Subsidising motorists

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby meic » 24 Jan 2011, 8:21pm

A motorist is subsidised for being a motorist.
The fact that a rich person pays more tax into the system doesnt mean they are not getting the subsidies as a motorist. It is just that those subsidies are not as great as their tax bill.
That is a function of being rich not of being a motorist.

They only pay more tax because they grab a bigger slice of the pie in the first place, which is all an argument about capitalists and marxists and a total RED HERRING to this debate.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 24 Jan 2011, 8:27pm

Edwards wrote: think where we differ in this is I am prepared to accept that there are economic and social benefits are very hard to put a value on.


not at all. there are benefits, but these are to the motorists and the companies that employ drivers. if they pay their dues to recompense society for the burdens that they impose, they still get their benefits, but at less cost to those that don't

Edwards wrote:Also that the actual cost to society is also next to impossible to calculate.

impossible to get right, but merely challenging to get an estimate of. the external costs aren't zero, they're considerable. a figure could be arrived at that's fairer to all. as i said up-post, read one of those books by field or pearce and you'll see that it really is possible

Edwards wrote:If somebody does not commute at times of congestion and uses a motor vehicle sparingly

that's me. moderate users would be hit a bit, or not at all depending upon their use, but not be hit hard. none users would benefit from lower taxes or better services. heavy users of finite resources, heavy producers of pollution and congestion would pay more, but that's only fair

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 24 Jan 2011, 8:43pm

I sometimes need to take my elderly father in law to the doctors or the hospital. These are non profit activities that I as a motorist do along with many others. This is something that has a benefit to society and I feel sure many other examples of this type of vehicle use can be shown. How should these things be counted in the cost.

The argument about companies making a profit could be taken as a need of privatisation of transport companies who deliver basic food stuffs, medical supplies and the other basics of life. I do not believe this is a solution to the way the road system and society in general. I also have no idea how this would be costed by society.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Cunobelin » 24 Jan 2011, 8:47pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
Edwards wrote:Unfortunately the society we live in needs the motorist.


that's probably true. i'm just calling for them (us) to contribute to society an amount for their currently externalised costs



Do we?

We may "need" a few of them to deliver food or essentials, but we do not need the majority of them!

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby meic » 24 Jan 2011, 8:52pm

Yes most of my time in the car is visiting my elderly, infirm parents. However if we didnt have the car, either we or they would have to move house.
Or maybe we would not all live in different places.

It was all made attractive by the cheap fuel that we now claim that we need to keep living the way that it caused us to live.
It will stop sometime and it would be better if we were in control of how the fuel is used rather than it being squandered as it is by a lot of people now.

I would be happy for the price of fuel to double and I would still look after my parents because I deem that to be necessary. Other lesser journeys would not be so attractive any more.
Yma o Hyd

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 24 Jan 2011, 8:53pm

I know someone who drives to work in 15 mins and by bus could take about 1hr 45 to 2 hrs.
they save about 3 hrs per day.
ps the bus would also cost about £25 per week
yes to below, small car
Last edited by Steady rider on 24 Jan 2011, 8:57pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby meic » 24 Jan 2011, 8:56pm

Or an hour and a half compared to using a bike.

So assuming this means they need to own a car for this journey, did they buy a Smart car or similar that does 70+mpg?
I doubt it, why? Because fuel is too cheap.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 24 Jan 2011, 9:07pm

Edwards wrote:This is something that has a benefit to society and I feel sure many other examples of this type of vehicle use can be shown. How should these things be counted in the cost.


it has a benefit to you/your family. it has a cost to society as you're making pollution when you do it.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 24 Jan 2011, 9:12pm

Steady rider wrote:I know someone who drives to work in 15 mins and by bus could take about 1hr 45 to 2 hrs.


yes, but like in meic's example of visiting his parents, it's only do-able because he has a car and cheap oil. when the cheap oil's gone, he won't be able to. in the mean time, we all suffer the pollution and danger and nuisance of that journey, with little compansation for suffering it. all i'm calling for is that he pays for his external costs. if that means that he needs a job a sustainable distance from home, or a home a sustainable distance from work, then so be it.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18064
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby [XAP]Bob » 24 Jan 2011, 11:48pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
Steady rider wrote:I know someone who drives to work in 15 mins and by bus could take about 1hr 45 to 2 hrs.


