Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Not relevant to what?seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2019, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.
When I pointed out I've heard more people moan about the precept than ULEZ (this topic!) you went on a tirade on council tax and how if you don't like it you should either vote out the council, write to the councillor or MP or stand for election. I guess you realise how ridiculous that was now having worked out what the precept is and who sets the precept, then again, based on your last post where you are still going on about tax, maybe not.
So just in case you are still struggling with my point:
"Ulez won't be a massive thing come Mayoral election, I've heard more people grumbling about council tax (the GLA element) which is up considerably."
if it helps you let me break it down into two key bullet points:
1. ULEZ isn't going to be a major issue in the mayoral election
2. I've heard more people moan about the GLA/Precept element of the council tax than about ULEZ
So as you can see, both aspects are relevant to this topic.
This isn't (thankfully) the cesspit that was the HoC's. Over and out.
JamesSeed said:So odd that on ‘X’ many of the vehemently anti ULEZ (and anti Khan) types don’t live in London.Being selfish, and living near the south circular, ULEZ Is fine by me.I suspect historians will have the policy down as something we should have done a few years earlier.
I think maybe many out of the zone who come in knew less about its implementation. We have a guy at work who's borderline beginning to affect his own mental health with his fascination with Khan and ULEZ. I have some sympathy with him, he lives a way out of the zone but was travelling in every day to see his mother in a dementia home and now can't afford to, so only see's her once a week. But rather than spend his time and energy sorting that out, he spends his time and energy just moaning about ULEZ.
3 -
When you hear the people moan about paying the GLA/Precept element of the council tax you have the choice to point out to them that taxes have to be paid in order to pay for stuff.0
-
seth plum said:When you hear the people moan about paying the GLA/Precept element of the council tax you have the choice to point out to them that taxes have to be paid in order to pay for stuff.
In 2022-23, the GLA and its subsidiary bodies, including TfL and the London Fire Brigade employed at least 1,146 people who received over £100,000 in total remuneration.
Of these, 143 employees - including the Mayor himself - earned more than £150,000.
By comparison, in 2018-19, 655 employees received over £100,000 of which 155 collected over £150,000.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1878681/sadiq-khan-london-city-hall-salaries
0 -
Anybody who thinks wages paid are too high could campaign and vote for that to change.clive said:seth plum said:When you hear the people moan about paying the GLA/Precept element of the council tax you have the choice to point out to them that taxes have to be paid in order to pay for stuff.In 2022-23, the GLA and its subsidiary bodies, including TfL and the London Fire Brigade employed at least 1,146 people who received over £100,000 in total remuneration.
Of these, 143 employees - including the Mayor himself - earned more than £150,000.
By comparison, in 2018-19, 655 employees received over £100,000 of which 155 collected over £150,000.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1878681/sadiq-khan-london-city-hall-salaries
Housing is very expensive in London.
0 -
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?1 -
Sorry it was part of the TFL settlement.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect. The expansion to outer London was not conditional.Crusty54 said:
The Department for Transport insisted on the extension as part of the TfL financial settlement. Not in her power to remove it.valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
She won't abolish itvalleynick66 said:
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?You may be thinking of the previous expansion to the south and north circular.0 -
Not as I understand it. Please can you share where/ how?Crusty54 said:
Sorry it was part of the TFL settlement.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect. The expansion to outer London was not conditional.Crusty54 said:
The Department for Transport insisted on the extension as part of the TfL financial settlement. Not in her power to remove it.valleynick66 said:
Eh?cafc999 said:
She won't abolish itvalleynick66 said:
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.
it’s her published pledge should she win to scrap the extension - and which is all I comment on (I doubt she will win) so not sure why you say that?You may be thinking of the previous expansion to the south and north circular.0 -
I think something called the laffer curve is thrown into discussions about rates of tax.JamesSeed said:
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?
Statistics might somehow demonstrate that there is something in that, but the answer is to tackle the reasons people don’t end up paying rather than a shrug and saying ‘the laffer curve what you gonna do?’.1 -
Traditionally the laffer curve has mostly held true. But it doesn't hold in todays society. Mainly ly because "the rich" (the people we are talking about at the top, hoarding wealth and pulling away from society) don't get paid through salaries anymore. Top rates of income tax hit generally the middle classes*. People with mortgages, jobs, families and cost of living pressures. Those with significant assets get paid through offshore means and limited companies. We need to tackle those problems as well as a tax on excess profits of companies (see energy sector).seth plum said:
I think something called the laffer curve is thrown into discussions about rates of tax.JamesSeed said:
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?
