Workplace Parking II - Tax Spaces ?

[Nigel-YZ1]

Who said anything about punishment? It's about redressing an imbalance.

I did try to reply to you before but apparently, perfectly civilised replies are not tolerated here.

As one of the targets of the proposed tax, I cannot see it that way.
In my opinion it's punishment, and I would leave any company that tried to impose this tax upon me. The OP did ask 'Or will it raise revenue and penalise the lazy?'.
Not that I regard myself as lazy.
In my current situation I am unable to transport myself to my current place of work by any other means and still have a life worth sustaining.
I hope that one day I can change that situation. Regenerating kneecap cartilage would help

I'm no apologist for the ignorant, the impulsive and the downright vicious that are allowed to drive each day. If there's an imbalance to be addressed on health grounds, then do it by removing from the roads those that are not fit to be on them. This is done by proper education, and by enforcement of law. A task that seems beyond us (especially when driving instructors speed while using their mobiles).

As far as the environmental cost goes - While using four wheels, as far as I am able, I will get my bum into the most economic vehicle I can when I can.

Thanks for any reply earlier.

 

[dellzeqq]

As one of the targets of the proposed tax, I cannot see it that way.
In my opinion it's punishment, and I would leave any company that tried to impose this tax upon me..

the question surely is........should local authorities levy a duty?

Many employers already charge for parking spaces, but a local authority has to collect revenue to pay for services. I'd have thought that putting a charge on spaces that might well be used by people coming in from other local authority areas would, in addition to addressing both congestion and loss of space, might prove popular with residents tee'd off with being on somebody else's commute.

 

[The Jogger]

I am sure that it would be quite possible to accommodate the special needs of a small minority who have good reason to need to commute by car at times when public transport is not running. Especially where their doing so enables a large number not to.

I like the idea but wonder would there be exceptions, if it were the case it would certainly be more acceptable.

 

[ASC1951]

the question surely is........should local authorities levy a duty?

Many employers already charge for parking spaces, but a local authority has to collect revenue to pay for services. I'd have thought that putting a charge on spaces that might well be used by people coming in from other local authority areas would, in addition to addressing both congestion and loss of space, might prove popular with residents tee'd off with being on somebody else's commute.

Local authorities do already levy a duty. We have a small piece of tarmac at the back of our offices where we rent four surplus parking spaces to the firm next door. We pay business rates on those parking spaces and corporation tax on the rent we get.

 

[dellzeqq]

...as I made clear at #12 above....

 

[Linford]

By the way, Linfy, I think it's a trifle out of order for you to accuse me of lying. I kept the newspaper feature - if I can find it I'll scan it in and await your apology. I can't remember why we didn't have a motorbike. It wasn't a scientific experiment - it was just meant to draw people's attention to the usefulness and joy of bicycles. But everyone had to abide by the rules which apply to them (hence the kick-bike doing so well, as it could take shortcuts I couldn't and hop across the pavement at red lights). Astute readers will sense that I was slightly affronted that a big scooter was only a few minutes behind me. Anyway, the point is that I'm not convinced a motorbike would have beat me, as it wouldn't have been able to make use of its superior speed in 30mph zones, isn't allowed in ASLs round this way, and might not have been able to filter in some of the tight spaces I could get through. Plus its rider would have to find somewhere legal to park it in the city centre, whereas I could simply hop off my bike and wheel it the few yards to the finish.

If you are talking about the Gowerton to City centre road across the top, then obviously no, you won't beat a motorcycle which can get to 30mph in a couple of seconds off every set of lights, and hold that speed up any gradient. You don't need to use ASL's to get to the front of the queues either.
Try your little 'experiement' with 'all' the legal modes, and your results will be without doubt a lot different - and you would be on your knees at the end of it.

It sounds like one of srw's 'statisical' proofs - there are lies, damnded lies and statisics.

I'd love to put that to the test with you so you might actually face reality - even Hammonds Top Gear challenge across london on a cycle a few years ago against the powerboat, and public transport was done with the camera crew filming his progress from a motorbike.

Now by comparison, try and get from Cheltenham to New St Station in Birmingham by motorbike (even doing silly illegal speeds on the motorway), and compare it to a non stop high speed train, and the train wins every time by a good margin.

 

[benb]

Me in lycra ain't pretty

FTFY

 

[Black Sheep]

What about the people who need their car for their job?
should we be taxing the parking at their workplace?

my wife could get the bus to work, but she wouldn't be able to do her job as it involves traveling from school to school, back to the office, home visit, to another school while taking all the equipment she'll need.
some days she is mostly in the office, but it varies from day to day

I did try and persuade her into getting a motorbike after I'd got mine and the possibility of working near Heathrow, but the equipment wouldn't fit in the luggage space offered by a Goldwing (very large touring motorbike) so that was a no.

my last commute was from Maidenhead to Uxbridge, and when faced with a 2 hour public transport commute and nowhere to park at less than £20 a day, I bought a motorbike, and I'm glad I did, there were a few nights that traffic was at a standstill

 

[Linford]

FTFY

You would never say that you one of the women on here, so why say it to me ?

