But fuel duty isn’t the only income source for roads is it.....emissions tax contributes to motorways and council tax contributes to all other roads.
-
-
-
And it's a political choice to spend that money on roads. It could be spent on rail, or cycle infra, that's the point Carlton is making
-
Minister for Motorised Transport (And Invisible Ferries).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Roads are part of a system Carlton. If you increase fuel duty from its already pernicious levels it must by definition result in less spending by individuals and business elsewhere.
-
Fuel tax is regressive, and very much a blunt instrument, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be hiked much higher.
-
I disagree. It hurts those who have least choice.
-
Those that have the least choice don’t drive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's got the stage where I see or read something which has Grayling's name and I automatically assume its bollocks. I don't even read it or listen to it.
-
To be fair, that pretty much goes for all Tory politicians. The only promises they look to keep are those they make to their greedy and corrupt benefactors.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's the motorists' misunderstanding of road funding summed up perfectly. Rail funding comes from tickets, so as not to burden the taxpayers for trains if they don't use them. As everybody uses roads, they are funded from general taxation. VED & fuel duty are a minor factor.
-
Except that people pay taxes on roads they don't use, especially if they don't drive - they would for example be paying taxes on motorways which they certainly wouldn't be using.
-
This argument can't work both ways - you either say that transport infrastructure (road and rail) is in the common public interest and should be publicly funded, or that both road and rail should be funded proportionally by how much people use them.
-
Actually it can. Road use is overwhelmingly greater than rail. See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663116/rail-factsheet-2017.pdf … Moreover everyone uses roads (including for walking) whereas rail is only by those who choose to do so. Accordingly an argument can be made for the taxpayer to subsidise one much more.
-
"Including for walking" - people walk on the streets but are squeezed into narrow pavements. If you are going to make the use argument, you also have to demand that carriageways be narrowed and pedestrian zones widened.
-
Well, as a Londoner, normally I’m arguing for carriageway to be reallocated to cycle lanes - and criticising over-expansion of footways that leave no space for cycling. But, yes, footway widening often appropriate, as are new crossings, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but road transport yields a financial profit for the treasury of about £25bn pa. more roads, more traffic, more profit. the rail network loses money. making it bigger means losing money faster.
-
The road network loses money. making it bigger means losing money faster.
-
the road network shits cash on a scale hard to comprehend. the surplus of tax revenues over spending is more than £2bn a month. £800 per second. imagine if it were run to maximise revenue...!
-
If you look at the external costs of motoring (pollution, danger, ill health etc.) the really interesting thing is that drivers do not pay anything like enough. See e.g. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/logistics/news/2018-12-17-costs-of-eu-transport_en … or http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-costs-of-cars/ … . Plus even less revenue from EVs.
-
once you start conjuring made-up numbers about imaginary costs, debate is futile. how much is a lung cancer? what is the ability to visit grandma after work worth? what's the hour of commuting that my car saves worth? what's the value of being able to pop to the gym at 0400? 1/2
-
Sure, cost-benefit analysis is based on arbitrary values - but if it has been used, why not to talk about costs inflicted by the motorised on society as a whole? It woudl deflate the idea that drivers pay their way and have more rights than walkers/cyclists. 1./
-
Plus it could be a good source of revenue (no more "regressive" than VAT) and acts as disincentive on fuel inefficient cars/driving and driving in first place. 2./
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.