Park at Work Tax
Whoa… don’t let Doyle see this.
The country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.
Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years.
Employers would be free to pass the cost on to their staff. An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.
Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide. About 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.
Or they could just pass this increase unto the their customers.
Don’t the lefties get it? If a business gets a tax or fee increase it only makes the cost of the products go up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 0926 hrs
Business could spin off their parking lots to separate companies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1138 hrs
Stop giving Cubic Zirconia Jim ideas!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1300 hrs
Many British cities have had vehicle congestion issues for ages, largely the product of having too many narrow streets running in too many absurd directions. The money is also required to be invested in local transport, so the funding is segregated - although I’m not sure the extent to which British governments have figured out how to raid segregated funds.
This is no different than differential tolling or creating congestion zones. It’s also hardly different than any major city in America, where private companies often charge hundreds of dollars a month for parking spaces in prime downtown locations, and those who don’t want to pay for it take the subway or the bus.
As Rick said, if the companies don’t want to deal with it they can always sell the lots to a private companies, companies that I’m guessing would charge a lot more for the spot on a yearly basis than the government is requesting, which is the equivalent of about a dollar a day.
Or would “conservatives” rather see the government use its financial resources and condemnation authority to begin seizing property from landowners and plowing them under to widen roadways? Because that’s an option too.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 31, 2009 at 1328 hrs
RS- Like I’ve stated before. If businesses get taxed, charged or a fee because of parking they will only pass this onto you, the consumer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1354 hrs
Actually, RS, I said they would spin off their parking lots to subsidiaries. Not to other companies that would charge.
Say I owned a company, I could create a subsidiary called XYZ parking and “sell” my lot to them. Now XYZ is providing the spaces, not my company. Since XYZ is not an employer, they can’t be charged and neither can my company.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1406 hrs
Kelly - Hi. I took Econ 101. Thanks. This is a legitimate approach to a legitimate matter of public concern. You can only decrease congestion by assessing punitive levies on driving itself, increasing subsidies for public transit, or building out infrastructure. And as I mentioned, in many British cities widening roads isn’t an option without using eminent domain. Which option would you choose, assuming that doing nothing is not an option?
Rick - I apologize for the misunderstanding. But in any case, they’d close that loophole in a heartbeat. Combined reporting for parking spaces, anyone?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 31, 2009 at 1431 hrs
The other option is to just not expand the road system and allow its crazy congestion to be the punitive deterrent. No new taxes. No new spending. People are still ticked off, but what’s new?
Posted by Owen on July 31, 2009 at 1439 hrs
RS- If people don’t like the congestion they won’t drive in it. Let the problem handle itself. Yet again, in the age of big government we have to be told where to drive and tax us where we park.
If businesses in the area don’t like the fees or the parking they will get up and move. Probably leave the city and then they will have to taxes to make up for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1543 hrs
Kelly- You apparently have never driven in London.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1626 hrs
Except, RS, that the government that would be collecting fees for private parking spaces is the same government that mandates minimum numbers of private parking spaces by code.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1733 hrs
Doesn’t matter I drive or not. If you don’t like the congestion you won’t drive it. If it doesn’t bother you, you will.
Let’s institute Parking for Clunkers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1815 hrs
Encouraging small changes in behavior among those whose need to drive is most elastic can potentially lead to much larger benefits for those whose need to drive is least elastic, thereby creating a net benefit overall. Suggesting that those who don’t like it can leave is a fairly unsophisticated viewpoint that overlooks a lot of important variables - for instance, the effects of geography and proximity to public transit in selecting transportation modes.
Granted, if economic mobility were higher - if everyone working downtown could telecommute, for example - that would help too. But few people have that luxury, especially those in the service and manufacturing sectors.
For the record, I’m not advocating the policy, per se. I think there are probably better and fairer ways to tackle this issue.
Mostly, I’m defending the prerogative of a local government to take what actions it thinks will best suit the needs of the community it represents. If people don’t like it, they can vote their elected officials out of office. Parking levies, congestion pricing, toll roads, HOT lanes - it’s all the same animal. So long as the funding remains segregated and used for transportation costs, I have no problems with any of them.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 31, 2009 at 1850 hrs
So community would that be? The businesses, the visitors or the people who live there?
Segregated funds? Like the transportation fund I believe Doyle used to balance the budget?
Just asking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2009 at 1913 hrs
Um, community means all of those things.
And many folks in many countries managed to not rob their segregated funds. Norway’s petroleum fund is a fine example of that. Not everyone behaves like Jim Doyle, or Scott McCallum, or the assorted legislators, Republican and Democrat, that they worked with. And some countries are responsible enough to just cut some spending and raise some taxes to balance their budgets, instead of blindly clinging to extremist positions and then borrowing all the money so that everyone can look like a winner. All those years of divided government really dealt Wisconsin a winning hand, huh?
Just saying.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 01, 2009 at 0238 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134045
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 08:48 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:01 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).