I'm not against enviro-taxes, especially as means to change people's behaviour. However, as I've seen it presented, the LDs are stating that this increase will account for c.£8bn of the £18bn lost by a 2p cut in the base rate.
Now, as they are presumably basing that new income on current figures or car-use etc I find it hard to see how they can have a situation where both the desired change in people's behaviour and the same level of cash in the public purse are compatible.
As you say, they could then continue to increase the rate of taxation for enviro-taxes but, until alternatives are widely available it will almost inevitable start to hit those who can least afford it most. Especially when you consider that the rich will be more able to switch to new technologies faster whilst the poorer will need to wait for prices to come down.
Josh points out that decreased car use will give us savings and these can be invested in some of those alternatives (better public transport for instance) which is cool. But a major increase in spending would be needed prior to that switchover for people to be able to make the switch so any savings would come later. That could work, but creates some interesting accounting in the short to mid term.
they are presumably basing that new income on current figures or car-use etc
That's one presumption, but it's possible that they're basing it on projected figures, either with our without some assumptions about how much car-ownership would change under their scheme.
a major increase in spending would be needed prior to that switchover for people to be able to make the switch
I said the exact same thing about the London congestion charge. I've been forced to accept that this is an issue on which no major party will behave well.
Now, as they are presumably basing that new income on current figures or car-use etc I find it hard to see how they can have a situation where both the desired change in people's behaviour and the same level of cash in the public purse are compatible.
As you say, they could then continue to increase the rate of taxation for enviro-taxes but, until alternatives are widely available it will almost inevitable start to hit those who can least afford it most. Especially when you consider that the rich will be more able to switch to new technologies faster whilst the poorer will need to wait for prices to come down.
Josh points out that decreased car use will give us savings and these can be invested in some of those alternatives (better public transport for instance) which is cool. But a major increase in spending would be needed prior to that switchover for people to be able to make the switch so any savings would come later. That could work, but creates some interesting accounting in the short to mid term.
Reply
That's one presumption, but it's possible that they're basing it on projected figures, either with our without some assumptions about how much car-ownership would change under their scheme.
a major increase in spending would be needed prior to that switchover for people to be able to make the switch
I said the exact same thing about the London congestion charge. I've been forced to accept that this is an issue on which no major party will behave well.
Reply
Leave a comment