Jump to content

Talk:Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dartford Crossing

[edit]

This section needs updating because the toll booths mentioned are long gone with a ANPR system now in place. The quese sadly remain! Sorry, I donlt have the details to do this edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.204.152 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued interpretation parking fines as taxes

[edit]

This section has appeared in Wikipedia a number of times and continues to be inserted by editor User:DeFacto. I am seeking the permanent removal of this disruptive section and similar material pushing the POV of the Association of British Drivers and others fringe "motorist" groups, which already have articles.

The section in particular is biased as it

  • Assumes that a parking fine is a Tax.
  • Speculates about a proposal to remove ring-fencing of parking fine revenue
  • Selectively uses the City of Westminster that has a high level of fines
  • Does not state the expenses involved in collecting the fines (which often exceed the revenue and London wide are about 50% of what is collected) or the level of bad debts written off.

Softgrow 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-section on decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) is new to this article. In what way is this section disruptive? It is factual and accurate with appropriate citations. It is not pushing the POV of the Association of British Drivers (ABD), it is presenting DPE as a de facto tax, given that many councils make money from it for other things what other word is more appropriate. The ABD may well agree with that fact but that does not affect its validity.
Now to each of your specific points:
  • It presents DPE in the section Other fees and charges. DPE is not only concerned with penalties (a High Court Judge ruled that they were not "fines" but "civil responsibilities" [1]), but also with charging for on-street parking, and also with making a profit to fund other, non-parking specific, council projects.
  • It is not speculation. The removal of ring-fencing has already started for 'Excellent' Council's such as Kensington and Chelsea who state [2]:

As we are an ‘Excellent’ Council, our income from parking is no longer ring-fenced and therefore now enters the Council's general budget.

  • Why not pick a good example to illustrate a point. I could have picked Kensigton and Chelsea with income from on-street parking of £39m in 2004/5[3].
  • I don't state the expenses involved in collecting any of the taxes or charges in any of the sections, why should this charge be treated differently. Westminster accounts show an on-street parking surplus of £32m for 2004/5 after an expenditure of £40m. The Kensington and Chelsea surplus was £24m after an expenditure of £15m. Those surpluses go towards providing services which would otherwise not be provided, or would involve higher council tax rates. Equally there are 'bad debts' for all revenue sources, why single this one out for special treatment.
This article is about the collection of revenue not how it is spent, and with DPE providing large net revenues for an increasing number of councils it is certainly on-topic and relevant here.
- de Facto (talk). 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, this article is about collection of taxes. Other forms or revenue don't belong here, no matter how big they are. Not all forms of public revenue are taxes.
Also, you seem to forget in your argument that parking spaces aren't free. An operational profit does not equal an overall profit. Parking spaces are prime real estate and their capital costs are huge. If a parking space was sold into private ownership it would fetch over £200,000 in some parts of Kensington and Chelsea. It can be assumed that a private parking space owner would also try to sue "tresspassers" who use it without paying, so why shouldn't a public owner do the same? The fact that government is trying to make money out of its assets isn't the same as a tax. Otherwise interest collected on foreign loans, investment of public pensions, etc. would also be called "taxation". Cambrasa (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either we should change the name of this article to "Motoring fees in the United Kingdom" or remove/move the parking fine section. If nobody objects, I will do the latter. Cambrasa confab 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "parking fine" section to remove. Perhaps you are confusing the section about the powers given to local authorities, known as decriminalised parking enforcement, which allow them to raise huge amounts of revenue from the imposition of parking taxes and their enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, whatever... whether it's called fee or enforcement, it's still not a tax because it's a voluntary exchange. I've deleted the section and merged it with Decriminalised parking enforcement. Next time you re-introduce it, DeFacto, make sure you cite a neutral, reliable source that explains why parking fees/fines are "taxes". So far, you're the only person making this claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Cambrasa confab 08:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your objection is to the inclusion of this section. A tax is a tax. Most taxes could be called "voluntary". You only pay income tax if you choose to earn an income, council tax only applies if you live in a property. Parking tax is only payable if you choose to park your car where a tax is levied - but it is still a tax. Do you want a reference in the article for the definition of the word tax? -- de Facto (talk). 09:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxes are not voluntary exchanges. Paying a tax does not entitle you to get something in return (or at least not more than all other citizens, whether they pay taxes or not). When a land owner charges a motorist to use his land, that is not a tax, that is a transaction. It makes no difference if the land owner is private person, a corporation (like a parking garage) or the government (public parking). It also makes no difference what the land owner chooses to spend his profits on. An exchage is an exchange. Parking fines aren't taxes either. They are a from of compensation paid by trespassers who infringe the land owner's property rights.
You have unilaterally reverted this for the third time, whithout providing any sources that claim a parking fine is a tax, except for your own flawed definition of the word "tax" as "money earned by government". You have gone against the view of two other editors. I will not change it back anymore, except for inserting the more neutral word "fee". But I will start an RfC now, and it would be courteous of you to wait for its outcome before reverting my changes again. Cambrasa confab 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are parking fees charged by local authorities a from of taxation?

