[Article] Motorists want VRT phased out

Victor

http://www.sbpost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-781627819-pageUrl--2FThe-Newspaper-2FSundays-Paper-2FNews.asp

Motorists want VRT phased out
12/09/04 00:00

Irish motorists want vehicle registration tax (VRT) phased out, according to an EU survey, writes Louise McBride.

The poll on the European Commission website is seeking the opinions of motorists across Europe.

VRT is paid when registering vehicles for the first time. VRT on Irish cars ranges from 22.5 to 30 per cent of the expected retail price, depending on engine size. Cyril McHugh, chief executive of the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (SIMI), said the phasing out approach was realistically the only way to eliminate VRT.

``The Irish government has doggedly held on to a car purchase tax, even though excise duty on cars was abolished as far back as 1992,'' he said. ``It is clear that, without action at European level, we will be subject to the penal tax indefinitely.''

In its pre-budget submission for 2005, the SIMI is calling for an initial 2 per cent reduction in VRT. The society also wants a refund of tax for cars which are permanently exported.

The SIMI is collating the opinions of Irish motorists to pass on to the Commission.

seamus

Irish people don't want to pay a tax? Oh my God!



VRT is a ridiculous charge, but a poll indicating that people don't want to pay tax doesn't indicate anything at all.

Hagar

I believe VRT is purely grossly unfair, however it will have to be phased out over a period or the value of every car in the country will go through the floor. If new cars become 30% cheaper who will buy secondhand cars valued at the current tax rate ?

dmeehan

I'd imagine with "everyone" buyuing cheaper new cars, the market for second hand cars would be flooded and consequently, the price of a second hand car would also drop

ChipZilla

Yeah, it would be nice if VRT was phased out, specially as there are so many othr ways of screwing the motorist out of money. But I can't see it happening any time soon...

vector

ChipZilla wrote:

Yeah, it would be nice if VRT was phased out, specially as there are so many othr ways of screwing the motorist out of money. But I can't see it happening any time soon...

Well motor tax calculation could move from engine size to CO2 emmissions, this of course would appear to be a "green" move and naturally the end price to the motorist would increase, killing two birds with the one stone.

ChipZilla

Just like the system in the UK for cars registered after 2001. There are five tax bands each for petrol, diesel, and alternative fuel cars, ranging from £60 a year to £160 a year for the heaviest emissions. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I like the idea...

What I do have a problem with is ridiculous VRT rates for importing cars from elsewhere in the EU, extortionate road tax which is obviously not getting spent on any of the roads I drive on, and insurance premiums which make me cry when a renewal notice plops through the letterbox. Even the €25 to renew a driving license for ten years is there to milk the punters of their hard-earned. Did I miss any other screw-jobs? Probably.

But we digress off-topic...

vector

The driver theory test cost is EUR 34, the company that got that tender is sorted, captive market, guaranteed returns and all the other cliches certaibnly apply. EUR 34 is not a fortune but its too high, 25 or maybe 20 would be more like it.

Same with NCT, we all know that while annoying it does have value, but it should be 35, and same with the retest, which is the real money spinner, one failure (bar visual) and another 27.

All these things are overpriced by about 10.

BrianD

Do we really want the VRT phased out? A substantial amount of Government revenue is levied from this source. If VRT goes, tax on other items will have to increase to make up the shortfall. Furthmore, the manufacturers price of the car before VRT is artificially low when compared with other countries. With VRT removed the base price would rise to equalise with other markets.

The bottom line is cars will become cheaper but not subsantially cheaper and taxes on just about everything else will increase. A no win situation for everyone.

ChipZilla

BrianD wrote:

Furthmore, the manufacturers price of the car before VRT is artificially low when compared with other countries. With VRT removed the base price would rise to equalise with other markets.

Have you got any numbers to qualify that statement on artificially low prices? I have noticed that a lot of new cars in Ireland are 'Poverty spec' compared to their mainland europe equivalent, eg a 1.6l Renault Laguna - a big-ish car with an engine that is woefully underpowered - (under)designed to a price point for a specific market. Smallest Laguna in the UK or France is a 1.8.

The prices may appear low, but you're getting an inferior product... Anyway, I'd love to see some numbers on Irish car prices versus French/German/Dutch/etc prices.

BrianD

The srtificially low prices set by manufacturers are well known. If they charged the prices that they get in other markets, we would never be able to afford a car once the VRT was added on!

