On Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:02 PM [GMT+1=CET], Roger Millin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce wrote: >> Agreed the road pricing proposals have their downsides, but on >> balance, why shouldn't people pay by use? It builds in rural >> compensation, as minor rural roads will have the lowest pricing, it >> encourages multi occupancy of vehicles and use of public transport, >> it solves our problem with fuel duty. > > I have some opinions on this and you won't be surprised to hear that > I disagree with you to some extent. > 1. We, the taxpayers (who are also motorists) Well, some of you are motorists. > already pay huge > amounts of money into the system to pay for our roads, far more than > the road network costs. The money you pay is to pay for "your" roads, and it hasn't been so for several decades. > 2. Why introduce a system that involves huge expenditure into the > system when it could be done through increasing fuel duties? ( I have > to say though that as an ex-countryside living person I can see that > this would not be entirely equitable for country dwellers. It needs > some more thought to overcome that unfairness). You've answered your own question there. > This government's > record on introducing new IT systems effectively and on-budget isn't > good at all. I can't disagree with that. > 6. You are not *required* to *travel* to work or *for work*. Nobody is *required* to travel to work. I have long argued for a substantial tax incentive for living within walking distance of one's work. As for travelling *for* work, that's a business expense and should be treated as such i.e. tax-deducatible. To my mind, if the new arrangements persuade just a few people (in towns) not to own cars, they will be very welcome. Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