[edit]

The aim of the RfC is to establish whether Decriminalised Parking Enforcement(DPE) is a tax (qualifying it for inclusion) or not (qualifying it for deletion).

User:DeFacto insists that DPE (the parking fees and fines charged by local authorities (LAs) in the UK) is a form of tax. Other users, myself included, have tried to remove this information because we don't consider DPE a tax by any reasonable definition, meaning that it does not belong in this article.

  • Cambrasa is exaggerating the level of disagreement. No editor other than himself has attempted to remove DPE from the article. DPE was part of the original article, as created on 2006-07-28. One editor challenged, on this talkpage, the inclusion of DPE on 2006-07-29, along with challenges of the factual content of the DPE section. This challenge was answered later on the same day. No other challenge appeared for 18 months, until 2008-04-09, when Cambrasa raised the issue again. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already merged all the material DeFacto has written into the DPE article, and deleted the section on DPE in this article, but DeFacto keeps reinserting it. --Cambrasa confab

Comment: I have attempted to summarise some of the arguments from previous discussions below --Cambrasa confab 12:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for and against inclusion (plus counterarguments)

[edit]

Pro

[edit]
  1. The information about DPE is factual, accurate, and sourced. --Cambrasa confab
    • This discussion is not about the accuracy of the information, it is about whether it belongs in this article. --Cambrasa confab
  2. Any form of government income that is not ringfenced is a tax. DPE is not ringfenced to be spent on parking.
    • This is a flawed definition of the word "tax". Other government sources of income, such as interest collected on foreign loans, are neither ringfenced, nor are they called taxes. --Cambrasa confab
  3. The local authorities make a profit from DPE. The aim of DPE is not fund parking facilities, but to raise money for the public purse. --Cambrasa confab
    • Whether they make an overall profit is questionable. They might make an operational profit, but this excludes the huge capital cost of parking, which can be up to £250,000 per parking space in London. External costs created by parking (eg. consumption of land that could be used for parks and playgrounds to the benifit of public health) are also not included. --Cambrasa confab
    • Even if they make an overall profit, this is still not a tax, just the like the profit that a private car park makes (and doesn't spend on parking) is not a tax (see below). --Cambrasa confab
      • Whether they make a profit or not is also irrelevant to its inclusion, although there is little real doubt that they do. DPE is mainly concerned with the regulation of, and charging for, roadside parking on public roads, and its enforcement. The "land" involved is public road, so not available for building upon. Parking costs on private land, or on any other land which is not part of the public road is not relevant. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The comparison with private land is relevant to this discussion because private and public land owners compete for the same space. Also, public land designated as parking is does displace other uses from the land. Public roads can and do get re-zoned into building land and vice versa. Finally, not all public parking is on public roads. --Cambrasa confab
          • I think you'll find that roadside parking is itself displaced for events such as the market in the picture, and that DPE will be used to enforce temporary no-parking restrictions which may be necessary. DPE does not even apply to parking on land which is not public road, parking violations on such land was never a criminal offence, so could never have been "decriminalised", and has always been administered by the LA. -- de Facto (talk). 13:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Any form of government revenue collection broadly falls under the "tax" label, regardless of how it is spent. --Cambrasa confab
  5. The definition of the noun tax in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.[4] is "1a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes". DPE Fulfuls all those criteria. --Cambrasa confab
    • Black's Law Dictionary, which gives us a more scholarly definition of the word tax, specifies the additional criterion that a tax is non-voluntary. DPE does not fulfil this criterion because a) it is paid each time the service is utilised, and never paid when the service is not utilised, and b) because private parking alternatives exist that do not require paying the authority.--Cambrasa confab
