PDA

View Full Version : JAFA Tax



BM-GS
22nd March 2006, 15:00
Dunno how many are following the ins & outs of the Great Auckland Road Toll debate, but the fact that motorcycles will not be excepted from the tolling seems a little strange. Even Red Ken in London has accepted that 2-wheeled transport cuts congestion and thus bikes are free to ride around the middle of London (and the riders can use this saving to pay of their lobotomies, presumably).

Is anyone in KB or Auckland generally organising some protest about this? Paying an extra $6 to get across the cordon (harbour bridge, plus points further south, east & west) as well as taking your lives in your hands from the normal cage behavious seems a little harsh. Any politically savvy people out there?

Personally it doesn't bother me as I live & work on the North Shore and can (so far) avoid this problem, but a lot aren't as lucky. Still, it could just be the thin end of the wedge, with more of this type of thing coming up later for other people. $6 a day is about $1,500 a year off your net salary. Nice.

The JAFA Tax page is here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/arpes/

Submissions on this daft plot close on Friday 28 April 2006.

Submissions can be:

Posted to:
Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study
Ministry of Transport
PO Box 3175
WELLINGTON
E-mailed to: arpes@transport.govt.nz
Faxed to: 04 495 9788

Swoop
22nd March 2006, 15:08
They can do what lawyers should do, and ducks can - shove their bills up their arse!!!:shit:

Too right I'll be objecting!!!:angry:

Motu
22nd March 2006, 15:33
Back in the bridge toll days you always had to pay on a bike...nobody complained then.Maybe they will go on gross weight...then a really gross bike like the GS would attract maximum penaly,while for a beautiful bike like mine....I'd expect they might actualy pay me to cross....

Ixion
22nd March 2006, 15:42
Bikes was cheaper but. One shilling for bikes, 2/- for cars.

Other thing is, tolls on the original bridge was to pay for the bridge. So fair enough bikes should pay, cos they sue it to (but pay less cos they take less space and weight).

But these toll proposals PRETEND to be about reducing congestion, not maximising revenue. So they should be encouraging things that reduce congestion, right? Why should treadleys pay nothing and motorbikes, that are just as congestion efficient (more so since they take less time to get from a to b ) pay the same as cars ?

Lou Girardin
22nd March 2006, 16:48
I think the fight is just beginning. Anyone heard anything from BRONZ?

mouldy
22nd March 2006, 17:33
They can do what lawyers should do, and ducks can - shove their bills up their arse!!!:shit:

Too right I'll be objecting!!!:angry:
Time for a protest ride methinks .Can we coordinate Ulys BRONZ KB for a Sunday statement WE ARE VOTERS too:mega:

Marmoot
22nd March 2006, 17:47
Back in the bridge toll days you always had to pay on a bike...nobody complained then.Maybe they will go on gross weight...then a really gross bike like the GS would attract maximum penaly,while for a beautiful bike like mine....I'd expect they might actualy pay me to cross....

If the toll excuse is for financing the bridge building, it is fair to tax everyone with no exemption.

But if the charges excuse is for 'easing the congestion', motorcycle should be exempt. UNLESS, the government is lying again.

And I see quite a bit of naivety in this site regarding our government.... :Pokey:

Flatcap
23rd March 2006, 20:28
And I see quite a bit of naivety in this site regarding our government.... :Pokey:


I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist, lefty, anti progress, hippy, pinko parisites with a tenuous grasp of reality and a compulsive need to legislate how they regard normal thinking people should live their lives.

Ixion
23rd March 2006, 20:49
I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist,...

No it does not, alas. If it DID consist of a bunch of communists, things would be very different indeed.

Flatcap
23rd March 2006, 20:54
No it does not, alas. If it DID consist of a bunch of communists, things would be very different indeed.


What? The Yanks would hate us slightly more than they do now?

Troll
23rd March 2006, 21:00
I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist, lefty, anti progress, hippy, pinko parisites with a tenuous grasp of reality and a compulsive need to legislate how they regard normal thinking people should live their lives.


No the labour philosopy is to tax those that can afford to pay and redistribute to those that that need extra support

ie tax and penalise hard work thrift and effort and reward idleness and laziness

note this proposed revenue grab will not affect the unemployed or social welfare beneficiaries sitting at home all day but it will affect people going to work, ie it is in reality a tax on commuting to work, as such this is in line will labour policy to tax and penalise work and effort

if they really want to ease congestion then the real answer is to provide a postive alternative, ie cheap reliable easy to use public transport every other major city in the world has a public transport system that works

this tax on commuting will not reduce congestion unless tehre is an alternative that people can use

Flatcap
23rd March 2006, 21:12
this tax on commuting will not reduce congestion unless tehre is an alternative that people can use

Yep - and what proportion of any congestion tax will go towards providing an alternative? The little bit that is left after useless but 'environmentally friendly' white elephants are created.

Troll
24th March 2006, 03:21
Yep - and what proportion of any congestion tax will go towards providing an alternative?


none it will go in the general pot and be dished out to the usual recipiants of govt handouts

no one would mind these taxes if the funds were ring fenced and put aside to sort out specific problems

what has happened to the 2nd harbour crossing talked about 20 years ago???

will the funds pay for this??

Hoon
24th March 2006, 10:38
I'm all for road tolls. My quick and easy fix to traffic congestion is to tax people off the road. I myself have no problem paying a few extra bucks a day to get to work if it means I'll save 30 mins travel time. My missus and I travel in the same car too so thats half the cost (and halves our contribution to traffic congestion also)

If I value my time at $20 p/h, I'm still making a profit by recouping that lost productivity sitting in traffic.

I can see why bikes should and shouldn't be exempt. On one hand it reduces congestion but does it? Sure a bike takes less room than a vehicle but if that vehicle carries two or more people then the stats don't look as good. Fortunately 95% of cars during peak hour are single occupancy so the point is moot however the LTSA aren't exactly known for encouraging motorcycle use so their stance is no suprise really.

Postie
24th March 2006, 10:49
we all know its not a congestion charge as bikes do not contribute to congestion.
Whats the bet that the name gets changed, to somthing like CBD Privilege tax or somthing equally as crap.

MisterD
24th March 2006, 10:52
I vote we all paint our bikes matt black and take the plates off....

Marmoot
24th March 2006, 15:56
No it does not, alas. If it DID consist of a bunch of communists, things would be very different indeed.

Ha, you're right. looking at Labour government we have now I would consider Chinese Communist to be Far Right movement.

At least with Communist government we wouldn't have had the problem of overcrowded jail. Bike thieves, burglars and rapers (rappers? rapers?) will be shot. And tax rate would be significantly less too. Go figure..... :wacko:

Marmoot
24th March 2006, 15:58
what has happened to the 2nd harbour crossing talked about 20 years ago???

will the funds pay for this??

It is still going ahead. The last I heard from inside source, they are finalizing the decision and hopefully will be able to form a concrete plan in the next 3 years. Then it is 12 years resource-consent and building process.
Funding is not finalized yet.

I'm serious..... :wacko:

Flatcap
24th March 2006, 18:37
It is still going ahead. The last I heard from inside source, they are finalizing the decision and hopefully will be able to form a concrete plan in the next 3 years. Then it is 12 years resource-consent and building process.
Funding is not finalized yet.

I'm serious..... :wacko:


What you mean to say is "12 year resource consent process followed by MP veto after Environmental pressure group lobbying"

Troll
24th March 2006, 18:45
It is still going ahead. The last I heard from inside source, they are finalizing the decision and hopefully will be able to form a concrete plan in the next 3 years. Then it is 12 years resource-consent and building process.
Funding is not finalized yet.

I'm serious..... :wacko:

and they will need tribal consent from about 200 different tribes each of whom will require commissions, delegations and advisors all funded by the tax payer

jonbuoy
24th March 2006, 19:13
While there in the protest mode why don't they let motorbikes/mopeds use the bus lanes on the motorway during rush hour, limit there speed to 80Km/H while using it. I think a lot of people would be buying mopeds. Hell they could even charge a two dollar toll for using it - I'd pay.

Psalm42
24th March 2006, 20:17
Instead of calling it a toll, hows about "Traffic Accesablity Collection System" TACS
It will at least sound like what it is then.
As much as most would have heard it before, WHY dont they (central govt) just spend all the road tax they collect on the dam roads...

Troll
24th March 2006, 20:22
I'm all for road tolls.


well there is always one isn't there

Ixion
24th March 2006, 20:25
Ask not for whom the road tolls, it tolls for thee.


Well, *someone* had to say it! :rofl:

thehollowmen
24th March 2006, 21:11
I looked over that, is it all video based?

They noted that some exemption may be given to motorcyclists because of the difficulty tolling them

thehollowmen
24th March 2006, 21:14
4.5.2 has a bit on motorcycles and exemptions

I'd say cross your fingers and don't make too much of a fuss yet.

Marmoot
24th March 2006, 21:32
Instead of calling it a toll, hows about "Traffic Accesablity Collection System" TACS

Well, we do have Inland Revenue Department....
then there is the Roadside Revenue Department.....working under City Council, with blue/green uniform writing parking tickets.
Surely a Mainroad Revenue Department would complement the thing.

Damn, we might soon have a whole cabinet of Revenue Departments......

Flatcap
24th March 2006, 21:43
Well, we do have Inland Revenue Department....
then there is the Roadside Revenue Department.....working under City Council, with blue/green uniform writing parking tickets.
Surely a Mainroad Revenue Department would complement the thing.

Damn, we might soon have a whole cabinet of Revenue Departments......


You say this in jest but the fuckers will do it, just watch them.

Marmoot
25th March 2006, 00:08
You say this in jest but the fuckers will do it, just watch them.

Actually, I didn't jest. I just saw the highly likely possibility coming up.......

Sad but true...........

Want a list of a current one?
ACC levy on Income
City Council Rates
Dog tax
Parking cost
Car Rego
Bike Rego
ACC levy on Car Rego
ACC levy on Bike Rego
GST on this...
GST on that...
GST on vegetables and fruits...
Regional Council rates
income tax
WOF every now and then
parking tickets for the slightest infringements at 2am on some Tuesday morning...
petrol tax
GST on petrol tax
visa fees for my wife (no, she's not resident yet...still need to pay fees on the residency application too...)
and the list goes on and on and on....

Savings? What Savings? At least I don't have any student loan....