US tops 'congestion charge debt' by citizen

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

US tops 'congestion charge debt'

POSTED BY: CITIZEN
UPDATED: Thursday, May 4, 2006 12:43
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3719
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 2:23 AM

Quote:
US diplomatic staff in London have run up unpaid congestion charge fees of £271,000 in the past six months, new figures have revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4960308.stm
No wonder you guys are the richest nation in the world...

Tighter than a ducks butt

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 3:12 AM

Various UN missions owe the city of New York millions in unpaid parking tickets.

Must be nice to be a diplomat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

I heard about this on PBS a month or more ago. They seemed to think that Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, isn't too keen on Bush/Blair or the Iraq war, and was just using this as an excuse to get the boot in.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 2, 2006 1:17 PM

You realise that Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, is a Labour Party member...

But anyway. US embassies in other countries pay congestion charges without making a fuss.

British embassy staff in the US pays toll road charges (which is what the Congestion charge in London IS).

So the mayor of London expecting the US embassies staff to pay their dues is obviously all about the Iraq war

.

I'll ask one question, if British embassy staff refused to pay toll road charges, would you assume anyone who told them to do so were doing it because of the Iraq war?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 2:24 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Because you do not know this, there is a little treaty between the US government and the British government called the SOFA or Status of Forces Act. In accordance with this Act, the US forces and Embassy in UK - do not have to pay those charges. There was much discussion between both governments when the charges came into effect.

Just so you know, US forces also don't have to pay council tax.

Where do I get my information - oh just personal knowlegde of over 7 years living in London, as a member of the US forces under the SOFA act as well as working in the office conducting the discussions.

You will also note that the US is NOT the only country whose Embassy staff does not pay the charge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFillion:
You will also note that the US is NOT the only country whose Embassy staff does not pay the charge.

I'm well aware, The US owes the most and the majority of Embassies do pay. However, as you would say, the fact that other Embassies don't pay is entirely irrelevant. But if you want to draw parallels between the US and Nigeria or the Sudan, that's your bag.

Quote:
there is a little treaty between the US government and the British government called the SOFA or Status of Forces Act.

Doesn't apply here. Also I'm pretty sure it's an Agreement, not an Act.

Quote:
Just so you know, US forces also don't have to pay council tax.

US forces or Embassy staff don't have to pay tax, they do have to pay tolls on toll road, just like British Embassy staff do. That's what the congestion charges are, a toll on toll roads. The American Embassy says it's a tax so they get out of paying it, the British Government says its a toll, because you know, it's a toll.

But if you want to let of British Embassy staff in America ever paying tolls on toll roads, no problem I'm sure our two governments can come to an arrangement.

So this point is... irrelevant.

Quote:
Where do I get my information - oh just personal knowlegde of over 7 years living in London, as a member of the US forces under the SOFA act as well as working in the office conducting the discussions.

Where do I get my information - oh just personal knowledge of over 24 years living in London, also working for the British Government and MOD.

Also knowing that the London congestion charge is a toll and embassies have never been exempt from paying toll charges, no matter whose embassy that may be.

But anyway how come US Embassies are happy to pay similar charges in Singapore, Oslo and Norway but not London? What makes London so special to get this special treatment?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:19 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

You are right in reference to "Act" I meant agreement and was thinking of NATO Act when I was typing.

However, regardless of the semantics, the charge is a tax. A toll would be paid both ways, it isn't - you only have to pay to come INTO the congestion charge designated area, not out of it.

It is a tax, calling it a toll doesn't change that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:24 AM

There's a Toll on the Severn Bridge that is paid only when traveling to Wales, not when leaving it.

It is a toll, paid on selected roads. The fact is it doesn't matter if your coming or going, you pay the toll if you drive down those selected roads.

If it was a Tax every road in the Greater London area would be so taxed, surely?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:35 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"If it was a Tax every road in the Greater London area would be so taxed, surely?"

Huh? I am sorry that makes no sense.

The toll on the Severn is for the upkeep of the bridge. Tolls are a charge for the use of the road.

The congestion charge was introduced in February 2003, and was designed to reduce the number of cars clogging central London's streets. Much like the tax on cigarettes is hoped to deter people from smoking.