      • Even using the specialised definition from an American law dictionary, rather than the "normal usage" definition from a standard dictionary, we see that DPE is a tax. We can add "DPE parking charges are not voluntary" to the list if you like. I have already invalidated that argument, but I'll do it again as you've raised it again. You'll need to prove that having parked, paying the parking charge (or the penalty charge) is voluntary to sustain your position. The "non-voluntary" clause does of course only apply once you become liable for the tax (windows were voluntary but "window tax" was compulsory if you had them). We all know that parking is voluntary, in the same way that earning an income is voluntary, or that buying car fuel is voluntary, so unless you are also denying that income tax and fuel duty are taxes, you will need to explain in what way parking charges are voluntary if you use a parking space liable to them. The number of times a tax has to be paid, or whether it has to be paid if you don't qualify is another red herring. Alcohol duty is charged on each pint of beer you buy, but you don't have to pay it if you don't buy the beer. Equally whether a non-taxable alternative is available is also irrelevant. I could use a bike rather than a car for road travel, but vehicle excise duty would still be a tax. -- de Facto (talk). 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the examples DeFacto has listed are not volunatry transactions in the free market sense: One party offers a good for a certain price and a second party comes along and agrees to pay that price. Most of the examples involve a third party (the government) interfering with the voluntary association of a buyer and seller, and forcing either to pay a tax. One exception is congestion charging, but that isn't a tax either. In the case of DPE there are just two parties. This means there is no coercion involved (apart from enforcement of property rights), unless there was a Government-granted monopoly, which there isn't. --Cambrasa confab
          • More red herrings. There is no requirement in the definition of the word "tax" for 3 parties to be involved. There are 4 tests, or 5 if we include the one in the American law dictionary, all of which DPE charges comply with. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DPE is not imposed. It is billed. "Imposed" implies that it is non-voluntary. See above. --Cambrasa confab
    • DPE is not "for public purposes" because, overall, it does not cover the costs of parking. Local authorities may make an operational profit, but the national government makes a loss on capital cost and opportunity cost of parking. In sum, the capital and opportunity costs are higher than the operational profits, and the government as whole subsidises parking, rather than making money from it. --Cambrasa confab
    • By the definition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and DeFacto's interpretation of its vocabulary, the bus fare charged by London Buses would also be a tax, because a) it is a charge of money b) it is "imposed" by an authority (Transport for London) and c) it is for public purposes (the running of buses which are a public service). The bus fare is clearly not a tax, and the Webster definition is either too vague to be used in this discussion, or DeFacto's interpretation is incomplete. --Cambrasa confab
      • OK, if you can get Merriam-Webster to change their definition, and Black's if theirs is the same, as you state, plus "non-voluntary", then you might be able to prove that DPE charges aren't taxes. But as the success of your case now relies on the dictionary definition being erroneous, I think it is time to drop it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither Merriam-Webster nor Black's are absolute authorities on how Wikipedia should define "tax". They should just be used as guidelines. Also, incomplete is not the same as erroneous. --Cambrasa confab
          • Even if we dismiss the compelling definitions in two leading dictionaries, one of general English usage, one a specialised legal dictionary, we are left with DPE charges nevertheless being a pigovian tax. Have a look in Black's and see whether that is a tax. -- de Facto (talk). 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be argued that, since Merriam-Webster has chosen the word "impose" in its definition, the "non-voluntary" criterion is implicitly included. This criterion is explicitly spelled out in the Black's definition. --Cambrasa confab
          • Whatever, we've already covered that. We've seen that the DPE parking charges are no more voluntary, once you become liable for them, than is, say, income tax if you become liable for that. It is not whether the act that renders you liable for the tax is voluntary, it is whether the charge is voluntary once you become liable for it. Earning income is a voluntary act, is income tax therefore not a tax?-- de Facto (talk). 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Con

