Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: alfie on 16 May 2017, 20:06:55
-
The promise to scrap the Severn Bridge toll's have forced me to have rethink over who to mark my cross over in a few days time.
alfie
-
The promise to scrap the Severn Bridge toll's have forced me to have rethink over who to mark my cross over in a few days time.
alfie
Is that a plan to scrap the old Severn Bridge tolls only, or those for the SSC as well? :-\
-
Remember the promise to make the Dartford crossing free once the bridge was paid for?
It was obvious that was never going to happen as there's no way of avoiding the crossing, so the first thing they did was to put the price up.
So treat it as a typical election promise: we'd like to do it, but the devil will skate to work before we manage to do it.
-
The promise to scrap the Severn Bridge toll's have forced me to have rethink over who to mark my cross over in a few days time.
alfie
Is that a plan to scrap the old Severn Bridge tolls only, or those for the SSC as well? :-\
I think he means both of them, collectively. If one was done and not the other, there would be a big problem.
I live West of the bridges, and I take the toll charges and the consequent delays at the booths into consideration when deciding whether to drive or take the train, or even take a different route depending upon where I'm going.
-
They may scrap the toll but will stuff us in other ways,,,,whatever we will still have to pay one way or another.. ??? ???
-
Remember the promise to make the Dartford crossing free once the bridge was paid for ?
nIt was obvious that was never going to happen as there's no way of avoiding the crossing, so the first thing they did was to put the price up.
So treat it as a typical election promise: we'd like to do it, but the devil will skate to work before we manage to do it.
We do indeed. But, in fairness the bridge came after one tunnel and now we need a third crossing, which will be a tunnel near Gravesend. With money for this having to come from somewhere, and the Government struggling to find enough cash for everything, I support the crossing charge. I would sooner the motorist, like me, pay to cross the Thames to support extra infrastructure than take the money away from education, NHS and security.
For the gain of crossing the Thames to the East of London quickly, rather than take the M25 clockwise from Kent the long way round to go north, £3, £5, or even £10 is worth it. The saving in fuel costs make it the financially right thing to do.
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
-
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
Indeed. The sad thing is that politicians have to make promises like "it'll be free after x" in order to get things past the general public. Rather than just saying that they'll build it, but if you want to use it, you have to pay for it. Same with last years referendum, both sides promised the moon on a stick and doom and darkness if you voted the wrong way.
Such Billsh!t ;D
-
We do indeed. But, in fairness the bridge came after one tunnel and now we need a third crossing, which will be a tunnel near Gravesend.
For the gain of crossing the Thames to the East of London quickly, rather than take the M25 clockwise from Kent the long way round to go north, £3, £5, or even £10 is worth it. The saving in fuel costs make it the financially right thing to do.
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
I'm not convinced that the third crossing will make that much of a difference, as it will really only be of use to those heading towards East Anglia.
But I do agree with everything else; there is no sensible way to avoid Dartford if you're in Kent/SE London and need to be north-east of the Thames. Same applies to the Severn bridge, the alternative isn't really. And that is why existing toll routes will never become free.
-
The promise to scrap the Severn Bridge toll's have forced me to have rethink over who to mark my cross over in a few days time.
alfie
So you would base your whole Brexit management strategy decision on who is promising to scrap a toll over which they have no influence?
Astounding :o
Your policy voting should have been done at the May ballot. The current status quo cannot and will not be changed until the subsequent general election, 3.5 years AFTER we leave the EU. This is in order to ensure a solid foundation for an autonomous UK. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is simply blowing smoke up the arse of anyone who will listen...
-
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
The Severn Crossings have always been far more expensive than the Dart Crossing.
£6.70 for a car, Vans are £13.40 (even small car derived vans) and HGV's are £20!
Which makes the Gloucester route a consideration, especially for the haulage companies if they're headed into deepest darkest South Wales and need to go along the Heads Of The Valleys road. ;)
-
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
The Severn Crossings have always been far more expensive than the Dart Crossing.