 

[User482]

As one of the targets of the proposed tax, I cannot see it that way.
In my opinion it's punishment, and I would leave any company that tried to impose this tax upon me. The OP did ask 'Or will it raise revenue and penalise the lazy?'.
Not that I regard myself as lazy.
In my current situation I am unable to transport myself to my current place of work by any other means and still have a life worth sustaining.
I hope that one day I can change that situation. Regenerating kneecap cartilage would help

I'm no apologist for the ignorant, the impulsive and the downright vicious that are allowed to drive each day. If there's an imbalance to be addressed on health grounds, then do it by removing from the roads those that are not fit to be on them. This is done by proper education, and by enforcement of law. A task that seems beyond us (especially when driving instructors speed while using their mobiles).

As far as the environmental cost goes - While using four wheels, as far as I am able, I will get my bum into the most economic vehicle I can when I can.

Thanks for any reply earlier.

Free workplace parking encourages people to drive. This is undesirable for many reasons, including congestion, road safety and pollution. Local roads are paid for by us all, so why should I, as a Bristol taxpayer, subsidise someone driving in from outside the area?

Environmental taxes have two purposes: to raise revenue, and change environmentally damaging behaviour.

I have concerns about the workability of the scheme, but if it can be made viable, and if the revenues are used to finance more sustainable modes of transport, it is entirely consistent with the Polluter Pays principle, and addresses an injustice.

 

[Linford]

Free workplace parking encourages people to drive. This is undesirable for many reasons, including congestion, road safety and pollution. Local roads are paid for by us all, so why should I, as a Bristol taxpayer, subsidise someone driving in from outside the area?

Environmental taxes have two purposes: to raise revenue, and change environmentally damaging behaviour.

I have concerns about the workability of the scheme, but if it can be made viable, and if the revenues are used to finance more sustainable modes of transport, it is entirely consistent with the Polluter Pays principle, and addresses an injustice.

VED banding is an environmental tax - just a shame that they don't apply it to buses.
Given that your income is derived from the public purse, I struggle to see how you can say that you actually put anything into the economy that you haven't already taken out as a wage or pension rights

 

[dellzeqq]

What about the people who need their car for their job?
should we be taxing the parking at their workplace?

yes

 

[User482]

VED banding is an environmental tax - just a shame that they don't apply it to buses.
Given that your income is derived from the public purse, I struggle to see how you can say that you actually put anything into the economy that you haven't already taken out as a wage or pension rights

Linf, I realise that you never like to miss an oportunity for a snide dig, but could you actually make it relevant to the post you quote? Otherwise you risk appearing to be ignorant and rude.

 

[Linford]

Linf, I realise that you never like to miss an oportunity for a snide dig, but could you actually make it relevant to the post you quote? Otherwise you risk appearing to be ignorant and rude.

I just thought that as you were on the issue of who pays for what, I thought it safe to draw the parallel.

 

[Black Sheep]

yes

really?

bye bye rural community health care then.

I agree that parking is at a premium in most towns and although I'd not be in favour of it, if I chose to drive to work, park my car there for 8 hours and drive home again, like my dad does, then that would be part of the cost of driving to work.

what I'm against is adding financial expenses to people who already have a number of them that they can not claim anything back (including tax write off etc)

the only example I can use is my wife's role in the NHS community staff nurse team. (other jobs available)
her out-lay to do her job, beyond running a car just to get to and from work is as follows:
RCN registration (legally required to work as a nurse, no allowance made for it)
Class 1 business insurance on the car to be insured when driving to and from multiple places of employment / sites
running the car for each journey for work (she does claim an allowance paid per mile, but I have calculated that our little 1.2L diesel costs more to run for work than she gets back)
mobile phone, yes, she'd have one anyway, but has to use it, at her own expense to keep in contact with the office incase something happens, and also for her own safety letting them know where she is if on a home visit

her day goes something like this:
8.30, arrive at office
9.30, travel to school at other side of town,
10.15, travel to next school on the list,
11.40, first home visit,
12.00, call back into the office,
12,30, second and third home visits, often not near each other
1.30, another school,
2.30, back in the office,
3.30, final home visit,
4.00, back in the office for team meeting,
5.00, head home.

with more admin staff they might be able to arrange school and home visits to be near each other to minimumise travel, but being short staffed as they are, this isn't going to happen any time soon.

the more rural the area, the worse it is.