Statistics might somehow demonstrate that there is something in that, but the answer is to tackle the reasons people don’t end up paying rather than a shrug and saying ‘the laffer curve what you gonna do?’.
*there is a question of what even is the middle classes anymore. Saw a stat recently (admittedly it was on social media from an dmfinancial planner account -generally reliable but I haven't verified the source or checked the analysis) which stated that to get the same standard of living as a 10k salary in 1980 you'd need to be earning 82k in 2023.3 -
What car do you drive?valleynick66 said:
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Correct, but not tell them to vote out the council or write to their councillor etc, as it's nothing to do with them (which I'm hoping you now, finally, understand).seth plum said:When you hear the people moan about paying the GLA/Precept element of the council tax you have the choice to point out to them that taxes have to be paid in order to pay for stuff.
They also have the right to question why the precept has increased so substantially when it appears to many, nothing has improved (if anything it's got worse).
The whole tax system needs a massive shake up and start again, but I can't see that in my lifetime. For the mega rich it would need I suspect an international effort, but all the time we have low tax economies targeting them (Monaco, Bermuda etc) it's never going to work/happen.cantersaddick said:
Traditionally the latter curve has mostly held true. But it doesn't hold in todays society. Mainly ly because "the rich" (the people we are talking about at the top, hoarding wealth and pulling away from society) don't get paid through salaries anymore. Top rates of income tax hit generally the middle classes*. People with mortgages, jobs, families and cost of living pressures. Those with significant assets get paid through offshore means and limited companies. We need to tackle those problems as well as a tax on excess profits of companies (see energy sector).seth plum said:
I think something called the laffer curve is thrown into discussions about rates of tax.JamesSeed said:
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?
Statistics might somehow demonstrate that there is something in that, but the answer is to tackle the reasons people don’t end up paying rather than a shrug and saying ‘the laffer curve what you gonna do?’.
*there is a question of what even is the middle classes anymore. Saw a stat recently (admittedly it was on social media from an dmfinancial planner account -generally reliable but I haven't verified the source or checked the analysis) which stated that to get the same standard of living as a 10k salary in 1980 you'd need to be earning 82k in 2023.
To unravel limited companies would upset a lot of the self employed!0 -
There are local council elections, and there are elections to the GLA (the precept place). Elections in May if I am correct.
My contention holds true whatever name something has, and whatever authority is elected. Revenue has to be collected in order to pay for things.
Question away, moan away about tax being too high, and things getting worse, that is healthy, and if enough people don’t like it contact their representatives, or stand for election.
Presumably we shall see at the next election if people think they’re being ripped off.
0 -
-
The benefits of limited companies get smaller and smaller each year for micro / small companiesRob7Lee said:
Correct, but not tell them to vote out the council or write to their councillor etc, as it's nothing to do with them (which I'm hoping you now, finally, understand).seth plum said:When you hear the people moan about paying the GLA/Precept element of the council tax you have the choice to point out to them that taxes have to be paid in order to pay for stuff.
They also have the right to question why the precept has increased so substantially when it appears to many, nothing has improved (if anything it's got worse).
The whole tax system needs a massive shake up and start again, but I can't see that in my lifetime. For the mega rich it would need I suspect an international effort, but all the time we have low tax economies targeting them (Monaco, Bermuda etc) it's never going to work/happen.cantersaddick said:
Traditionally the latter curve has mostly held true. But it doesn't hold in todays society. Mainly ly because "the rich" (the people we are talking about at the top, hoarding wealth and pulling away from society) don't get paid through salaries anymore. Top rates of income tax hit generally the middle classes*. People with mortgages, jobs, families and cost of living pressures. Those with significant assets get paid through offshore means and limited companies. We need to tackle those problems as well as a tax on excess profits of companies (see energy sector).seth plum said:
I think something called the laffer curve is thrown into discussions about rates of tax.JamesSeed said:
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?
