Talk:Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
[edit] Continued interpretation parking fines as taxes
This section has appeared in Wikipedia a number of times and continues to be inserted by editor User:DeFacto. I am seeking the permanent removal of this disruptive section and similar material pushing the POV of the Association of British Drivers and others fringe "motorist" groups, which already have articles.
The section in particular is biased as it
- Assumes that a parking fine is a Tax.
- Speculates about a proposal to remove ring-fencing of parking fine revenue
- Selectively uses the City of Westminster that has a high level of fines
- Does not state the expenses involved in collecting the fines (which often exceed the revenue and London wide are about 50% of what is collected) or the level of bad debts written off.
Softgrow 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- This sub-section on decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) is new to this article. In what way is this section disruptive? It is factual and accurate with appropriate citations. It is not pushing the POV of the Association of British Drivers (ABD), it is presenting DPE as a de facto tax, given that many councils make money from it for other things what other word is more appropriate. The ABD may well agree with that fact but that does not affect its validity.
- Now to each of your specific points:
- It presents DPE in the section Other fees and charges. DPE is not only concerned with penalties (a High Court Judge ruled that they were not "fines" but "civil responsibilities" [1]), but also with charging for on-street parking, and also with making a profit to fund other, non-parking specific, council projects.
- It is not speculation. The removal of ring-fencing has already started for 'Excellent' Council's such as Kensington and Chelsea who state [2]:
As we are an ‘Excellent’ Council, our income from parking is no longer ring-fenced and therefore now enters the Council's general budget.
-
- Why not pick a good example to illustrate a point. I could have picked Kensigton and Chelsea with income from on-street parking of £39m in 2004/5[3].
- I don't state the expenses involved in collecting any of the taxes or charges in any of the sections, why should this charge be treated differently. Westminster accounts show an on-street parking surplus of £32m for 2004/5 after an expenditure of £40m. The Kensington and Chelsea surplus was £24m after an expenditure of £15m. Those surpluses go towards providing services which would otherwise not be provided, or would involve higher council tax rates. Equally there are 'bad debts' for all revenue sources, why single this one out for special treatment.
