Subsidising motorists

[kwackers]

CJ's suggestion on waiving stamp duty on homes bought within 5 miles of work seems a good incentive. Couple that to car taxes applied 100% to fuel use would be effective.

It requires no more than a few seconds thought to see why it isn't.

In my field of work for example there is NO job available within 5 miles. Specialisation applies to a fair few people. Of course I could work from home, or I could do what I do now and cycle the 14 miles. Not sure why I should pay more for an house when I'm prepared to cycle to work as opposed to someone who will drive the 5 miles in a truck.
What about when both people work? Suppose one works at the local shop stacking shelves and the other 20 miles away? What about part time?

However there is an alternative, what I'd do is set myself up as a 'employer' in the local industry, for a couple of months you pay me to work! (Lets say 30% of the stamp duty ).

[CREPELLO]

Okay Kwackers - I see what you mean. Any tax has to be workable for a start. Then it's got to attempt to be fair to some people - those who are causing the least damage.

Isn't 100% fuel tax the best way to go? With limited concessions/rebates for those defined as vulnerable. For those living in rural areas, a change over period could be allowed to ensure that those heavily dependent on car use could modify their behaviour ahead of the tax change over.

This is what government should be capable of doing, but as we saw with the housing benefit debacle, they seem to have no concept of planning. Certainly the words 'long' and 'term' must appear very unfamilier within government circles.

[irc]

Isn't 100% fuel tax the best way to go? With limited concessions/rebates for those defined as vulnerable. For those living in rural areas, a change over period could be allowed to ensure that those heavily dependent on car use could modify their behaviour ahead of the tax change over.

I'm not clear what you mean about 100% fuel tax. The tax on fuel is already over 100% of the cost of the fuel.

http://www.petrolprices.com/price-of-petrol.html

If you mean abolishing as many fixed taxes as possible, like excise duty, purchase duty on vehicles, insursance premium tax etc and placing an equivelent amount on fuel so that the use of a car is taxed more than the ownership of a car then I agree it is the way forward..

[Mark R]

What I would love to see happen is mass redevelopment of brownfield sites in UK cities into smart modern housing with no provision for car parking. I know the last government tried this and the result was cars all over the pavements, but let's be stricter this time and make it so there is no possiblity to own a car.
This would then provide an interesting experiment in free market economics. IMO the result would be either:

A, The housing is unpopular, there are not many takers as people are unwilling to be car-less, therefore the prices drop to the point there is a real financial incentive to car free living.

B, They would be very popular; people who dream of living in a community unblighted by the noise, danger and pollution from traffic, finally get their chance and the properties become relatively expensive.

Just a daydream of course, especially as the coalition plans to scrap the legislation limiting the provision of parking in new developments

[kwackers]

What I would love to see happen is mass redevelopment of brownfield sites in UK cities into smart modern housing with no provision for car parking. I know the last government tried this and the result was cars all over the pavements, but let's be stricter this time and make it so there is no possiblity to own a car.
This would then provide an interesting experiment in free market economics. IMO the result would be either:

A, The housing is unpopular, there are not many takers as people are unwilling to be car-less, therefore the prices drop to the point there is a real financial incentive to car free living.

B, They would be very popular; people who dream of living in a community unblighted by the noise, danger and pollution from traffic, finally get their chance and the properties become relatively expensive.

Just a daydream of course, especially as the coalition plans to scrap the legislation limiting to provision of parking in new developments

They'll just do what they did in "Chapelford Urban Village" project next to me, put in bicycle lanes that are the same width as a parked car...

[hubgearfreak]

My point is to apply it selectively rather than the 'anything goes' model used today. Governments should be using the mechanism of capitalism to fix the social problems rather than a means to an end.

that's great. shift the entire burden of tax away from purchases, incomes, inheritances, corporate profits, beer, cigs, and firmly collect it only from those activities & items that pollute or cause landfill. i'm all for environmental taxation. look at leaded petrol, no-one wanted to give it up, but make it 2p more and they switch in their droves. rely on altruism to reduce the number of carrier bags used, and you get limited success. in ireland they slap 10 eurocents tax onto each one and their use drops 97%.

given that people and business are very good at trying to save money, why not harvest that resource and tax pollution. you'll then see an enormous take-up of every green initiative going and a dramatic reduction in polllution and landfill.

that'd be using market forces to the advantage of the environment, but i do not think it'd be a free market nor an acknowledgement of the claim that capatilism can work

[reohn2]

Why is it that whenever we get into debates like this what becomes apparent (to me atleast) that the agenda (in this country)always seems to be skewed toward the profit of multinational companies and never in favour of the real needs and desires of people.

Because you're a socialist looking at a capitalists world?

Possibly!

The capitalists will argue (with some merit) that capitalism encourages growth and growth lifts everyone up.

There is a leettle truth in that,though not without pigs and troughs and gravytrains and some being more equal than others and............

Of course happiness isn't actually about what you have, it's about how you perceive where you fit and the problem with capitalism is that it allows a few to elevate themselves so high that the rest simply grub around in the dirt looking skywards and feeling miserable.

Thats more like the capitalism we know and love!

Personally I think the issue is actually a bit more complex.

Agreed!

Capitalism does indeed work, the problem is we apply it to everything and we shouldn't. Rather than the binary view we seem to have we should have a more enlightened view which by my way of thinking is capitalism used to prop up socialism.

China (sorry ,couldn't resist)

[Malaconotus]

*But somehow not let the taxi's/mini cabs become the default car-less travel option.

Actually, even that would be preferable to the status quo. In the US more land is occupied by parking than by roads. Parked cars are a blight second only to moving ones.

In the event of minicabs becoming the default car-free option, what would be needed, though, would be increased traffic policing and better regulation. There is too great an incentive for minicabs in particular to drive faster in order to get the next fare more quickly. The Hansom cabs here are generally driven OK, but the private hires are often among the worst on the road.

Any measure which made all costs of motoring marginal would be the greatest discouragement to unnecessary journeys. Fact is, once you've bought, taxed, and insured a car the marginal cost of use is almost always less than the bus or train fare.

When I got rid of my car I made a calculation of how many taxis I could afford with the savings, envisaged signing up to one of those car-share schemes (there's two cars 400 yards from my door), and thought I would hire a car whenever needed, while still saving thousands. In the event I have made five taxi journeys and rented a car for two days in total in seven months, largely because the purely marginal cost is so dissuasive.

Graham

[irc]

Of course happiness isn't actually about what you have, it's about how you perceive where you fit and the problem with capitalism is that it allows a few to elevate themselves so high that the rest simply grub around in the dirt looking skywards and feeling miserable.

Huge inaccurate generalisation there I'm afraid. As one of the "rest" it doesn't bother me one bit that a few people have huge wealth. As long as they pay their taxes (another debate I know).

As long as I have enough cash to meet my needs, which I do, then other things are more important than cash. I'd suggest the majority of people in this country have enough money for their needs. If seeing other people with more makes them unhappy that is their problem.

[irc]

What I would love to see happen is mass redevelopment of brownfield sites in UK cities into smart modern housing with no provision for car parking. I know the last government tried this and the result was cars all over the pavements, but let's be stricter this time and make it so there is no possiblity to own a car.
This would then provide an interesting experiment in free market economics. IMO the result would be either:

A, The housing is unpopular, there are not many takers as people are unwilling to be car-less, therefore the prices drop to the point there is a real financial incentive to car free living.

B, They would be very popular; people who dream of living in a community unblighted by the noise, danger and pollution from traffic, finally get their chance and the properties become relatively expensive.

Just a daydream of course, especially as the coalition plans to scrap the legislation limiting the provision of parking in new developments

Actually no need to wait for central govt. In inner Glasgow new housing developments often, perhaps always, get planning permission only on the understanding that the occupants will not be granted parking permits. Houses are still built and get sold. The parking is tightly regulated. Park on double yellows and you get ticketed and towed.

[reohn2]

Of course happiness isn't actually about what you have, it's about how you perceive where you fit and the problem with capitalism is that it allows a few to elevate themselves so high that the rest simply grub around in the dirt looking skywards and feeling miserable.

Huge inaccurate generalisation there I'm afraid. As one of the "rest" it doesn't bother me one bit that a few people have huge wealth. As long as they pay their taxes (another debate I know).

As long as I have enough cash to meet my needs, which I do, then other things are more important than cash. I'd suggest the majority of people in this country have enough money for their needs. If seeing other people with more makes them unhappy that is their problem.

Misquote there irc, It was Kwackers who made that statement not me.
PS I understand how it could have been posted though.

[kwackers]

Huge inaccurate generalisation there I'm afraid. As one of the "rest" it doesn't bother me one bit that a few people have huge wealth. As long as they pay their taxes (another debate I know).

In what way is it inaccurate? Numerous studies have been done over the years in an attempt to figure out what happiness is and invariably once you can eat and stay warm then it all comes down to where one perceives oneself. The evidence is of course mostly circumstantial and subjective but out of everything that has been put forward it's by far the one with the strongest correlation.

