ADUK Archive

jont wrote:Much better that businesses stop functioning and as the housing market also seems dysfunctional at the moment those who need to commute long distances for work give up and simply claim benefits?

Because businesses never functioned at all before vehicle use became so high, did they And few people need to commute long distances - they just chose a job that forces them to do so.

Like in driving, I think most people agree that other people need to change, as long as it doesn't affect them...

YorkshireJumbo wrote:Because businesses never functioned at all before vehicle use became so high, did they

The world had changed enormously since then, going back would cause a level of pain that would make 1970-1985 a golden age of prosperity by comparison.

And few people need to commute long distances - they just chose a job that forces them to do so.

Well I guess they could choose to be unemployed, or work in a supermarket and not be able to afford their home. or to cram their family into a bedsit (which, increasingly, is all most first time buyers on below median income can afford in many city centre areas). The days when every town and many villages had major employers providing skilled work ended decades ago.

Like in driving, I think most people agree that other people need to change, as long as it doesn't affect them...

Just as many people agree that there are quick fix answers out there that allow us all to avoid making that the root and branch changes to society, planning policies et al are beyond what most individuals can influence.

YorkshireJumbo wrote:Is it wrong to encourage this by taxation?

I don't suppose it's any more or less wrong than trying to encourage or discourage any other behaviours or choices through taxation. Personally, I think it's wrong, but I suspect I'm in a very small minority. It's seems to be normal and expected to try and use taxation to influence people's behaviours and choices. And if trying to influence people like that is your thing, I can see how taxation would seem an appealing tool.

GJD wrote:

YorkshireJumbo wrote:Is it wrong to encourage this by taxation?

I don't suppose it's any more or less wrong than trying to encourage or discourage any other behaviours or choices through taxation. Personally, I think it's wrong, but I suspect I'm in a very small minority. It's seems to be normal and expected to try and use taxation to influence people's behaviours and choices. And if trying to influence people like that is your thing, I can see how taxation would seem an appealing tool.

Whichever means of taxation is used, be it direct, or indirect, it will be seen as unfair by the section of society that it impacts on most. Fuel duty will have an impact across all sections of society, but will affect the poorest the most.