Statistics might somehow demonstrate that there is something in that, but the answer is to tackle the reasons people don’t end up paying rather than a shrug and saying ‘the laffer curve what you gonna do?’.
*there is a question of what even is the middle classes anymore. Saw a stat recently (admittedly it was on social media from an dmfinancial planner account -generally reliable but I haven't verified the source or checked the analysis) which stated that to get the same standard of living as a 10k salary in 1980 you'd need to be earning 82k in 2023.
To unravel limited companies would upset a lot of the self employed!1 -
A compliant diesel - why?PopIcon said:
What car do you drive?valleynick66 said:
How do you conclude done and dusted when the conservative candidate is saying she will abolish it on Day 1 if elected (I doubt she will be successful by the way) ?JamesSeed said:
I can’t believe people are still banging on about this ULEZ business. It’s done and dusted. If it’s all been a terrible disaster then that’ll be reflected in the election result. Personally I think ULEZ is now a non issue.valleynick66 said:
And I reject 5 years as a sensible notice period. 18 months perhaps?Friend Or Defoe said:
I asked a question and suggested 5 years.valleynick66 said:
Eh?Friend Or Defoe said:
How much time would be sufficient, 5 years? Surely if you owned a car you would drive into inner London, therefore outer London had more time than an area that barely cared about ULEZ? Although in fairness the Tory couldn't run a propaganda campaign against it back then. Then there's the 90% of cars being compliant anyway factor. Seems to be a lot of fuss about not much when there are far bigger issues affecting Londoners.valleynick66 said:
Incorrect summary.cantersaddick said:
Let's get this straightvalleynick66 said:
Interesting. It remains my fear the expanded ULEZ will become a cash negative all too quickly.shirty5 said:
You've criticised it for being only a money raising exercise.
You've criticised it for being too strict but also for not being a blanket ban on polluting vehicles
You've criticised it for being implemented too quickly (despite the first city hall discussions and press coverage starting 2 and a half years before implementation, formal announcement more than a year before and a delay to implementation to allow more to use the scrappage scheme).
And now you're criticising it for not making enough money? Which us also an indicator its working
Me thinks you're just looking for reasons not to like it!I do believe it may end up
being cost negative too soon and have said that more than once. My fear is it will too soon be a cost as drivers change behaviour quickly or we will fail to actually get the fines levied relative to the costs of implementation and outsourcing (I assume) the maintenance of the associated processes.I do believe it was introduced in the wrong way at the wrong time. Outer London did not get much notice and a time of a cost of living ‘crisis’. It was announced in November 22 and Implemented in august 23. I’m not aware of any delay for the scrappage scheme.
I do believe it must have some impact on air quality (how can it not?) but I think it may end up being marginal as natural churn of vehicles and the trickle down benefit of existing ULEZ boundaries brings that to a degree.I don’t think I’ve ever said it should be a blanket ban.If I originally said it’s a revenue generating scheme that’s because I think that is the real driver (for outer London) by this current leadership . That is not the same as my fear it may end up being cost negative all too soon.I’ve not suggested 5 years but 9 months isn’t long if someone needs to save / adjust finances. Particularly when there is cost pressure more generally.The boundary for inner London does not mean living in outer London I must have entered it. If so little need to extend if air quality is already being positively influenced.Again my point is not the ultimate air quality gain just how it was implemented. It should either have been for less expensive fines initially to soften the blow or more notice.
Not driving into inner London suggests not using the car that often. 🤔
Yes not driving that often as a good citizen. 😉 But also choosing to drive in the other direction where public transport less of an option.
It will be a topic no doubt in the elections but not the only one ( for me at least).The disaster as you describe it is in my opinion not yet proven. I would not call it a disaster.We haven’t been given any information on the costs versus revenue nor analysis of compliance versus non compliance. I maintain that will be interesting in due course.0 -
Maybe the extension may happen?!1 -
Get in.Thank you Mr Khan, a new service into the capital of the People’s Republic of South East London.
One nation under the Catford Cat.3 -
This maybe Susan Hall's plan for the cat or a joke for yesterday.0 -
MacDonalds is totally vile chite bought and consumed by exploited or very desperate people in my opinion.
Like consider the difference between a proper chip, and what they call a ‘fry’.