These lower trade prices were causing quite a problem with dealers in the UK. If the car is exported to the UK, VRT is not charged to the UK buyer. This means the base price of the car is substantially lower than that in the UK. The trade in new cars accross the border to N. Ireland and into the UK used to be quite brisk and accounts for more vehicles than you would think. As we are in the EU, a dealer can not refuse to sell to a buyer in another EU country (unless there is an issue with their ability to pay).

ChipZilla

BrianD wrote:

If they charged the prices that they get in other markets, we would never be able to afford a car once the VRT was added on!

Exactly my problem. VRT is a screw-job. No other european country as far as I know charges a VRT on a new or imported car. Holland has a VAT rate of 40% on new cars, but that's as bad as it gets - obviously if you're buying a car there to export you won't have to pay that.

As for dealers in the UK, customers buying cars on the internet or importing them have given them the kick in the arse they need. More competition is a good thing.

Tommy Vercetti

BrianD wrote:

Do we really want the VRT phased out? A substantial amount of Government revenue is levied from this source. If VRT goes, tax on other items will have to increase to make up the shortfall. Furthmore, the manufacturers price of the car before VRT is artificially low when compared with other countries. With VRT removed the base price would rise to equalise with other markets.

The bottom line is cars will become cheaper but not subsantially cheaper and taxes on just about everything else will increase. A no win situation for everyone.

I tend to agree with you there Brian. No govt. is simply going to write off this amount, so it will be made up elsewhere. I would much rather see the annual motor tax system reformed. It is absolutely ridiculous to charge someone over €1300 per year just because they have a bigger (and safer) car, whilst someone can bring a car in from another country and not contribute anything.

cyclopath2001

Isn't VRT used to protect local car dealers from cheap imports? I think the tax is deliberately set to equalize prices.

If VRT were abolished what would replace it?

Road tolling like Central London?

secret_squirrel

Can we afford to abolish VRT? Given the conjestion on our roads currently how can anything that would increase the number of cars on the road be a good thing??

At best I would support a wider band of taxation so most of us could afford a dinky toy but the sale of guzzling monsters was even more restricted.

thejollyrodger

Personally I think they should keep the VRT and introduce another tax - maybe a congestion charge or something like that. We cant keep building motorways just to keep up with 1 person 1 car usage;)

sliabh

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

It is absolutely ridiculous to charge someone over €1300 per year just because they have a bigger (and safer) car, whilst someone can bring a car in from another country and not contribute anything.

The only people that can do this are those that can demonstrate that they owned the car abroad for more than 6 months. So the numbers are pretty small.

But the EU has their eye on this anyway. Under EU cross border trade regulations this is probably illegal (It's going through the courts at the moment). Because the country you are importing the car into is getting to double tax it. the EU view is that if the government where the car was bought taxed it then it can't be taxed again when you try to move it to a second coutnry. This a restrictive trade practice.

Dept of Fin is worried about this one as the loss of VRT will have to be made up some other way. Personally I would go for fuel tax. That way the tax is linked to road usage and the size of your engine.

dmeehan

sliabh wrote:

Personally I would go for fuel tax. That way the tax is linked to road usage and the size of your engine.

Do you own a car yourself?

BrianD

dmeehan wrote:

Do you own a car yourself?

I don't get the relevance of the question. However, must countries do put the levy on vehicle usage (road tax and tax on fuel) - the more you use the more you pay.

The unfortunate fact about the VRT is that the revenue gained goes into general government expenditure and other hefty taxes would be required to replace it.

sliabh

dmeehan wrote:

Do you own a car yourself?

I do. So?

ChipZilla

thejollyrodger wrote:

Personally I think they should keep the VRT and introduce another tax - maybe a congestion charge or something like that. We cant keep building motorways just to keep up with 1 person 1 car usage;)

You already pay VAT *and* VRT on a new car. And you want to pay more tax? VRT is a restrictive practice IMHO, and should get the boot. Taxing petrol more is just going to reverse the flow of petrol across the border. As I mentioned previously I would like to see road tax based on the amount of CO2 you put out - I do believe that's fair enough. As for congestion charging, that is definitely being considered according to the Sunday Times last month. The guy who came up with the idea for London, Derek Turner, is said to be working on plans for Dublin, Cardiff, Bristol, Edinburgh, Auckland, Sao Paolo and Copenhagen:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12389-1235589,00.html

Ditch the VRT and charge people depending on how much CO2 they produce, and how much congestion they cause. The government would make an absolute mint if they did bring in congestion charging. Fair enough don't you think?

LFCFan

Taxation on Cars should only be on usage. You buy a car and tax it at normal prices like the UK or Europe and then get taxed when you buy petrol/Diesel. It's sickening, the amount of Road Tax we pay. It should be like the UK where you pay road tax based on emissions. Eur1,300 to tax a car is beyond a joke. Also, VRT as bad as it is, wouldn't be as bad if it was added to the Pre VAT price. As it is, it's added to the Post VAT price so it's double taxation.

eg.

Current Situation

Pre VAT Price: Eur10,000
Post VAT Price: Eur12,100
Post VRT Price (at 30%): Eur15,730

The way it should be:

Pre VAT Price: Eur10,000
VAT: Eur2,100
VRT (30%): 3,000
New Car Price: Eur15,100

Difference = Eur630

sliabh

ChipZilla wrote:

Taxing petrol more is just going to reverse the flow of petrol across the border. As I mentioned previously I would like to see road tax based on the amount of CO2 you put out - I do believe that's fair enough.

As petrol prices in the north are about 40% higher there is plenty of scope for jacking up the Irish duty.

And taxing fuel is the perfect way to link taxation to production of CO2. The more petrol/diesel you burn the more CO2 you produce and the more tax you pay.

mike65

Originally Posted by BrianD
Furthmore, the manufacturers price of the car before VRT is artificially low when compared with other countries. With VRT removed the base price would rise to equalise with other markets.

ChipZilla wrote:

Have you got any numbers to qualify that statement on artificially low prices? I have noticed that a lot of new cars in Ireland are 'Poverty spec' compared to their mainland europe equivalent, eg a 1.6l Renault Laguna - a big-ish car with an engine that is woefully underpowered - (under)designed to a price point for a specific market. Smallest Laguna in the UK or France is a 1.8.

The prices may appear low, but you're getting an inferior product... Anyway, I'd love to see some numbers on Irish car prices versus French/German/Dutch/etc prices.

Here's the proof from motornet.ie

Other carmakers, though, are taking advantage of the lower tax rate in the UK. The Fiat Stilo 1.2 Active, for example, which retails at £10,800 in the UK (the equivalent of €17,170) costs £9,230 or €14,677 pre-tax over there. The same car retails at €17,600 here, which mean Fiat are only asking for €11,875 for it in Ireland, a difference of almost €3,000. Or, put another way, their profit is far lower on Irish cars.

It’s not to single Fiat out, mind, because all manufacturers will naturally want to make as much as possible from every car they sell. In the UK, a basic Renault Laguna costs ST£14,255, which is the equivalent of €22,500. The pre-tax UK price is, therefore, around €19,200 in our money. The equivalent model retails at €23,250 in Ireland, which is remarkably close to the UK’s price, but to achieve this low price in Ireland, Renault have to accept a pre-tax price of €15,245 and will therefore have to try to save some of that money by paring back equipment levels, warranty and roadside cover.

So both of you are right we often do suffer lower spec but car manufacturers do sell into Ireland at a lower rate.

Mike.

ps here's the VRT/VAT list for all the EU states
http://www.simi.ie/admin/files/ACEATaxGuide2003Extract1.pdf

ChipZilla

The average retail price for a litre of petrol in the South is 99.5c (Let's just round that up to €1.00):

http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/petrolprices/

The average retail price in the North is 82.27p (€1.20 ):

http://www.aapetrolbusters.com/

Now that's a 20% difference to me. And anyway, just because petrol prices are higher up there doesn't mean the government here should be aiming for a similar price...

sliabh

ChipZilla wrote:

Now that's a 20% difference to me. And anyway, just because petrol prices are higher up there doesn't mean the government here should be aiming for a similar price...

No, but in the context of replacing VRT there is scope to add duty to fuel as an alternative.

Capt'n Midnight

vector wrote:

The driver theory test cost is EUR 34, the company that got that tender is sorted, captive market, guaranteed returns and all the other cliches certaibnly apply. EUR 34 is not a fortune but its too high, 25 or maybe 20 would be more like it.

Same with NCT, we all know that while annoying it does have value, but it should be 35, and same with the retest, which is the real money spinner, one failure (bar visual) and another 27.

All these things are overpriced by about 10.

Are you sure ?
Cos there is NO WAY you can have a multiple choice costing more than the practical road test, which by the way also includes a small theory test..

NCT - it's free if you don't have to use a lane , other wise they would have to book in instead of someone who would pay more. - also I'd feel safer passing an NCT (even though it has some omissions) than having a garage do a €30 inspection on the car,

mackerski

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

It is absolutely ridiculous to charge someone over €1300 per year just because they have a bigger (and safer) car..., whilst someone can bring a car in from another country and not contribute anything.

Amen to that - and let's add "cleaner" and "more economical". My current car has a 2.5 litre engine and costs something like €1800 a year in car tax. However, some of my earlier cars had tiny engines, smokey exhausts, guzzled petrol and would take a lot longer to bring to a halt. Many cars of this nature are still on the road - the state rewards their owners and penalises me.

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

...whilst someone can bring a car in from another country and not contribute anything.

That's not entirely true. People "can" do that, but they "may" not. Not for longer than a year anyway, which is the length of time you get to decide if you are staying. If you are, you are legally obliged to replate the car. Luckily for you, if you brought it from another EU country, you will, in most cases, not be liable for VRT.

Dermot

vector

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Are you sure ?
Cos there is NO WAY you can have a multiple choice costing more than the practical road test, which by the way also includes a small theory test..

NCT - it's free if you don't have to use a lane , other wise they would have to book in instead of someone who would pay more. - also I'd feel safer passing an NCT (even though it has some omissions) than having a garage do a €30 inspection on the car,

The Driver Theory Test costs EUR 34
http://www.dtts.ie/faq2.htm#5

The Driving Test costs EUR 38
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/driving_test.html#id3120668
(That is for a car licence Class B, higher Classes are more expensive to reflect the increased energy used by the tester to climb into a higher cab )

sliabh

vector wrote:

The Driver Theory Test costs EUR 34

The Driving Test costs EUR 38

And it's still cheap at the price. Some German collegues were telling me how its mandatory to attend driving school before you do your test. That will set you back €1500.

But for the price you do get a better standard of driver.

secret_squirrel

sliabh wrote:

But for the price you do get a better standard of driver.

Something we need pretty damn badly. Whilst we're drifting off the tax subject they should abolish the crazy provisional license rules here..

Infact this thread illustrates that the Govts whole approach to motoring needs a major rethink.

ChipZilla

sliabh wrote:

But for the price you do get a better standard of driver.

Never a truer thing said.

secret_squirrel wrote:

Infact this thread illustrates that the Govts whole approach to motoring needs a major rethink.

Ditto.

thejollyrodger

maybe a 'pay per usage tax ' would be better, but realistically the same sort of revenue needs to be generated for the government.

mackerski

ChipZilla wrote:

As for congestion charging, that is definitely being considered according to the Sunday Times last month.

If they are considering it, then it's a bloody disgrace - the usual I-want-one-of-them, Irish-style. The folks in charge insist on copying successful concepts from other countries, without checking first whether we satisfy the prerequisites that made them successful in the first place. It's a wonder the government doesn't try to copy North Sea oil by sinking oil shafts in the sea, oblivious to the fact that we have no oil down there.

Look at why the congestion charge in London is a success - and see how many of the items we can tick off here:

* Bloody awful traffic chaos (check)

* The longest-standing metropolitan underground network in the world - particularly dense inside the congestion zone and reaching way beyond it. (nope)

* No valid reason for any "normal" person to enter the congestion zone in a car. (also nope. Even with a completed M50, consider access to the ports and legitimate cross-city local traffic. The London zone lies entirely within a navigable inner road ring. It's also a pretty small zone, when seen on London's scale)

* No reason for long-distance users of public transport to enter the zone by car to commence journey - easy tube or rail access to all relevant infrastructure (nope: Busaras, Heuston, Connolly. The airport would be doable, but you'd need to formalise the means by which soutsiders are expected to avoid the zone. "Go along the canal" isn't good enough).

* Easy, zero-penalty, interchange between all public transport, so that a person actually giving up his car to do his civic duty isn't expected to walk 20 minutes just because his bus terminates on Parnell Square and he has to get to Mount Street. (*cough*).

* A decision to drive into the London congestion zone can be seen as selfish. You sacrifice your own time and other people's roadspace to gain a cocoon/carrying capacity/whatever. Today you also have to contribute a fiver of your hard-earned as well. Seems fair enough. (Whereas unimaginative routes and ticketing make travelling into Dublin on public transport a very awkward option for many. DART proves that, when you give people a usable service, they use it.)


I really do get sick and tired of people championing the "big" ideas when they can't see beyond the end of their noses and try the little ones first.

Let's have the carrot first - then bring on the stick.

Dermot

Captain Trips

I get the impression that it's SIMI want VRT gone so that everyone will go out and buy new cars as sales are down.

This will benefit not me or anybody who has a car, and certainly we would not get a fat refund of the 12 grand or so on an average new sedan, PLUS the used value of your purchase would collapse AND the government would quadruple road tax or something.

So if VRT was gone in the morning, SIMI would make a fortune, maybe 10-15% gains on new car sales, and the 1.4 million others on the road would see value collapsing, etc., . Only fair way would be to scrap it and give everyone 30% of the market value of the car back in cash, then up the other taxes to compensate.

Yes it's expensive but so is everything here. SIMI however would love if we all went out and bought new cars, spent even more money and flogged our old devalued cars. It would probably take 6-10 years of a gradual reduction to buffer the market and prevent chaos.

Capt'n Midnight

vector wrote:

The Driver Theory Test costs EUR 34
http://www.dtts.ie/faq2.htm#5

The Driving Test costs EUR 38
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/driving_test.html#id3120668
(That is for a car licence Class B, higher Classes are more expensive to reflect the increased energy used by the tester to climb into a higher cab )

The point being that the cost of a multiple choice test that requires no skill or judgement or risk taking on part of the examiner is approx. the same as an another test which requires considerable skill and judgement on the examiners behalf as well as a degree of risk. It can be difficult to determine how a person will drive after the half-hour they do at their most focused and on their best behaviour in an urban environment. This is a real shame because ~70% of accidents are caused by driver error. (which works out on average of two driver error related fatalities per tester per year).

So either were are being ripped off totally in the theory test or the govt reckon that for a driver with an average potential of 40 year behind the wheel €4 (10c per year) is enough to have spent on the most fundamental aspect of road safety , fitness to drive.

BTW: how many motorists are there who've passed their test ~1m ? (excluding people who got them before the test / or on an amnesty) So for the basic car license €76m (50% failures => 2 tests average) of gross income was raised. The nett profit/loss would only be a small fraction of this. Compared to the NRA spending level or even the economic costs of road deaths per year , only a beancounter would argue it having a significant effect on the grand total so I would argue that fitness to drive is not being taken seriously.

VRT on the other hand is a simple tax , of the quarter of the cost of a new car, it would be nice to think that more than a fer € went into driver testing , nope. The only move on VRT was scrappage - but even then the €1,000 handed back was Less than the VRT taken on the new car so you were being handed back some on your money. If it looks like an election issue it might be phased out over a few years, but like duty on drink and tax benefits on mortgagues a lot of savings will be pocketed by rip-off-ireland. Still it would mean we could go abroad to get cheaper cars when it was finally phased out, but you'd have to go further than the UK so most people woundn't bother..

Phasing out VRT over as little as three years should not affect car prices too much - new cars do drop by a little more than 10% per year.

Remember too we don't pay rates anymore, just bin tax etc..


Anyone know if Denmark have done anything on thier "VRT" ??

Captain Trips

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Phasing out VRT over as little as three years should not affect car prices too much - new cars do drop by a little more than 10% per year.

Remember too we don't pay rates anymore, just bin tax etc..


Anyone know if Denmark have done anything on thier "VRT" ??

I disagree. Bins, etc., are services. Cars, homes and so on are not. If Stamp Duty was 25% of the price of a home would it not have a dramatic effect on people? Most people have loans for houses and loans for cars.

It is a very different situation c/t service charges which are fine by me. I would say at the very least 3 years, probably 5. 3 years and say 30% VRT is 10%/year. New cars drop 10% the day they are driven out of the dealership and drop a lot more than 10% per year.

I think it would simply encourage more take up of cars, which we don't need and which SIMI would love. Instead, we need to get better public transport and more Luas lines interconnecting so people don't have to even think about having a car, like in several other large cities.

The benefits are basically 150,000 people a year can buy cars for cheap, it would start a me too and people would start buying even more new cars in an era of ever increasing pollution and petrol prices. Madness but SIMI would love it.

Tommy Vercetti

Captain Trips wrote:

I get the impression that it's SIMI want VRT gone so that everyone will go out and buy new cars as sales are down.

They want to get their greedy hands on the SSIAs as well, that's why phasing out VRT would suit them down to the ground.

MrPudding

I thought the EU recently forced the manufacturers to stop the preferential pricing. I remember reading about it a while ago. It was quite ironic, they made the base price of cars here cheaper, with a crapper spec of course, to try to reduce the impact of VRT. On the other side of things the EU was trying to stop them from having different prices in different countries because it is unfair. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the base price of cars in Ireland must rise. I’m not sure if it is in place yet but if not it is coming. The EU wants cars to have the same base price regardless of the country they are bought in.

This is rather unfortunate. It means that the price of cars will rise. The spec will probably have to be brought up also, after all if the EU want the base price to be the same everywhere they will also probably want the spec to be the same also. This will mean even more VRT. The gov must be rubbing their hands with glee. Bastards.

MrP

secret_squirrel

Tommy Vercetti wrote:

They want to get their greedy hands on the SSIAs as well, that's why phasing out VRT would suit them down to the ground.

SIMI can wait their turn Im giving those non-greedy building firms all my SSIA.

Bee

mackerski wrote:

Look at why the congestion charge in London is a success - and see how many of the items we can tick off here:

Its only a success if you define a few less cars as being a success and to hell with the damage to the local economy. Red Ken (the mayor of London) is a raving loony socialist that couldn't give a flying V to local business. If we had the same charge here the usual suspect(s), in the ivory towers of DCC, you all know the ones with their heads shoved up their butts and their hands in the taxpayers pocket would merrily exclaim what a Success$$$! less cars!

Of course central Dublin would suffer even more economic damage than central London....

Oxford Street
The mighty John Lewis has been leading the case for the prosecution.
In September last year the company said sales at its flagship London store were down 9% compared with its other stores. The company hinted darkly that other big Oxford Street shops were suffering the same effects.
John Lewis is so concerned it has appointed an independent academic to assess the effects of the charge.

Lay-offs
More evidence has been presented by the London Chamber of Commerce.

It has claimed a massive 79% of retailers were reporting reduced takings.
A quarter had laid off staff just because of the congestion charge, the Chamber insisted.

Faster flow?
Surely companies that deliver goods in London would have benefited from the 16% drop in traffic since the introduction of the charge?
Not a bit of it, says the Freight Transport Association, noting that 69% of companies responding to its survey said they had not noticed any improvement in journey times, despite official figures that traffic is moving 14% faster.

Bee

sliabh

Bee wrote:

Its only a success if you define a few less cars as being a success and to hell with the damage to the local economy. Red Ken (the mayor of London) is a raving loony socialist that couldn't give a flying V to local business.

Surprisingly, he is generally regarded as doing a pretty good job even by commercal interests in the city. His socialist tendancies have much tempered by time and access to power (as usually happens to most idealists when they are confronted with reality). That's why he got re-elected (with a reduced number of votes, but much of that was due to dissatisfaction with the labour part which he rejoined). Even that bastion of capitalism the Economist magazine recommended voting for him. (they were pretty surprised themselves that they were)

As for the charging, it's supported by 55% of Londoners. And a survey by London First a business organisation showed that 59% of firms said the charge's impact on London's economy as positive or neutral, compared with 26% who say it has been negative.

There will always be a few lobby groups (like the transport lobby) and whingers that will complain. You can't please everyone. But the charge is generally felt to work, and is supported by people and business.

ChipZilla

Bee wrote:

Blah

If you're just going to copy and paste stuff off the BBC news site, post a link so people don't think it's all your own work...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3492725.stm

You also forgot to include bits further down the page, like this:

Since cars in London have an average of 1.5 occupants, that would mean no more than 3,000 people a day have given up entering the city centre.

The London Annual Travel Survey suggests just 9% of car journeys in Greater London are for shopping.

The Retail Traffic Index for the Congestion Zone recorded a year-on-year rise of 4.7% in January, higher than the gain made in the London and the South East region generally.

etc, etc...