£6.70 for a car, Vans are £13.40 (even small car derived vans) and HGV's are £20!
Which makes the Gloucester route a consideration, especially for the haulage companies if they're headed into deepest darkest South Wales and need to go along the Heads Of The Valleys road. ;)
But, it's one way. It's free to leave Wales, whereas the Dartford crossing is £2.50 each way. So £6.70 return over the Severn, vs £5.00 return over Dartford. Still more expensive, but not 'far more expensive'.
-
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
The Severn Crossings have always been far more expensive than the Dart Crossing.
£6.70 for a car, Vans are £13.40 (even small car derived vans) and HGV's are £20!
Which makes the Gloucester route a consideration, especially for the haulage companies if they're headed into deepest darkest South Wales and need to go along the Heads Of The Valleys road. ;)
But if you are a firm running LGV's and HGV's from Bristol and hauling goods down through Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, which are the major business areas of South Wales, not only is fuel a consideration but driving time as well. Unless you are going right up into the Valley's, and as you said, using the Heads of the Valley's road, to say Merthyr, then to use the via Gloucester route does not make sense. The time factor alone, with that route not being a fast one apart from the M5 stretch, must make any transport manager disregard the £20, or whatever, cost when moving thousands of pounds worth of goods with a driver, and a big, or small, rig. :)
-
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
The Severn Crossings have always been far more expensive than the Dart Crossing.
£6.70 for a car, Vans are £13.40 (even small car derived vans) and HGV's are £20!
Which makes the Gloucester route a consideration, especially for the haulage companies if they're headed into deepest darkest South Wales and need to go along the Heads Of The Valleys road. ;)
But, it's one way. It's free to leave Wales, whereas the Dartford crossing is £2.50 each way. So £6.70 return over the Severn, vs £5.00 return over Dartford. Still more expensive, but not 'far more expensive'.
Yep, it always was, much to the annoyance of my Bristolian colleagues who objected to paying to go into Wales ;D ;D ;D
-
Lizzie, I think you have missed the point. The NHS, Education and Security should be funded from GENERAL taxati9on, the honest way, instead of sneaky virement from motoring taxes. We were promised that the bulk of the motoring taxes, if not all, would be ring-fenced for transport issues - roads, bridges and repairs, etc. We never signed up for sneaky!
Motorists pay over £50,000,000,000 (NO, that ain't 50 billion - I'm English!) annually, so there is plenty of money available to build bridges, new roads
This is why people instinctively know that this and all the other things that they are not doing for us is WRONG and feel let down, apart from the expected broken promises of politicians.
Have you ever met an honest one?
Yes, it would obviously lead to an increase in general taxation, but at least it will be clear and transparent.....
Ron.
-
Lizzie, I think you have missed the point. The NHS, Education and Security should be funded from GENERAL taxati9on, the honest way, instead of sneaky virement from motoring taxes. We were promised that the bulk of the motoring taxes, if not all, would be ring-fenced for transport issues - roads, bridges and repairs, etc. We never signed up for sneaky!
Motorists pay over £50,000,000,000 (NO, that ain't 50 billion - I'm English!) annually, so there is plenty of money available to build bridges, new roads
This is why people instinctively know that this and all the other things that they are not doing for us is WRONG and feel let down, apart from the expected broken promises of politicians.
Have you ever met an honest one?
Yes, it would obviously lead to an increase in general taxation, but at least it will be clear and transparent.....
Ron.
No Ron, I have not missed the point. The days of the "Road Fund Licence" is long gone and I recognise that Governments of the 21st century need to raise funds where they can and distribute it all over the place. It is like most people have accepted that the tax raised on tobacco product sales does not just go on the NHS, but is widely distributed along with fuel tax, and all other major taxes, to all areas of government, let alone pay off the national debt. Nowadays, like in industry, the money comes in a finally grand total and is then fed to the individual departsment budgets.
