Pay your congestion charges!

[ukchris82]

The US complains if embassy staff don't pay parking fines in NY, yet the US embassy refuses to pay it's congestion charges in London - they total £1.4million.
The UK pays all parking/road tolls in the US.

Why won't you guys pay up?

[Јas]

Why won't you guys pay up?

It is of course well known that various minor aspects of American diplomatic policy are decided on this internet forum. Next week, a poll will be held to decide whether or not American diplomats should get a raise this year - feel free to join in.

[minionofmidas]

SILENCE! We are the USA, and We are allowed to hold other people to higher standards than we hold ourselves. That's been our policy for centuries, you foreign people should understand that by now.

...and that is all the answer you're going to get.

[Joe Republic]

The difference between a parking fine and the congestion charge is that the former is a penalty for a misdemeanor, while the latter is not.  The subject of debate is whether or not the congestion charge constitutes a toll for services used (which our staff should pay) or a kind of tax (which they should not).  But your assertion that there is some kind of double standard across the pond is false.

[KEmperor]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

[Joe Republic]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax. This means that diplomats are not exempt from payment

"The worst culprit by far is the American embassy, which has taken a deliberate decision to ignore UK law and refuse to pay the charge. As a result they now owe over £2m, which would have been invested in improving the transport network." He added that if the US expected diplomats in Washington to respect US law, the UK had the right to expect American diplomats in London to observe British law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

As I explained, this is the true subject of the debate, not a supposed double standard about parking fines.  Your government and that disgusting mayor maintain that it is a toll, while our government and disgusting ambassador maintain that is a tax.  There is no correct answer as to what it is.

[minionofmidas]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

Uh... no.

[Joe Republic]

Why escalate this into some kind of pointless diplomatic row?  What purpose does that achieve except to exact some kind of half-assed 'revenge'?

[minionofmidas]

Why escalate this into some kind of pointless diplomatic row?  What purpose does that achieve except to exact some kind of half-assed 'revenge'?

That's exactly what Chris was asking in the original post.

[2952-0-0]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

Public transportation is government-controlled. So are all bus and train fares a tax for using a government service? Does this by extension mean that embassy staff can use the Tube for free?

[Joe Republic]

Why escalate this into some kind of pointless diplomatic row?  What purpose does that achieve except to exact some kind of half-assed 'revenge'?

That's exactly what Chris was asking in the original post.

How?  Clamping our cars is really not going to do our diplomatic relations any favors.  As far as foreign policy issues go, this is probably the most ridiculous and petty.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

Public transportation is government-controlled. So are all bus and train fares a tax for using a government service? Does this by extension mean that embassy staff can use the Tube for free?

I hereby declare myself to be part of an embassy staff. Yes.

[Joe Republic]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

Public transportation is government-controlled. So are all bus and train fares a tax for using a government service? Does this by extension mean that embassy staff can use the Tube for free?

Bad logic.  Charging private vehicles has nothing to do with public transport (aside from the arbitrary decision on where to spend the revenue).

[Joe Republic]

Surely paying the charge would help dimplomatic relations?

I honestly couldn't care either way.  If you want to talk about foreign policy, there are countless more important things to concern yourself with.

[2952-0-0]

But a spokesman for the mayor said: "The UK government has ruled that the congestion charge is a charge for a service - namely reduced congestion and traffic - and not a tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

That's just some crazy reasoning right there.  It's a tax, not a service.

Public transportation is government-controlled. So are all bus and train fares a tax for using a government service? Does this by extension mean that embassy staff can use the Tube for free?

Bad logic.  Charging private vehicles has nothing to do with public transport (aside from the arbitrary decision on where to spend the revenue).

Congestion charge is created by the government (in this case the Greater London Authority) to extract revenue from motorists in exchange for using the government-built road infrastructure. It's a user fee.

Transit fares are also created by the government (through an organization controlled by the GLA) to extract revenue from riders in exchange for using buses and trains. It's also a user fee.

If the US Embassy thinks they should be exempt from what's clearly a user fee, then they should also be exempt from transit fares.

Or is it another double standard that drivers are entitled to free roads and bus/train operations must be like a private company?

[Joe Republic]

Congestion charge is created by the government (in this case the Greater London Authority) to extract revenue from motorists in exchange for using the government-built road infrastructure. It's a user fee.

Transit fares are also created by the government (through an organization controlled by the GLA) to extract revenue from riders in exchange for using buses and trains. It's also a user fee.

If the US Embassy thinks they should be exempt from what's clearly a user fee, then they should also be exempt from transit fares.

It is your opinion that it is "clearly a user fee".  If things were quite so clear-cut, there wouldn't even be a debate about exactly what the charge/tax is.

Besides, I've already explained that I couldn't give a sh**t about whether our government pays it or not.  I only came here to point out an erroneous assumption in the first post.

[minionofmidas]

Congestion charge is created by the government (in this case the Greater London Authority) to extract revenue from motorists in exchange for using the government-built road infrastructure. It's a user fee.

Transit fares are also created by the government (through an organization controlled by the GLA) to extract revenue from riders in exchange for using buses and trains. It's also a user fee.

If the US Embassy thinks they should be exempt from what's clearly a user fee, then they should also be exempt from transit fares.

It is your opinion that it is "clearly a user fee".  If things were quite so clear-cut, there wouldn't even be a debate about exactly what the charge/tax is.

Besides, I've already explained that I couldn't give a sh**t about whether our government pays it or not.  I only came here to point out an erroneous assumption in the first post.

You're congesting this thread.

That'll be 5 Pounds 25 pence.

[Joe Republic]

You're congesting this thread.

That'll be 5 Pounds 25 pence.

Charge it to the embassy plz.

[Franzl]

wait a minute, I'm having trouble understanding the reasoning behind calling this a tax. The government owns the streets, and is charging a fee for their usage, what's so difficult to understand about that?

Amtrak, for example, is owned by the federal government. Does that mean that people that purchase tickets are also only paying a "tax"? If that's the case, then I invite our British friends to ride Amtrak for free, as a form of compensation

[phk]

Regardless of whatever, this congestion charge should be paid.

[Franzl]

Regardless of whatever, this congestion charge should be paid.

Yep

[opebo]

The charge is clearly not a tax, as it is a simple fee applied in the same amount for every car-user (varying only based on the type of vehicle).  I would greatly prefer a tax which charged persons and corporations a percentage of their income for entering the city, so that poors might pay nothing, but the rich might pay thousands of pounds to get to their tailor.

Anyway surely the US and the UK can simply exempt one another's governments from such payments.

[minionofmidas]

Are there any other 100% bone ambassador's heads or do all the other countries pay?

[Verily]

The US complains if embassy staff don't pay parking fines in NY, yet the US embassy refuses to pay it's congestion charges in London - they total £1.4million.
The UK pays all parking/road tolls in the US.

Why won't you guys pay up?

My father used to work in the Office of Foreign Missions here in NY, and he always complained about this US policy. It made the British diplomats whine about every toll they paid in New York. It's obviously wrong, and I never understood why the US was so intransigent about it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One difference between London's charge and Singapore's charge, is that Singapore's is adjusted during the business day and includes considerable periods outside the peak rush hours where there is no charge.  On the other hand with London's charge, if you want to drive a car there anytime during business hours, regardless of the congestion levels, you have to pay.  That difference in effect is sufficient for me to conclude that Singapore's is a fee and London's is a tax.