Winston Churchill, a century ago:
Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work.
The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted [?] of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed.
All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!
Emailed in by Chrome Man, Boris Johnson a month ago:
"Each time a station is rezoned it results in a loss of revenue. In the case of Woolwich alone it would cost more than £1 million per year, a figure that would only increase with the introduction of Crossrail.
“In the case of Stratford [which was rezoned, which means people travelling from that station pay lower fares], I took a decision to absorb this revenue loss as another one of my agencies, the LLDC, is one of the principal beneficiaries of the change in policy and is likely to see an uplift to its land values.”
Tough but fair
34 minutes ago
7 comments:
There's not more that can be said really, is there?
See wiktionary for the lowdown on mulct.
This is why the tax cuts promised by David Cameron - assuming they ever arrive - are pointless for tenants in London. Rents will simply rise to soak up the excess disposal income.
L, nope.
D, thanks. I thought it might be a typo for "milked".
RT, exactly. And if they are not matched by spending cuts (HAHAHAHA) then the short term tax cuts solve nothing.
"but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!"
and so the money out of which the bridge had been maintained was diverted into other private pockets and the bridge became a liability on the public purse.
B, in Churchill's example, yes.
In Boris' example, he's robbing Peter to pay Paul. As he says, London Transport loses a few quid but the government department which owns land round Stratford station makes windfall land price gains.
"I took a decision to absorb this revenue loss as another one of my agencies, the LLDC, is one of the principal beneficiaries of the change in policy and is likely to see an uplift to its land values"
How exactly does this help the LLDC? It can't spend the uplift in land values. Or does the agency get rental income? If this was a corporation sure the share price would go up because there would be higher value assets on the balance sheet but if a government agency owns land that it uses itself, I can't see how they gain. *Maybe* they can hire from a larger labour pool? Of course they could also sell of the land and lease it back, but that would make them worse off.
Post a Comment