whatok
Member
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 67
what you said makes no sense.
It is popular to argue for or against something based on how much it costs versus taxes sold to the public as being related to it e.g. tax on smokers often announced as a health measure.
However, VED, as all taxes in the UK, is not hypothecated. All money from VED (and other taxes) goes into 'consolidated funds', IE, it is not a tax that specifically builds or maintains roads.. (which, by the way, are worn and damaged MUCH more by motorists than cyclists). If you really wanted to specify a source for road money, you could realistically say council tax, but only 25% of that at most is raised by councils, the rest of which is granted.
This is why we ALL pay for roads, and we ALL have equal rights to use them.
That is even without considering that most cyclists also drive.
I can see your next point, however, something along the lines of:
This simply means that people who pay more taxes generally, pay more for the roads. Following this logic, a guy with a 6 bedroom house and a unicycle could have more rights to the road than someone in bedsit with a saloon. I think everyone would agree that this is a moot point.
So, in an ideal world, as a cyclist, I would pay LESS tax for the roads than i do now, since, A: I use/wear them less B: It costs astronomically more to build a motorist based infrastructure than that for a cyclist. Unfortunately, I pay the same/possibly more than you, but I don't mind very much, really.
Anyway, the whole idea of 'rights' to the road, is a falsity. The roads are traditionally "Crown Estate" and our taxes don't confer ownership to us. We pay for their upkeep and in return we get to use them to walk, ride or drive on as we choose.
8)
It is popular to argue for or against something based on how much it costs versus taxes sold to the public as being related to it e.g. tax on smokers often announced as a health measure.
However, VED, as all taxes in the UK, is not hypothecated. All money from VED (and other taxes) goes into 'consolidated funds', IE, it is not a tax that specifically builds or maintains roads.. (which, by the way, are worn and damaged MUCH more by motorists than cyclists). If you really wanted to specify a source for road money, you could realistically say council tax, but only 25% of that at most is raised by councils, the rest of which is granted.
This is why we ALL pay for roads, and we ALL have equal rights to use them.
That is even without considering that most cyclists also drive.
I can see your next point, however, something along the lines of:
Hang on a sec - so if VED goes into the same pot as council tax, income tax etc. Then motorists DO pay more for the maintenance of the roads than cyclists (those who don't own cars).
This simply means that people who pay more taxes generally, pay more for the roads. Following this logic, a guy with a 6 bedroom house and a unicycle could have more rights to the road than someone in bedsit with a saloon. I think everyone would agree that this is a moot point.
So, in an ideal world, as a cyclist, I would pay LESS tax for the roads than i do now, since, A: I use/wear them less B: It costs astronomically more to build a motorist based infrastructure than that for a cyclist. Unfortunately, I pay the same/possibly more than you, but I don't mind very much, really.
Anyway, the whole idea of 'rights' to the road, is a falsity. The roads are traditionally "Crown Estate" and our taxes don't confer ownership to us. We pay for their upkeep and in return we get to use them to walk, ride or drive on as we choose.
8)