London Congestion Charge (US Embassy)

[elSicomoro]

Not to mention, their payroll taxes are huge.

[jaguar]

Because the British government doesn't offer the choice.

I don't remember the legal mandate to build the US embassy inside the congestion zone. Or travel in mercs. The sum involved is around 150kGBP so far but up until now the US embassy haspaid the charge along with all others, apart from Germany.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I don't remember the legal mandate to build the US embassy inside the congestion zone. Or travel in mercs. The sum involved is around 150kGBP so far but up until now the US embassy haspaid the charge along with all others, apart from Germany.

So the US Embassy needs to move itself (after somehow finding a way to locate a building large enough and secure enough within London..if that's even possible) to a "no toll/road tax/service fee" area. It needs to spend literally, millions of dollars (and pounds) to do this, just to avoid a "fee" that was imposed AFTER they had been in that location...how many years?

I could see your point if they chose to move there after the fee was imposed, but they didn't ASK for this fee, so as was earlier pointed out, it's involuntary, they are diplomats and CANNOT take PT, so therefore it's a tax.

I think it's great that traffic has improved. I think it's great that City of London is raking in potentially $110m pounds per year. If the residents get 90% off, it's obvious that they aren't expected to move, as you're suggesting the Embassy does.

This is a tax for all those who were in the area prior to the imposition of the fee. (Therefore they have diplomatic immunity). It's a charge for all those who weren't.

[Happy Monkey]

DC is in a hard place, financially. A huge amount of real estate is owned by the Federal Government and embassies, and a huge number of DC employees pay their income tax to Virginia and Maryland. Anything they may try to do to offset this can be vetoed by Congress.

Originally Posted by Beestie

I pass by HM on the way into work every morning as I work in DC but live in VA. DC keeps bringing up the the idea of having commuters who work in the city pay DC state income tax but it hasn't gotten off the ground.

That would be overkill, and probably have no chance of passing Congress, but a commuter tax of some sort would be reasonable.

[mrnoodle]

Trying to control pollution levels in individual cities by micromanaging people's driving habits is futile. You're simply not going to be able to pry people out of their cars -- not in America, anyway.

That said, I would love to commute to work on a train, and the Front Range is long overdue for a line that runs from Denver to points north and south. I'd save thousands of dollars in gasoline every year. I've considered the bus, but the schedule and routes are weird, particularly between towns. If public transportation was efficient, clean, and convenient, I'd be all over it. Not in its current state, though. Spending 2 hours on 5 busses to travel 20 miles sucks.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Trying to control pollution levels in individual cities by micromanaging people's driving habits is futile. You're simply not going to be able to pry people out of their cars -- not in America, anyway.

The congestion charge isn't really intended to address pollution, although that is an obvious benefit. Its designed to reduce the amount of cars entering Central London.

Additional information regarding the issue (from CNN)
"A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said the embassy had only stopped paying the fee from July 1, when it was increased from £5 ($8.73) to £8 ($13.96)."

Which surely answers the question when is a charge a tax? When you don't want to pay it any more.........

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Especially when you think that 20 miles in two hours is a good bicycle pace, and a distance you could likely cover in a single hour. But you don't get any reading done.

[wolf]

We Americans have some prior history with you guys. Extra charges on Tea or something like that?