As long as I have enough cash to meet my needs, which I do, then other things are more important than cash. I'd suggest the majority of people in this country have enough money for their needs. If seeing other people with more makes them unhappy that is their problem.

Really? So your answer to an 'unhappy' society is "tough". Presumably if it turned out that the above is true and we could make people feel happier and more a part of society by the apparent elevation of their status then you wouldn't consider that of any importance? We personally shouldn't care whether our society is happy or not - that's to me seems to be the logical extrapolation of your statement.

[irc]

Huge inaccurate generalisation there I'm afraid. As one of the "rest" it doesn't bother me one bit that a few people have huge wealth. As long as they pay their taxes (another debate I know).

In what way is it inaccurate? Numerous studies have been done over the years in an attempt to figure out what happiness is and invariably once you can eat and stay warm then it all comes down to where one perceives oneself. The evidence is of course mostly circumstantial and subjective but out of everything that has been put forward it's by far the one with the strongest correlation.

It's not accurate because by saying the rest you suggest everyone outside the high earning group is unhappy. They are not.

As long as I have enough cash to meet my needs, which I do, then other things are more important than cash. I'd suggest the majority of people in this country have enough money for their needs. If seeing other people with more makes them unhappy that is their problem.

Really? So your answer to an 'unhappy' society is "tough". Presumably if it turned out that the above is true and we could make people feel happier and more a part of society by the apparent elevation of their status then you wouldn't consider that of any importance? We personally shouldn't care whether our society is happy or not - that's to me seems to be the logical extrapolation of your statement.

Your argument would imply that if the majority of the population earned (for example) £100'000 a year power they would be still unhappy if this left them below average earnings. I think that is their problem. If your happiness depends on perceiving yourself as wealthier or in some other way better or of higher status than the average of the population that is a character flaw IMO.

My answer to an unhappy society would be firstly everyone having a decent income. This doesn't mean everyone earning the same amount. Once that threshold has been met though happiness lies elsewhere. I don't need to think of myself as high statuis to be happy. In any case how do you define status. I don't think anyone is better than me because they earn more or are in a powerful job. I don't see them as having higher status as I work on the basis that I am equal to everyone else.

[kwackers]

It's not accurate because by saying the rest you suggest everyone outside the high earning group is unhappy. They are not.

Errr - except that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about society as a whole not individuals.

Your argument would imply that if the majority of the population earned (for example) £100'000 a year power they would be still unhappy if this left them below average earnings. I think that is their problem. If your happiness depends on perceiving yourself as wealthier or in some other way better or of higher status than the average of the population that is a character flaw IMO.

It's not about being below average, it's about feeling powerless. We live in a society where money is valued above all else and people with lots of it have much power. At the bottom of the food chain we have an entire section of society that basically has no say whatsoever, why do you expect them to be happy?

In any case how do you define status. I don't think anyone is better than me because they earn more or are in a powerful job. I don't see them as having higher status as I work on the basis that I am equal to everyone else.

Status is easy to define, it's simply how other people see you.
In your case you're obviously delusional. Your local councillor is higher up the pecking order than you, he can do with a few words what it would take you months of hard work to achieve - if ever. Pitted against him and with all other things being equal he'd win. Any rich folk that live in your locality will have the ears of those that make decisions.
Being a cyclist you should be well aware of status, fundamentally whilst on a bike you have none. Road planners take no note and motorists can kill you for a pocket money fine. This lack of status is why a lot of cyclists are unhappy with their lot and prone to shout loudly (even if no one yet hears). It's also the reason why it's good that people like Boris cycle, he may not be very high in the social stakes but he's a damn sight higher than most of us.

In the west money and status go hand in hand, being social creatures means we're well aware of our social standing and in this society most are well aware that they barely register and that a lack of status means no voice and having no voice is what makes people unhappy, once you feel you have no control over your life it's hard to feel any other way.

[TheBrick]

In that case we should just make one big city and move everyone into it. The above is a self fulfilling "London is everything -> expensive -> everything..."
If companies were more spread out then the workforce could follow suit, this would mean that land prices would become more standard and make moving around less difficult (yes there is always the stress of moiving, esp with kids).
Of course if we also reopened local railways (even as automated DLR style lines) then you could reasonably commute a decent distance (40-50 miles covers alot of the country)

Please don't twist what I said.That was not what I said. I said that industries settled in London will be likely to stay in London and that other areas of the economy need developed and for the to be based in other cities.