yes, but like in meic's example of visiting his parents, it's only do-able because he has a car and cheap oil. when the cheap oil's gone, he won't be able to. in the mean time, we all suffer the pollution and danger and nuisance of that journey, with little compansation for suffering it. all i'm calling for is that he pays for his external costs. if that means that he needs a job a sustainable distance from home, or a home a sustainable distance from work, then so be it.

Or a bike, a 15minute journey by car would take (at worst) 45 mins by bike (assuming it doesn't end at a motorway services or similar.

Most journeys that short would be comparable (time wise)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Malaconotus
Posts: 1846
Joined: 30 Jul 2010, 11:31pm
Location: Chapel Allerton, Leeds
Contact:

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Malaconotus » 25 Jan 2011, 12:01am

snibgo wrote:
irc wrote:So as the vast majority, around 2/3, of car free households are in the two lowest income quintiles which are not net contributers to the tax and benefits system I think it's fair to say that car owning households are not subsidised.

What is your source for the two lowest income quintiles (ie lowest 40% of income households) not being net contributors to the tax and benefits system?

I ask because I doubt that it is true, but I'm happy to be corrected.


I'm sure it's true. In fact my understanding is that unless you are in the top 10% you are most likely to be a net beneficiary although this is hard to measure depending on how you factor the benefits of spending on health, education, defence etc. I was very surprised to learn that but I guess it demonstrates just how rich the very rich are now. I'll try and dig out some references for it.

Graham

EDIT:

This BBC article says only top 30% are net contributors, depending how you measure it... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm
Govt stats on redistribution... http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=334
Discussion here... http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... stcount=45 (don't bother with the rest of the thread, that's the only intelligent post)

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 25 Jan 2011, 4:39am

hubgearfreak wrote:it has a benefit to you/your family. it has a cost to society as you're making pollution when you do it


In the example I gave about looking after elderly relatives and other persons. The carer is saving society a lot of money enabling some people to stay in their own home. I dread to think of the extra pollution of some of the care homes.
So not just a benefit to family but a benefit to society as a whole.

Unfortunately the modern workforce is required to be mobile at times needed by other people. This mobility comes at a price.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 25 Jan 2011, 5:15am

meic wrote:I doubt it, why? Because fuel is too cheap


If a comparison is made to the rest of the western word including North America is the road fuel in this country that cheap?

Suppose fuel was increased in this country by ten times would the rest of the world follow this suit. Alternatively would they carry on and leave us to our mass unemployment and people starving as the cost of basic food has gone that high some can not afford to buy the basics of life.

The rich and company car drivers will not worry as they just pass the cost down as is done in any capitalist society. The people at the bottom pay the most as a percentage of their income.
The last time I heard about fuel cost being used to remove other vehicles from the road was from Clarkson so that the peasants were not in his way.

Interestingly I heard on the radio about a modern form of fuel rationing. Basically every person is allocated a fixed allowance, those that do not use up all of theirs can then sell on the unused part to the highest bidder at a price they want.
Do you honestly believe this government would introduce such a system or would this loose the competive edge of the country in relation to others. Leading to more job losses.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

kwackers
Posts: 15452
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby kwackers » 25 Jan 2011, 8:50am

The price of fuel is a moot point, I'm firmly of the opinion that the end of cheap fuel and motoring is upon us. Anyone not planning their future around this has only themselves to blame when it all goes pear shaped ten(?) years down the line.

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 25 Jan 2011, 8:58am

kwackers wrote:The price of fuel is a moot point, I'm firmly of the opinion that the end of cheap fuel and motoring is upon us. Anyone not planning their future around this has only themselves to blame when it all goes pear shaped ten(?) years down the line.


How very true so the best thing to do is not get, poor sick elderly or infirm in the meantime. :wink:
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar