|
Why just the total of the number of spaces? What's the difference between a large building with, say 600 employees and 100 car parking spaces and ten smaller buildings of 60 employees each and 6 parking spaces?
Normally, the large building's footprint (including car park) and energy usage is significantly less than that of smaller ones, yet the larger employer has to pay the tax/levy and the smaller ones don't, despite having in total the same number of staff and car parking spaces.
As regards MPs, only ministers and top party leaders need security in the form of an 'official car' (pool cars in that regard could be used for others if and when necessary) and there's no reason why any backbench MP needs a parking space in the UG car park below the HoP given the extensive public transport options open to them.
My point was that in many instances, politicians and some (seemingly more often high-ranking) public sector officials (many of whom are very well paid) argue and get 'freebies' or 'exemptions' such as this when most of those employees who actually need a car as part of their job (but isn't a company car) would likely have to pay somehow.
To me, it's like the top bosses (including in the private sector) always get the best computer, even though 99% of them do little more than use it for emails, the odd Office document and reading pdfs and looking up stuff on the Interweb. They always find a way around taxes like this proposed one, often at the expense of their employees.
A former boss of mine said (during the recession) we all had to take pay cuts; a week or so later he bought himself a new company car which was £20k more than the 3yo one he currently had. Needless to say, this didn't exactly go down well with my colleagues.
My problem with levies/taxes like this is that it hits everyone the same, regardless of (for example) whether they drive a gas-guzzler or a small city car, are local and lazily drive less than 3 mins to work or further away, or (as above) are required by their contact to use the car for work and not just commuting. Same goes for ability to pay and the availablility of viable local public transport (for some, it just isn't an option not having a car). To me, this is no different to the Poll Tax.
All that will happen is that some businesses will not be able to afford it it and will lose staff and even go out of business, others will push staff onto parking on side roads, and especially those without residents only parking and/or viable parking controls. I've seen this a lot locally to me as train car parking prices have shot up over the years (now over £1200 for an annual permit). To me, all this is pushing problems onto those least able to afford to deal with them to get revenue for the public sector via the back door.
|