Where the money is needed it will be spent regardless of where it is raised. ;)
-
I'd agree. The days of partitioning off "pots" of tax revenue for specific purposes are long gone. The only arguable exception to this should be a funded state pension. But unless they discover diamonds under the Chilterns, we'll never afford that.
Motorists get very protective over "road tax" (myself included when bumping over potholes in my £400 car that costs £300 to tax). However there's no reason to treat it differently to taxes raised on alcohol, fags or income.
We all make choices around our taxable earnings and what we spend these earnings on. The government choose to tax some of those things to a greater or lesser degree. To distinguish one area of expenditure from another is arbitrary.
-
Lizzie, I think you have missed the point. The NHS, Education and Security should be funded from GENERAL taxati9on, the honest way, instead of sneaky virement from motoring taxes. We were promised that the bulk of the motoring taxes, if not all, would be ring-fenced for transport issues - roads, bridges and repairs, etc. We never signed up for sneaky!
Motorists pay over £50,000,000,000 (NO, that ain't 50 billion - I'm English!) annually, so there is plenty of money available to build bridges, new roads
This is why people instinctively know that this and all the other things that they are not doing for us is WRONG and feel let down, apart from the expected broken promises of politicians.
Have you ever met an honest one?
Yes, it would obviously lead to an increase in general taxation, but at least it will be clear and transparent.....
Ron.
Vehicles cause pollution, which causes illness, so vehicles contribute to the cost of the NHS, longer health care for those seriously affected, and hospices for those who are dying from pollution related ilnesses.
One short answer to your "only for the roads" argument.
-
Lizzie, it ISN'T being "spent where it is neede", hence the state of our roads and the need extort money from us to pay for bridges that we have already bought. That is why we feel cheated.
Nige, I have argued the case on here before about how non-polluting cars are nowadays, so I won't go into it again, but maybe one day over a beer?
Ron.
-
I'd agree. The days of partitioning off "pots" of tax revenue for specific purposes are long gone. The only arguable exception to this should be a funded state pension. But unless they discover diamonds under the Chilterns, we'll never afford that.
Motorists get very protective over "road tax" (myself included when bumping over potholes in my £400 car that costs £300 to tax). However there's no reason to treat it differently to taxes raised on alcohol, fags or income.
We all make choices around our taxable earnings and what we spend these earnings on. The government choose to tax some of those things to a greater or lesser degree. To distinguish one area of expenditure from another is arbitrary.
Governments have never partitioned revenue for specific purposes: it all goes into one big pot, and whoever grabs first gets to spend it. That's why there are creatively named taxes like Road Fund Licence: in the mid twenties there was a sudden large increase in the number of cars on the roads, which was seen as another income stream - tax the cars, and make their drivers buy licences. Hint(or state/lie) that it's to improve the roads that you'll be driving your shiny new car on, and most people won't be quite so unhappy to pay the tax. Calling our sales-tax VAT is a similar scam.
Taxes are also used in half-witted attempts at social engineering, but let's not go there as I think we're already ranting!
-
The promise to scrap the Severn Bridge toll's have forced me to have rethink over who to mark my cross over in a few days time.
alfie
So you would base your whole Brexit management strategy decision on who is promising to scrap a toll over which they have no influence?
Astounding :o
Your policy voting should have been done at the May ballot. The current status quo cannot and will not be changed until the subsequent general election, 3.5 years AFTER we leave the EU. This is in order to ensure a solid foundation for an autonomous UK. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is simply blowing smoke up the arse of anyone who will listen...
:y Major future course of action based on a relatively minor and unrelated issue.
-
Lizzie, it ISN'T being "spent where it is neede", hence the state of our roads and the need extort money from us to pay for bridges that we have already bought. That is why we feel cheated.
What do you mean pay for bridges that have already been paid for?
