Discussion
Another tax scam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_...
Robert Aldridge, Edinburgh City Council's environment leader, said: "There is a national acceptance that more needs to be done to influence the vehicle choices that people make.
I emailed him to ask for proof there was a national acceptance that more needs to be done but still waiting for a reply.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_...
Robert Aldridge, Edinburgh City Council's environment leader, said: "There is a national acceptance that more needs to be done to influence the vehicle choices that people make.
I emailed him to ask for proof there was a national acceptance that more needs to be done but still waiting for a reply.
It's already gone this way for my local council... Richmond Upon Thames. How they can charge parking prices based on the pollution a car makes when its not actually parked is beyond me. It's utter madness.
I'd be more in favour of it done on vehicle length, because the guy with the Bentley takes up the space for 2 Corsas, or 3 Smart cars. But local councils have never been known for their common sense.
I'd be more in favour of it done on vehicle length, because the guy with the Bentley takes up the space for 2 Corsas, or 3 Smart cars. But local councils have never been known for their common sense.
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/transport_and_stre...
Also, it's worth noting how the CO2 emissions fail to match up with the engine size banding they use for older cars. If my car was 2 months older, instead of paying +10% £ for a 156g/km car, I'd be paying -30% £ for owning a 1.2 car!
I have already written to my local council about this and they palmed it off ignoring my original points.
Also, it's worth noting how the CO2 emissions fail to match up with the engine size banding they use for older cars. If my car was 2 months older, instead of paying +10% £ for a 156g/km car, I'd be paying -30% £ for owning a 1.2 car!
I have already written to my local council about this and they palmed it off ignoring my original points.
renrut said:
I suspect you'll be waiting a long time. Unless you accept the 'proof' being him and maybe his pet goldfish.
So much for the idea of a 'free country'...
He replied. and this is what he said.So much for the idea of a 'free country'...
Thank you for your e-mail. As you may be aware the proposal referred to in the press article relates to a report which will be discussed at a Council Committee meeting on Tuesday. No final decisions have been taken.
I believe you are in a very small minority if you do not accept that global warming and climate change are serious issues which are affecting our planet and require to be addressed. There is overhelming support amongst the world's scientists that the planet is heating up and that this is being partly caused - and at the very least made substantially worse - by our human behaviour.
I do not know whether you read the report to which the press comment refers in detail. Far from being, as you put it, 'a tax raising scam' the proposal in the council paper would actually result in less revenue being raised, in many drivers seeing a reduction in their parking fees and in total 80% of those affected either having a reduction in fees or being no worse off.
Whether you agree with it or not, the government's proposals on VED are a demonstration that at government level there is also a recognition of the contribution pollution for emissions from car exhausts makes to global warming.
In effect the proposal in the report (which is up for debate and discussion and may or may not be accepted) is not as you put it 'charging more to park a car'. In the vast majority of cases it is either charging the same amount or less to park a car which pollutes less (i.e. an incentive towards choices which pollute less).
Your comments about the pollution caused by air travel have some validity, but tackling these issues does not fall within the power of the local authority. It can only be done at central government level.
The decision on how our group and the council will react to the proposals in the report will be taken at the Committee meeting on Tuesday.
The fact that they claim "most people will pay less" is utter s
te.
Without anyone making commentary on my car (which I already know is rubbish) you'd think a 2001 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 would be in for a reduction over the standard parking rate. However, at 156g/km, it actually pays more than the old 6-cylinder Volvo it's parked next to, and the V6 Lexus hybrid. Anyone who owns a car from the early 2000's will find they are screwed over.
I am all for reducing pollution (for quality of life reasons as much as "climate change") ... see my previous posts... but this is not the way to go about it. It's a flawed idea and a flawed system.
te.Without anyone making commentary on my car (which I already know is rubbish) you'd think a 2001 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 would be in for a reduction over the standard parking rate. However, at 156g/km, it actually pays more than the old 6-cylinder Volvo it's parked next to, and the V6 Lexus hybrid. Anyone who owns a car from the early 2000's will find they are screwed over.
I am all for reducing pollution (for quality of life reasons as much as "climate change") ... see my previous posts... but this is not the way to go about it. It's a flawed idea and a flawed system.
I wrote to him, my local Mp and councilor last week. I'm a local community councilor myself and got a response back from all three.
Robert Aldridge ignored most of my comments and points, seems to have made up his mind in my opinion.
There will now be a consultaion period due to the objections I believe and as I caught my MP the day before his holiday he'll pseak with me again on his return.
The fundemental flaw - a car cannot pollute while parked. And no reference in any of this green tax agenda takes into account mileage. I do around 500 miles a month in my "polluting" Z4M while my partners Yaris 1.3 "green" car is used for 20,000 miles, polluting more than mine. It makes no sense and is a tax on those who can afford to pay....
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/greenstealth/
Robert Aldridge ignored most of my comments and points, seems to have made up his mind in my opinion.
There will now be a consultaion period due to the objections I believe and as I caught my MP the day before his holiday he'll pseak with me again on his return.
The fundemental flaw - a car cannot pollute while parked. And no reference in any of this green tax agenda takes into account mileage. I do around 500 miles a month in my "polluting" Z4M while my partners Yaris 1.3 "green" car is used for 20,000 miles, polluting more than mine. It makes no sense and is a tax on those who can afford to pay....
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/greenstealth/
On the contrary it seems to me to make a lot of sense and what’s wrong with those who can afford to pay, paying tax?
Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
Robert Aldridge does seem to be a bit ignorant if you disagree with what he says. he still hadn't answered last night with proof of his national acceptance rubbish so i emailed him again but so far nothing. When and where does he hold surgeries as i would like to go and ask him to his face.
herewego said:
On the contrary it seems to me to make a lot of sense and what’s wrong with those who can afford to pay, paying tax?
Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
Tax, where to begin, what's wrong is how it's spent. What is so difficult to understand about a non working car not polluting? Of course that's relevant, other wise we had better start taxing cars that are in museums.Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
DWP said:
herewego said:
On the contrary it seems to me to make a lot of sense and what’s wrong with those who can afford to pay, paying tax?
Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
Tax, where to begin, what's wrong is how it's spent. What is so difficult to understand about a non working car not polluting? Of course that's relevant, other wise we had better start taxing cars that are in museums.Presumably your partner has good reason to do those miles so it’s good they are done in a low consumption car, which is exactly the point of the variation in parking charge: to encourage those who need or want a car to use a low consumption one. This is a very simple straightforward idea and the fact that it doesn’t pollute while parked is not relevant.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff