Tax or Toll?

One of the reasons we’ve mostly stopped going into central London (and have ceased going in at all with a car during the week), is London mayor Ken Livingstone’s exorbitant “tax”. (It is currently £ 8 every day — almost $15.) Yet, of course, yesterday, we had Reuters, (there’s a surprise) trying to stir things up:

The U.S. Embassy in London owes more than 1 million pounds ($1.9 million) for a vehicle “congestion charge” in the capital, the mayor’s office said on Wednesday.London authorities say the charge on driving in the centre of the city is a road toll and diplomats have to pay it like anyone else. Washington says it is a tax and diplomats are exempt…

But we all know it’s a tax; before it was imposed, even the BBC at least once referred to it as a “tax”.  Ken doesn’t like calling it what it is, though, and does everything he can to try to murky the waters:

…”It is for the British authorities to decide what is a tax and what is not a tax in the UK,” Livingstone said. “Both the UK government and the Greater London Authority consider the congestion charge a charge for a service — reduced congestion. The U.S. Embassy benefits from the reduction in congestion.”

A “toll” is primarily a user fee imposed to maintain a piece of road or bridge infrastructure.  In contrast, the London CC “tax” is an extra fee levied on all vehicles simply for using the roads of central London, roads which have already been paid for by those drivers through their yearly “road tax”, among other taxes.  So the £ 1 (for cars) Dartford Bridge/Tunnel Crossing is a “toll”; but imposing a blanket fee on vehicles entering a geographical section of London in order to alter behavior (i.e. get people out of their cars) makes the “congestion charge” a “tax”.

He said British diplomats in the United States paid American tolls and charges. “U.S. diplomats should respect British law and pay the congestion charge,” he added…

However, “charge” not “toll” says Ken?  Ooops, obviously a slip of the tongue.  Anyway, trying to disparage the U.S. (as he loves to do) is always going to get some applause, but substantively his argument doesn’t cut it . . . based on the above. 

For only if U.S. diplomats refuse to pay the Dartford toll, and similar UK bridge and road tolls, does Ken have a point there.  (I am unaware that they refuse to do so.  And why does one suspect that if they refused to, Ken would have been the first to tell us?) Also, diplomacy is indeed first and foremost about “reciprocation”. So, when US diplomats in London refuse to pay the London charge, while Washington D.C. or New York imposes similar “congestion charges” on British consular vehicles which must be paid daily the moment every one leaves UK embassy or consular grounds and the Foreign Office pays those, then, again, Ken will have won this diplomatic argument, but not before.

And think about this: how about everyone else who have capitals that do NOT possess such — to use Ken’s mischaracterization — a “toll”? For instance, do British diplomats pay to use their vehicles the instant they leave the British embassy, say, in Paris? (And since Ken chooses to single out the U.S. for non-payment, presumably every other mission currently within the zone is coughing up?) And after the zone is extended early next year, will the French happily pay what is essentially London’s vehicular motion “tax” the moment one of their vehicles ventures out into Knightsbridge? Or will they resort to a more “passive” means of evasion: the use of only French-registered cars?

To be honest, all businesses and embassies should give “the UK government” and “the Greater London Authority” what they appear to desire:  They should all just leave central London.  And that’ll then do it:  “congestion” solved.