All these fatalities

[garrilla]

Good argument but food is zero rated.

I wasn't suggesting the VAT from food, but the VAT on cycling related items - bike, compenents, accessories, etc. If there were fewre cars on the road and the roads weren't so shoot I'd have buy fewer things too.

 

[humptygocart]

However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.

I've no idea how you can make this claim.

Poor air quality affects the poorest sections of society. The UK is facing a £300m fine from the EU for not meeting pollution targets. Lung disease and respiratory illness causes heartbreak for families. Noise pollution has been found to affect childrens' IQ. PM10 particulates bury deep in developing lungs and cause numerous illnesses, these all have a very real cost via the NHS and real lives lost.

 

[mattybain]

I wasn't suggesting the VAT from food, but the VAT on cycling related items - bike, compenents, accessories, etc. If there were fewre cars on the road and the roads weren't so shoot I'd have buy fewer things too.

Sorry when you said "I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food. " I thought you implied that it was the VAT on food fuel you were paying. My bad.

 

[humptygocart]

as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs

As I keep repeating, WE ARE!

Sorry for shouting:

The cost of treating illness associated with traffic pollution across the three countries amounted to 1.7% of their gross domestic product, exceeding the costs arising from traffic accidents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/905016.stm

 

[garrilla]

Yes well as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs so yes the are "supurious" when it comes to looking at REAL inflows and outflows.

Can you not accept that?

I don't believe that you have demonstrated this yet. You've presented a simple set of accounts that have been widely refuted.

You haven't given us a break down of how much fuel duty is paid by companies and not by individual drivers, for example. You haven't offset the capital allowance and various tax breaks that fleet drivers get. Etc, etc.

 

[Davidc]

I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his through provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.

However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.

As I keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are keeping other taxation lower than it should be.

I now agree that drivers should probably pay more but then we should be spending more on recitfying the damage we are causing to the environment.

What about the quantifiable costs of lost productivity, benefits to those injured, support to those injured, the real and well known costs of fatalities, and a host of other real and known costs. (see various lnks above for numbers and more details.)

Taking known real costs into account and excluding unquantified environmental costs shows that motorists are already heavily subsidised from general taxation. Again, see links above for more details.

Motorists ARE subsidised, from REAL QUANTIFIABLE TAXATION.

As a number of us keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are making other taxation higher than it should be.

You'd be better off trying to justify this in terms of the huge social, economic, environmental and health benefit we all gain from using private cars, and how much more pleasant our towns and cities are for being full of cars!

 

[mattybain]

as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs

As I keep repeating, WE ARE!

Sorry for shouting:

The cost of treating illness associated with traffic pollution across the three countries amounted to 1.7% of their gross domestic product, exceeding the costs arising from traffic accidents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/905016.stm

An interesting article, it was based in Europe which have a much higher diesel usage than the UK.

However lets say you are right

1.7% of the UK GDP (£2.3Tn) = £36bn for 2008

Total NHS budget for 2008 is around £92bn, are you really suggesting that more than 1/3 of NHS costs are related to pollution from road vehicles?

Or what it be that these numbers include some non money flows in them?

I must say I am really impressed with the depth of your knowledge, I have learnt an awful lot from you. Don't agree with you 100% but you have some very good / strong arguments.

 

[humptygocart]

1996 figures - the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on :health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:
Income £

Vehicle excise duty
Fuel taxes 3.6
12.5



External costs £

Road damage
Congestion
Air pollution
Climate change
Noise
Accidents 1.5
17.5
19.7
0.1
2.6
9.4






TOTALS 16.1 Income


50.8 Deficit.

The formatting's screwed, sorry!

 

[BentMikey]

I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his thought provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.

However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.

As I keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are keeping other taxation lower than it should be.

I now agree that drivers should probably pay more but then we should be spending more on recitfying the damage we are causing to the environment.

I've crossed out the bits that are wrong. Even just talking real cost to society, drivers are subsidised. When I mention pollution, I'm not talking about some random damage that doesn't have an actual cost. We're talking about the real cost to society, in terms of things like the NHS, and all the associated costs that are counted for every death caused by driving. Actual inflows and outflows of money.

I'm not anti-driver, far from it. I wouldn't willingly give up driving, and I love my car dearly.

 

[mattybain]

1996 figures - the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on :health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:
Income £

Vehicle excise duty
Fuel taxes 3.6
12.5



External costs £

Road damage
Congestion
Air pollution
Climate change
Noise
Accidents 1.5
17.5
19.7
0.1
2.6
9.4






TOTALS 16.1 Income


50.8 Deficit.

The formatting's screwed, sorry!

Yes I know I had that problem and gave up

That table is interesting however the revenue side is not correct as the fuel duty number is too low.

Also most of the costs numbers below the road repairs are very subjective especially congestion costs.

And just out of interest how much of the actual cost of the NHS would you say related to motor vehicle emissions?

It's just to hard to do a simple calculation when you are talking about things like this.

There are 100's of factors like for example the additional costs of longterm healthcare and state pensions for someone who gives up driving to cycle and then doesn't die of a heart attack at 65!

I am going to call it a day but leave it at this.

Respect to you for educating me, as I said I don't agree with you 100% but you have some very good points.

I will say that the better side won the argument with a barrage of facts and numbers and clearly showed that the other person was wrong.

And I clearly wasn't the winner

 

[humptygocart]

And I clearly wasn't the winner

People on the Interweb admitting they may have been wrong is as rare as rocking horse poo.

You are a gentleman.

I love you.

 

[mattybain]

And my googling skills have got a boost from all this!!

 

[Origamist]

And my googling skills have got a boost from all this!!

It'll take a long until you get as proficient as Humpty though...!

 

[mattybain]

It'll take a long until you get as proficient as Humpty though...!

Tell me about it, that guy is a fiend how the hell did he get all those facts so quickly.

Utter respect the man is a genius

 

[rh100]

humptygocart

I have found your posts very thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post #78.

+1

to matty and others too - It's opened my eyes even more, really makes you think.