What taxes on other people would you support?

mwpt

cells wrote: »

If I take up cycling will I earn more? No

If the nation takes up cycling and gets rid of their cars how would the government fund the lost ?£40B? tax? well it can only do.so by taxing its citizens and since we've all just become.cyclists the cyclists will have to pay.

Same argument applies for EVs. They currently don't pay their share. If we all switch from oil to electric there will need to be a corresponding tax on EV owners equal to that lost tax on the oil car owners.

There are a lot of people who don't "pay their share". As I said earlier in this thread, taxes are not just a wealth collection and redistribution scheme, they are also used as disincentives.

lisyloo

cells wrote: »

their slower speed means they also take more time on the roads

Untrue in central London.
It's less time on the roads if you cycle -my commute is 20 mins cycling lint and 1hour by bus (which may be quicker than car due to bus lanes).
As already stated I don't hold up any cars as I'm on the cycle superhighway although it has taken out 1 lane.

Mistermeaner

I have a mountain bike so don't need roads. Get rid of cars pls and also roads. Money saved

kinger101

cells wrote: »

Oh its very possible to judge. The car industry and its links pay in the region of £40 billion a year in taxes. Those who cycle avoid that cost but its a cost to society.

The fair thing to donwould be to tax cyclists who use their bike for transport approximately £1,300 per year in a licence tax.

Or to think of of another way. Introduce a terrestrial transport tax of £1,300 per year per vehicle and apply it to cars and bicycles. Get rid of all the car fuel tax car VAT tax car insurance tax etc etc as the £1,300 replaces them.

How many people who cycle would go back to cars of they had to pay their share of £1,300 per year?


You may still think What The Hell?. Of all car users moved to bicycles the government would need to find a way to add and collect an additional ~£1,300 per household so its true

This is about the most preposterous argument I've heard. By your reasoning, all those non-smokers are costing the government too. We should tax them as well. And what about all those people who don't fly. We should ask them to cough-up an extra £200 a year for the loss in air passenger duty.

Cyclists and motorists are not exclusive groups BTW.

westernpromise

kinger101 wrote: »

This is about the most preposterous argument I've heard. By your reasoning, all those non-smokers are costing the government too. We should tax them as well. .

You're being a bit obtuse - it is quite clear that as smokers pay more tax than they cost, then if smoking ended, other people's taxes would have to go up.

In the same way, cycling is only virtuous provided you accept that every inch of road space they use is funded by others and if you overlook most of the costs, most notably the disproportionate amount of road space they waste.

TFL's own stats show that road speeds have fallen as cycle and bus journeys have increased. If you worked out the cost to the economy of that you would be taking them off the road, not giving them a free ride by letting them use the roads anonymously and at no cost on illegal and unroadworthy vehicles that are routinely driven in ways that would get a driver arrested.

Cyclists are way out in front of all others on my list of other people who need to be taxed hard.

Also lawnmowers. They make a noise on nice days.

custardy

westernpromise wrote: »

A common theme on this board is that other people are greedy and don't deserve their prosperity, so should be taxed and the money given to me. So we regularly see demands for CGT on houses, for higher taxes on landlords, for land value taxes, and so forth, dressed up piously as concern for da yoof, usually.

In that spirit, what taxes on other people do you feel there should be?

I think there should be taxes on cyclists,who pay nothing now and who are in effect subsidised by people who cannot cycle. I'd like a tax on other people's swimming pools, with the money raised used to fund swimming pools for poor people. I'd like a tax on other people's conservatories, with the money used to build conservatories for da kids.

There should be a tax on BMWs and Audis as these are selfish cars driven by people I dislike. There should be extra taxes on 2-seater cars as these are bad for the environment and are in effect being subsidised by hard working families.

There should be a tax on state sector final salary pensions as I haven't got one. There should be a tax on being Scottish.

All these are fair, moral, good for the kids and in no way driven by personal spite, envy or malice.

What else needs taxing?

What are you taxing the cyclists for?
I assume you will eradicate £0 VED cars alongside this?

custardy

westernpromise wrote: »

You're being a bit obtuse - it is quite clear that as smokers pay more tax than they cost, then if smoking ended, other people's taxes would have to go up.

In the same way, cycling is only virtuous provided you accept that every inch of road space they use is funded by others and if you overlook most of the costs, most notably the disproportionate amount of road space they waste.

TFL's own stats show that road speeds have fallen as cycle and bus journeys have increased. If you worked out the cost to the economy of that you would be taking them off the road, not giving them a free ride by letting them use the roads anonymously and at no cost on illegal and unroadworthy vehicles that are routinely driven in ways that would get a driver arrested.

Cyclists are way out in front of all others on my list of other people who need to be taxed hard.

Also lawnmowers. They make a noise on nice days.

Do the cyclists get a car VED reduction alongside this tax?

singhini

The more tax you pay the more money your giving the government to waste (governments are so inefficient with other peoples money).


personally its not what more we can tax but what we should stop taxing because its immoral i.e. inheritance tax is immoral, stamp duty on houses is another (why should the government get money because you need to move into a bigger house to accommodate your little old granny).


Infact get rid of the NHS, get rid of NI and issue people a bond to get their pensions, infact get rid of all these rag-bag benefits and replace them with a single negative income tax rate and the politicians should focus on getting people jobs.


Too much government involvement is a bad thing.


Vote me for king (I would dissolve parliament and chop all the politicians heads off and stick them outside traitors gate and then proceed to create the worlds biggest empire thought warfare thus ending my days as supreme ruler of the human race!).


PS - Tax people for talking nonsense

kinger101

westernpromise wrote: »

You're being a bit obtuse - it is quite clear that as smokers pay more tax than they cost, then if smoking ended, other people's taxes would have to go up.

In the same way, cycling is only virtuous provided you accept that every inch of road space they use is funded by others and if you overlook most of the costs, most notably the disproportionate amount of road space they waste.

TFL's own stats show that road speeds have fallen as cycle and bus journeys have increased. If you worked out the cost to the economy of that you would be taking them off the road, not giving them a free ride by letting them use the roads anonymously and at no cost on illegal and unroadworthy vehicles that are routinely driven in ways that would get a driver arrested.

Cyclists are way out in front of all others on my list of other people who need to be taxed hard.

Also lawnmowers. They make a noise on nice days.

I think I might accuse you of doing the same. There is no tax hypothecation in the UK. There's certainly no tax that is levied partly or solely for the purpose of proving roads. There's a sum of money the government needs to raise. Some of the taxes are related to income and expenditure. Some are related to encouraging or discouraging particular activities. There are very few private motorists paying anywhere near the £1,300 per annum cells suggested.

As for your gripe about their road behaviour, there are bad cyclists and bad motorists.

Chickereeeee

fafafafafafasadsong wrote: »

AIUI in both the UK and Australia cyclists earn more than motorists on average. As a result it is highly likely that cyclists both pay more towards roads than drivers and cause less wear.

On the other side of the ledger cyclists sometimes hold up drivers from joining the traffic jam in front for as much as 20 seconds.

Damn those people. Damn them to heck.

If everybody cycled, there would be:
- Less wear on roads
- A need for fewer roads than there are now (never mind building more)
- Less polution (causing environmental damage)
- Less sickness due to polution (and NHS costs)
- Heathlier poulation (reduces NHS costs)
- Less land taken up with carparks
- Fewer major accidents
- Less waste (eg tyre mountains) and associated costs
- Less need to ship fuel around the world (see environmental damage
- Arguably fewer wars in the Middle East that cost us £
etc

It probably adds up that people should be PAID to cycle...

C