[edit]
  1. A voluntary exchange is not a tax. A tax is neiter voluntary nor an exchange because it is something you are compelled to pay whether you use a public service or not, and it does not entitle you to get anything in return. Parking fees are voluntary transactions, because paying the fees gives a motorist the legal right to get a service in return (the exclusive usage of public land for a given amount of time). --Cambrasa confab
    • All taxes are voluntary because one can opt out by not engaging in the activities that are taxed. --Cambrasa confab
    • In the UK, the television licence fee is a tax, but you are only required to pay it if you receive the service. In the UK certain social benefits are only available to those who have paid the appropriate amount of National Insurance contributions. The payment of a tax can give access to services denied to non-payers. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The television license and NI contributions must be paid regardless of whether the public service is used or not. If you own a TV and only use it to watch DVDs you still have to pay TV license. Nobody can opt out of NI contributions and pay for private pension insurance instead. You can, however, opt out of public parking, which makes it completely voluntary. Motorists have a choice to leave their vehicle on a private car park and purchase the service from the private operator instead of the local authority. --Cambrasa confab
        • Don't lose track of the two points here. There are taxes which you are not compelled to pay if you don't use the service, the TV licence tax for example (subject to you not having receiving equipment installed). There are taxes which entitle you to something in return, the NI tax for example. Anyhow, charges under DPE are generally claimed by the LAs to be set to deter the use of on-street parking (as a Pigovian tax) rather than as the purchase price for a service. -- de Facto (talk). 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's only a pigovian tax when its aim is to reduce negative externalities, ie. the cost to society as a whole. In the case of DPE, the aim is to reduce only reduce the cost to users. A shortage of parking space is not an externality because it only affects those who park and nobody else. --Cambrasa confab
            • It's "aim" is to reduce traffic congestion in towns, by minimising the parking-space trawl. It is "justified" in the same way that congestion pricing is. If congestion is a negative externality, then DPE parking charges, pitched ostensibly to reduce congestion, are a pigovian tax. -- de Facto (talk). 11:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Even parking fines are not taxes, because they are a form of compensation that must be paid to the property owner by motorists who break the law and infringe the owner's property rights. --Cambrasa confab
    • Technically fines don't exist under DPE. Under DPE, parking infringements are not criminal offences, they have been decriminalised. Sanctions for infringements are controlled and administered by the LA as penalties or civil responsibilities, and proceeds go into the same pot as the charges. The "fine" levels are under the control of the LA as are the regulations, and the voracity with which they are enforced. The property upon which the infringement took place is public road. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It makes no difference if the land owner is private person, a corporation (like a parking garage) or the government (public parking). They are all just "renting out their land" to motorists. Government owned companies that sell services (such as United States Postal Service) also don't "collect taxes" when they charge for their services. --Cambrasa confab
    • DPE charges are similar to congestion pricing (e.g. Stockholm congestion tax) in that they are ostensibly there to control, even deter the use of a public good - the road - by cars, by deterring the use of on-road parking spaces, but the enthusiastic way in which many LAs implement them, rather than other traffic calming measures, is more likely to do with the potential income stream they generate for the LA to use for purposes other than the provision of parking. DPE is popular with LAs because it is the LAs which make the rules, set the penalty levels and enforcement tolerances, enforce the rules, apply the penalties and reap the benefits. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Publications by transport experts do not generally refer to parking fines as "taxes". --Cambrasa confab
    • In DPE the "fines" are used to balance the budget. The levels and the enforcement strategies can be tuned to deliver desired income levels - they are, effectively, an extension of the parking charges. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mainstream media, even those critical of DPE like The Telegraph, refer to DPE as "charges and fines", not taxes [5]. --Cambrasa confab
    • It depends where you look. Try these: BBC, Independent on Sunday, The Argus, This is Lancashire, The North Wales Pioneer. The possibility of it being called a stealth tax was even raised in the House of Commons[6]. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the media listed above do themselves call DPE a tax, apart from The Argus. They only refer to others, such as residents, calling it a tax, or they place the word tax in quotation marks. --Cambrasa confab
        • They are though reliable sources of information. They report the DPE being referred to as a tax. -- de Facto (talk). 13:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "DPE being referred to as a tax" by a fringe of motoring advocates isn't a sufficient criterion for Wikipedia to call it a tax. We need proof that this is a majority view, or at least that the mainstream media call it that. A significant minority of computer users refer to Microsoft as "Micro$oft". Even notable IT publications like The Register have used the term, and The Register is certainly more influential than some local tabloid like The Argus. Does that entitle Wikipedia to use the term "Micro$oft" instead of "Microsoft"? --Cambrasa confab
            • A red herring. We are not discussing the "official" name for it, we are discussing whether it is a tax. Would you argue that Microsoft is not a "software product manufacturer", because no newspaper article describes them as such? Take a look at the definition of the noun tax in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.[7] You will see "1a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes". To prove that roadside parking charges levied under DPE regimes are not a tax you will need to prove that one of the following four statements is false:
              • "DPE parking charges are a charge"
              • "DPE parking charges are imposed by authority"
