More taxes on cars from Sadiq

74
Found 29th Jan
consultations.tfl.gov.uk/env…85/

If you have a diesel or old petrol car you could be forced to pay £12.50 everyday!


Thats £1000s every year. ?


The mayor of London is suggesting expanding the ultra low emission zone to ALL AREAS WITHIN NORTH AND SOUTH CIRCULAR ROAD.


Tfl is surveying opinions NOW.
Please object strongly to this. It's just another unfair tax on motorists.


Even if you're outside the proposed zone you should still object as these zones expand.
Community Updates
Misc
Top comments
It's a well known myth sorry I meant Government fact, that you can fix any problem by making people pay more.

I used to be a MP, but resigned to "spend more time with my family" and not due to "allegations"
123batman32114 m ago

He gets disrespect because hes an idiot. Regardless of religion you can …He gets disrespect because hes an idiot. Regardless of religion you can still be an idiot and this man is clearly an idiot lol


No, you're not allowed to be both a Muslim and an idiot in misc. Of course you can be, but nobody can mention it. At least not without the usual suspects throwing around their accusations of racism.
74 Comments
It’s not all diesel cars by the looks of it. I have a VW Golf diesel and that meets the euro VI laws (no jokes about VW emissions please ha). So wouldn’t affect me, but I can see how this could be an issue for older cars and for people who don’t want to spend a lot of money on a newer car that meets these laws.
It's a well known myth sorry I meant Government fact, that you can fix any problem by making people pay more.

I used to be a MP, but resigned to "spend more time with my family" and not due to "allegations"
So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with pollution costs the economy and the NHS a lot more.
Even if everyone says no.
They will still waste money with this,And do it any way.
Why waste our money.
Cr0m27 m ago

So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with …So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with pollution costs the economy and the NHS a lot more.


No it doesn't at all. People will still be forced to pay it.

Nothing will change other than some people lining their pockets.

A perfect example of this (theres many) but the one I have first hand experience of is a huge car park which used to be free. There used to be people lining up every isle waiting for a space. They decided to start charging motorists for parking in this particular car park, presumably to reduce traffic in the area. Has it stopped people parking there? no, its still exactly the same as it was when it was free, ie.. people queuing up waiting for a bay. I understand parking charges, so one cannot moan too much. But you can see the relevance. Nobody is going to sell their car and opt for public transport (that also makes people sick) just because of a charge. Nor are they going to walk in London.

Theres only one winner here.
Cr0m34 m ago

So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with …So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with pollution costs the economy and the NHS a lot more.


Can you explain how charging money to drive in certain areas of the country will save lives?
I agree with Sadiq. Nearly 10,000 die every year from pollution in London.
J4GG416 m ago

No it doesn't at all. People will still be forced to pay it.Nothing will …No it doesn't at all. People will still be forced to pay it.Nothing will change other than some people lining their pockets.A perfect example of this (theres many) but the one I have first hand experience of is a huge car park which used to be free. There used to be people lining up every isle waiting for a space. They decided to start charging motorists for parking in this particular car park, presumably to reduce traffic in the area. Has it stopped people parking there? no, its still exactly the same as it was when it was free, ie.. people queuing up waiting for a bay. I understand parking charges, so one cannot moan too much. But you can see the relevance. Nobody is going to sell their car and opt for public transport (that also makes people sick) just because of a charge. Nor are they going to walk in London.Theres only one winner here.




Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to reduce harmful NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) emissions by about 50 per cent in central London, 40 per cent in inner London and 30 per cent in outer London.

Pollution in London is at dangerous and illegal levels. Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study.

"This kind of policy decision only happens when the evidence of harm to public health is overwhelming – as, for example, with banning smoking in public places. We know this approach works: the smoking ban has delivered major improvements in public health, reducing rates of pre-term birth by about 4%, childhood hospital admissions for asthma by 10% and pneumonia by almost 20%."

amp.theguardian.com/com…-gp

Something has to be done about it and in the absence of magic wands it's this.
Cr0m54 m ago

So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with …So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with pollution costs the economy and the NHS a lot more.



On this basis, isn't it better to tax £1000 those who live within North and South Circular for healthier living with cleaner air, and then pay £1,000 drivers not to come into North and South Circular.
sophia_x14 m ago

I agree with Sadiq. Nearly 10,000 die every year from pollution in London.



Get those 10,000 who are about to die every year, say each one is worth £250,000 for future economic gain.
Then £250,000X 10,000 = £2,500,000,000 per year, give out this as bonus to those applying not to drive in.
Good job there’s no such thing as a stupid tax. Sadiq would be bankrupt.

i cannot stand the man.

If only people and Businesses Would boycott this and just stop all deliveries of goods and services into central London. Sadiq would soon reverse his decision.
Original Poster
Cr0m1 h, 15 m ago

So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with …So negative Dave. This will save lives and sickness associated with pollution costs the economy and the NHS a lot more.


no it actually won't unfortunately, it will only create more revenue for TFL - already the most expensive buses and trains, now most expensive capital's roads too!! Read it again.
Edited by: "davewave" 29th Jan
davewave10 m ago

no it actually won't unfortunately, it will only create more revenue for …no it actually won't unfortunately, it will only create more revenue for TFL - already the most expensive buses and trains, now most expensive capital's roads too!! Read it again.



So It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, St Bartholomew’s (Barts), and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and co-director of Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research. He has worked as a GP in east London for over 20 years.

Let me consider for a while...
splender31 m ago

On this basis, isn't it better to tax £1000 those who live within North …On this basis, isn't it better to tax £1000 those who live within North and South Circular for healthier living with cleaner air, and then pay £1,000 drivers not to come into North and South Circular.


I like your out-of-the-box thinking but I'm not sure how that would work.
Banned
Sadiq is simply emulating exactly what Labour would do if ever they gain power. Tax tax tax and then tax some more.

Corbyn has promised all things to all people, and only fools believe him.

More money for Healthcare, more for Policing, more for Education, more more more for everyone and anyone. Not forgetting his promise to remove all student debts (which after the election he then denied).

There's two way he'll pay for it. Higher taxes for all, and Nuclear Disarmament.
Cr0m45 m ago

Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to …Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to reduce harmful NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) emissions by about 50 per cent in central London, 40 per cent in inner London and 30 per cent in outer London. Pollution in London is at dangerous and illegal levels. Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study."This kind of policy decision only happens when the evidence of harm to public health is overwhelming – as, for example, with banning smoking in public places. We know this approach works: the smoking ban has delivered major improvements in public health, reducing rates of pre-term birth by about 4%, childhood hospital admissions for asthma by 10% and pneumonia by almost 20%."https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/23/pollution-toxic-air-london-vehicle-charge-gpSomething has to be done about it and in the absence of magic wands it's this.


If he wanted to cut levels he wouldn’t have scrapped the New London Bus, buses are the biggest culprits and he goes and does that.

Let’s all get into our electric cars which are so environmentally friendly and not worry about the emissions from power stations as one poster said on here recently because that’s not in their area or the, pollution from shipping the battery raw materials or the very environmentally friendly mining and all the wonders that does for the environment.

If you you don’t believe what the buses are doing just look at the figures from the bus strike a couple of years ago, day of the bus strike massive dip on nox.
Original Poster
Cr0m6 m ago

So It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the Centre for …So It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, St Bartholomew’s (Barts), and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and co-director of Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research. He has worked as a GP in east London for over 20 years.Let me consider for a while...


Cr0m6 m agoSo It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, St Bartholomew’s (Barts), and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and co-director of Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research. He has worked as a GP in east London for over 20 years.Let me consider for a while...



and they're experts in tax and economics are they, the cars aren't banned from driving, just taxed - who pays everyone ? Higher costs are passed on commercially. Who hurts... those who are poorest in society.
Edited by: "davewave" 29th Jan
Dilithium4 m ago

Sadiq is simply emulating exactly what Labour would do if ever they gain …Sadiq is simply emulating exactly what Labour would do if ever they gain power. Tax tax tax and then tax some more.Corbyn has promised all things to all people, and only fools believe him.More money for Healthcare, more for Policing, more for Education, more more more for everyone and anyone. Not forgetting his promise to remove all student debts (which after the election he then denied).There's two way he'll pay for it. Higher taxes for all, and Nuclear Disarmament.


Not quite - Conservatives are all tax and no spend. Labour are tax and spend.

depends where you’d prefer public money. In the government bank account or out in the public domain.
unfortunaly there isn’t a party in between - it’s one or the other.
davewave2 m ago

Cr0m6 m agoSo It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the …Cr0m6 m agoSo It's between you and Professor Chris Griffiths, lead at the Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, St Bartholomew’s (Barts), and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, and co-director of Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research. He has worked as a GP in east London for over 20 years.Let me consider for a while...and they're experts in tax and economics are they, the cars aren't banned from driving, just taxed - who pays everyone ? Higher costs are passed on commercially. Who hurts... those who are poorest in society.


Splendid. Yes and no etc.
J4GG41 h, 6 m ago

No it doesn't at all. People will still be forced to pay it.Nothing will …No it doesn't at all. People will still be forced to pay it.Nothing will change other than some people lining their pockets.A perfect example of this (theres many) but the one I have first hand experience of is a huge car park which used to be free. There used to be people lining up every isle waiting for a space. They decided to start charging motorists for parking in this particular car park, presumably to reduce traffic in the area. Has it stopped people parking there? no, its still exactly the same as it was when it was free, ie.. people queuing up waiting for a bay. I understand parking charges, so one cannot moan too much. But you can see the relevance. Nobody is going to sell their car and opt for public transport (that also makes people sick) just because of a charge. Nor are they going to walk in London.Theres only one winner here.



Dyslexic_Dog59 m ago

Can you explain how charging money to drive in certain areas of the …Can you explain how charging money to drive in certain areas of the country will save lives?


Fewer young people are driving than ever before whether this is because they can't afford to or care about their environment
it doesn't matter they will walk,cycle or take the train

this will save lives.
Original Poster
118luke5 m ago

Not quite - Conservatives are all tax and no spend. Labour are tax and …Not quite - Conservatives are all tax and no spend. Labour are tax and spend.depends where you’d prefer public money. In the government bank account or out in the public domain.unfortunaly there isn’t a party in between - it’s one or the other.


Taxes have gone down under Conservatives - Personal Allowances continue to rise...


33161190-8CMou.jpg

33161190-gzauV.jpg
davewave5 m ago

Taxes have gone down under Conservatives - Personal Allowances continue to …Taxes have gone down under Conservatives - Personal Allowances continue to rise...[Image] [Image]


* not taking into account the VAT increase in 2010
Rubisco8 m ago

Sad to see so much basic disrespect for this man, if "The Muslim 500" …Sad to see so much basic disrespect for this man, if "The Muslim 500" deems him worthy of the title "His Excellency" then you should use it. It shouldn't be hard to remember as it's got such a ring to it.HE SadiqHE SadiqHE SadiqRolls off the tongue


Oh hey! you forgot to reply in that argument we were having in the other thread 😊

Sadiq Khan is a Muslim though
Yeah, this is fine.

Pollution and congestion are both issues Londoners need to address and this should go some way to helping that. It won't solve it overnight but this is baby steps.

I think the problem some have is with it being Sadiq Khan doing this. Who knows if they had such reservations when Ken Livingstone introduced the original congestion charge.
davewave44 m ago

no it actually won't unfortunately, it will only create more revenue for …no it actually won't unfortunately, it will only create more revenue for TFL - already the most expensive buses and trains, now most expensive capital's roads too!! Read it again.


Actually the majority of people won't see their costs increase at all. Always cup half empty arent we Mr negative
Cr0m21 m ago

Oh hey! you forgot to reply in that argument we were having in the other …Oh hey! you forgot to reply in that argument we were having in the other thread 😊Sadiq Khan is a Muslim though


So I did, sorry I fell asleep shortly after reading your post, too tired from a day of making a hands-on difference to the world, perhaps in future I'll conserve my energy and just strut about loudly complaining as clearly that's how most issues get solved.

Yes he is a Muslim, an excellent one no less. Remember: HE Sadiq
Original Poster
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals25 m ago

Actually the majority of people won't see their costs increase at all. …Actually the majority of people won't see their costs increase at all. Always cup half empty arent we Mr negative


£12.50 a day for the pleasure of driving on the North Circular - what a joke.
Cr0m1 h, 42 m ago

Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to …Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to reduce harmful NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) emissions by about 50 per cent in central London, 40 per cent in inner London and 30 per cent in outer London. Pollution in London is at dangerous and illegal levels. Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study."This kind of policy decision only happens when the evidence of harm to public health is overwhelming – as, for example, with banning smoking in public places. We know this approach works: the smoking ban has delivered major improvements in public health, reducing rates of pre-term birth by about 4%, childhood hospital admissions for asthma by 10% and pneumonia by almost 20%."https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/23/pollution-toxic-air-london-vehicle-charge-gpSomething has to be done about it and in the absence of magic wands it's this.


