b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9019051 (Thread)

# Wow
Complaining about a 'stealth tax' that's about as stealthy as an elephant, painfully snobby ranting about 'chavs', saying the congestion charge worked and still whining about it..


...do you work for the Mail?
(I helped save b3ta! Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:37, archived)
# You clearly have not comprehended what I said above.
I said that the congestion charge in London had the effect of reducing traffic in certain areas and I qualified that with further statements.
Stealth taxes don't have to be 'hidden' They are designed to be a way of income generation without being a state ratified national taxation.
The term stealth tax refers to a levy that you pay that is a tax in all but name. Not your definition of a payment that is obvious.
fuck you and the Daily Mail.
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:41, archived)
# He's right about the chavs bit though
you should do less of that, chavs are people too, I'm almost sure of it.
(_Felix 's school of dance and occult sciences, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:44, archived)
# But am I
meant to subsidise their being? I'm happy for all people to do their own thing. Just to have them pay for it themselves.
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:47, archived)
# Would it make you happy
If they called it 'congestion tax'?
(I helped save b3ta! Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:44, archived)
# The name is not an issue.
If it were a tax ratified in parliament then all well and good, but it's not. It is a revenue gaining scheme aimed at the wealthy or business that has done nothing in London for the public transport system ( which I believe was meant to be the big carrot )

If local councils want more money for public transport then ask the government for it as they are supposed to. If the government need more money for it then ask the country as they are supposed to.
I'm not adverse to paying taxes. I'm adverse to being forced to give money to local councils that don't manage things any better with or without the funding.
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 16:53, archived)
# done nothing for public transport? bollocks
10% off bus fares came in very handy.
As did the reduced prices on the Oyster system.

New buses on my route this month too.

You're talking from a standpoint of ignorance I'm afraid.
(I helped save b3ta! chenobble rocking his explorer beard on, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 17:27, archived)
# Making it cheaper
for those that use it by charging those that don't is not my idea of useful. It has not made it any easier or quicker to travel around london by public transport. We were promised quicker travel. In my experience of London, for the most part travel by bus has grown longer in time on the same routes and I have no idea what the figures for tube travel are but it's clearly now operating way beyond capacity.
The fact is that if I finish work at 6pm in Central London I can leave for home on public transport or I can go to the pub for an hour and a half and still get home at the same time.

I'm not ignorant of public transport. It's simply not an option for me due to the amount of time it takes to get anywhere. Because it is cheaper for you does not in any way mean that the infrastructure has benefited from the congestion charge.
The idea was to free up roads and make journeys quicker. making it cheaper to sit on a bus longer is just taking the piss. Especially for those that don't sit on the bus.
(I helped save b3ta! Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 17:39, archived)