Its a tax.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:55 AM

What is a congestion charge? I'm from the US...some sort of parking ticket?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFillion:
Huh? I am sorry that makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if you factor in how taxes and local government works in the UK. For it to be a tax it would have to be levied on all roads with in the London Boroughs that operate a congestion charge. Otherwise it's selecting roads that have a higher throughput, and exacting a toll to pay for the increased maintenance costs, isn't it?

Quote:
The toll on the Severn is for the upkeep of the bridge. Tolls are a charge for the use of the road.

London congestion charge is used for the Up keep of the Roads as well.

Tolls are often introduced and always reduce the traffic on those roads if there is an alternate route. I don't see how putting a toll on a road makes it a tax because on of the benefits is reducing the traffic on the roads.

Also taxes are not about reducing something’s usage. The tax on cigarettes, for instance, was never about stopping people from smoking. Cigarettes were being taxed back when people thought it was a good idea to smoke.

It's not just me who thinks that the Congestion Charge is a toll:

Quote:
New York Times says US embassy should pay the congestion charge

The editorial adds: 'The British make a good case that the charge is not a tax, but a toll for the use of selected streets.

Mr. Livingstone is certainly within his rights to demand payment, which may now amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, including fines.'

http://www.london.gov.uk/londoner/06may/p5c.jsp?nav=news

It's a toll, used to pay for upkeep of the roads.

Much like the Tolls in Norway, for instance, which the US Embassies do pay.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mamasaid:
What is a congestion charge? I'm from the US...some sort of parking ticket?

Were I unwed I would take you in a many fashion.

It's a charge enacted when you drive down certain roads in London.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:00 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

From the BBC

What?
The scheme is to encourage people to think again about using their vehicles in central London and to choose other forms of transport.
Motorists who still wish to travel in or through central London will have to pay a daily charge once the scheme has been introduced.
It is not a ‘cordon’ scheme based solely on cameras at boundary points. Any vehicle moving within the zone, whether or not crossing boundary, will be monitored by cameras throughout the zone.
Why?
At the moment, traffic movement in central and inner London is severely hampered by congestion - the average speed has now fallen below three miles per hour.
Transport for London says the charge will reduce congestion, improve the bus network, and make central London a more pleasant location for residents, visitors and businesses.

Its a tax.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:04 AM

mighty fine idea and they should use it here, gorramit

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:05 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Mamasaid

It was quite difficult to find parking in central London, also traffic was extremely bad, it was very difficult to get anywhere in London during the rush hour and even in mid-day. So Mayor Livingston (the Mayor of London) decided that something needed to be done to discourage people from driving into London - who designated a ring around the inner portion of the city and required everyone (except for Taxi drivers, residents and some few others) pay a ridiculous fee to enter. There has since been great debate, even by UK citizens about this charge. And now, we play semantics.

:) It is about $12.00 a day depending on the exchange rate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:06 AM

Where does it say in that, that the congestion charge is a tax? Also could you cite a link please.

Anyway:
It's a charge enacted on selected streets with a high-throughput.

It's a Toll.

Edit:

Quote:
There has since been great debate, even by UK citizens about this charge.

Debate much like that going on with the toll of the M6. Yes when the American Government has to pay it's dues for once we end up playing semantics.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:10 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

It was a great idea and it worked.

Problem is, it is a tax, and Diplomats are not required to pay taxes.

The Transport for London uses the money, not for the roads, but for improving the buses, trains, and tracks, therefor it is an indirect way of raising money for those things.

But, you are right, it is a great idea and I can think of half a dozen cities that need it without even trying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mamasaid:
What is a congestion charge? I'm from the US...some sort of parking ticket?

Yeah. And who´s the Troll on the Severn Bridge…?!

(I´m from recently stabilized Germany,that´s why I haven´t got a clue…)

P.S.: Dear FMF, you have my sympathy for holding on that long. I award you a “Silver Star” or a “Purple Heart” or both, if you like.

A.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
http://www.fireflyday.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:15 AM

I wasn't the one who made an issue of it.

Sorry I don't agree with you all, nor stoop to personal insults the moment I don't get my own way.

Quote:
Yeah. And who´s the Troll on the Severn Bridge…?!

