactly what I was going to say. Two very large USA airlines have just into Chapter eleven, news like the EU was going to sacrifice it's air travel industry would be news that would have them whooping and doing high fives - or what ever our american cousins do when they are happy.

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 14:25

On a more serious note about air travel however. In the long term, for environmental reasons, I think that short haul flights should be taxed out of existence when high speed rail travel is available.
When you take in the time it takes for the drive to an airport and the hanging around and 2 hours check in time, and the waiting on the taxiway and the transfer from the destination airport and the resort. A serious europe wide high speed train network would be many times more preferable. It would be just as fast, much less polluting when it is running, more convenient and comfortable for older and disabled passengers, and more pleasent and relaxed for the rest of us, with wide isles and better seating and facilities..

Unfortunately even with a totally commited UK government this would take a decade. And as we all know that is a period which covers at least 3 general elections, and usually more than one complete change in administration and U turn on transport policy especially as the low cost aircraft industry expands and becomes a serious and powerful lobby group.

Trickle · 15-09-2005, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I think that short haul flights should be taxed out of existance when high speed rail travel is available.

Um... high speed rail travel isnt available in this country. Have you seen Japans and even France's rail services?

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Trickle
Um... high speed rail travel isnt available in this country. Have you seen Japans and even France's rail services?

If you were to have read my last paragraph you would have seen my pessimism and dissapointment as to the likelyhood of a high speed system being available to us in the next ten years..

barny_100 · 15-09-2005, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by muddycoffee
On a more serious note about air travel however. In the long term, for environmental reasons, I think that short haul flights should be taxed out of existence when high speed rail travel is available.

Hmmm not too keen on the free market then are we?

If rail is so good why would you need to artificially drag down an alternative form of travel through punitive rates of taxation?

People should be free to choose the best form of transport for their needs. Speed, cost, comfort and reliability spring to mind as the main factors. Whatever people choose is , by definition, the best form of transport.

Maybe we should tax ferries to force people to use eco friendly log canoes as well?

Greenback · 15-09-2005, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by barny_100
Hmmm not too keen on the free market then are we?

If rail is so good why would you need to artificially drag down an alternative form of travel through punitive rates of taxation?

People should be free to choose the best form of transport for their needs. Speed, cost, comfort and reliability spring to mind as the main factors. Whatever people choose is , by definition, the best form of transport.

Maybe we should tax ferries to force people to use eco friendly log canoes as well?

But then again seeing as some forms of transport come with a greater adverse environmental impact than others, and bearing in mind that governments will end up having to pay out millions to deal with this damage, maybe the market shouldn't be free to decide?

Cyclone · 15-09-2005, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenback
But then again seeing as some forms of transport come with a greater adverse environmental impact than others, and bearing in mind that governments will end up having to pay out millions to deal with this damage, maybe the market shouldn't be free to decide?

So it should be taxed appropriately to cover the cost of cleanup, not deliberately "taxed out of existence".

Greenback · 15-09-2005, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyclone
So it should be taxed appropriately to cover the cost of cleanup, not deliberately "taxed out of existence".

Wouldn't taxation on this basis mean that short-haul flights would be no longer financially viable for the air travel companies? I've no idea - I'm just guessing here.

barny_100 · 15-09-2005, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyclone
So it should be taxed appropriately to cover the cost of cleanup, not deliberately "taxed out of existence".

And even then the idea that anyone can define the "Cost" of the damage (if any significant amount - that's not proved either) is unlikely.

Anyway a logical form of taxation like that would be unlikely to find many friends at the treasury where the "How much cash can we get" is the standard aim for all forms of taxation!

muddycoffee · 15-09-2005, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by barny_100
Hmmm not too keen on the free market then are we?

If rail is so good why would you need to artificially drag down an alternative form of travel through punitive rates of taxation?

Well the market is already artificially distorted due to the the burden of fuel tax on every other transport method other than flight.

All successful rail networks need lots of government subsidy. I have travelled on some German and Czech railways this year and it's clear that the amount of rail lines available in both countries are entirely due to the state providing a large amount of infrastructure, although the German rolling stock, stations and rails are in a much better conditon.

In Britain, most transport watchers agree that the privatisation of BR was a mistake and resulted in loss of expertise and cut back of many safety procedures. It's not possible to have such massive infrastructure based on a market where the shareholders are the only beneficiaries without cutting back on services to show profit on paper.

barny_100 · 15-09-2005, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Well the market is already artificially distorted due to the the burden of fuel tax on every other transport method other than flight.

The solution is obvious - get rid of fuel tax on all the other forms of transport!

Sony · 15-09-2005, 17:17

drive a car, smoke & drink.. pay for feckin everything - country would be knackered without us..

they'll need to legalise drugs soon - tax revenues that could be earned will be essential to keep the rest of the economy & public services going

cloudybay · 15-09-2005, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Sony
drive a car, smoke & drink.. pay for feckin everything - country would be knackered without us..

Well said Sony