Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Doki" <mrdoki@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> Privileges such as riding on roads that I have a legal right to? If
horses
>> were more common, would you want them to have tax disks too? The fact
is
>> that VED is not a tax that gives you the right to use the road - it's
not
>> been called Road Fund Licence for a very long time now. It's just a tax
on
>> ownings cars that are taken on the road, to ensure that everyone keeps
>> their cars registered and to raise a bit of cash.
> Sure, why not? If you want to use the road, you should pay to have it
built
> and maintained. Give the mess of horses, they should be taxed even more
to
> cover the cleanup cost.
We do - through taxes (income tax, VAT, im****t duty, fuel duty, business
taxes, capital gains tax, stamp duty, alcohol and tobacco duties,
inheritance
tax and all the other ways the government gets an income on top of VED).
As
has been clearly stated, VED is a tax on owning a motor vehicle, and also
has
the added benefit of allowing the government to keep a track of insurance
and
MOTs. It is a duty, not a charge. The roads are currently paid for, where
there are no tolls, out of the common funds, that is, all of our taxes.
There's no point arguing about how the VED should be spent or whether
other
road users should pay VED as VED is not related directly to road use, but
is
duty on car owner****p.
You may argue that it should be replaced by a road charging scheme, but it
is
difficult to see how this could be implemented viably and without
infringement
of human rights, not to mention whether the technology is in any way
feasible.
In the current government(plc)'s rosy cor****ate ideal, each resource
should be
charged individually and ideally outsourced. This makes a complete mockery
of
the concept of common wealth and social responsibility. We no longer pay
our
taxes in turn to provide services and facilities for all; it seems we are
to
be charged for everything separately.
Next, we'll be paying for civil defence personally, through an annual
defence
charges statement. After that, what? Float Britain on the Stock Market?
Roll on a new government, one who didn't learn politics at business school
and
who understands that a nation is not a cor****ation...
Should horse riders pay duty? Sure, why not? Horse owner****p can only be
regarded as a luxury as we no longer use horses for industry.
It is hard to justify bicycle duty. It is a socially responsible and low
impact method of personal trans****t. It sounds like what you are all
clamouring for is a compulsory proficiency licence and enforcement of road
usage laws for bicycle riders. I sup****t that.
Should cars be charged duty? It is hard to justify, in fact. For many
people
they are no longer a luxury as our society has spread our domestic circles
over a greater distance. My wife and I work about 20 miles in opposite
directions from our home, for instance, and if a parcel is undelivered we
have
to travel 15 miles to the nearest sorting office to collect it. These make
car
owner****p, not necessarily use, a necessity and so unavoidable unless one
lives and works in a city.
The government knows this and so is increasing, in the name of the
environment, the taxation on personal car owner****p every year, even
though
the only realistic and justifiable way of taxing the environmental impact
of
car usage is on the fuel.
So why not display both insurance and roadworthiness certificates in the
car
window, ideally combined into a single item, negating the requirement
imposed
by the government of paying private companies for basic road insurance?
Then
tax car usage and environmental impact through fuel duty?
Rich
|
