Congestion charging started in London in 2003. I'm skeptical about the
justification that it's intended to disincentivize unnecessary driving
because people who drive frequently get a bulk discount rather than a
surcharge as one might expect if that were the actual intention. A
bulk discount is more indicative of a policy intended to maximize
revenue. I'm also skeptical about the justification that it's intended
to reduce pollution because the discount for electric cars is ending
this year. I have a moral issue with it as well because the roads are
financed by everyone's taxes. Around the time the charge was starting
it was easy to find supporters for it on tv chat shows but I never met
one in real life. I assume there are some but that they support it in
a naive attempt to keep anyone poorer than them off the road.
Otherwise, the supporter's problem of too much congestion would be
easily solved by not driving. The charge has tripled since its
introduction so maybe there's an element of poetic justice in it for
some of them.
>I have a moral issue with it as well because the roads are financed by everyone's taxes
Mind elaborating on how this is a "moral issue"? Public transit is funded by "everyone's taxes" as well, but you still have to pay a fare to use it. Do you get similarly aggrieved?
>Around the time the charge was starting it was easy to find supporters for it on tv chat shows but I never met one in real life.
Your points are well taken. I wasn't aware of the Guardian poll and I
stand corrected about my implication that the charge lacks public
support. With regard to the moral issue, I have less of a problem with
tickets that are paying for something like running a train, or for
that matter a bridge toll paying off the bonds that enabled the bridge
to be built. I have more of a problem with someone demanding money for
nothing. I haven't heard it claimed even by its supporters that road
maintenance depends on the congestion charge. To my knowledge the main
justification has always been that the charge funds the payer's
behavior modification. Is it for the payer's own good? Is it for the
greater good? You may well differ, but something about that doesn't
sit right with me however noble, especially when it pertains to law
abiding citizens acting within their rights.
>I have less of a problem with tickets that are paying for something like running a train, or for that matter a bridge toll paying off the bonds that enabled the bridge to be built.
What about on-street parking or municipal parking lots? Given how cheap they are to construct it's questionable to claim that the fees collected are needed to fund their construction.
>I have more of a problem with someone demanding money for nothing. [...] To my knowledge the main justification has always been that the charge funds the payer's behavior modification. Is it for the payer's own good? Is it for the greater good? You may well differ, but something about that doesn't sit right with me however noble, especially when it pertains to law abiding citizens acting within their rights.
How do you think most other taxes (eg. income tax, VAT, corporation tax) work? If you argument is that congestion charge is bad because "demanding money for nothing" and "something about that doesn't sit right with me however noble", then you should be rallying even harder against those sort of taxes. At least with congestion charge you can argue it's in exchange for the ability to drive, and unlike income tax, most can agree congestion is a bad thing, unlike people getting a salary (income) or businesses making/selling stuff (VAT). What is the government providing in exchange you paying income tax? Not getting a visit from the tax collectors? If it's something vague like "roads and schools", why can't the same justification be used for congestion charge?