The government used some tax money to build a bridge. If you want to use that bridge, get your hand in your pocket. It's simple. Creating pots of money is arbitrary. Only the terminally gullible would believe we can spend 100% of VED on roads at the expense of other government expenditure. If you don't want to give the government additional revenue, don't drink, don't smoke and don't drive on toll roads, buy a £0 to tax diseasel fiesta and Put your money into a pension/ISA instead, the choice really is yours.
As a nation we can only spend the money once. Like it or not, our tax revenue gets spent on our population, much of it rapidly aging, in the form of benefits (an ever increasing state pension), social care and NHS spending, etc etc. Corporate welfare is also a vast bill, if you don't like it, vote for a party that will abolish it.
-
Clarification, jimmy: to pay for bridges that have yet to be built elswhere, by tolls on existing ones - which we already own! Please note, the government do not have any money of their own; guess where it comes from?
And before Churchill vired it off in c1935, the Road Fund Licence was EXACTLY that - monies collected and ring-fenced for roads.....
Ron.
-
Bridges are generally built and paid for privately. The tolls repay any loans and then the profit goes on ongoing maintenance and private shareholders.
Fact of life, get over it and move on ;)
-
So,a few of us don't mind paying toll's for using bridges, don't let the government know that as they will take it to include the rest of the motorway network.
My son use's the bridge,s 5 days a week,to get to work in Avonmouth, £65 a week.
Alfie
-
So,a few of us don't mind paying toll's for using bridges, don't let the government know that as they will take it to include the rest of the motorway network.
My son use's the bridge,s 5 days a week,to get to work in Avonmouth, £65 a week.
Alfie
That's presumably a conscious decision...
If the cost of the journey, ie tolls and fuel are prohibitive, which seems to be what you're suggesting, then perhaps he might be better off moving there or using a B+B ;)
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and run for profit. Sod all to do with the government. This concept dates back to Medieval times, if not before.
The only exception would be congestion or emission charges, and these get paid directly to the Local Authority, not central government ;)
You'll be suggesting that people should vote Lib Dem because they want to legalise* cannabis :D
*Seeing as it is already decriminalised to a degree, this is a moot point full of hot air and nowt else, and certainly will do nothing for ensuring the stability of the future of the UK pre and post Brexit. That said, it's less damaging than Kapitan Corbyns' comedy sketch... ::)
-
My travels to his depot in avonmouth to work as a HGV driver as the payrates OVER the bridge is much higher than one can expect to earn West of the crossing,and yes he did rent flat at Severn Beach,but lost that to redelopmemt.
alfie
-
We are never going to agree on this, DG; but that doesn't mean that I hate you!
However, I do object to the fact, as you rightly state, that bridges (and part of the M6) were funded by private enterprise instead of out of the exhorbitant taxes from motorists - it's what we paid for.
Ron.
-
Conclusion: Promises from politicians, regardless of party, are only useful if they are printed on loo roll. ::)
-
For anyone interested, take a read about the Rebecca Riots in Wales. In particular the last paragraph of the "History" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riots
-
Conclusion: Promises from politicians, regardless of party, are only useful if they are printed on loo roll. ::)
.....and I would add that is because the general public expect everything for nothing, or at least as cheap as possible. The government can only use our money for running this great country of ours, but all of us have our "pet projects" , our favourite wishes of where the money is spent. We all want this and that department / area / region to get special treatment and get the extra cash. But if project Y gets extra, X will get less. Some people are left highly satisfied, whilst others are left angry and moaning about the government.
Frankly, and this is when my Conservatism comes out, if it takes Privatiisation to build/ rebuild the roads and railways, so be it. I know many will not agree, but I do not care. If we can get private business to build our infrastructure as has been the case throughout history and develop it then great! The roads, railways, and all industry was built with PRIVATE money and made worldwide success. After British Railways came into being in 1948 those of us around just saw a decline in the railways as the government of the day found other ways to spend limited funds on more important projects (like the NHS).
