another rant against the nonsense
ecotax on road transport to favor other solutions?
what other solution? the train ?
the station closest to my home was deleted ten years ago (pranzac station ... le queroy)
the Angouleme container station has been deleted! the trains go to bordeaux then the containers return by truck to angouleme! sacred ecology
if the government wants to favor other transport it has only to manage them efficiently ... it is not by stupidly taxing that it will make transport work by train that it continues to demolish
another solution to avoid transport: local manufacturing! it would be more constructive to tax manpower less than to tax trucks no matter how
alas the horror of this ecotax on trucks what is the tax more heavily transport necessary to work in France than direct import from the other side of the world
yet another anti ecological tax under an ecotax name
chatelot16 wrote:another solution to avoid transport: local manufacturing! it would be more constructive to tax manpower less than to tax trucks no matter how
Absolutely but the tool of small politics is the tax!
It's from me I just invented
when there are several solutions that work we can possibly tax certain to favor the other ... but by taxing the trucks what can we do otherwise?
in switzerland it's been a long time since everything was done to transport everything by train, and we only see trucks for short distances ... and they also set up a tax on trucks but after doing what it was necessary to transport everything by train: the tax is just to push the last recalcitrant
in France we do nothing for the sncf to render the necessary service, so the ecotax moves the knife in the wound
to mix with another subject, they are able to set up a gas plant to tax the trucks ... but nothing to catch the usurper of registration number ... it is useless since we succeed in doing pay the victims
charge ... whatever the means
And then once the system is well in place and operational, who tells us that it will not be extended to all vehicles?
For the moment it is only vehicles over 3,5T, that means that already, when I am going to transport a horse with my van, I am likely to pay ... we will have to learn to find the "routes bis "to avoid going under the porticoes.
gates are only part of the system for detecting fraud by traffickers
comparison with the fake license plate ... the state does nothing to detect the fake, but to earn money with this eco-tax it sets up from the start what is necessary so that nobody escapes
there is therefore only one who would traffic his ecotax counter who should avoid all the gantries so as not to be spotted
how much will the device to be mounted on each vehicle cost? one more charge to pay
one more tax whose collection is expensive ... and I'm afraid that this figure is only the cost for the state, but that we forget the expense that will be imposed on the owner of the vehicle to install the meter!I vaguely heard that collecting this tax would cost € 250 million. (Million)
We can indeed reverse the argument: it is because road transport is too "competitive" that it has killed rail freight ... Attempts to put rail on have indeed ended in stakes; the SNCF, which must "manage", is therefore disengaged ... Rail transport is "open": quaisment nobody is committed. The big Veolia types preferred ... to buy motorways!
And we can note that the trucks use an infrastructure on which they do not pay "rent" (unlike the SNCF, which headsets to RFF to run its trains).
I regret that the tax is not due on the highways, this is the big flaw. So large flows (Spain-Northern Europe or "Eastern countries-Italy) will always cross for free (in the ecotax sense)!
Finally, you seem to ignore that the construction federation fears that this will happen: the ecotax will finance the AFITF and the communities.
With the postponement of the tax on heavy goods vehicles from October 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014, the Transport Infrastructure Financing Agency (AFITF) sees 400 million euros written off in its 2013 budget. A shortfall which, without compensation, will weigh on the agency's investments.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_de_ ... _de_France :
AFITF investments should be distributed as follows: 70% for iron, 25% for roads and 5% for river projects.
Switzerland also did things well given its topography: it was more profitable for trucks to pass under the Gotthard than to climb the passes, impassable in winter. It helped. Easier when you have no choice!
Germany, which has been practicing "Maut" for 3 or 4 years, also has its problems with the railways.
I think we are victims of the "all-road" fashion of the 70s! (motorway plan) ...
However, the planning put in place of heavy infrastructure, it is at least programs at 20 or 30 years ... We let the cmaions roll for 30 or 40 years.
It is not shocking that it takes 20 or 30 years to reverse ...
[Afterwards, you also know my opinion on the "imperfections" of the systems put in place. They are real. I do not defend them. But I'm not always "against" something on the grounds that it's not "very well designed"!]
For now it is only vehicles over 3,5T, that means that already, when I go to transport a horse with my van, I am likely to pay ....
More than 3,5 t is the C permit.
Do you fall into this category? [I indeed know of the stables which have "trucks" which must fall under this category]
Remundo wrote:I vaguely heard that collecting this tax would cost € 250 million. (Million)
Did not understand everything...
I found this in a Senate report:
Ecomouv 'was developed as part of a PPP led by the Italian company Autostrade per l'Italia. Of the 1,2 billion euros expected in revenue, 160 million would go to communities, 230 million to Ecomouv ', and 800 million to AFITF. Do you confirm these figures? Were there no other solutions than such a partnership, which I consider less public than private?
Right here : http://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commis ... evdur.html
[Here we see another problem: the inability of the state to finance investment in such a system; therefore we "concede", in return for the concessionaire / investor.
On this subject, I invite everyone to leaf through the last "What to choose" - new issue: almost all large cities where drinking water is the cheapest are "regulated" - the City manages itself - and almost all where it is the most expensive are ... concessions!
When we open our eyes to "public services" synonymous with mismanagement, to these "damn officials", their 35 hours, 3 who disicut leaning on the handle of a shovel ....
There, at least, it is crystal clear on the “performances” of the private sector. I'm talking about their ability to manage mega-pumps with cash and siphon ...
But they have almost everyone in their favor! Why would ilos be generated ????]
gradually they were all closed ... and many companies moved to industrial areas without a railway track
sad land use planning: old location in town close to the accommodation for the employees, and with the possibility of ecological transport ... new location far from the accommodation, and without train
it must be said that in these companies, the main memory of transport by snscf was the number of wagon lost ... or arriving with stolen content
so to make the transport by train work there was a lot of progress to be made, to avoid the ruin of the transport of goods
alas the sncf only took care of the TGV and sacrificed all the rest: taxing the trucks after neglecting what to do is ridiculous
customers are not stupid! if the transport of goods by train became efficient again they would use it, but now that all of it has been demolished, everything would have to be rebuilt, the stations, the tracks, all of the land development should be done again!
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 112 guests