tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post2221243791255981280..comments2024-03-05T10:52:24.691+00:00Comments on Mark Wadsworth: For whom the bridge tolls (2)Mark Wadsworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-38380191022478276402011-05-27T08:37:38.918+01:002011-05-27T08:37:38.918+01:00B: "the income you can generate from owning a...B: <i>"the income you can generate from owning a narrow strip of river bed without a bridge over it is precisely nil in the absence of commercial traffic on the river,"</i><br /><br />That depends entirely on where that strip is. A strip of the Thames in central London is worth millions (you can run a cafe or something), a strip of river with fishing rights near a town is also worth a lot, a strip of river in a flood zone in the middle of Louisiana nowhere near a town is presumably worth nothing.<br /><br />As to the bridge in question, the income is whatever it is, we know the maintenance costs*, return on capital on the stones and planks, that's a fairly known figure, and then there is the additional return because it is wherever it is and how many other bridges there are in that area. The additional return is monopoly land rent.<br /><br />* Would it be fair to make the bridge owner pay something towards the upkeep of all the roads which bring traffic in his direction for free? If they did, his income would soon be wiped out.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-64983220424792657702011-05-27T08:02:03.001+01:002011-05-27T08:02:03.001+01:00"B, "The unwillingness of a riparian lan..."B, "The unwillingness of a riparian landowner to sell does not constitute a "state-protected monopoly"."<br /><br />Yes it does."<br /><br />Not in the sense I meant it, it doesn't. only in the sense that all landowning is a state-protected monopoly.<br /><br />"It is not difficult to distinguish between the income (or value) generated by building and running a physical bridge, bowling alley, cinema or car park and the rents you can collect by 'owning' the land underneath the bridge, cinema etc."<br /><br />Well, no, the income you can generate from owning a narrow strip of river bed without a bridge over it is precisely nil in the absence of commercial traffic on the river, in which case it's the complete opposite of the car park (where you don't even need tarmac).Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-70482638531686808962011-05-26T22:08:57.609+01:002011-05-26T22:08:57.609+01:00DBC, see subsequent post.
B, "The unwilling...DBC, see subsequent post. <br /><br />B, <i>"The unwillingness of a riparian landowner to sell does not constitute a "state-protected monopoly"."</i><br /><br />Yes it does. <br /><br /><i>"By your argument, every landowner (including householders) is a monopolist in that they can charge the general public to come onto or cross their land."</i><br /><br />Correct. <br /><br /><i>"How is that different from charging for any other service? How is building a bridge and charging for it different from, say, building a bowling alley, a cinema or a car park?"</i><br /><br />It is not difficult to distinguish between the income (or value) generated by building and running a physical bridge, bowling alley, cinema or car park and the rents you can collect by 'owning' the land underneath the bridge, cinema etc. <br /><br />Car parks are probably the best example as the cost of the tarmac is minimal - 90% of your income depends on WHERE the car park is and not what quality tarmac you use.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-13849884002266245462011-05-26T18:08:36.808+01:002011-05-26T18:08:36.808+01:00Mark, to reply to your points:
1. I said "e...Mark, to reply to your points:<br /><br />1. I said "except in cities.." Bath is a city. <br />2. Well, of course you'd have to buy some river bank. Who says you can't do that? The unwillingness of a riparian landowner to sell does not constitute a "state-protected monopoly".<br />3. I was not aware that you needed an Act of Parliament to build a bridge over a river. I suspect the original bridge only required one because of its tax-free status. As far as new roads are concerned, we are only talking about 100 yards of B road on one bank as the A438 runs right next to the other bank. Planning considerations are irrelevant, they didn't exist until recently and as I pointed out, no-one has thought it worthwhile to build in the last 200 years.<br /><br />By your argument, every landowner (including householders) is a monopolist in that they can charge the general public to come onto or cross their land. How is that different from charging for any other service? How is building a bridge and charging for it different from, say, building a bowling alley, a cinema or a car park?Bayardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15211150959757982948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-76855476568504994662011-05-26T08:35:58.178+01:002011-05-26T08:35:58.178+01:00A fairly beneficent toll is the London Congestion ...A fairly beneficent toll is the London Congestion Charge,emanating from the same Georgist-minded people like Dave Wetzel who created the near-mythical (although it actually happened)Fares fair scheme which subsidised tranport out of the rates.Do you know how much London fares could be reduced by cross sunbsidies from Congestion Charge receipts?DBC Reednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-28508574427686344902011-05-25T20:29:33.417+01:002011-05-25T20:29:33.417+01:00C, total taxes on cars (fuel duty, VAT, benefit in...C, total taxes on cars (fuel duty, VAT, benefit in kind, insurance premium tax, road tax, parking tickets, yadda yadda) = over £50 billion*, total spend on roads (as far as I am aware) <a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roads/condition/" rel="nofollow">£10 billion</a>.<br /><br />* So that's a tax of £50 billion a year on vehicles worth £250 billion in total. That does compare rather markedly with Council Tax of £20 billion a year on homes worth £4,000 billion in total.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1141932539860553199.post-19937321657054834582011-05-25T18:46:13.393+01:002011-05-25T18:46:13.393+01:00In fact I'm sure I've read that the govern...In fact I'm sure I've read that the government collects about five times more in VAT and duty on fuel than it spends on ALL TRANSPORT, including capital expenditure.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.com