So before too many people talk of renationisation of everything, spare a thought to what has happened in history. Roads are in the same breath ; let private companies build the bridges, tunnels and roads as they do in the USA and let us pay tolls instead of Vehicle Excise Duty. If that is what it takes to avoid ever increasing road congestion with pot holes everywhere, let's do it :y
-
For anyone interested, take a read about the Rebecca Riots in Wales. In particular the last paragraph of the "History" section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Riots
Yes, but those days were vastly different. Only the wealthy and lorded had a right to vote; most had few rights, and Revolution was rightly in the air. The Chartists rose up to challenge many aspects of 19th century life, and although largely unsuccessful in a direct sense, they caused ripples that grew into waves that changed our British rights forever, and for the better. No body or trust could get away now with grossly overcharging for tolls, as regulatory bodies, let alone public opinion with their votes, would stamp down on their practices.
It goes back to the fact that it costs money to build structures we all want for our cars, just like it costs money to buy the fuel to run our vehicles, along with the costs of keeping them roadworthy. The hard fact is we cannot expect other people to pay for them :y
-
Remember the promise to make the Dartford crossing free once the bridge was paid for ?
nIt was obvious that was never going to happen as there's no way of avoiding the crossing, so the first thing they did was to put the price up.
So treat it as a typical election promise: we'd like to do it, but the devil will skate to work before we manage to do it.
We do indeed. But, in fairness the bridge came after one tunnel and now we need a third crossing, which will be a tunnel near Gravesend. With money for this having to come from somewhere, and the Government struggling to find enough cash for everything, I support the crossing charge. I would sooner the motorist, like me, pay to cross the Thames to support extra infrastructure than take the money away from education, NHS and security.
For the gain of crossing the Thames to the East of London quickly, rather than take the M25 clockwise from Kent the long way round to go north, £3, £5, or even £10 is worth it. The saving in fuel costs make it the financially right thing to do.
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
I don't think most people complain too much at the money being spent here but with better organisation, they could be run more efficiently. The problems are since 1991 and especially 1997 where government spending has rocketed with NI, VAT, IPT, CGT, Stamp duty, fuel duty, beer tax, VED, new car tax all rising substantially and above inflation rises for government fees. But this is still not enough for spendaholic politicians, there has been a massive rise (IMO criminal) in excessive borrowing which is just deferred tax, which we have to pay along with the interest in the future. This means the tax burden has grown from 33% of GDP to 43% or ~25% rise in just over 25 years. Government spending is about £760bn a year so this represents about a £180bn (£180,000,000,000) rise per year, over the staying at 33% of GDP. Much of this increased spending has been vanity spending, at a vast cost to us, but of a vast benefit to the politicians and their crony capitalist friends. Two that particularly annoy me are 2% of tax wasted on overseas aid, they can't shovel the £13bn per year away to tyrants and down the drain fast enough and the second which is rising rapidly and will reach £17bn per year by 2020 is the subsidising of climate change fraud. Collectively they add up to the spanking away of £30bn, which is an extra tax burden of £1000 per year for every single one of the 30m employed in the UK. :( Most people including me could put this saved tax to much better personal use. :y
-
Indeed. £1,000 buys a reasonable amount of beer/fans/petrol*... :D
*delete as applicable.
-
Remember the promise to make the Dartford crossing free once the bridge was paid for ?
nIt was obvious that was never going to happen as there's no way of avoiding the crossing, so the first thing they did was to put the price up.
So treat it as a typical election promise: we'd like to do it, but the devil will skate to work before we manage to do it.
We do indeed. But, in fairness the bridge came after one tunnel and now we need a third crossing, which will be a tunnel near Gravesend. With money for this having to come from somewhere, and the Government struggling to find enough cash for everything, I support the crossing charge. I would sooner the motorist, like me, pay to cross the Thames to support extra infrastructure than take the money away from education, NHS and security.