I am all for reducing emissions but "9,500 die each year in London" is not what that study says at all. What it should read is; "9,500 people with fatal lung disorders are probably negatively effected by long term high concentration exposure"
Edited by: "catbeans" 29th Jan
Rubisco18 m ago

So I did, sorry I fell asleep shortly after reading your post, too tired …So I did, sorry I fell asleep shortly after reading your post, too tired from a day of making a hands-on difference to the world, perhaps in future I'll conserve my energy and just strut about loudly complaining as clearly that's how most issues get solved. Yes he is a Muslim, an excellent one no less. Remember: HE Sadiq


Yeah, stick to snide remarks
Wongy1101 h, 19 m ago

Fewer young people are driving than ever before whether this is because …Fewer young people are driving than ever before whether this is because they can't afford to or care about their environment it doesn't matter they will walk,cycle or take the trainthis will save lives.



Thats another story for another day though, isn't it.

Pollution is increased for each person that steps foot on public transport. If a large number of people start using public transport then the services need to also increase, causing more pollution. Yes it will be less than 1 person using a car.

If this tax comes into force, a very very tiny amount of people will stop using their car. This tiny amount of people will make a minuscule difference in pollution and certainly wont make a huge difference in saving peoples lives. As I said, all its doing is lining pockets.
Edited by: "J4GG4" 29th Jan
catbeans4 m ago

I am all for reducing emissions but "9,500 die each year in London die …I am all for reducing emissions but "9,500 die each year in London die each year" is not what that study says at all. What it should read is; "9,500 people with fatal lung disorders are probably negatively effected by long term high concentration exposure"


I think I read they came to that figure as a fair approximation considering long term factors, it was complex. I don't know much about the subject, so I'd have to research it and I cba to tbh only for Dave or whoever to bail once they're beaten in an argument
J4GG45 m ago

Thats another story for another day though, isn't it.Pollution is …Thats another story for another day though, isn't it.Pollution is increased for each person that steps foot on public transport. If a large number of people start using public transport then the services need to also increase, causing more pollution. Yes will it be less than 1 person using a car.If this tax comes into force, a very very tiny amount of people will stop using their car. This tiny amount of people will make a minuscule difference in pollution and certainly wont make a huge difference in saving peoples lives. As I said, all its doing is lining pockets.


Nobody said it would easy weaning people off their car addictions.
Original Poster
Wongy11050 s ago

Nobody said it would easy weaning people off their car addictions.


nobody proved it would be possible either.
davewave4 m ago

nobody proved it would be possible either.



Cr0m13 m ago

Yeah, stick to snide remarks


I don't think I'll bother as only snide remarks that rhyme with things like "Hey Hey Ho Ho" affect political change and I missed that preschool poetry class.
Original Poster
Wongy1103 m ago

[Video]


I certainly hope the emissions tests are honest because otherwise this whole policy would only profit TFL and the auto manufacturers. Once Sadiq leaves office he'll have raised cost of all travel in the capital! Labour = high taxes...plus ca change
Rubisco9 m ago

I don't think I'll bother as only snide remarks that rhyme with things …I don't think I'll bother as only snide remarks that rhyme with things like "Hey Hey Ho Ho" affect political change and I missed that preschool poetry class.


Just try and make them comprehensible as well as revealing about your prurient interests.
Cr0m2 h, 8 m ago

Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to …Don't be ridiculous, of course it makes a change. This is expected to reduce harmful NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) emissions by about 50 per cent in central London, 40 per cent in inner London and 30 per cent in outer London. Pollution in London is at dangerous and illegal levels. Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study."This kind of policy decision only happens when the evidence of harm to public health is overwhelming – as, for example, with banning smoking in public places. We know this approach works: the smoking ban has delivered major improvements in public health, reducing rates of pre-term birth by about 4%, childhood hospital admissions for asthma by 10% and pneumonia by almost 20%."https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/23/pollution-toxic-air-london-vehicle-charge-gpSomething has to be done about it and in the absence of magic wands it's this.


Im saying that people will pay whatever charges are thrown at them.

Therefore pollution will still exist at the same/similar levels. I doubt it will change much.

The London congestion charge started in 2003, im sure i read somewhere that more deaths in London occurred pre 2003 due to air pollution. I would need to dig that out. But today I know the number is almost 10,000.

I know pre 1970 the pollution was at a all time high, but that was due to coal.

Personally, I think that forcing manufacturers to produce electric vehicles would be a better alternative. Even though that does create pollution too.
Wongy11028 m ago

Nobody said it would easy weaning people off their car addictions.


A car is more of a luxury than a addiction.

So many people have moved out of London in recent years due to the inflated house prices. These people are not driving into work in London, they're using trains. It has changed a lot over the years without the need to charge motorists even more. A car is a luxury but you can also need it for work purposes. Those that require it for work will also be taxed, which is totally wrong. Some people need to make a living.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants