3 ms·

this argument always stinks of excessive pedantry, yes the budgets aren't ring fenced, but this doesn't mean fuel using vehicles aren't paying for the roads tha

by blibble 13y ago

this argument always stinks of excessive pedantry, yes the budgets aren't ring fenced, but this doesn't mean fuel using vehicles aren't paying for the roads that cyclists use. in 2013 the the treasury expects to collect £26B[1] via fuel duty alone (the tax motorists pay on petrol/diesel), and the entire transport budget is £21B[2], so it's accurate to say that the motorist's taxes pay entirely for the roads (and a good chunk of the trains too). (note the £26B fuel duty figure doesn't include the 20% VAT motorists also pay on petrol, and the money from VED) [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221885/budget2013_complete.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... page 103 [2]: same document, page 10

tehwalrus 13y ago
Almost all roads are maintained by council tax, which is genuinely separate from Vehicle Excise Duty which goes to the treasury. The highways agency roads (mostly A roads and motorways) are usually not safe for/used by cyclists anyway.
skrause 13y ago
http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/vkw/ivs/oeko/dateien/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN_20121220.pdf http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/vkw/ivs/oeko... suggests that the total cost of cars in the UK are around £50B per year. Your argument also suggest that all cyclists don't pay taxes at all.
- blibble 13y ago
  that document assigns a future expected value of £30B for damages due to climate change caused by cars... which to be frank, is a bullshit made up number. take that out, and motorists still make a profit for the treasury. my argument is purely based on receipts from purchase of fuel... if there were 0 motor vehicles on the road, the receipts would be many orders of magnitude lower.
slgeorge 13y ago
I don't accept the argument, but as a thought experiment lets go with it. So motorists pay for the roads and for trains - so what? I pay lots of tax for services I don't use - or perhaps someone else doesn't pay for something I also use (public libraries for example) - but so what? We pay tax and we may use some, all or none of the services provided - it's just part of the bargain with the state to create a civil society. Just because you've paid tax (greater or lesser) doesn't give you more or less access to services as a citizen.

by blibble 13y ago

tehwalrus 13y ago

Almost all roads are maintained by council tax, which is genuinely separate from Vehicle Excise Duty which goes to the treasury. The highways agency roads (mostly A roads and motorways) are usually not safe for/used by cyclists anyway.

skrause 13y ago

http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/vkw/ivs/oeko/dateien/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN_20121220.pdf http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/vkw/ivs/oeko... suggests that the total cost of cars in the UK are around £50B per year. Your argument also suggest that all cyclists don't pay taxes at all.

blibble 13y ago
that document assigns a future expected value of £30B for damages due to climate change caused by cars... which to be frank, is a bullshit made up number. take that out, and motorists still make a profit for the treasury. my argument is purely based on receipts from purchase of fuel... if there were 0 motor vehicles on the road, the receipts would be many orders of magnitude lower.

slgeorge 13y ago

I don't accept the argument, but as a thought experiment lets go with it. So motorists pay for the roads and for trains - so what? I pay lots of tax for services I don't use - or perhaps someone else doesn't pay for something I also use (public libraries for example) - but so what? We pay tax and we may use some, all or none of the services provided - it's just part of the bargain with the state to create a civil society. Just because you've paid tax (greater or lesser) doesn't give you more or less access to services as a citizen.