Friday, July 31, 2009

Final nail in Britains coffin

Motorists to pay £250 for parking at work under new Government scheme

before all you guys start, yes this is from the daily mail, it is relevant as this will affect the poorest or low paid who drive to work, as public transport is useless, this in turn will reduce income, might have an effect on houseprices who knows, but this is another tax we simply don't need, I for one will refuse to pay it (if possible) we need to start a petition on this one... The americans would not stand for it, why should we? Get brown out get brown out...

Posted by mark @ 10:25 AM (1050 views)
Please complete the required fields.



33 thoughts on “Final nail in Britains coffin

  • So every company car park that has fifteen spaces will put cones on four of them and tell the staff to park in the street – ludicrous!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I can’t see this as being too much of a problem – pretty soon under Gordon’s stewardship of the country there will be no one left in work !

    No doubt 2 Jags will have a parking permit

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If this is true the it is pathetic.

    Once upon a time this country raised its taxation a fair way, with those who earned more paying more (ie it took it out of their wage packets before they saw the money). Now, thanks to a female PM, we all have to feel rich by having lower tax, but then we pay for many more services.

    So the net effect is the lower paid pay proportionally more. What is needed is to scrap these payments, to raise the tax threshold so many more people are taken out of paying income tax, and the extra tax that is needed should come out of the pockets of those that earn more. (People like me, in fact.)

    This country has just gone to the dogs, and it amazes me that so many people can’t see that a fairer taxation system would benefit them. Yet we all want to vote for lower taxes because we feel richer. Somebody on the forum said people are stupid. Yes indeed they are. But hey…

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • stillthinking says:

    There are some interesting points made on taxpayers alliance, to sum them up, we are at such a level of taxation already that any further increases negatively impact on the economy i.e. the councils/government can grab more money but by doing so shrink the economy. Similar to the idea of Darling’s arbitary choice of 50% tax on high earners, which ignores the fact that he gets less revenue and both the economy and government would benefit more from a lower rate.
    If you move from average taxation of 40% to average taxation 45% then it is clear that the private sector effectively shrinks from 60% to 55% of the economy, so the only way to make this tax increase would be against a backdrop of GDP growth sufficient to offset the shrinkage. We don’t have any GDP growth so any rises in taxation will shrink the real economy. Basically the government will take a larger % slice of a smaller cake.
    The government needs to repair its fiscal position purely with cuts to state expenditure. Allowing small scale taxes, or “punishments” from random local councils is against our own interests. Parking tickets, fines for incorrect bins, all of these represent the economic death by a thousand small cuts. Any advantage to Norwich Council in this case is offset by a larger contraction in the UK as a whole.
    This is also why a more robust response back in 2007 would have been to immediately implement tax cuts and state sector cuts to allow the economy to grow, rather than dreaming that we can grow with additional debt.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • It is also very typical of this government to embrace forms of taxation that cost a fortune to administer, or are structured stupidly; so they give rise to unintended consequences.

    IF this was a sound idea (which it isn’t) then the tax should not be worked on the basis that up to eleven spaces is tax free, but have a dozen and all twelve are taxed – it should be worked on the basis that the first eleven are tax free, and every additional place is taxed.

    That way there is little incentive to try to get round the system, either by shrinking car parks, or putting some staff on the payroll of an associate company.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Using tax as a means to internalise the externality that is city centre congestion and pollution is an optimal method of ensuring system equilibrium. Just like factories polluting water courses, individual drivers too create a load of external costs to other road users. This is not just some means of raising more revenue as, for once, this a taxation policy serves to perform a practical function, that is, balance out an externality present in the economy. No doubt those same firms threatening to relocate will be able to list off plenty of figures demonstrating how congestion in the UK is stifling their business, and no mention is made of the advantages to city centre ambience as a result of fewer cars which will actually make Nottingham a nicer place to to business, thus a more desirable place to be.
    We’ve got to get to get away from the idea that the car rules. In 40 years they have made us insular, selfish, unhealthy, the pollution makes people ill and they kill several thousand of us every year. Get on your bike, share a lift, or take a train, tram or bus to get to work. If “PT is just not good enough” for you, demand that it is better through your council or consider PT provision in your next relocation decision instead of just complaining.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Bah humbug… The only fair taxation is income tax… earn nothing pay nothing… earn twice as much as your neighbour pay twice as much… Surely Nu Labour should embrace this idea being a socialist party …. errr…. ok…. fair enuf!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • ..and all motoring taxation should be on fuel – no toll roads or bridges, no tax discs, no congestion charges; just pay at the pump – have a gas guzzler? – it will cost you more – have an eco friendly car? – it will cost you less.

    Totally fair, and as efficient as you could hope for.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Couldn’t agree more.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Come to think of it… How about world peace? Have we got any ideas on that? This government/lawmaking thing is a doddle. All I need now is a pint!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • stillthinking says:

    In fact I will expand on that because it explains neatly why New Labour are such a heart breaking tragedy for the UK and fail at all levels.
    New Labour base a high taxation policy on the justification of increased social provision. But.
    Given that there is an optimal level of taxation which maximises revenue, going over that level perversely reduces state income/social provision, so we not only have high taxes, we also end up with less provision of social services! Basically a complete and abject failure of policy. Their whole political credo is worthless b*ll*x.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • This country gets more hideous by the minute… Getting sick and tired of begging for plastic bag to put my groceries in too…

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Hey you can’t criticise new labour, taxes are good remember ?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Robbing from the rich to give to the poor (benefit abusers). Sounds strangely familiar in Nottingham……

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • UT, I don’t post on here much, I tend to read others’ comments, and I’m normally with you on a lot of things, but maybe this is one debate we should have left to the transport forums.

    Please don’t think that fuel taxation is some elixir to the problem, because it aint. It may do some of the things you say but it cannot deal with the biggest problem we have, which is the congestion externality which blights our motorways and urban areas. It is a blunt tool which is roughly linked to peoples income and some combination of the time and distance spent on the road, but it cannot optimise markets. The only true way to achieve this is through removing the whole current vehicle taxation system and replacing it with targeted road pricing, variable by location, vehicle type and time of day. Then you have a system where the marginal social cost of road travel is equal to the price of road travel to the user, proven to be the optimal outcome for society.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Uncle Tom – absolutely agree – and I drive a gas guzzler. How many people out there try to avoid paying car tax etc. Let them try driving a car with no petrol in it!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • stillthinking says:

    IMF suggests that 30% taxation is around the optimal level. The UK was on 40% and now we are up to 50%. This is why eco pundits often predict that the UK economy will have a very shallow recovery (very small GDP growth) because government debts are now such that it is impossible to pull down the taxation rate, which impacts on the real economy. Of course the big fear is that we go into an economic death spiral and can’t stop real GDP from shrinking, causing the effective taxation to increase, deadly embrace style. Hence the Tories getting so frantic about cutting state spending (an effective tax reduction even if taxes don’t change themselves) because they can see our growth possibilities being f*cked for decades into the future.

    Norwich Council’s taxation on employees cars is admittedly small in the scheme of things but it should not be taken as anything other than what it -really- is, it is yet -another- nail hammered brutally down on the coffin of UK PLC. Further, the end consequence will be a reduction in Norwich Council revenues so both damaging and stupid.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • IMF and 30% doesn’t mean that’s the correct level. Remember the IMF is a US invention, set up as part of Bretton Woods. The US have always had a view that government is bad — any government. And they don’t want to pay for any of it (just have the right to shoot the sh*t out of their neighbours).

    Just look at the US society to see how poor a model their fiscal strategy really is. What you are getting over here is the same, and it means kids who are born into poor families get a worse chance in life than those born into middle class families. So it is only fair that the services that kids, for example, depend on, should be fully funded by the state. I would even go so far as to say prohibit private education, that way everyone, regardless of ability to pay, gets the same chance.

    I agree that the more you drive the more you pay (ie pay in fuel tax). And it should be the more you earn, the more you pay. There are some things that a *civil*ised socieity must give to everyone, and that is equality of opportunity to all. As the last 30 years have demonstrated, leave it to individuals and the market, and it will distort in favour of the affluent.

    That may be fine for this generation — but what about two or three generations from now? Surely this is not sustainable.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • the number cruncher says:

    Nulabour like all political parties are too scared to fundamentally alter taxation to a more fair way.

    We should tax all raw materials we take from the planet such as oil at point of extraction and import to the UK. This would stimulate more efficient use of oil for all forms of manufacturing and transport. We should abolish all other forms of car tax an put petrol up to £5 a litre. Cars and transport have a massive effect on our environment, far above the immediate costs of road building and the price of Oil should reflect the real cost it imposes on society. The benefit of this policy is it would allow a real free market to find solutions to the problems of transport and stimulate development of more fuel efficient cars ect. This should be done for other finite raw materials such iron ore etc. By doing this we should then abolish all forms of purchase taxes such as VAT.