Their fries are a thin stick of congealed fat with a hint of reconstituted potato fashioned to keep the fat in shape.
Sheesh if that Conservative Party (look I’ve been robbed on the tube by Khans band of bandits although really my purse fell out of my pocket and was kindly returned to me by a morally upright Londoner) Candidate change our Catford Cat there will be rioting on the streets.
1 -
0 - Sponsored links:
-
If we are going for cat photos now...
1 -
0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.5
-
Exactly. I moved to London in 1977 on a tiny salary (£2,500 a year or something?) and was soon sharing a two bedroom flat in Belsize Park.cantersaddick said:
Traditionally the laffer curve has mostly held true. But it doesn't hold in todays society. Mainly ly because "the rich" (the people we are talking about at the top, hoarding wealth and pulling away from society) don't get paid through salaries anymore. Top rates of income tax hit generally the middle classes*. People with mortgages, jobs, families and cost of living pressures. Those with significant assets get paid through offshore means and limited companies. We need to tackle those problems as well as a tax on excess profits of companies (see energy sector).seth plum said:
I think something called the laffer curve is thrown into discussions about rates of tax.JamesSeed said:
There’s an argument that the average person should pay less tax. The extra income will probably be spent on goods and services, and should lead to a boost for the economy, leading to growth.seth plum said:The precept is not relevant.
Money comes in under the guise of a lot of different names, there used to be something called Road Tax which wasn't only spent on roads, the essential thing is that if anybody moans about being tax overburdened then pay up or change the system.
Moaning about it is welcome, I moan about a lot of things myself, but I don't tend to moan about tax rates however they're labelled because it seems clear to me we all ought to be paying much more to start to fix the destruction since 2010, and the extra destruction since 2016, and the long standing ongoing destruction of the environment.
There are elections in May. I suspect there are those amongst us who accept that we must all pay all sorts of taxes and charges if we want there to be things, the structures are details.
Money comes in, money gets spent.We all know how the gap between the rich and the rest of us has grown enormously in recent years. We somehow need to get them to pay their fair share. The very wealthy have ways and means of squirrelling their money away from the tax man. Perhaps there should be more deals done to get them to cough up. Counter intuitively perhaps, lowering their top rate of tax might actually encourage them to actually pay some?
Statistics might somehow demonstrate that there is something in that, but the answer is to tackle the reasons people don’t end up paying rather than a shrug and saying ‘the laffer curve what you gonna do?’.
*there is a question of what even is the middle classes anymore. Saw a stat recently (admittedly it was on social media from an dmfinancial planner account -generally reliable but I haven't verified the source or checked the analysis) which stated that to get the same standard of living as a 10k salary in 1980 you'd need to be earning 82k in 2023.1 -
The police need to get involved.seth plum said:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.3 -
-
Not sure what laws are broken though?JamesSeed said:
The police need to get involved.seth plum said:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.Social media generally is full of unpleasant comments on all sides and all topics.Social media and use of AI will feature/influence all voting globally in future and not sure there is an obvious way to best control it.0 -
Susan Hall is a fuckwit. Has absolutely no chance, and rightly so.
I don't mind Khan's policies too much, he always seems like a bellend as a person though. Needlessly antagonizes people rather than bringing the city together. He's another person who "upsets the right people" which gets him fans, which seems to be the big thing across politics at the moment, you vote for the person who upsets the people you dislike the most rather than on their what they actually deliver.
Between the two who can realistically win it I would much rather he win, but if I could pick the winner I'd probably go for the Green or Lib Dem candidate.2 -
I watched the Mayor of London 1 hour TV debate this week.
Khan smirked and smiled throughout.
Whether you support or oppose Khan, I was staggered by his arrogance.3 -
Covered End said:I watched the Mayor of London 1 hour TV debate this week.
Khan smirked and smiled throughout.
Whether you support or oppose Khan, I was staggered by his arrogance.It was one of the worst debates I've ever seen, far too short (only one hour) and lots of interruptions.Khan is doing a good job, even rival Count Binface agrees. Attacking his house building record is insanity. Do these people not live in London?Susan Hall makes Liz Truss look like Albert Einstein. If Khan was just upsetting the right people the Tories would have put a proper candidate in.
6