For the gain of crossing the Thames to the East of London quickly, rather than take the M25 clockwise from Kent the long way round to go north, £3, £5, or even £10 is worth it. The saving in fuel costs make it the financially right thing to do.
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
I don't think most people complain too much at the money being spent here but with better organisation, they could be run more efficiently. The problems are since 1991 and especially 1997 where government spending has rocketed with NI, VAT, IPT, CGT, Stamp duty, fuel duty, beer tax, VED, new car tax all rising substantially and above inflation rises for government fees. But this is still not enough for spendaholic politicians, there has been a massive rise (IMO criminal) in excessive borrowing which is just deferred tax, which we have to pay along with the interest in the future. This means the tax burden has grown from 33% of GDP to 43% or ~25% rise in just over 25 years. Government spending is about £760bn a year so this represents about a £180bn (£180,000,000,000) rise per year, over the staying at 33% of GDP. Much of this increased spending has been vanity spending, at a vast cost to us, but of a vast benefit to the politicians and their crony capitalist friends. Two that particularly annoy me are 2% of tax wasted on overseas aid, they can't shovel the £13bn per year away to tyrants and down the drain fast enough and the second which is rising rapidly and will reach £17bn per year by 2020 is the subsidising of climate change fraud. Collectively they add up to the spanking away of £30bn, which is an extra tax burden of £1000 per year for every single one of the 30m employed in the UK. :( Most people including me could put this saved tax to much better personal use. :y
I think it's more like 40 million employed.
-
Remember the promise to make the Dartford crossing free once the bridge was paid for ?
nIt was obvious that was never going to happen as there's no way of avoiding the crossing, so the first thing they did was to put the price up.
So treat it as a typical election promise: we'd like to do it, but the devil will skate to work before we manage to do it.
We do indeed. But, in fairness the bridge came after one tunnel and now we need a third crossing, which will be a tunnel near Gravesend. With money for this having to come from somewhere, and the Government struggling to find enough cash for everything, I support the crossing charge. I would sooner the motorist, like me, pay to cross the Thames to support extra infrastructure than take the money away from education, NHS and security.
For the gain of crossing the Thames to the East of London quickly, rather than take the M25 clockwise from Kent the long way round to go north, £3, £5, or even £10 is worth it. The saving in fuel costs make it the financially right thing to do.
Same with the Severn crossings; no sensible motorist on business would go to Newport from Bristol via Gloucester; the toll was always the acceptable option. ;)
I don't think most people complain too much at the money being spent here but with better organisation, they could be run more efficiently. The problems are since 1991 and especially 1997 where government spending has rocketed with NI, VAT, IPT, CGT, Stamp duty, fuel duty, beer tax, VED, new car tax all rising substantially and above inflation rises for government fees. But this is still not enough for spendaholic politicians, there has been a massive rise (IMO criminal) in excessive borrowing which is just deferred tax, which we have to pay along with the interest in the future. This means the tax burden has grown from 33% of GDP to 43% or ~25% rise in just over 25 years. Government spending is about £760bn a year so this represents about a £180bn (£180,000,000,000) rise per year, over the staying at 33% of GDP. Much of this increased spending has been vanity spending, at a vast cost to us, but of a vast benefit to the politicians and their crony capitalist friends. Two that particularly annoy me are 2% of tax wasted on overseas aid, they can't shovel the £13bn per year away to tyrants and down the drain fast enough and the second which is rising rapidly and will reach £17bn per year by 2020 is the subsidising of climate change fraud. Collectively they add up to the spanking away of £30bn, which is an extra tax burden of £1000 per year for every single one of the 30m employed in the UK. :( Most people including me could put this saved tax to much better personal use. :y
I think it's more like 40 million employed.
You are probably right on the unofficial number by the number of green coloured car drivers who own a whippet ::), but the May 2017 Government ONS statistics show 31.95m
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2017 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/may2017)