London Congestion Charge (US Embassy)

[Elspode]

I agree with the need to control traffic in congested, ancient, architecturally significant areas like London. However, if I put myself in the place of a Londoner going out to do some shopping, I'm probably not going to buy nearly as much stuff if I have to carry it back home on the bus. Looking at things like that, perhaps it would be a disincentive to spend as much.

Similarly, when dining or doing something else that I could more easily do in a suburban location since I no longer wish to be gouged to drive into town, maybe I just stay in the 'burbs to be entertained.

If I'm looking to locate a business, perhaps I think twice before putting it somewhere where my customers have to pay through the nose before they even get to my shop/office/whatever.

I guess it just remains to see if the statistics will support these possibilities over time. If so, it will be very safe and comfortable to walk around and look at all the lovely, well preserved, empty buildings.

[Happy Monkey]

Before this tax, the tradeoff was convenience of car vs massive gridlock. Now it's convenience of car vs small fee.

I'd pick the latter. Imagine if you're in a traffic jam, and someone said you could get out of it for $8. Sounds good to me.

But $8 a day dounds like a lot, doesn't it? How many people go shopping every day? It only really adds up for commuters, who are the biggest target for moving to public transportation.

[Beestie]

Well actually its either a tax or a charge depending on where you live.

The definition of a tax is any obligation imposed on a citizen that is involuntary but not punitive (not a fine levied by a court for example). If the City of London charges five pounds to tour of the Tower of London, I can easily elect not to take the tour and not pay the fee.

Now, if I live in the congestion zone and owned a car prior to the congestion charge, then, for me, the levy is involuntary and, by definition, a tax. If, however, I live outside the zone, then driving into the zone becomes voluntary and a taxable event is triggered when I do so.

Now if you move into the zone post-Congestion fee with a car then its not a tax but a charge.

On the subject of the economics, there is nothing conceptually flawed about the fee. In fact, it makes perfect sense to decrease the demand for something in limited supply by raising the cost. There is a potential problem for businesses whose business models receive the exogenous shock of a sudden decrease in clientele but, if there costs decline in equal or greater proportion to their revenue, then no harm done. It is difficult to imagine that all businesses were affected identically - there had to be some businesses who lost more than they gained but there's nothing inherently discriminatory about the charge.

As far as the original question goes, if the diplomats live within the zone and have no alternative but to pay the fee - no public transport available from home to embassy- then its a tax and they are exempt from paying it.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Beestie

On the subject of the economics, there is nothing conceptually flawed about the fee. In fact, it makes perfect sense to decrease the demand for something in limited supply by raising the cost.

You'll also get a higher class of people by keeping out the riffraff and commoners. People who have plenty of money don't worry about niggling little fees. They just have their chauffeur's pay it.

As far as the original question goes, if the diplomats live within the zone and have no alternative but to pay the fee - no public transport available from home to embassy- then its a tax and they are exempt from paying it.

Which is safer? Diplomat being driven to the embassy in an armored Mercedes by a trained evasive action driver, or a diplomat on the subway? Shouldn't those charged with the safety of the diplomatic corps take this into consideration? If, in their determination, it is unsafe for the diplomats to take public transport, and that it is important that they use private vehicles, which is it...tax or fee?

[busterb]

Most of the diplomats should be shot anyway as they're political appointments.

[jaguar]

Elspode - what you're not getting is how few people use cars in central london. Seriously. If you're anywhere near the congestion charge area it's so dense and populated you'd have a quicker time crawling to your local supermarket than taking a car most of the time. No, I'm not exagerating at all. If you do take in a car you're likely to find you spend more time finding somewhere to put it (and paying far more than the congestion charge for an hour of parking) than you do shopping. Also - if you live inside the zone you get a 90% discount, this is one of the issues with expanding the zone, suddenly all the bloody chelsea tractors will be discounted. As for diplomatic security, this is like any other service. I assume an armoured merc costs more than a normal one, is that extra cost a tax? Sounds illogical doesn't it? So why does this service come under the title tax and others not?

[lumberjim]

Delaware markets itself as the tax free state to attract shoppers. However, when you buy a car, they charge 2.75% after trade in credit as a "Doc Fee" to register your car there.

[elSicomoro]

Not to mention, their payroll taxes are huge.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I assume an armoured merc costs more than a normal one, is that extra cost a tax? Sounds illogical doesn't it? So why does this service come under the title tax and others not?

Because the British government doesn't offer the choice. The vehicles are supplied by the respective embassy (or so I would imagine...I dunno, perhaps the British are extremely generous to their resident diplomats?).

Again, I don't dispute that something should be done. The original thread was about diplomats not paying the fee because they consider it a tax. I agree with them. I mean, are there so many diplomats that allowing them an exemption would undermine the whole system? I have visions of gangs of diplomats roaming the streets of London with cricket bats and SUVs, beating up on old ladies, now.

[Griff]

I'm not a big fan of the automobile. I think much of the freedom we Americans attribute to it is illusory. However, when we look at what went down in New Orleans where everyone who was dependent on public transport by choice or not was screwed, it bolsters my anti-planning bias.

[Elspode]

My theory goes something like this: America has a problem with the automobile because we have a Puitanical attitude toward sex.

I don't know about you all, but the whole reason I wanted my first car was so I could have a reliable place to get laid and a way to obtain a partner with whom to pursue being laid.

If we all hadn't had to sneak off and fuck in our cars when we were kids so our families wouldn't be offended, we wouldn't have gotten so hung up on cars, and we'd be less car-oriented and more public transportation oriented.

Okay, maybe my thinking is flawed. I just got this vision of teenagers screwing on city busses, and everyone else pretending not to notice...they'd probably get upset over that even in Europe, where they not only have naked people on regular TV, but lots of great trains and busses.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Curtains, Els, curtains. Even if you have to carry your own.

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Imagine if you're in a traffic jam, and someone said you could get out of it for $8. Sounds good to me.

But $8 a day dounds like a lot, doesn't it? How many people go shopping every day? It only really adds up for commuters, who are the biggest target for moving to public transportation.

Monk, do you LIVE in DC or just work there? You are paying exactly this kind of "levy" to the District of Colombia from your paycheck if you are commuting from Virginia, then. I lived in Roslyn and worked on K Street, and every paycheck I was deducted for "using the roads and public safety services", even though my car came into DC rarely. I used public transportation, but I was still CHARGED, without my consent or knowledge, for passing through, as it were. That was 40 years ago, and knowing how governments have become ever more rapacious, Virginia commuters now are probably paying 10 time what I did.

They also tried to instigate the same kind of tax when I worked in San Francisco but commuted from Alameda. Like: You are coming into our city in droves and wearing out our roads and the seats of chairs in our restraunts so somebody has to pay us, and besides that you "use" our police when our residents try to rob you, etc. Some of the business leaders confronted the City about it, however, and bluntly told them that they better look around them because businesses were already in full flight from San Francisco to more "user-friendly" cities in the area, and if they wanted to empty the streets to save wear and tear, that could be arranged. The City backed down that time, but I imagine by now it is back and in spades. And businesses continue to leave San Francisco for more reasonable locations. I never thought I would say it, but San Francisco nowdays is run by policies that are TOO LIBERAL FOR ME TO STAND Never thought I would say that. Eh.

[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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Monk, do you LIVE in DC or just work there?

I live in DC and work in Virginia.

And my guess is, since Congress is in charge of DC, that that commuter tax is long dead at this point.