You by the sounds of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:17 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

The Transport for London uses the money, not for the roads in London, but for improving the buses, trains, and tracks, therefor it is an indirect way of raising money for those things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:22 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Arabikum

Thank you :) But no need. One doesn't get a medal for swatting at mosquitos :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:23 AM

Then we'll have to disagree then. I still think it's a toll, based on my reading of what a toll is and what the London Congestion charges are. We seem to be going around in circles.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Arabikum

Thank you :) But no need. One doesn't get a medal for swatting at mosquitos :)

Well, I was going to say you'd managed not to be unwarrantedly insulting in this thread, but there you go. You and Arabikum can go a congratulate each other on having the same opinion and being so much better than people who have a different one now then, I guess.

You made a big thing about the Germany comment not me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:26 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Yes when the American Government has to pay it's dues for once we end up playing semantics.

Um - wouldn't go there if I were you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:26 AM

It would be interesting, though, to see a comparison of other countries' traffic/parking fees/taxes in New York and Washington DC. I make no judgment on it, I just would like to know if such a document exists in the public sphere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:29 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"Sorry I don't agree with you all, nor stoop to personal insults the moment I don't get my own way."

Yeah, SURE you don't Citizen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:31 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I would think that you could get that info. How about LA. I wonder if they have that sort of thing?

I know that Washington, DC is a NIGHTMARE to get into, park and get out of. They could defianately benefit from some sort of congestion scheme.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:32 AM

Quote:
Yeah, SURE you don't Citizen.

I haven't, have I.

I didn't call you sexiest in the other thread, that was you. I didn't call you a Troll in this thread, that was ARABIKUM.

I still haven't insulted you on this thread, you have insulted me.

How's about you get off your high moral horse and come back down with the rest of us where you belong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:38 AM

"NEW YORK (AP) — For years, United Nations diplomats were notorious for running up millions of dollars in parking tickets, then just laughing at the city's attempts to collect. Diplomatic immunity meant there was little U.S. courts could do about it.
But the city's thousands of foreign officials have largely changed their ways since a threatened crackdown three years ago.

According to New York's finance department, diplomats have gotten 90% fewer tickets since late 2002, when the U.S. threatened to revoke the plates of scofflaws and subtract however much they owed in fines from the foreign aid their countries received. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-12-diplomat-tickets_x.htm

I know USA today is only a step above People magazine, but this article is funny. Way to go US for the sick but funny sense of humor towards how to force the diplomats to pay: subtract it from foreign aid! ha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Yeah, SURE you don't Citizen.

I didn't call you a Troll in this thread, that was ARABIKUM.

I apologize for that.

A.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
http://www.fireflyday.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:39 AM

This too, from same article:

"...On Thursday, the only obvious parking violators near the U.N. appeared to be cars bearing regular New York plates illegally parked in spots reserved for diplomats.

But that has not always been the case.

Between April of 1997 and October of 2002, holders of diplomatic plates racked up 205,732 parking tickets in New York. About $18.1 million of those fines have yet to be paid."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arabikum:
I apologize for that.

More than readilly accepted. I appologise to anyone who's taken offense at my comments here or in the other thread, it was certainly not meant like that.

Actually maybe *some* of the comments to FMF, but I was far from the only person throwing insults around.

I honestly think I've been vilefied here far more than I deserve, which may explain any overly defensive reactions I have had.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
More than readilly accepted. I appologise to anyone who's taken offense at my comments here or in the other thread, it was certainly not meant like that.

A.

One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
http://www.fireflyday.com/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:00 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

"Please actually read my post before replying to them."

"I'll say this slowly for you, you seem to be having trouble with it."

"You can argue all you like but your wrong, best you just deal with it."

"Oh and by the fact you still don't have a clue what my point was, when it was fairly obvious kinda proves you either didn't read my post or need to take a night school course in reading comprehension."

"So please, go away and actually read my post this time, instead of just assuming you have because you saw the word Germany in it."

"Scroll up you'll find most of the posts here by me are me trying to defend myself and make my point"

Funny all notes above the "Scroll up line" were made BEFORE I asked if someone pee'd in your wheaties. You continue to harp on the fact that I called you sexist. If I had wanted to call you sexist I would have. I don;t think you are a sexist, I think you are a 'Bloke" and you suffer from a yob mentality. I don't think you are sexist. I think you are an ass. You will remember that I did eventually use the "ass" term.

I generally say EXACTLY what I mean, and more often than not - I still follow my mothers teachings to not say anything if I have nothing nice to say. I suggest, you could learn from that.

As someone said of you in another post "In discussions his tone often is extremely agressive and emotional, although his arguments are meant to be rational. That´s a little bit frightening, to be honest, and extremely annoying."

So it isn't just me. I could look through every thread you have ever posted on, but frankly, you are not that important in my world. I have no problems disagreeing. I disagree with just about every Republican I have ever met. But I don’t call them names, insult their intelligence nor tell them they are wrong and they "just have to deal with it".

You want to discuss things rationally, like an adult, fine. But you don't. The minute someone disagrees with you, you become aggressive, emotional and dismissive.

edit: "still haven't insulted you on this thread, you have insulted me.

How's about you get off your high moral horse and come back down with the rest of us where you belong." And this isn't meant to be insulting?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:16 AM

You turned up and told me I didn't have a point, you told me what I said had no relevance to the thread, when frankly I was making a point I considered to be answering the question of the thread. You seemed to have missed my point entirely, which is why I asked you to read my post.

I recognise I probably came across more aggressive than I desired, but your posts were plenty condescending and dismissive too.

If you want me to start draging your comments up that many of the above were in direct responce to just tell me.

Oh and I'm not a Republican.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:31 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I told you that in the context of the thread the example didn't make sense.

If you find insult in that, and I am unsure how, then I am sorry.

However, I did not attack you. You became agressive. The context - the way that you phrased it - did not make sense.

Had you rephrased it, said we were in Germany for 34 years - then that would have been a different story. However, you immediately went on the defensive, became insulting and I tired of it. As, frankly, I am tiring of this.

So you can continue to feel vilified if you want. That is your perception, and your right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:39 AM

I find you dismissing what I say without backing up your dismissal insulting yeah, saying “your wrong” and not backing it up is annoying; as was your condescending attitude that was there through out.

And yes I did re-phrase what I said and you carried on telling me I didn't have a point, because it's not '1979'.

As I said I was overly aggressive, sorry. But I'm not about to accept that 'everything' is my fault because of that. It takes two to argue.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:48 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

When did I say "your wrong"? Specifically.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:57 AM

When you just dismissed everything I said out of hand.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 5:57 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Citizen

I continued to argue that your original post, that we had been in Germany for SIXTY YEARS was not valid.

Your post implied that we were STILL in Germany after 60 years to shore it up. I simply pointed out that we were no longer there as a means of shoring it up. I never said at any time that we had NEVER been there for that reason.

You chose to take offense at a perfectly valid point. You chose to then become argumentative and defensive. I simply responded. Had I chosen to dismiss you, I would have simply ignored you.

I would ask that in future you attempt to respond in a less agressive way. You might find that you are having less arguments and more debates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 6:02 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Citizen

I never said "your wrong". I did not dismiss what you said out of hand. I said the context was wrong.

Now I am really getting a bit tired of this entire discussion. I will not respond further. It does nothing constructive and frustrates anyone trying to use this thread.

Believe whatever you feel you need to believe. Take offense at whatever you choose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 6:11 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

It is funny.

Of Course, the diplomats are exempt from the traffic tickets, so they don't pay. The thing about it is, anyone driving a diplomatic vehicle is exmept, so the diplomat is, the spouse is, the kid is.

Not sure how that works. But, it may be the same in all countries. I don't know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I would ask that in future you attempt to respond in a less agressive way. You might find that you are having less arguments and more debates.

That's fair and I'll do so.

Though you could have also asked me to clarify what I said before telling me I simply didn't have a point.

Quote:
I continued to argue that your original post, that we had been in Germany for SIXTY YEARS was not valid.

I think having an armed force in Germany for sixty years does have relevance. We want bases in the Middle East, and we'll want those bases 60 years from now as much as we do in Europe now. That was part of my point.

I did not try to say we were 'shoring up' Germany for all that time.

Edit:
And yeah I'm getting a bit tired of this discussion, especially your attempts to prove it's ‘all my’ fault. You chose your own responses, you chose your condescending attitude from the off.

So you too believe what ever you wish, it's all my fault your the hero and it's all because I'm sexiest (which is exactly what you said).

If when you don't understand what someone is trying to say rather than just get condescending and tell them they aren't making any sense you ask them for clarification you will get in less arguments as well.

So yeah, good bye.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Future- Uh, the person I see playing semantics is.... you? There are all kinds of reasons to charge tolls, including (but not limited to) upkeep.
The congestion charge is per use and monitored at the point of entry. As such it is a fee ie. a toll, not a tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Congestion_Charge

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:34 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Well I was going with the definition of a toll being for direct charging for a specific purpose and a tax as an indirect charge. But you can call it whatever you want. Its a matter of opnion.

My opinion is that it is a tax. That is also the opinion of the Attorney General, the State Department and the DOD. Thats why they aren't paying. According to the agreement, the diplomats and some US forces don't have to pay the tax.

Of Course, they may in time revise that opinion, which they have every right to do.

I will hold that it is a tax. Maybe not unfair, maybe unfair.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:40 AM

The US embassy only stopped paying when it went up to $8 a time anyway, they were happy enough to pay before, but stopped when it became more expensive.

For my ha'pence worth i think its a toll, its pay per use, rather then set rate for a specific time period like road tax is.

As Citizen says they seem to be keeping good company as well.

More a question of how do you want your representatives to behave when they're in my city... rater then quibbling about wheter its a tax or a toll.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well I was going with the definition of a toll being for direct charging for a specific purpose and a tax as an indirect charge. But you can call it whatever you want. Its a matter of opnion.

The "congestion charge" IS a "direct charge" because it's levied on a per-use basis.
The fact that you agree with the DOD etc etc doesn't make them- or you- correct. Per use fees collected for transportation facilities (road, tunnels, bridges, waterways) are tolls. Neither the stated purpose of the toll (relieve congestion, upkeep of facilities, general revenue) nor the eventual disbursement of the funds alters that fact. I direct your attention to the United States Federal Highway website, which lists the bridges, tunnels, and roadways that are defined as "toll road and crossing" facilities. More specifically, I direct your attention to the list of disbursements of "toll" funds. Many disbursements show a rather large (sometimes the largest) share called "transfers". Tranfers of monies

Quote:
Includes direct expenditures for nonhighway purposes and transfers to other agencies for both highway and nonhighway purposes. The amount used for nonhighway purposes can be determined by taking total tolls from SF-3B and subtracting tolls used for highways on Tables SF-21 and tolls used for mass transportation on table MT-1.

Nonetheless, the fees were, are, and will continue to be "tolls". The DOD et al are simply engaging in "semantics".

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/sf4b.htm#foot2

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:54 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

SigNym - I didn't say I was correct, I said it was my opinion.

RPlacket, They actually went back and forth - they told us not to pay, then they said yes you should pay, then they went back to no, we will deal with it as the summons come for none payment. I never paid it, my spouse never paid it, nor did anyone in either of our departments. I am not sure if they went back to telling us to pay. I left in the last year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 7:57 AM

Im really not supprised, mismagement central...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 4, 2006 10:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You realise that Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, is a Labour Party member...

But anyway. US embassies in other countries pay congestion charges without making a fuss.

British embassy staff in the US pays toll road charges (which is what the Congestion charge in London IS).

So the mayor of London expecting the US embassies staff to pay their dues is obviously all about the Iraq war .

I'll ask one question, if British embassy staff refused to pay toll road charges, would you assume anyone who told them to do so were doing it because of the Iraq war?

BTW, here's a link to the story I heard. Apparently BBC rebroadcast here on NPR. It's audio only.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5310101

If you want to take up the BBC's interpretation of Mr. Livingstone's actions with them, rock on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts

QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 09:47 - 776 posts

FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 09:41 - 547 posts

Elections; 2024
Thu, April 18, 2024 09:34 - 2266 posts

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, April 18, 2024 05:41 - 6257 posts

Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 00:50 - 147 posts

Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:29 - 3529 posts

Sentencing Thread
Wed, April 17, 2024 22:02 - 364 posts

With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Wed, April 17, 2024 20:05 - 50 posts

Share of Democratic Registrations Is Declining, but What Does It Mean?
Wed, April 17, 2024 17:51 - 4 posts

I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Tue, April 16, 2024 21:17 - 740 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL