Letters
| NORTH YORKSHIRE |  | | | CLEVELAND | | | COUNTY DURHAM | | |
|
|
|
Economic dogma
Sir, - Summarising Hambleton's
parking tax proposal, your
leading article (D&S, May 2),
suggested that only one aspect
of the consultants' recommendations
was "bizarre".
When the consultants released
its parking tax report in
April 2007, the crude oil price
was around $60. It was $92
when the council announced
the proposal five months ago,
and now it has reached $126,
doubling in a year. Industry figures
are now predicting a further
rise to $150 this year and
$200 within the short term.
In that short period the local
economy has faced multiple increases
in oil-linked transport,
food, domestic and business
energy costs and as the feedstock
for 99% of the products
we take for granted, an escalating
and comprehensive drain of
local wealth out to global coffers.
Various reasons for the increased
prices are mooted. Geological
depletion, tightness of
supply, increasing world demand,
lack of infrastructure investment
by oil companies, dollar
weakness, commodity
speculation, hoarding in the expectation
of even more profit in
the future or hoarding in preparation
for an attack on Iran;
whatever the reason(s), excepting
the sudden onset of a worldwide
depression destroying demand,
can we admit the
possibility that prices will continue
on the upward trend?
Against this background, assuming
that the cost of council
operations will rise in tandem,
the projected figures for parking
tax levels and revenue may already
be obsolete. And as local
people cut back on using cars,
raising revenue through taxing
the use of transport infrastructure
may look unwise by the introduction
in 2009 and outlandish
in the long term.
While the comfortable classes
may weather the end of
cheap energy, particularly those
few with the capital to switch to
fuel-efficient cars, micro-generation
and renewables, many
lower income families will pay
an increasing proportion of income
on basic necessities.
The last thing the district
needs now are divisive policies
promoting further inequality.
No matter how it is spun, in
principle the proposal intends
enclosing a public common for
the exclusive use of what the
consultants described as "higher
income earners". This is can
hardly be described as "protecting
services".
A sustainable community
needs policies founded on social
and economic justice and
democratic consent.
Denial of civilising principles
on the bizarre basis that they
"cost more to administer and
reduce income", and suggesting
that their reluctant inclusion
even to a minor degree is a
"concession", indicates how
successfully economic dogma
has degraded governing minds.
RICHARD AKERS
Topcliffe Road,
Thirsk.
10:49am Friday 16th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
Comment
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