    We should get rid of income tax and replace it with a Land Value Tax. See Fred Harrison’s – the renegade economist for further details or google LVT. The befits for the economy are enormous and it would assist in wealth redistribution and stimulate eutrepunureal endeavour to expand the real economy (not the speculative false economy that nulabour are trying to save at the moment)

    The only downside to this is I highly suspect that the VI’s would lobby to prevent it, like they have for hundreds of years, and we would have a military coup if someone managed to circumvent them in our legislature. The vested interest who make their living from just exploiting the assets they own instead of doing any real work in the economy would, for once in their lives, work very hard indeed to protect their cushy positions.

    I would be interested to hear the views of libertarians of the right to these proposals as this could be an area where socialists, environmentalists and libertarians join forces for both our objectives.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Let’s tax working people more. Let’s tax BLT less or non at all.

    Because we can’t buy votes off working people, but we can buy votes off BTL.

    The election is next year, if we are not getting votes from sensible people, why don’t we just rob money from these people and bribe the idiots who would vote for us.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • dude @15
    “What you are getting over here is the same, and it means kids who are born into poor families get a worse chance in life than those born into middle class families.”

    That is life, you can’t impose socialist policies to stop this.

    So you start with a family, Mother, Father make the effort, they make sacrifices for their children, bring them up correctly and all the rest, to you this is a middle class kid with privileges, he is unfairly in a better position than a poorer kid. Well maybe he is, but what are you going to do if the poorer kids parents don’t want to work don’t give a sh1t, don’t want to educate themselves, their children and they don’t aspire to anything.

    Your answer is to punish the good and help the rotten. This is why socialism fails time and time again. You just do … not …. get it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I work from home – does that mean I have to get up and move my car down the road each morning, or do I get a £250 bonus for not clogging up empty car parks.

    I do get confused these days 😉

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I like this idea. It’s another step on the slow path towards a Land Value Tax.

    In the meantime, here’s a dead-easy solution for companies:
    1. Convert your work car park into a public pay & display car park.
    2. Charge your staff to use it.
    3. Use the revenue from the car park to pay your staff more, thereby offsetting the car park costs.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The end objective of Socialism is to destroy the incentive to get out of bed in the morning. By that measure New Labour are doing a fine job.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • LOL
    Cool – Thanks Mr Legislator
    I think I’ll start a new company that purchases the leaseholds on company car parks and then manages them as private car parks, but charges less than the tax cost.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • still renting says:

    @ drewster

    I don’t think your solution will work. The company will have to charge the going rate for a public car park, otherwise it will just fill up with other people, and employees won’t be able to find a space. Even if the rate is only £5 / day (here in central London it would be nearer £20) that would be approx. £1200 a year in parking charges. If they pay the staff an extra £1200 / year, the staff will pay £240 in income tax alone (assumin lower rate tax payer). Add on employees NI and they’ll be paying more than the £250 you were trying to avoid.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • gone-to-colombia says:

    Welcome to the age of higher taxation, the late delayed partner who pays for the party. He’ll be hanging around a while.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Before we declare that the country is going down the drain, we should establish that this article is not exaggerating.
    Are we all affected, or only people in cities? All cities? Who gets the money, the city, or the government?
    It would be nice also to see other newspapers mentioning this, as well as the Mail.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “What goes around……”

    A bit like the Tory new idea for replacing the FSA with the BOE, this is another old idea rehashed. About twenty years ago the Revenue wanted to tax the provision of car parking spaces provided for local authority and civil service staff with the express intention of extending this to all employers as they considered it to be a ‘benefit in kind’. The initial plan failed because the revenue itself, (and others) relied upon the employees using their own cars to perform official duties, this raised the spectre of the employees being able to claim car expenses against their personal taxation.
    I am no longer in a position to give tax advice, but I am sure that others on this site (Mark W?) will see the potential flaws in the proposed levy.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • why are so many people complaining ????. this government was voted in by the majority of the voting public, so it must be what the majority of the voting public want, labour have always been high tax and high spend

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Helena Handbasket says:

    Let’s not all get riled up! And that’s assuming the story is true, not some misdirection.

    We KNOW taxes have to go up to pay for the various deficits and the banking thefts, sorry, bailouts.
    That’s the context of any of these inventive new taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, e.g. Don’t like poll-tax, we’ll put up VAT to 17.5% instead. Get it?

    In this case, the money comes from the employees and/or customers of the business. (The business itself gets its revenues from these sources)

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • still renting
    – that’s why it must be a private car park like in my suggestion ( although I suppose I could make more running as a public one… hmm, I guess I’d make some contractual agreement with the company, so my lease is cheap and they get sole use )

    mr messy
    – have you heard of Arrows Paradox?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • landofconfusion says:

    Mr Messy,

    New Liebour was voted in by <35% of those that voted. Democracy?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>