Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
live there? __________________________________________________ ________________ John
Munch Online ICQ#: 122166327 Current ICQ status: + More ways to contact me i See
more about me:
__________________________________________________ ________________

John Munch <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
    > live there?

I don't get it. All you ever post are variations on this question (and you never
follow up except to repeat or rephrase the question). What's the gag?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

Sure, many people in the UK own cars!

Like Migue Cruz said, can you be more specific about what you have in mind?

"John Munch" wrote
    > Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
    > live there?

Yes, why shouldn't it be? Parking in London is often expensive or difficult but it
isn't, as a general concept, illegal.

Owain

Owain wrote:
    >
    > "John Munch" wrote
    > > Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
    > > live there?
    >
    > Yes, why shouldn't it be? Parking in London is often expensive or difficult but it
    > isn't, as a general concept, illegal.

I thought your good mayor wants to charge UKP 5 per day for cars. Or is that just for
outsiders to drive into the city?

In message <[email protected]>, R J Carpenter <[email protected]> writes
    >Owain wrote:
    >>
    >> "John Munch" wrote
    >> > Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
    >> > live there?
    >>
    >> Yes, why shouldn't it be? Parking in London is often expensive or difficult but it
    >> isn't, as a general concept, illegal.
    >
    >I thought your good mayor wants to charge UKP 5 per day for cars. Or is that just
    >for outsiders to drive into the city?

He wants to do it, but whether he will get the chance is another matter. It will be
expensive to set up and will do little to deter people from using the cars, because
although the public transport is good, it is so overwhelmed, that it can not cope
with the traffic it is carrying let alone the extra tens of thousands he expects it
to cope with
--
Ron Clarey Translaters.net HTTP://www.translaters.net

Ah but a pedestrian can dream.... PJW

On 20 Jul 2002 14:10:23 -0700, [email protected] (Owain) wrote:

    >"John Munch" wrote
    >> Is it still possible to drive in the UK, especially London, and own a car if you
    >> live there?
    >
    >Yes, why shouldn't it be? Parking in London is often expensive or difficult but it
    >isn't, as a general concept, illegal.
    >
    >Owain

Ron Clarey <[email protected]> wrote:
    > R J Carpenter <[email protected]> writes
    >> I thought your good mayor wants to charge UKP 5 per day for cars. Or is that just
    >> for outsiders to drive into the city?
    >
    > He wants to do it, but whether he will get the chance is another matter. It will be
    > expensive to set up and will do little to deter people from using the cars, because
    > although the public transport is good, it is so overwhelmed, that it can not cope
    > with the traffic it is carrying let alone the extra tens of thousands he expects it
    > to cope with

One would hope he'd use the 5 pounds to improve the transit system.

With fewer cars, riding buses would be less annoying, so it wouldn't even have to be
that costly.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:02:53 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    >Ron Clarey <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> R J Carpenter <[email protected]> writes
    >>> I thought your good mayor wants to charge UKP 5 per day for cars. Or is that just
    >>> for outsiders to drive into the city?
    >>
    >> He wants to do it, but whether he will get the chance is another matter. It will
    >> be expensive to set up and will do little to deter people from using the cars,
    >> because although the public transport is good, it is so overwhelmed, that it can
    >> not cope with the traffic it is carrying let alone the extra tens of thousands he
    >> expects it to cope with
    >
    >One would hope he'd use the 5 pounds to improve the transit system.
    >
    >With fewer cars, riding buses would be less annoying, so it wouldn't even have to be
    >that costly.
    >
    >miguel
    >--
    >Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
    >photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

Uh, isn't that the same logic that New Jerset used in setting up the EZPass? They
were going to pay for the system by collecting fines from toll cheats and found that
there weren't enough cheaters to fund the system. Now they have a deficit.

If London imposes a levy of 5 GBP to enter the city by car, fewer cars will enter the
city. Where is the revenue? If it's not there it can't be used to improve anything.

There is a similar experiment in governmental stupidity in the City of New York. They
decided to tax the hell out of cigarettes. It is claimed that this will accomplish
two things: 1] raise revenue; and,
2] stop people from smoking. IMHO, they may accomplish one goal, or the other, but
not both. They might accomplish neither.

<[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> One would hope he'd use the 5 pounds to improve the transit system.
    >>
    >> With fewer cars, riding buses would be less annoying, so it wouldn't even have to
    >> be that costly.
    >
    > If London imposes a levy of 5 GBP to enter the city by car, fewer cars will enter
    > the city. Where is the revenue? If it's not there it can't be used to improve
    > anything.

Revenue from 1,000,000 cars at £0 charge per car: £0.

Revenue from 500,000 cars at £5 charge per car: £2,500,000.

    > There is a similar experiment in governmental stupidity in the City of New York.
    > They decided to tax the hell out of cigarettes. It is claimed that this will
    > accomplish two things: 1] raise revenue; and, 2] stop people from smoking. IMHO,
    > they may accomplish one goal, or the other, but not both. They might accomplish
    > neither.

How could it accomplish neither?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Miguel
Cruz) wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >> One would hope he'd use the 5 pounds to improve the transit system.
    > >>
    > >> With fewer cars, riding buses would be less annoying, so it wouldn't even have
    > >> to be that costly.
    > >
    > > If London imposes a levy of 5 GBP to enter the city by car, fewer cars will enter
    > > the city. Where is the revenue? If it's not there it can't be used to improve
    > > anything.
    >
    > Revenue from 1,000,000 cars at £0 charge per car: £0.
    >
    > Revenue from 500,000 cars at £5 charge per car: £2,500,000.

Does London have any sort of a sales tax that remains in the metro area for the use
of the city government ?

jay Sun, Jul 21, 2002 mailto:[email protected]

    >
    > > There is a similar experiment in governmental stupidity in the City of New York.
    > > They decided to tax the hell out of cigarettes. It is claimed that this will
    > > accomplish two things: 1] raise revenue; and, 2] stop people from smoking. IMHO,
    > > they may accomplish one goal, or the other, but not both. They might accomplish
    > > neither.
    >
    > How could it accomplish neither?
    >
    > miguel

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath:
"Nevertheless, it does move."

<[email protected]> wrote:
    > Imposing a charge to enter a city is somewhat different. (You can't buy the
    > "commodity" over the internet.) But, the fact remains, they will EITHER raise
    > revenue, or, cut down on traffic. Those expecting to accomplish both goals will be
    > disappointed.

There is currently no charge. They can't cut revenue below zero. It can only go up.

Even if, as Jay correctly suggests, you take other visitor-related tax revenue into
account, there is a point somewhere above zero where the revenue from a car fee
exceeds the lost revenue from the small proportion of people who choose not to come.

From a quality-of-life perspective, it seems that the people who would refuse to
enter the city unless they are able to drive are precisely the sort of selfish people
that make the place more miserable for everyone else anyway (leaving aside, of
course, the mobility-impaired, for whom special exemptions can be granted).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 04:23:22 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

SNIP
    >
    >> There is a similar experiment in governmental stupidity in the City of New York.
    >> They decided to tax the hell out of cigarettes. It is claimed that this will
    >> accomplish two things: 1] raise revenue; and, 2] stop people from smoking. IMHO,
    >> they may accomplish one goal, or the other, but not both. They might accomplish
    >> neither.
    >
    >How could it accomplish neither?
    >
    >miguel
    >--
Quite easily in the case of cigarettes in NY. My wife still smokes. We buy her cigs
over the internet. Thus, raising the cost of cigarettes to about $5.75 per pack on
Long Island has not deterred her one bit. It has also cost NYS and Nassau County
quite a bit of tax revenue--couple of hundred bucks from her for the past two years.
Presumably, the folks in NYC will be doing similar things. There will also be an
extensive black market.

That is how it would accomplish neither.

Imposing a charge to enter a city is somewhat different. (You can't buy the
"commodity" over the internet.) But, the fact remains, they will EITHER raise
revenue, or, cut down on traffic. Those expecting to accomplish both goals will be
disappointed.

"Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Miguel
    > Cruz) wrote:
    >
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > > >> One would hope he'd use the 5 pounds to improve the transit system.
    > > >>
    > > >> With fewer cars, riding buses would be less annoying, so it wouldn't
even
    > > >> have to be that costly.
    > > >
    > > > If London imposes a levy of 5 GBP to enter the city by car, fewer cars will
    > > > enter the city. Where is the revenue? If it's not there it can't be used to
    > > > improve anything.
    > >
    > > Revenue from 1,000,000 cars at £0 charge per car: £0.
    > >
    > > Revenue from 500,000 cars at £5 charge per car: £2,500,000.
    >
    > Does London have any sort of a sales tax that remains in the metro area for the use
    > of the city government ?
    >

just the local property taxes - the only sales taxes in the EU other than VAT are
excise duties (tobacco, booze, and sometimes cars). And anyone who thinks that a GBP5
charge will stop driving in is deluding themselves - for the few who drive around,
they'll be an equal number start to use the roads. I dont think anything short of
GBP25 would work (remember that parking can be over GBP2.5 an hour)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 05:58:29 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Imposing a charge to enter a city is somewhat different. (You can't buy the
    >> "commodity" over the internet.) But, the fact remains, they will EITHER raise
    >> revenue, or, cut down on traffic. Those expecting to accomplish both goals will be
    >> disappointed.
    >
    >There is currently no charge. They can't cut revenue below zero. It can only go up.
    >
    >Even if, as Jay correctly suggests, you take other visitor-related tax revenue into
    >account, there is a point somewhere above zero where the revenue from a car fee
    >exceeds the lost revenue from the small proportion of people who choose not to come.
    >
    >From a quality-of-life perspective, it seems that the people who would refuse to
    >enter the city unless they are able to drive are precisely the sort of selfish
    >people that make the place more miserable for everyone else anyway (leaving aside,
    >of course, the mobility-impaired, for whom special exemptions can be granted).
    >
    >miguel
    >--
    >Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
    >photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

My only point is that one tax/levy/surcharge [whatever] will not accomplish both
goals. If it turns out that I am wrong, then Bravo for the city of London.