              • "DPE parking charges are imposed on persons or property"
              • "DPE parking charges are imposed for public purposes"
    Which of those is false? -- de Facto (talk). 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If DPE is commonly known as a "stealth tax" then it belongs in the stealth tax article, not here. "Stealth tax" is a term often used in a derogatory way for charges that aren't technically taxes --Cambrasa confab
        • A stealth tax is a term used for a tax levied in such a way that is largely unnoticed, or not recognized as a tax. DPE may also be a stealth tax, but it has to be a tax first. -- de Facto (talk). 13:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The local authorities themselves reject calling DPE a "tax". See here for an example. --Cambrasa confab
  7. Wikipedia's own definition of tax says it's a payment "exacted by legislative authority" and that it "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution", which is not the same as a voluntary exchange discussed above. --Cambrasa confab
    • DPE is a tax by that definition. There is no choice - if you park you pay the charge (or the penalty charge), it is "exacted by legislative authority", the authority gained by LAs under the DPE laws. Take a look at the definition on dictionary.co: "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc". DPE is a "sum of money", is "demanded by a government", is "for specific facilities or services" and is "levied upon" parking. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Delete or Rename article to inlcude the word "charges" or similar - as per Con arguments 1-7 above --Cambrasa confab 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It fits all the criteria for inclusion, and no convincing or credible argument has been put forward for its removal. -- de Facto (talk). 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim or Rename to Motoring charges and taxation in the United Kingdom - To call parking fees & DPE as a "tax" is to misrepresent what is clearly a usage fee with an associated system of fining. I note that DF created this article originally, and perhaps is feeling a little bit protective. Back then the original article also described usage fees, rather then just sticking to the article's title of taxation. However, IMHO there is some value in having an article with content like this that describes both Motoring charges and taxation in the United Kingdom in a more complete way. Having an article with a more suitable name would avoid the semantic battles around the definition of what is a direct tax, a duty, a toll, or a usage charge. So the question I would ask is: is this the right article to reflect all of these (once its name has been changed), or should all of these other aspects be extracted and covered in another article, leaving just the taxation components in here (e.g. duties & fees) to keep in line with other UK tax articles ? Ephebi (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parking charges under DPE regimes are more akin to congestion pricing than "usage fees", they also are designed to squeeze motorists out of towns, whilst maximising revenue from them to be used for purposes other than the provision of parking facilities. Ephebi, are there other "charges" you had in mind which might be included here if the title were changed to include "charges"? -- de Facto (talk). 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other charges that came to mind included duties for vehicles and components imported from outside the EU, and a reference to the upstream producer taxes levied on the North Sea oil companies before fuel is assessed for duty & VAT. However, articles should be careful to avoid putting forward a partial POV such as you describe for parking. Without launching into a lecture on Transport Planning 101, the provision of parking charges is very well covered in transport planning, town planning, and economic literature. There is a long-understood difference between charges that directly fund and maintain infrastructure (such as the Humber Bridge or Oslo AutoPASS system) and charges that are there to level out competition or restrain demand, which have been commonplace and understood in the UK since the Salter Report of 1932 and Traffic in Towns of 1962. Ephebi (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ephebi, I'm wondering what bearing you think the difference between traditional "tolls", such as those imposed on the Humber bridge, and congestion pricing schemes such as the Stockholm congestion tax, has on this discussion. DPE parking charges are similar to the latter, in that they are ostensibly to control traffic, rather than specifically to fund a service. Although we do see the distinction between the two blurred slightly, in the case of the Dartford Crossing, which originally had a "maintenance toll" — until its legal basis disappeared in 2003, so now it has been converted into a congestion charge. -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Motoring charges and taxation in the United Kingdom - avoids any NPOV issues with title and gives a more complete article (becomes easy to select topics to include). Alternatively Delete - as per Con arguments 1-7 above. Alex Sims (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alex Sims, the Con arguments have all been demolished above, so on what basis would you support "delete"? Also, perhaps we need to confirm that you are the editor, formerly known as User:Softgrow, who originally challenged the content of this article (on this talkpage), and didn't respond when the challenge was rebutted. -- de Facto (talk). 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed from Softgrow a while ago. I do not wish to enter into an argument with you about demolished arguments, rebuttals and point scoring. Views are expressed. You've expressed yours. I've expressed mine. My comments stand. Alex Sims (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Alex Sims, parking fees are not a tax, either delete it from the article or rename the article to "Motoring charges and taxation in the United Kingdom" to avoid any POV issues. LDHan (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parking fees & fines are NOT a tax. They are not compulsory, they are not imposed by & controlled by HMRC, & you have a choice in whether you pay them or not. Some local authorities charge for the use of parking spaces, in different areas at different times, & these charges are borne by the users of those parking spaces. It is exactly the same with private parking areas. Parking fines are levied & collected by private contractors, not HMRC. They are a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Most non-payment of taxes is a criminal issue. r-c-h-w (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenues from taxes

[edit]

Do we want to attempt to itemise the total revenue that comes out of all of these charges here? This information was given in a piecemeal fashion in answer to a Parliamentary question six months ago (see Question from Mr. Redwood under "Excise Duties: Fuels" [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071122/text/71122w0009.htm here]. The Minister Angela Eagle only counted vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oils duty as "Taxes on motoring", although she did reference the income tax on company car benefit as well, and noted that VAT was not accounted for seperately. Ephebi (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research in lead

[edit]

I have removed (again) the following paragraph from the lead. The reasons are given below it.

Economic theory recognises the benefits that motoring brings to the national economy, but indicates that, in addition to paying for the road infrastructure they use, motorists should pay for the other external costs associated with their activities,[1] particularly:

Thus the charging system in the UK has developed in a dual manner; to ensure that motoring contributes to its wider societal costs, whilst raising revenues for the Treasury or local authority.

The reference[8] does not discuss the history or level of UK motoring taxes, or the size of the benefits, or of the costs, that motoring brings to the UK economy, so the assertions made, based upon that reference, with respect to the subject of this article, must be OR. I agree that a section analysing the politics behind motoring taxes would be interesting, but given that most of the taxes pre-date current environmental and climate change politics, it will need to be carefully constructed to get a balanced and plausible POV. -- de Facto (talk). 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Oil Dependence: Is transport running out of affordable fuel?" (PDF). OECD - ITF. Feb 2008. p. 19.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That hilarious parking fine discussion

[edit]

I think someone has never had a job of being a delivery driver in London
I think someone has never been a commercial driver in London
I know someone who is glad he never has to drive in London for the foreseeable future!
--143.159.197.166 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairness of Motor Taxation

[edit]

Motor taxation appears to be somethin of a bellwether for wider arguments about the costs and benefits of motor transport and its impacts on issues such as individual freedom, economic efficiency on one hand and pollution and the detriment to localities and vulnerable road users in the other hand.

A great many people believe that motor taxation is a sham to raise money and its restriction is covert regulation by unreasonable environmentalists.


An alternative view would be that motor taxation is a way of constraining unwanted outcomes through charges and restrictions

Just a start. DicksterWall (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1227398137"