To think there should be a ULEZ concessions scheme?

[declutteringAgain]

For those on very low incomes affected by this ?
Either a reduced rate or a certain number of ‘free’ trips per UC assessment period or similar?

My family needed to drive into one of these zones yesterday. We were a party of 9 in 3 cars as we were coming from different parts of the country.

My car, a 5 year old 7 seater diesel and my dad's car, a 6 year old SUV were exempt. My brothers small 10 year old hatchback wasn't.

Financially, my brother would be hit hardest by this payment.

It's a stealth tax on the poor, not everyone can afford these new exempt cars.

I actually would have thought that mine and my dad's car would be less economical than my brothers but there you go.

I agree. When I was extremely poor I couldnt afford to learn to drive, never mind buy a vehicle and pay the insurance, road tax and MOT. I would never have got credit to lease one either. And that's without congestion charge and parking costs.

I would like to see a better scrappage scheme for people with older cars who are key workers but you're not extremelybpoor if you own and operate a car.

Don’t you see? 3 cars from one family coming into London, decreasing air quality for those that live in London. This is what ULEZ is trying to limit. People are dying. You could’ve all caught the train in.

Anyone getting child benefit can access the scrappage scheme.

According to this, not only is child benefit receipt enough to access the scrappage scheme, but small businesses (inc sole traders) can also apply and there will be some kind of provision for care workers too:-

www.london.gov.uk/mayor-announces-major-expansion-ulez-scrappage-scheme-cover-all-small-businesses-london-and-all#:~:text=If%20a%20parent%20earns%20£,than%20£60%2C000%20a%20year.

So a lot of concerns in the thread are inaccurate.

It was Birmingham, not London. We went to see Peter Kay.

All from the same family but coming from different parts of the country and we didn't even have tickets all sat together, very much separate but we know each other

I didn't get the train because the trains didn't run late enough for me to get back for work this morning otherwise I would have.

My brother had 4 in his car. His parking, fuel and ULEZ was £45. The train tickets were £67 EACH. Trains were financially out of the question for them.

My parents were traveling up north from a holiday down south and stopped one night in Birmingham on the way home for the gig.

The train wasn't really an option for any of us in this instance.

This suggests that there are already concessions in the existing ULEZ https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/reimbursements-of-the-congestion-charge-and-ulez-charge. Admittedly, lots of people remain affected.

Ulez has made massive improvements to air quality in London. The right of everyone in London to breathe clean air outweighs the burden of Ulez charges or the cost of compliant cars for some motorists.

The entitlement of motorists is - literally - breathtaking.

There are concessions already. Plus 9/10 car owners are not affected. It only applies to cars older than 2006. I live in a poor part of the country and hardly anyone has a car older than that. The Tories have whipped this up into a much bigger deal than it is, and silly Labour are falling over themselves instead of defending it. Also noone points out that Khan was legally obliged by the government to do this in order to meet the carbon cutting targets.

Free school meals aren't paid for out of school meals income. Those who are entitled to FSM also pay tax, whether income based/directly due to employment or indirectly through VAT and Excise Duty.

A miniscule amount. Their services: health, education, roads, defence, police, fire, Council, food safety standards, environmental standards, pensions, border control, everything are covered by everyone else. Even the benefit top ups of people earning so little they are entitled to FSMs far outweigh their tax contribution across all taxes, before you factor in any other services they receive. This is fine, because this is why the tax system exists. But let's not pretend that everyone is funding their own costs because that is simply factually wrong.

Esrlofshrewsburty trains aren't 'financially out of the question' if you don't have the annual expense of running a car in the first place. A car costs money in more ways thsn just one trip to London, a city with excellent public transport infrastructure

Half UC claimants work and pensioners pay tax too. They are tax payers themselves.

You're making the classic error of presuming that all claimants are long term. Whereas in reality significant numbers are short term and are in fact net contributors.

It only applies to cars older than 2006

This isn't true at all.

"Don’t you see? 3 cars from one family coming into London, decreasing air quality for those that live in London. This is what ULEZ is trying to limit. People are dying. You could’ve all caught the train in."

Who wants to catch an unreliable train ? Especially as they're constantly on strike.

Responses about avoiding trains just makes me think that the per day cost of ULEZ is way, way too low. I suppose it needs to be cranked right up to make public transport/compliant vehicles affordable in comparison?

OP, there is a scrappage scheme for concessions. Not everyone qualifies. Like pretty much every concession ever.

ULEZ has already proved that it lowers harmful air pollution. Khan was right to push it through without delay.

'My family needed to drive'! From Birmingham to London? With its great transport links? For entertainment? why do car drivers think their needs trump everyone elses?

I am a pensioner and a tax payer. I am more than happy for my taxes to be used to support people on benefits or pensioners on low incomes.

But your travel wasn’t essential. You could all have met up outside the zone and travelled in together on a train.

Responses about avoiding trains just makes me think that the per day cost of ULEZ is way, way too low. I suppose it needs to be cranked right up to make public transport/compliant vehicles affordable in comparison?

Or - brace yourself for something radical - train travel needs to be subsidised incredibly heavily to make it much more attractive than motoring. (And also made much much more accessible to people with disabilities.)

The poorest and most vulnerable in society don't run cars. However much they might need them on paper they just can't afford them. The next poorest people who can just about scrape enough together for a car are eligible for the scrappage scheme.

I don't deny that there are some people at the bottom of the squeezed middle who don't get benefits so can't get scrappage and will find changing their cars unaffordable because of the unfortunate way that ULEZ expansion has coincided with the global spike in used car prices.

But they are in no way "the poorest and most vulnerable".

You're making the classic error of presuming that all claimants are long term. Whereas in reality significant numbers are short term and are in fact net contributors.

That's not the case either. A very small proportion of the population are net contributors over the lives as a whole.

That's not necessarily a problem IMO, but I don't think it's helpful for rational discussion when claims are made that simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

And made more reliable!

That too @SoupDragon

You don't have to be a whole lifespan net contributor object to being characterised wrongly as a non-tax payer.

It's happened several times now on the thread that false dichotomies have been presented as "poor v tax payers" or "UC claimant v FT worker".