Drivers may need to pay £288pa tax to park car at work

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Read somewhere that the trouble is that Government discretionary spend -the money it does pay for our services is steady/falling. The amount spent on "benefits" is the bit that is out of control and they can, in reality , do little about in a civilised society. Thus services get worse.

That's exactly it. People live longer, retirements and educational periods have increased and there is much more medical care. Whether you blame them personally or not, people currently in their 50s, 60s, 70s & 80s on average vastly underfinanced the benefits they will receive. They voted for governments that did not build up the assets to provide the care and pensions they would require and the shortfall has been landed on those that follow. We are currently continuing to do the same thing (to a lesser extent) for the next generations.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

That's exactly it. People live longer, retirements and educational periods have increased and there is much more medical care. Whether you blame them personally or not, people currently in their 50s, 60s, 70s & 80s on average vastly underfinanced the benefits they will receive. They voted for governments that did not build up the assets to provide the care and pensions they would require and the shortfall has been landed on those that follow.

We are currently continuing to do the same thing (to a lesser extent) for the next generations.

The trouble is they didn't conciously do it. They were pedalled duff information by politicians and those in the know.

I am sure that had politicians and those in the know then, been open and honest, in the 70s and early 80s, about where they saw the UK going we wouldn't be in the 541T we are in today.

Instead they kept puffing up the economy, selling off our assets and overseeing the demise of our industrial base and agriculture. They (Governments) were heady on the success of the yuppies and then the bankers. Easy money that you didn't have to get your hands (physically) dirty for.

Allowing us to mortgage ourselves silly, allowing house values to spiral, so we would borrow again and again. Living off tomorrow today time and again.

It isn't just the old and healthcare/pensions it is also the cost of keeping swathes of people unemployed, and growing. They don't have surplus money for real consumption just basics. Many of those that are employed don't contribute anything to the pot they just recycle the pot.

We can't blame earlier generations they weren't informed as wea re today. They certainly didn't have access to the kind of open debate and sharing of knowledge through the interweb etc. that we have.

heathcote123

N1AK wrote: »

They're delighted when other people's benefits are cut. That's why you've got pensioners complaining about losing their own tax allowances, higher tax payers moaning about losing child benefit etc. It's why you get people complaining about fortnightly bin collections and then complaining about council tax back to back. It's NIMBYs who don't want new houses in their village but whinge about their kids not be able to afford to buy a house there.
.

Not everyone works on your own standards.

System

There will probably be arguments over exactly what "providing a parking place" means. If an employer simply has an open courtyard with no spaces marked, and makes no attempt to stop employees from parking there, then they are arguably not providing a parking place.

pineapple

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It is levied on the employer not the employee.

But what right have they, anyway, to impose this tax? Presumably employers pay business rates anyway? I'm amazed it's legal. And what if the employer rents premises with parking and already pays a premium for this facility? Seriously they'll be charging us to picnic in our own gardens next.
I'm thinking of my last employer, a charity, which already paid below the national average for similar work. Such were the parking charges in the town, staff had to spend valuable time coasting around looking for the few free onstreet parking spots - a hefty walk from the offices too.
If they had been fortunate enough to have their own parking, in this scenario they would have had to pass on the costs. Though only the senior staff would have been able to afford it.
If everyone decides they can't afford it, the employer presumably loses money as it can't recoup it. Just what we need in a recession heh? Meanwhile, congestion on the streets increases. Nice one

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The trouble is they didn't conciously do it. They were pedalled duff information by politicians and those in the know.

I am sure that had politicians and those in the know then, been open and honest, in the 70s and early 80s, about where they saw the UK going we wouldn't be in the 541T we are in today.

Instead they kept puffing up the economy, selling off our assets and overseeing the demise of our industrial base and agriculture. They (Governments) were heady on the success of the yuppies and then the bankers. Easy money that you didn't have to get your hands (physically) dirty for.

Allowing us to mortgage ourselves silly, allowing house values to spiral, so we would borrow again and again. Living off tomorrow today time and again.

It isn't just the old and healthcare/pensions it is also the cost of keeping swathes of people unemployed, and growing. They don't have surplus money for real consumption just basics. Many of those that are employed don't contribute anything to the pot they just recycle the pot.

We can't blame earlier generations they weren't informed as wea re today. They certainly didn't have access to the kind of open debate and sharing of knowledge through the interweb etc. that we have.

I'm not so sure. Much like animals evolve via natural selection so do organisations. A politician that tells the public what they want to hear thrives; most who share unpopular truths are removed like a weed.

30 years ago we had all the information you would have needed to predict how lifespans would change with results effectively the same as today. 30 years ago you could extrapolate health spending, income increases, pension requirements etc and see that these were not being funded.

It is tempting to try and assign all the blame to the government of the time and say they got it wrong but I think that is a mistake. If it was then why should the people who didn't vote the governments of the 60s-80s be required to honour the agreements that they made?

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Much like animals evolve via natural selection so do organisations. A politician that tells the public what they want to hear thrives; most who share unpopular truths are removed like a weed.

The majority of politicians are in it for their own gain they have little interest in being open. Whether that be a for cushy basic living or for greed and or power. Politicians that tell the public the "truth" are usually weeded out by their peers rather than the electorate. It is the same in big business.

30 years ago we had all the information you would have needed to predict how lifespans would change with results effectively the same as today. 30 years ago you could extrapolate health spending, income increases, pension requirements etc and see that these were not being funded.

That may well have been the case for a relative few academics, economists and a few in the inner sanctum of Governments. It certainly wasn't in open debate the way it is today

It is tempting to try and assign all the blame to the government of the time and say they got it wrong but I think that is a mistake. If it was then why should the people who didn't vote the governments of the 60s-80s be required to honour the agreements that they made?

The same could have been said for the generation that paid of the War Debt from the second world war.

The problem is the vast majority of voters don't really understand what they are voting for at any given point in the cycle.

In the same way as a number of voters for the current coalition have got different policies being enacted from those in (or not in) their manifestos.

There is little long term planning and extrapolation of the long term impacts. It is often knee jerk reaction using a broad brush approach.

In the same way that they have presided over the decimation of Pensions (in all sectors) they are now coming up with new ways to get people to commit to their future and wonder why nobody trusts them.

There are many in this country who have been personally provident over decades, who did nothing to fuel the bubble, who are being penalised hand over fist to sort out the current mess, (QE, low interest rates, devaluation of sterling, high inflation) why should they pay for the mistakes either?

grizzly1911

pineapple wrote: »

But what right have they, anyway, to impose this tax? Presumably employers pay business rates anyway? I'm amazed it's legal.

By supposedly hypethocating it for use for "improved" transport they are hoping they will get more sympathy/acceptance.

Yes it is an extra tax just as car park "charges" on council owned car parks are a tax.

Business Rates and Council Tax are just tax.

As the Governement/HMRC is allowing them to proceed they are condoning the action whether it is legal or not. No doubt appropriate legislation would be retrospectively enacted to make it legal if it isn't.

In the same way that NI is tax.

By splitting into bits and giving it different names, they hope we won't notice;)

System

pineapple wrote: »

But what right have they, anyway, to impose this tax?

The Transport Act 2000 gives them the right (a present from Tony Blair)

buglawton

So, this tax is not going to be 'revenue-neutral'?
That is, local authorities will not be reducing business rates to balance the new income from parking levies?
I assume not.

I can think of towns with empty office buildings and there's bags of unused office parking available too. Those authorities that want to tempt more businesses into their area can now underbid the others, by offering a 'no parking levy' policy. Sounds very business friendly too.