[Gllug] [OT] Times Article on ABD was Fighting a virus

[Mike Brodbelt]

Adrian McMenamin wrote:

> In fact road pricing is a highly progressive form of taxation

That would be true only if the public transport infrastructure was up to
scratch. As it is there are many areas of the UK where a car is the only
viable form of transport. Furthermore, public transport in off peak
hours is often sporadic, poorly staffed, and particularly for women
alone can entail a degree of personal risk that makes it unacceptable.

Living in London, with easy access to the tube, it's all too easy to
forget that most of the country doesn't have that level of
infrastructure. For them, road pricing will be just another unavoidable
tax that makes life that much harder.

> at least - the US is a different picture). The wealthy have far more
> access to car based travel and will pay a proportionally greater part of
> their income under any likely UK road pricing or congestion charging
> scheme.

Rubbish - the wealth of the country is congregated around London, which
has the best public transport in the nation, and the most congested
roads. They will pay less of their income.

> And nor is it ineffective. After all this the Greater London Linux Users
> Group and people ought to know better than to make that claim in the
> first city in the world to introduce a general road pricing scheme.

Most cabbies I've spoken to are of the opinion that the congestion
charge is largely ineffective at reducing congestion. I've yet to see a
true measure of its efficiency as anything other than a revenue raising
scheme. There are however definite figures for loss of trade by shops in
the zone.

> Experience in London is that the scheme was more effective in cutting
> traffic volumes than its planners expected

Initially, yes. Now - I'm not so sure...

> meaning there was less money
> to go to public transport than expected (oh, look, I've answered that
> point about tax too - not that I think paying tax to fund the NHS, my
> children's education or policing, or, yes, defence, is illegitimate in
> any case).

It's not illegitimate, but it is certainly objectionable given the waste
and mismanagement currently visible in those services. 15 million down
the toilet on consultancy for the not-to-be-built Paddington
superhospital, while NICE busily blocks life saving drugs that might be
a bit pricey. From the National audit office:-

Central government spent around £1.8 billion on consultancy in 2005-06,
according to new figures published today by the National Audit Office.
Total public sector spending on consultants is estimated at around £2.8
billion for 2005-06.

So, while I don't think paying tax to fund the NHS is illegitimate, I
certainly do think that the current usage of the taxes is.

Mike
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug